Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of digital distraction on lecture note taking and student learning

Instructional Science volume 48, pages 495–524 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Laptop computers allow students to type lecture notes instead of relying on the traditional longhand (i.e. paper–pencil) method. The present research compared laptop and longhand note-taking methods by investigating how the quality (i.e. complete versus incomplete idea units) and quantity (i.e. total words and total idea units) of typed and handwritten notes differed when students did or did not reply to text messages during a simulated lecture. Accounting for the presence of text messaging while participants took notes situated the present study within the reality facing many students in today’s digital age. Findings indicated that a considerable proportion of the idea units captured in participants’ notes were incomplete, regardless of note-taking method or exposure to distraction during the simulated lecture. However, only the total number of complete idea units stored in student notes meaningfully predicted lecture learning. Furthermore, the presence of digital distraction was particularly disruptive to the quality and quantity of laptop users’ lecture notes relative to longhand note takers. Finally, digital distraction emerged as a more meaningful predictor of lecture learning than note-taking method. Recommendations for improving the quality of student lecture notes are discussed and avenues for future research into note-taking completeness and the interplay between digital distraction and note-taking method are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  • Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 175–199). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: comparing intended versus actual study behavior. Memory, 25(6), 784–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blohm, P. J., & Colwell, C. G. (1983, Dec.). Effects of readers’ cognitive style, text structure and signaling on different patterns in social studies content. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, Texas, USA.

  • Bromage, B. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 271–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. M. (1988). Comparison of typing and handwriting in “two finger typists”. Proceedings of Human Factors Society, 32, 381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2012). Note-taking with computers: exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 299–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note taking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 900–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2018a). Does self-generating a graphic organizer while reading improve students' learning? Computers & Education, 126, 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2018b). How does adding versus self-generating a hierarchical outline while learning from a multimedia document influence students' performances? Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 354–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, S. G. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, S., & Henrich, C. (2014). Texting as a distraction to learning in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 163–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanigan, A. E., & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: a phenomenological study of student experiences in and out of the classroom. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanigan, A. E., & Kiewra, K. A. (2018). What college instructors can do about student cyber-slacking. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 585–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., & Marshall, S. (1974). On notes and note-taking. Higher Education Quarterly, 28(2), 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houle, P. A., Reed, D., Vaughan, A. G., & Clayton, S. R. (2013). Using laptop computers in class: a student motivation perspective. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husman, J., McCann, E., & Crowson, H. M. (2000). Volitional strategies and future time perspective: embracing the complexity of dynamic interactions. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(7–8), 777–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, M., Havel, A., Fichten, C., King, L., Marcil, E., Lussier, A., et al. (2018). “Simply the best”: Professors nominated by students for their exemplary technology practices in teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Exploring the benefits and challenges of using laptop computers in higher education classrooms: a formative analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: a researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). London: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: a depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A. (2009). Teaching how to learn: the teacher’s guide to student success. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S. I., Risch, N., & Christensen, M. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(2), 172–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, L. J., & McKelvie, S. J. (1986). Effects of attendance, note-taking, and review on memory for a lecture: Encoding vs. external storage functions of notes. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 18(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornhauser, Z. G. C., Paul, A. L., & Siedlecki, K. L. (2016). An examination of students’ use of technology for non-academic purposes in the college classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 5(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kover, D. J., & Worrell, F. C. (2010). The influence of instrumentality beliefs on intrinsic motivation: a study of high-achieving adolescents. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(3), 470–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznekoff, J. H., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: examining the effects of texting, twitter, and message content on student learning. Communication Education, 64(3), 344–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science, 46(6), 947–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., & Samuelson, L. (2016). Revising lecture notes: how revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement. Instructional Science, 44(1), 45–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malka, A., & Covington, M. V. (2005). Perceiving school performance as instrumental to future goal attainment: effects on graded performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 60–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, B. R. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4(4), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, B. R. (2016). Digital distractions in the classroom phase II: student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 7(1), 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, R. (1904). Recognition and recall. Journal of Philosophical and Scientific Methods, 1, 229–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2019a). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 753–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Blasiman, R., & Hollis, R. B. (2019b). Note-taking habits of 21st century college students: implications forstudent learning, memory, and achievement. Memory, 27(6), 807–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosleh, M. A., Baba, M. S., Malek, S., & Alhussein, M. A. (2016). Challenges of digital note taking. In H. Sulaiman, M. Othman, M. Othman, Y. Rahim, & N. Pee (Eds.), Advanced computer and communication engineering technology (pp. 211–231). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. A., & Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of Reading, 18(3), 215–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, D. A., & le Roux, D. B. (2018). In-lecture media use and academic performance: investigating demographic and intentional moderators. South African Computer Journal, 30(1), 85–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D. L. (1972). Effects of notetaking and rate of presentation on short-term objective test performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 276–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettijohn, T. F., Frazier, E., Rieser, E., Vaughn, N., & Hupp-Wildsde, B. (2015). Classroom texting in college students. College Student Journal, 49(4), 513–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture halls. Computers & Education, 78, 78–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Fenn, K. M. (2017). Logged in and zoned out: how laptop internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychological science, 28(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddington, L. A., Peverly, S. T., & Block, C. J. (2015). An examination of some of the cognitive and motivation variables related to gender differences in lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 28(8), 1155–1185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, Y. J., Brimhall, E., Cao, C., & O’Reilly, K. (2009). Empirical user studies inform the design of an e-notetaking and information assimilation system for students in higher education. Computers & Education, 52(4), 893–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3(2), 136–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonds, B. K., Meyer, K. R., Quinlan, M. M., & Hunt, S. K. (2006). Effects of instructor speech rate on student affective learning, recall, and perceptions of nonverbal immediacy, credibility, and clarity. Communication Research Reports, 23(3), 187–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 323–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, B. M., Lindberg, R., Ernst, B., Bowman, L. L., & Levine, L. E. (2018). Off-task multitasking, note-taking, and lower- and higher-order classroom learning. Computers & Education, 120, 98–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildt, A. R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1978). Quantitative applications in the social sciences: analysis of covariance. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: student patterns and instructional strategies. The Journal of General Education, 51(3), 173–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2019). The current status of students’ note-taking: why and how do students take notes? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 139–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Mirza, A., & Shaw, L. (2018). Using technology to promote classroom instruction: assessing incidences of on-task and off-task multitasking and learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 553–571.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading, Georgia Southern University, 2104 College of Education Building, Statesboro, GA, 30460, USA

    Abraham E. Flanigan

  2. Scripps College of Communication, Ohio University, Schoonover Center 111, Athens, OH, 45701, USA

    Scott Titsworth

Authors
  1. Abraham E. Flanigan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott Titsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abraham E. Flanigan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Schemes

Scheme 1.
scheme 1

Sample image of convergent boundary from participant lecture notes

Full size image

1,

Scheme 2.
scheme 2

Sample image of rifting process from participant lecture notes

Full size image

2,

Scheme 3
scheme 3

Sample image of a normal dip-slip fault from participant lecture notes

Full size image

3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flanigan, A.E., Titsworth, S. The impact of digital distraction on lecture note taking and student learning. Instr Sci 48, 495–524 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09517-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09517-2

Keywords

search

Navigation