CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.6 Organization of the Study
7
2. Are there any quantitative (i.e., word count) and qualitative (i.e., idea units) differences between longhand and laptop notes? If so, what are they?
1.6 Organization of the Study
The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter One provides an introduction to the function and general background information of both lecture notes and reading notes.
The presence of note-taking on laptops is also discussed. Chapter Two will first briefly distinguish between writing longhand and typing. Literature review will then be offered about the effects of different note-taking modalities (i.e., longhand and laptop) on reading comprehension. Chapter Three describes details of the
methodology in the present study. The results will be presented in Chapter Four and the discussions will be shown in Chapter Five. Finally, Chapter Six will summarize the major findings of the present study and provide further pedagogical implications.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study investigates the effects of longhand versus laptop note-taking on L2 learners’ reading comprehension. To explore the stated research questions, the
relevant literature is reviewed in this chapter, separated into five sections: Section 2.1 introduces the general functions of note-taking; Section 2.2 explores the theoretical accounts on handwriting and typing; Section 2.3 reviews empirical studies
investigating effects of longhand versus laptop note-taking on comprehension measured by different test types; and finally, major findings and limitations from previous studies will be summarized in section 2.4.
2.1 Theoretical Accounts on the Functions of Note-taking
As note-taking has long been a common practice during classroom or individual learning, the functions of note-taking have been under great interest for decades among educational researchers (e.g., Armbruster, 2000; Bui, Myerson, & Hale, 2013;
Di Vesta & Gray, 1972; Peverly, Garner, & Vekaria, 2014; Mueller, & Oppenheimer, 2014). The two major functions of note-taking, encoding and external storage, were first described by Di Vesta and Gray (1972). The encoding function refers to the action of note-taking as a process of subjective selections, associations and interpretations by the learners themselves, while the external storage function emphasizes the use of taken notes for later study and review purposes. In their study, positive effects on the numbers of ideas recalled were found in the results when learners took notes.
9
Peper and Mayer (1978) then focused on the encoding mechanism and perceived note-taking as a generative activity. This study found that meaningful and assimilative encoding only occurs under three conditions: when a) the material is received; b) meaningful prior experiences are accessible; and c) the learner actively processes those experiences while learning. As such, mere verbatim notes and text-copying do not coalesce into strong encoding results. The insights echo back to Ausubel’s (1963) subsumption theory which postulates that learning is the ability to link new
knowledge back to learners’ own cognitive structures. This process creates meaningful learning and leads to better learning outcomes and better recall. Note-taking, with learners’ selecting, summarizing and inferencing new knowledge (i.e., processing the information more deeply) thus lays the foundation for meaningful learning to take place and assumes active learners as well. In short, note-taking is generally considered helpful for input interpretation, storage and retrieval in learners’
memory.
2.1.1 Functions of note-taking in reading.
To contextualize the inquiries of this study, it is important to understand the theoretical tenets of mental representations during reading (Britt, Perfetti, Sandak, &
Rouet, 1999; Kintsch, 1998). Van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) model of information comprehension identifies and categorizes three levels of mental representation that explain how meaning is constructed in the process of reading. Surface structure refers to the verbatim memory of actual words, phrases and sentences. The text-based level emphasizes the semantic content and structure of the text. When learners link and
10
infer text-based representation to their prior knowledge, this is known as the situational model. While the text-based level of understanding allows learners to answer factual questions, the situation model is indispensable for casual inferencing and successful comprehension of a text, which are the ultimate goals of reading (Morrow, 2008; Zwann & Brown, 1996).
To form a mental representation of situations that are implied by a text, learners need to do more than just read passively. One way to engage more actively with a text is by taking non-verbatim generative notes. Results from previous research support such claim (Bohay, Blakely, Tamplin, & Radvansky, 2011; Slotte & Lonka, 1999).
The process of taking extensive high-quality notes depends, in fact, on the learners’
own inference-making. It demands that readers not only devote their attention to the reading of materials but also dedicate time and effort to consciously think about what they are reading (Piolat, Olive & Kellogg, 2005). When they take non-verbatim notes in their own words, they elaborate more on the text, use greater metal organization and include their prior knowledge to help assimilate new information (Einstein, Morris, & Smith, 1985). Therefore, even without reviewing their notes, higher-quality (non-verbatim) note-taking learners are reported to perform better, especially on tasks such as text evaluation and comparison, in which a representation of the situation model is required (Slotte & Lonka, 1999).
Van Dijk and Kintsch’s three levels of representation (1983) contribute
separately to reading comprehension. The importance of the situation model for these two aspects has especially been discussed (Morrow, 2008; Perfetti, Landi, & Oakhill, 2005). In addition, the encoding function of note-taking (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972) has
11
been generally reported to lead to deeper understanding and memory, as with the situation model (Bohay et al., 2011; Slotte & Lonka, 1999). With the concrete base of the effectiveness of note-taking, the current study aims to take a step further and investigate the influence of taking text notes via different modalities, i.e., longhand versus laptop.
2.2 Theoretical Accounts on Modality Effects on Handwriting vs. Typing
Before going into the more detailed functions and effects of text note-taking, this section will discuss the recent theoretical currents of handwriting and typing. In the past few decades, computers, laptops, tablets and smart phones have risen to
dominance in terms of note-taking media, and research on whether handwriting can be replaced by typewriting has attracted great interest.
Despite the fact that it has long been recognized that there are perceptual
differences between reading handwritten and typed words (Corcoran & Rouse, 1970;
Ford & Banks, 1977), what the perceptual processes actually are, and how they influence reading outcomes have not yet reached an agreement (Barnhart &
Goldinger, 2010; Nakamura, Kuo, Pegado, Cohen, Tzeng, & Dehaene, 2012; Perea, Gil-López, Beléndez, & Carreiras, 2016). On the contrary, there is a greater consensus on the findings of production in these two different modalities. Handwriting is more than just an archaic tool of learning and recording; it has been proven to hold a positive effect over typing on written text comprehension (Klatzky, Lederman,
& Mankinen, 2005; Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014).
12
While there are handful studies on the effects of longhand notes versus computer notes, theoretical accounts onto notes taking on these two modalities are missing (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). Nevertheless, insights obtained from the literature addressing possible effects of longhand and typewriting output can still lay the ground for the inquiries for the present study. Fundamental differences of two modalities will be introduced with supportive findings in the ensuing subsections (Mangen & Velay, 2010).
2.2.1 Kinesthetic engagement.
While handwriting requires unique depiction and reproduction of each letter, typing contains much less kinesthetic engagement. The physical movements of typing are not directly related to the letter shape and therefore no graphomotor component is involved. As recent psychological research has shown that hand-brain relationship and haptic experiences are important to text acquisition, it would be no surprise that typing (which lacks motor programs that provide memory traces) may impact learning outcomes, especially with regards to graphic shapes (Kiefer, Schuler, Mayer, Trumpp, Hille, & Sachse, 2015; Klatzky et al., 2005). Only the process of handwriting creates sensory-motor memory trace, which is the meaningful coupling of perception and action. When learners write, additional information of the shape of letters is
developed and may facilitate later recall (Kiefer et al, 2015). This again echoes back to the claim that the perception of written languages and motor action are closely related (Smoker, Murphy, & Rockwell, 2009).
13
As visual processing of graphic shapes is salient to efficient reading, the studies on the effects of handwriting and typing production center on quite similar issues, namely letter recognition and word recall. For instance, Longcamp, Zerbato-Poudou and Velay (2005) investigated children’s memory of letters after an exercise involving the copying of the alphabet by either handwriting or typing. The results showed that the children who went through handwriting training had a significant increase in letter recognition. This suggests that the meaningful coupling between action and
perception during handwriting aids memory retention. Based on this study, extensive research has explored adults’ memory and recognition of non-letters by looking at images of the brain taken via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during the process of recognition (Longcamp, Boucard, Gilhodes, Anton, Roth, Nazarian, &
Velay, 2008). Better and longer-lasting recognition of the new letters was found in the group that had learned by handwriting. On top of that, greater activity in the
left Broca’s area (which is related to various linguistic functions) was found
when recognizing letters written by hand rather than typed. Motor knowledge gained by handwriting thus seems to suggest better outcomes for learning individual
characters. Similar results have been found in fMRI images of pre-literate children’s brains in the process of word recognition (James & Engelhardt, 2012). Only those who had handwritten—not those who had typed or traced letters—showed
recruitment of reading components in the brain when they perceived the letters. The findings suggest that handwriting is important for letter processing that may later determine later successful reading comprehension.
14 2.2.2 Attention and distraction.
Another major difference between these two text-production modalities lies with focus and attention. Learners concentrate on the tip of the pen when they handwrite, whereas during typewriting, their attention is divided into two parts: the motor space (e.g. the keyboard) and the visual space (e.g. the screen) (Mangen & Velay, 2010).
While this may not be true for professional typists who do not need to look at the keyboard during typing, there is a lack of research on this fundamental issue.
Furthermore, the use of a laptop while learning has been found to increase the chance of distraction (Gipson, Kim, Shin, Kitts, & Maneta, 2017; Kay & Lauricella, 2011; Yamamoto, 2007). Students nowadays use laptops in class or during self-studying for mainly two purposes: taking notes or searching for related information.
While most students claim that they learn better with laptops, researchers have found that laptops in class can distract both users and nearby classmates, and may hinder learning (Fried, 2008; Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013; Skolnick & Puzo, 2008; Wurst, Smarkola, & Gaffney, 2008). With internet access available on most campuses,
students can easily switch between online news, chat windows and their email accounts when they take notes. In their study on note-taking in different media environments, Lin and Bigenho (2011) found that multitasking not only distracted students from the learning tasks but also made note-taking itself yet another
distraction rather than an assistance. Moreover, when there are too many distractions from multimedia (which is a common case of using laptops), learners may be
overwhelmed and experience difficulty in using cognitive strategies such as note-taking to help with their understanding and memorizing.
15
Regarding the influence of handwriting and typing on text comprehension and memory, two competing hypotheses are therefore postulated. On the one hand, handwriting creates sensory-motor memory traces that benefit learners on letter-level and word-level acquisition. On the other hand, the convenience and efficiency of typing may suggest richer recordings and longer production. In short, the better quality of handwriting and the larger quantity of typewriting are on either side of the scales of text comprehension. While both modalities have their supporters, the issue under debate has recently extended to the field of note-taking.
2.3 Empirical Studies of Longhand vs Laptop Note-taking
Studies directly assessing the effects of longhand versus laptop note-taking are still very limited (e.g., Bui et al., 2013; Horwitz, 2017; Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). Within these handful studies, most of them focus primarily on lecture
comprehension; except for only one study to date considering note-taking impact on reading comprehension (Horwitz, 2017). Therefore, it is still too abrupt to draw conclusions regarding test performances of taking laptop versus longhand notes. In order to build a more thorough understanding of the stated issue, detailed review of tasks and results of studies carried out in lecture conditions will first be presented in the following section. Mueller and Oppenheimer’s (2014) pioneering study directly addressing the issue of longhand and laptop note-taking during lecture will be reviewed, followed by related studies about note-taking strategies (Bui et al., 2013) and note-taking medium preferences (Kirkland, 2016). Afterwards, Horwitz’s (2017) study on students’ individual reading will be reviewed in details. Methodology and
16
findings from lecture condition and reading condition research will then be compared in order to set the stage for the present study.
2.3.1 Empirical studies of longhand vs laptop note-taking effects on lecture comprehension.
2.3.1.1 Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014).
In their three-part research of The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard:
Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note-taking (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014), Muller and Oppenheimer intended to explore the potential differences of longhand and laptop note-taking, an issue that had hardly been directly addressed before. The first and the second studies probed into the encoding function while the third study explored the external-storage function of note-taking (Di Vesta & Gray, 1972). The manner in which different modalities affect lecture comprehension and academic performance was the focus of the research.
In the first study, Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) were interested in natural note-taking habits and their effect on class lectures. Participants were 65 students from the Princeton University subject pool. Five TED talks were chosen as the materials based on their length (slightly over 15 minutes) and topics (interesting but uncommon). Participants were given either a laptop or a notebook and were asked to take notes as if they were in class. They then took reading span tasks and distractor tasks for approximately 30 minutes. Afterwards, they completed the posttest, including factual-recall questions (e.g., “Which of these is not the name of an algorithm the speaker mentioned in the talk?”) and conceptual-application questions
17
(e.g., “Does the speaker think division of labor by the sexes is beneficial? What evidence does he present to support his viewpoint?”). Finally, a demographic overview was taken by measuring participants’ personal information (e.g. GPA and SAT scores) and their perceptions and habits of note-taking (e.g., “Do you normally take notes in class on your laptop or in a notebook? Why?”)
Regarding the performance, results showed that both groups performed equally well on factual recall. However, on conceptual-application questions, laptop note takers performed significantly worse than those using notebooks. In the analysis of note contents, longhand note-taking resulted in significantly fewer words. An n-gram program was used to measure the overlap between note contents and lecture
transcript. It was found that with various word chunks (3-grams, 2-grams and 1-grams) as the measure, all of them showed significantly more verbatim overlap in laptop notes. In general, participants who took more notes and whose notes contained less verbatim overlap performed better.
A second study was therefore conducted to see if explicit instructions could prevent verbatim note-taking. One hundred and fifty-one college students were divided into three groups, namely longhand, intervention and
laptop-nonintervention groups. Apart from the fact that the laptop-intervention group was orally reminded not to transcribe the lecture but to take notes in their own words, materials and procedures of the experiment were similar to those in the first study.
The results replicated the findings in the first study. Longhand participants beat laptop-nonintervention participants on conceptual questions while no significant differences were found in factual recalls. Participants with more notes also performed
18
better in the posttest. In addition, the intervention of a verbal reminder did not prevent verbatim transcription in laptop note-taking at all. No reduction of verbatim overlap was shown in the laptop-intervention group.
Table 1
Examples of Each Question Type Used in Study 3 General Type Question Type Example
Factual Fact What areas in the brain automatically control the rate of breathing?
Seductive detail About how large is the surface area of the lungs' alveoli?
Conceptual Concept Gas exchange occurs in a part of the human respiratory system called the alveoli. How does the process of gas exchange work?
Inference If a person's epiglottis were not working properly, what would be likely to happen?
Application Most cars that burn gasoline have an emissions control system that includes a component called an oxygen sensor, which functions in a similar way to the system in the human body that can trigger
involuntary breathing. How does this emissions control system work?
Since laptop note-taking had resulted in more notes in any case, the third study intended to investigate the external-storage function by providing an opportunity for learners to review their notes. Materials were recordings of four prose passages adapted from Butler (2010). One hundred and nine college students were asked to take notes on the lecture with either a laptop or a notebook. The participants were also
19
informed that they would be tested on the lecture a week later. Before the posttest, half of the participants were given 10 minutes to study their notes while others took the test immediately. The posttest included five types of tasks adapted from Butler (2010): facts, seductive details (i.e., interesting but trivial information; Garner, Gillingham, & White, 1989), concepts, same-domain inferences (inferences), and new-domain inferences (applications) (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). Examples of different question types were provided in Table 1. Finally, participants answered demographic measures after the comprehension posttest.
To analyze the results, performance on questions of facts and seductive details were collapsed into the “factual” measure while performance on questions of concepts, inferences and applications were collapsed into “conceptual” measure.
There were no differences between laptop or longhand note-taking when the learners were not given a chance to review their notes. However, the longhand-study group outperformed other groups in all test types. While more notes generally suggested better performance, the review of laptop notes (with more words and information) surprisingly led to worse performance on factual questions than the review of longhand notes (with fewer words). One possible reason may be that more mental efforts were engaged in the process of longhand note talking, therefore the review of notes may have been more efficient before the posttest. However, the results should be treated with caution, as it is limited to the condition where there was a longer delay between input processing and the comprehension test.
20 2.3.1.2 Bui, Myerson, & Hale (2013).
In their three-part study Note-Taking with Computers: Exploring Alternative Strategies for Improved Recall, Bui, Myerson and Hale (2013) explored how working memory, note-taking instructions and modalities affected lecture recall performances on an immediate posttest (Experiment 1) and on delayed tests when participants took the test directly (Experiment 2) and when they were allowed to study their notes
In their three-part study Note-Taking with Computers: Exploring Alternative Strategies for Improved Recall, Bui, Myerson and Hale (2013) explored how working memory, note-taking instructions and modalities affected lecture recall performances on an immediate posttest (Experiment 1) and on delayed tests when participants took the test directly (Experiment 2) and when they were allowed to study their notes