CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
5.2 Differences between laptop notes and longhand notes
65
5.2 Differences between laptop notes and longhand notes.
Note analysis included word count and the content of the notes. Previous research in both listening and reading conditions found that laptop group took down
significantly more words than longhand group did (Bui et al, 2013; Horwitz, 2017;
Kirkland, 2016; Muller & Oppenheimer, 2014). However, in the present research, while laptop note takers did take more notes, the difference in word count was not significant. One of the possible reasons may lie in the participants who were all graduate students. They were more educated, perhaps better at taking notes and summarizing the passage with no matter which modality. In contrast, participants in previous studies were mostly college students, who had just left high school and may not be familiar with laptop note-taking.
When it comes to note contents, considering the similarity between notes taken and the original passage (or lecture transcript), most past studies used an n-gram program to measure the overlap (Horwitz, 2017; Kirkland, 2016; Muller and
Oppenheimer, 2014). Overlapping word chunks (three words in a row) were detected and considered verbatim notes. These past studies have found that laptop notes were more similar to the original text; i.e., compared to longhand counterparts, laptop note-takers tended to took more verbatim notes. However, the present research tried to deal with this similarity issue in a different way. With the help of Leximancer, the mind-map of the original text and the two notes; plus, their similarity and differences could be observed.
According to the results in Chapter 4, the mind-map of laptop notes was more similar to that of the original passage, from both the micro-level (Concepts) and the
66
macro-level (Thesis). How the concept of verbatim should be defined is worth reconsider. Verbatim may not be seen only from the words that appear in a row, but also coexistence. Leximancer detected the words that travel together and put them into concepts and themes. Previous studies have stated that reading comprehension would reach its highest when learners took non-verbatim generative notes (Bohay, Blakely, Tamplin, & Radvansky, 2011; Slotte & Lonka, 1999). In this case of the present study, it seems that longhand learners tended to take more non-verbatim notes that they generated on their own, which were also shorter and more precise.
An interesting insight was thus found comparing the results from the first and second research questions: while laptop note-takers and longhand note-takers had different emphasis during the process of note-taking, i.e. they produced notes with various concepts and theses, the two groups performed equally well in the reading comprehension test (see Table 10). What could be implied from the results was first, at least in reading notes condition, longhand note-taking is perhaps a more efficient way of learning. Longhand note-takers wrote slower, i.e. they wrote fewer notes;
however, they did not perform worse than their laptop counterparts. Their performances are comparable to their laptop counterparts. With less laboring
handwork or writing, longhand participants learned more efficiently and had equally good performance. This can also be supported by the findings that word count had nothing to do with comprehension test performance in the reading conditions, both in Horwitz’s (2017) study and in the present study.
67 Table 10
Summary of the present research findings.
Second, perhaps the differences in the arrangements of notes and their effects can be seen in a longer-delayed comprehension test. In Bui, et al.’s study (2013),
participants who took organized notes with a deeper processing of the lecture information had superior performance in a 24-hour delay test. Moreover, Van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) model suggests that actively engaging in reading, such as note-taking, can encourage deeper understanding. And such deeper understanding may be influential in longer delay. Still, at this moment of the research, the encoding process of taking notes with laptop or longhand did not yield different comprehension levels in a short term.
68 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION
This chapter consists of three sections. Section 6.1 summarizes the major findings of the present study. Based on the findings, Section 6.2 discusses possible pedagogical implications on reading and note-taking. Finally, Section 6.3 reports limitations of the present study and provides suggestion for future research.
6.1 Summary of the Major Findings
The present research is one of the few studies directly probing into the issue of longhand note-taking and laptop note-taking. It is also the second study bringing this comparison in a reading setting rather than a lecture setting. Listed below are the insights implied from the current findings:
1. In the short term, taking laptop notes in a reading setting may not be seen in such a negative line as it was seen in a lecture condition (Muller &
Oppenheimer, 2014). Laptop and longhand note-takers performed equally well on factual and conceptual questions.
2. More words taken does not necessarily indicate better reading comprehension.
3. Notes generated with laptop and those taken down by pen and paper were different, considering their keywords and concepts selected. Laptop notes were more similar to the original text.
4. Longhand note-taking may be a more efficient way of learning compared to laptop note-taking. They took down fewer key concepts but had comparable comprehension outcome.
69
While these major findings were partially inconsistent with the researcher’s hypothesis that longhand note-takers would outperform laptop counterparts, it actually formed an interesting picture in the field of note-taking. Therefore, the ensuing section will focus on relative pedagogical implications that the present research brings.
6.2 Pedagogical Implications
Even without the opportunity to review their notes, the process the taking notes has been proved to aid reading comprehension (Slotte & Lonka, 1999).
Therefore, while insignificant results were found between laptop and longhand note-takers’ test performance in the present study, several pedagogical implications can still be provided for language learners, teachers and educators especially in higher
education settings.
First of all, while some educators criticize using technology for learning, according to the findings of the present research, using laptops for note-taking during reading poses no harm for note-taking during reading, at least in the short term.
Except for Internet connection posing possible distractions, laptop is actually an efficient tool for note-taking. Other than banning students from using laptops during learning, it would be more beneficial to introduce various useful tools for note-taking to students. Applications such as Evernote, Microsoft Note, KeyNote or simply Microsoft Word provide learners with different options for note-taking. Tens and hundreds of functions in the applications enable learners to highlight, circle or
70
underline keywords, to create clear and colorful tables and even link relative websites to their notes.
Second, reading and note-taking strategies should be noticed more. Taking notes is the second step of reading. Reading the passage and finding main ideas are the first step that pose challenges to many learners. Since longer and more complicated passages are more common in higher education, learners should learn to filter important information. Moreover, different formats of notes such as drawing mind map, listing bullet points or writing summary should be introduced to students so that they can find the note-taking strategy that suits them most.
6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research
While findings and pedagogical implications have been reported, there are some limitations that need to be taken into consideration. Considering the limitations of the present study, suggestions for future research will also be provided below.
First, with 13 participants in each note-taking group, they only formed a small subject pool. This may have caused the insignificancy in the results. With a small subject pool for the present study and also the previous study of Horwitz (2016) (12 participants per condition), the relationship between note-taking modality and reading may still be unclear. Future research with a larger sample is thus suggested to better understand note-taking during reading.
Second, the present study did not allow participants to choose the modality they prefer or they are more used to, which may possibly lead to unfavorable factor in the performance. Kirkland’s (2016) research has investigated whether participants used
71
their preferred modality or not. While the main effect in the result of Kirkland’s study was not significant, it was done in a lecture setting. Therefore, whether participants using their preferred modality to take notes makes a difference in a reading situation is still unclear.
Third, previous related studies (Bui, Myerson, & Hale, 2013; Horwitz, 2017;
Kirkland, 2016; Muller and Oppenheimer, 2014) were all done in first language settings, in which participants took notes in their mother tongue. However, the participants in the present research are all English-as-second-language learners.
Participants’ performance of reading comprehension from note-taking under a second-language setting should be further explored by future research.
Moreover, participants’ performance on multiple choice questions may not completely show their understanding of the reading passage. There are chances of guessing the correct answer in multiple choice test. In addition, for complicated articles such as research papers, essay questions may reveal more perspectives of comprehension of the learners. Future research is thus suggested to give
comprehension tests on short-answer or more open-ended questions-types.
Last but not least, the present study only included immediate posttest after reading. The retention effect of note-taking cannot be seen. The current result from Leximancer indicates that the mind-map of laptop notes and longhand notes are different, or in other words, the ‘mindset’ of laptop takers and longhand note-takers may actually vary. However, the shortly-delayed test did not show the
difference in their comprehension of the reading material. Therefore, it would provide a more thorough picture to the issue of comparing longhand and laptop note-taking
72
when delayed posttests are included in future research. Notes are worth-taking, but whether digital notes are worthy in the long term is still in question.
73
REFERENCES
Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture:
Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(3), 439-444. doi: 10.1037/h0076613
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in
Reading, 33(2), 206-219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01412.x
Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (p. 175–199).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note taking?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 181-192. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.73.2.181
Barnhart, A. S., & Goldinger, S. D. (2010). Interpreting chicken-scratch: Lexical access for handwritten words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 906-923. doi: 10.1037/a0019258
Bohay, M., Blakely, D. P., Tamplin, A. K., & Radvansky, G. A. (2011). Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension. The American Journal of
Psychology, 124(1), 63-73. doi: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0063
Bonifacio, A., Kerin, R., Hartley, S., Rudelius, W., & Clements, C. (2015). Marketing:
The Core (4th Canadian ed.). Toronto: McGraw- Hill Ryerson.
74
Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students engage in note-taking strategies. Journal of research in science teaching, 43(8), 786-818.
doi: 10.1002/tea.20115
Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of
processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 145-153. doi:
10.1016/0361-476X(79)90069-9
Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso, 209-233.
Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(2), 299-309. doi: 10.1037/a0030367
Conway, M. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (1990). Writing and long-term memory:
Evidence for a “translation” hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 42(3), 513-527. doi:
10.1080/14640749008401235
Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118-1133. doi: 10.1037/a0019902
Corcoran, D. W. J., & Rouse, R. O. (1970). An aspect of perceptual organization involved in reading typed and handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(3), 526-530. doi: 10.1080/14640747008401930
75
Corey, S. M. (1935). The efficacy of instruction in note making. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26(3), 188-194. doi: 10.1037/h0055288
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684. doi:
10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Crawford, C. C. (1925). Some experimental studies of the results of college note-taking. The Journal of Educational Research, 12(5), 379-386. doi:
10.1080/00220671.1925.10879612
Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of educational psychology, 63(1), 8. doi: 10.1037/h0032243
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of educational research, 61(2), 239-264. doi: 10.3102/00346543061002239
Dunkel, P. (1988). The content of L1 and L2 students' lecture notes and its relation to test performance. Tesol Quarterly, 22(2), 259-281. doi: 10.2307/3586936 Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences,
and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational psychology, 77(5), 522-532.
Ford, B., & Banks, W. P. (1977). Perceptual differences between reading handwritten and typed words. Memory & cognition, 5(6), 630-635. doi:
10.3758/BF03197409
Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 337-347. doi: 10.3102/00346543040003337
76
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers
& Education, 50(3), 906-914. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006
Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gipson, S. Y. M. T., Kim, J. W., Shin, A. L., Kitts, R., & Maneta, E. (2017). Teaching child and adolescent psychiatry in the twenty-first century: A reflection on the role of technology in education. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric
Clinics, 26(1), 93-103. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2016.07.004
Horwitz, S. M. (2017). Is Note-Taking More Effective with a Keyboard or a Pen?
(Unpublished undergraduate thesis). University of Colorado, Boulder.
Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. (2005). Encoding disruption associated with copy and paste note taking. Technologybased education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together, 107-119.
James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in neuroscience and education, 1(1), 32-42. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001
Kay, R. H., & 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), 1-18.
Kiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N. M., Hille, K., & Sachse, S. (2015).
Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen-or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in cognitive psychology, 11(4), 136-146. doi: 10.5709/acp-0178-7
77
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Students' note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review. Contemporary educational psychology, 10(4), 378-386. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(85)90034-7
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A
construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163-182. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294.
Kirkland, K. M. (2016). The Effect of Note Taking Media and Preference on the Cognitive Processes Involved in Learning (Unpublished undergraduate thesis).
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Mankinen, J. M. (2005). Visual and haptic exploratory procedures in children's judgments about tool function. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(3), 240-249. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.05.002
Kunkel, K. R. (2004). A research note assessing the benefit of presentation software in two different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology, 32(2), 188-196. doi:
10.1177/0092055X0403200204
Lalchandani, L., & Healy, A. F. (2016). Disentangling the effects in note-taking strategy: Generation and summarization (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.00195
78
Leximancer Pty Ltd. (2018). Leximancer user guide: Release 4.5 Retrieved July 8, 2019, from http://doc.leximancer.com/doc/LeximancerManual.pdf
Lin, L., & Bigenho, C. (2011). Note-taking and memory in different media environments. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 200-216. doi:
10.1080/07380569.2011.594989
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Lonka, K., & Leskinen, E. (1996). Selecting students for medical school: What predicts success during basic science studies? A cognitive approach. Higher Education, 31(4), 507-527. doi:
10.1007/BF00137129
Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J. C., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., &
Velay, J. L. (2008). Learning through hand-or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: Behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(5), 802-815. doi:
10.1162/jocn.2008.20504
Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M. T., & Velay, J. L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta psychologica, 119(1), 67-79. doi:
10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019
Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The modern language journal, 75(2), 196-204. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05350.x
79
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58, 61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Mangen, A., & Velay, J. L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: reflections on the haptics of writing. Advances in haptics, 385-401.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 33(2), 270-298. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001
Morrow, L. M. (2008). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices.
Guilford Press.
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. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581
Nakamura, K., Kuo, W. J., Pegado, F., Cohen, L., Tzeng, O. J., & Dehaene, S. (2012).
Universal brain systems for recognizing word shapes and handwriting gestures during reading. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), 20762-20767.
O'malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G. L. O. R. I. A., Russo, R. P.,
& Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL quarterly, 19(3), 557-584. doi:
10.2307/3586278
Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading
comprehension. System, 29(3), 357-370. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00023-9
80
Page, B., Sharp, A., Lockshin, L., & Sorensen, H. (2018). Parents and children in supermarkets: Incidence and influence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.023
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 514-522. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.514
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational psychology, 78(1), 34-38. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.34
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. The science of reading: A handbook, 227-247.
Perea, M., Gil-López, C., Beléndez, V., & Carreiras, M. (2016). Do handwritten words magnify lexical effects in visual word recognition?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(8), 1631-1647. doi:
10.1080/17470218.2015.1091016
Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 1-30. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9431-x
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note
taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291-312. doi: 10.1002/acp.1086 Pressley, M. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's
academic performance. Brookline Books.
81
Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 233-239. doi: 10.1037/a0017678
Salataci, R. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a foreign language, 14(1), 1-17.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.
doi: j.compedu.2012.10.003
Skolnik, R., & Puzo, M. (2008). Utilization of laptop computers in the school of business classroom. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(2), 1-10.
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, 4(6), 592-604. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1998.0980
Smoker, T. J., Murphy, C. E., & Rockwell, A. K. (2009, October). Comparing
memory for handwriting versus typing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 53, No. 22, pp. 1744-1747).
Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. L. F. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal
82
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286. doi:
10.1177/154193120905302218
Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor:
interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 62(5), 507-528.
Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp. 11-12). New York: Academic Press.
Van Hove, S., Vanderhoven, E., & Cornillie, F. (2017). The tablet for Second Language Vocabulary Learning: Keyboard, Stylus or Multiple
Choice. Comunicar, 25(50), 53.
Wolf, D. F. (1993). Issues in reading comprehension assessment: Implications for the development of research instruments and classroom tests. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 322-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb02289.x
Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and
constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers &
Education, 51(4), 1766-1783. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.006
Yamamoto, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the
hassles?. Journal of Legal Education, 57(4), 477-520. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/42894041