CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
4.3 Summary of the Quantitative and Qualitative Results
61
4.3 Summary of the Quantitative and Qualitative Results
To sum up, quantitatively speaking, participants from laptop note-taking and longhand note-taking conditions performed equally well in the comprehension test.
There was also no significant difference between these two groups of note-takers regarding both factual questions and conceptual questions. The longhand group had similar test performance with their laptop counterparts. In addition, considering the word counts of the notes of the laptop group and the longhand group, there were surprisingly no significant difference, Moreover, the number of notes taken did not influence test performance. However, qualitatively speaking, the content of the notes of the two groups are different. Not only are the Theme numbers (eight) identical between laptop notes and longhand notes, they share more similar Concepts as well.
Therefore, while it seems that the comprehensive results may not be different between two modalities, the notes taken were widely varied.
62 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
Past research has established the effect of taking notes during a lecture or while studying (Armbruster, 2000; Bui, Myerson, & Hale, 2013; Di Vesta & Gray, 1972;
Peverly, Garner, & Vekaria, 2014; Mueller, & Oppenheimer, 2014). Research focus has then moved on to the effect of taking laptop notes and longhand notes during a lecture. The present research studies note-taking while reading, in this case research paper. It aims to discuss the differences of note-taking with two modalities: laptop or longhand, which one benefits the reading comprehension more and how the note-taking contents are different. There are limited studies that directly address the comparison of note-taking with laptop or longhand. Mueller and Oppenheimer’s pioneering study (2014) was done in the lecture situation where learners listened and took notes, and Horwitz’s study (2017) was done in the reading situation where learners read a textbook passage. The results of the present study will often be compared to Mueller and Oppenheimer’s (2014) and Horwitz’s (2017) since the experiment conditions were similar. Chapter five will be divided into two sections:
Section 5.1 addresses the relationship between note-taking modality and the learning outcomes; Section 5.2 goes further and discusses the content of laptop notes and longhand notes.
5.1 Note-taking and Reading Comprehension Test Performance
The first research question aimed to examine the performances of note-takers using different modalities in a reading comprehension test after they had finished
63
reading research paper and taking notes. It was hypothesized that longhand note-takers would outperform laptop note-note-takers in the comprehension test. However, the quantitative results from the comprehension test shows that there was no interaction between note-taking modalities and the overall comprehension performance. Nor was there statistical interaction between note-taking modalities and (1) factual question comprehension and (2) conceptual question comprehension. These results replicate Kirkland’s (2016) research in a lecture setting and Horwitz’s (2017) research in reading condition. However, in Kirkland’s research, there was a note studying session before the test. Thus, the results would not be compared with the present research. On the other hand, the present results were inconsistent with Muller and Oppenheimer’s (2014) finding that longhand note-takers had better listening comprehension
performance on conceptual questions comparing to laptop note-takers.
The main reason of such conflicting results may lie in the fundamental difference of audio and visual input (Lund, 1991). In a lecture condition, students are under more time pressure as they cannot go back to what they have missed while listening. They have to take notes as soon as possible. Since people write a lot slower than they write, they have to organize their thoughts into refined keywords as they write. On the contrary, when people take reading notes, they have less time pressure. They can go over the parts they don’t understand or consider important again and again. Some of them take notes whenever they encounter a salient idea while other may summarize the paragraph with a few words after each section. In other words, there are more choices of taking reading notes comparing to lecture notes. This may be one possible reason of the various results from the two conditions.
64
Moreover, in a lecture condition, note-takers have to transfer audio input into written notes, which requires a lot of mental efforts to accomplish the task. However, when note-takers take reading notes, they have visual aid from the reading passage so they can simply transcribe or reorganize the passage, which require fewer mental efforts, not having to deal with spelling issues. While the mental process is different, the result may be as well.
The above reasons may explain the inconsistent results in listening and reading setting - they are simply fundamentally different. In addition, in the reading setting alone, the present research has similar results comparing to the Horwitz’s study (2017), i.e. there is no statistical interaction between note-taking modality and reading comprehension outcome. Laptop note-takers and longhand note-takers performed equally well in both factual questions and conceptual questions. While Horwitz’s study (2017) suggested that creating either longhand or laptop was not significantly beneficial to reading comprehension and that participants may have mostly learned from the reading passage itself, such conclusion cannot be implied from the present research. Moreover, such results should be dealt be caution since the comprehension tests were both done in a short period of time after reading. Longer memory retention and comprehension effect of note-taking could not be seen in both Horwitz’s research (2017) and the present research. Nonetheless, the present research further investigated the content of the notes through Leximancer, a content analysis system, whose results may shed a few insights on the different mental processing of note-taking with laptop and hands.
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
James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in neuroscience