"Typing vs. Handwriting Notes: An Evaluation of the Effect of Transcription Method on Student Learning"
Mattew HertogsMatthew Hertogs is a sophomore at the University of Washington, and he is currently pursuing a degree in computer science with a minor in mathematics. When he is not too busy with schoolwork, he enjoys writing and recording music, playing soccer, and watching his favorite television shows. Along with his interest in computer science, he has a strong passion for education and he hopes to pursue a career where he can combine his computational knowledge and his affinity for teaching to help benefit education worldwide.
Contents |
DiscussionOverall, typing notes was found to be more beneficial for students in this study due to three inherent advantages of the laptop – accessibility/legibility, transcription speed, and organization. For instance, in all of the word-intensive classes, the “format” score of the typed notes for both students was consistently higher, due to the advantage of legibility and accessibility using a laptop. One of the most significant and overlooked aspects of notetaking is the ability to review one’s notes, and it was apparent that notes that were typed were easier to access and to read, making them more beneficial for student learning. As for transcription speed, both students were able to type faster, which made it easier to keep up with the professor, record details, and focus on connecting the main ideas of the lecture with those details. Being able to transcribe the lecture quicker allowed the students to score higher in the “meaning” category for the word-intensive classes. In contrast, for the number-intensive class, the utilization of a laptop actually hindered the transcription speed of the student because it was more difficult to input numbers and formulae while typing; therefore, the scores in the “meaning” category were actually higher for the handwritten notes in Student 1's Chemistry 142 class. Finally, the even spacing, bullet points, and indenting provided by word processing helped the students keep their notes more organized than they normally would be when handwriting. As a result, both students used headings, subtopics, and bullet points more often with their typed notes and this was revealed through higher scores in the “organization” category. Another interesting aspect of the data that requires explanation is that Student 2's typed notes only score higher than his written notes when averaged, but not individually – that is to say, one of the handwritten notes scored higher than one of his typed notes even though typed notes scored higher than the handwritten notes when averaged. Although it may seem like this example refutes the idea that typed notes are more beneficial than handwritten notes for writing-intensive classes, it might just suggest that typed notes are only comparatively better than handwritten notes for word-intensive classes. Since the method of transcription is not the only variable affecting the quality of the notes, the reason that one of Student 2's typed notes scored lower than another set of handwritten notes could easily be attributed to a variety of other factors such as the material covered during that class, the mode of presentation, and/or the mood of the student. It is possible that if Student 2 had handwritten his notes on the same day that he typed the lower-quality typed notes, he would have scored even lower. Therefore, the individual scores of each transcription method should not be compared because it does not account for variation due to many other confounding variables; rather, the averaged scores for each transcription method should be compared, which reveals that typed notes are more beneficial for students in a word-intensive class. While this study does suggest that typing notes is more beneficial for students, there are not enough people sampled to completely assert this idea. One would need to use a large number of participants to definitively prove that one method of transcription is more beneficial than another. However, even though the quantitative results of this study are not necessarily able to be generalized to the rest of the undergraduate population, they still reveal valuable pieces of information about the notetaking process that should be studied in further detail in the future. 1. There are differences between typed notes and handwritten notes While one could potentially argue against the validity of the quantitative data analysis utilizing the NOTES evaluation system, it is undeniable that there are quantifiable differences between the two methods of transcription. Even if one has qualms with the means of assessing what qualifies as a beneficial notetaking strategy, the differences in format, organization, and meaning between the notes are quite apparent. This fact holds significance because it paves the way for future studies to explore which method is more beneficial for students; if this study had found that the typed and handwritten notes of each student were mostly similar, that would indicate that there is likely no need to pursue future research on the efficacy of competing transcription methods. 2. The most beneficial method of transcription is not constant between different classes Most evident in Student 1's case, typed notetaking was found to be more beneficial for word-intensive lectures, but not necessarily for number-intensive classes. Although Student 2 did not quantitatively assert this principle (since he was unable to take notes in a math/science class), he mimicked this idea throughout his interview, much like Student 1 did. While not entirely surprising, this does have important ramifications for further research into notetaking in the classroom. Different classes require different notetaking methods and/or skills, and this fact should serve as a call for future researchers to analyze how notetaking and learning differs between various classes within the university. 3. Notetaking distractions are quite universal, regardless of transcription method One of the leading arguments against the inclusion of new technology in the classroom is the supposed distracting nature of these devices. While it may be true that laptops in the classroom pose distractions for students, it is uncertain whether these distractions are significantly more disruptive than any other form of distraction caused by handwritten notes. For both Student 1 and Student 2, doodling was definitely a distraction during their class lectures; most of their notes had doodles on them and they confirmed that doodling was a distraction in their interviews. Even though it is unclear whether doodling or Facebook is more distracting – Student 1 and Student 2 gave contradictory answers on the issue – it is at least worth noting that distractions happen with both methods of transcription. Therefore, instructors who forbid laptops in their classroom because of their “distracting nature” may want to reconsider their policies, especially if further studies confirm that typing notes is more beneficial for students in their particular class. Due to a small sample size, my findings may not definitively prove that typing trumps handwriting notes, but they do reveal that there is a way to quantitatively evaluate the differences between typed and handwritten notes and that there are differences worth studying. As technology advances and becomes an increasingly integral part of education, it is crucial for researchers to continuously study how these technological advances impact students’ notetaking. For instance, my participants were only using laptops, but there could be new and different results for a technology like the iPad, which has a touch screen. Technology in the classroom will continue to change, and it is essential that researchers continuously study the effects on students’ notetaking so that they can implement their findings and hopefully foster positive notetaking strategies within the classroom.
|