"Typing vs. Handwriting Notes: An Evaluation of the Effect of Transcription Method on Student Learning"

Mattew Hertogs

Matthew 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 

Introduction

Methodology

Data

Discussion

Works Cited

Appendix

Methodology 

This research project attempts to determine whether handwritten notes versus typed notes during class lectures are more beneficial for college students. To address this question, I employed a mixture of qualitative and quantitative procedures to analyze the notetaking processes and the actual notes of two undergraduate students at a large, state university.

I asked both students to take notes for two days with each method – typing and handwriting – and let me collect copies of their notes to analyze them for differences in style, content, organization, and format. Each student’s notes were quantitatively scored using a variation of the NOTES evaluation system [1] created by Stahl, King, and Henk; the original NOTES model had to be adjusted so that certain criteria were neutral for both methods of notetaking. For example, the category “I use my pen for notetaking” would be removed because it favors handwriting over typing; however, the issue of legibility that this particular category addresses would still be considered in the qualitative analysis of the notetaking process. After collecting each individual’s notes and scoring them according to the adjusted NOTES evaluation system, the average score of the handwritten notes versus the typed notes was compared in an attempt to reveal which method is more beneficial for students. The three main categories within the NOTES system are format, organization, and meaning, and the results of the data are displayed in these three categories for less complicated comparisons. Finally, each student was interviewed at the end of the process in an attempt to determine which notetaking method they most commonly used and for what reasons. Through this interview process, the notetaking strategies and overall benefits of each method of notetaking will become more apparent, providing explanation and correlation with the quantitatively assessed notes from each student.

There are limitations within this particular method due to a limited amount of time and resources – most notably a small sample size and low number of trials. To ensure statistically significant results, I would need a larger sample size with randomly selected students, a control group of students that only take notes with one method to reveal if the notetaking style changes between daily lectures regardless of method, and a random selection for which method to utilize first. Furthermore, when assigning scores to the notes using the NOTES evaluation system, there would have to be multiple raters for each of the notes, instead of just my singular ratings, to ensure validity. Unfortunately, this experiment was unable to coordinate such an elaborate study procedure due to lack of time and resources. Another limitation worth mentioning is that each student will be taking notes in a different class according to their normal class schedule, which may prove to be a confounding variable in this experiment. However, the students all took notes in similarly structured classes that featured extensive notetaking devoid of numbers or formulas, except for one student who also took notes in a chemistry class for the purpose of comparison [2]. Finally, the fact that the students are aware that they will be taking notes that will later be evaluated may alter their natural notetaking habits. To counteract this response bias from the study, the student participants were not given any information about the specific evaluation process for the study so that they did not consciously or subconsciously alter their notes to fit the specific positive characteristics that the evaluation took into account.

Despite all these limitations, the method utilized in this research study will hold merit because of its mixture of quantitative and qualitative analysis; if both types of research end up with the same results, the shared conclusion may contain more validity. With the shortage of time and resources for this research study, this particular method is the most efficient way to identify and recognize if there are differences between typed and handwritten notes. While this study may not be able to completely confirm the variations between the two methods, it will certainly lay the groundwork for future studies to extensively measure this topic by identifying and introducing certain discrepancies between typed and handwritten notes.