Effects of Method and Context of Note-taking on Memory: Handwriting versus Typing in Lecture and Textbook-Reading Contexts

Both electronic note-taking (typing) and traditional note-taking (handwriting) are being utilized by college students to retain information. The effects of the method of notetaking and note-taking context were examined to determine if handwriting or typing notes and whether a lecture context or a textbook-reading context influenced retention. Pitzer College and Scripps College students were assigned to either handwrite or type notes on a piece of academic material presented in either a lecture or textbook context and were given a test to assess their retention. The results demonstrated that there was a significant main effect for typing notes such that typing notes produced higher retention scores than handwriting notes. The results also indicated that there was an interaction between method of note-taking and context such that the lowest scores were achieved in the condition in which participants handwrote notes during a lecture. In total, these findings suggest that typing as a method of note-taking may by an influential factor in memory retention, particularly in a lecture context. NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 3 Effects of Method and Context of Note-taking on Memory Note-taking is a useful external memory device in today’s world. Utilized broadly across professional, academic, and personal spheres, note-taking has demonstrated its role as a systematic cue and aid for retention (Kiewra, 1989). As a practical way to capture information from a transient source, note-taking affords a medium to preserve semantic and episodic information, going beyond the limited information processing capacity of working memory alone (Miller, 1956). Note-taking is an important asset and choosing the most appropriate method is critical to best acquire and retain information while saving time and effort. Note-taking is changing with advances in modern technology. With the increasing frequency of electronic note-taking, we must consider the medium in which we take notes. It is clear that students today rely heavily on technological resources to complete many academic tasks (Reimer, Brimhall, Cao, O’Reilly, 2009). Of various academic duties, note-taking has a significant role in the acquisition of information, as most college students take notes in many of their classes (Hartley & Marshall, 1974). Evidence about the method by which most college students take notes is inconsistent. Igo, Bruning, and McCrudden (2004) and Washull (2001) claim that the new wave of studying has shifted from traditional pencil and paper notes to an electronic format, while in a survey of college students, Reimer et al. (2009) found that pencil and paper note-taking remains a common method for many students in higher education. In colleges today, there is no single preference for note-taking method. Some prefer handwriting notes while others prefer typing notes electronically. NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 4 College students self-report pros and cons of both handwriting and typing notes. In an interview study of college students, Reimer et al. (2009) found that the major reported benefits of handwriting notes were the flexibility and control allowed over the spatial layout of notes and the ability to incorporate many different formats and special notations. In addition, students claimed that they retain more information when they handwrite notes. Students’ main concerns regarding handwriting notes included the risk of losing notes and handouts, the lack of durability of paper and notebooks, the time consuming nature of writing notes, and a subjective feeling of disorganization. The major reported benefits of typing notes were the ease of organization and modification and their readability. Students’ main concern elicited for typing was its inflexibility due to the lack of spatial freedom offered by most word processing formats. This is one of the first generations in which accurate comparisons between handwriting and typing notes can be examined due to the recently acquired facility of the contemporary college student in both handwriting and computer typing (Piolat, Olive, & Kellogg, 2005). Having the opportunity to use computer typing in high school, most modern college students have gained typing proficiency. To my knowledge, there are no empirical studies comparing the effect of handwriting notes and typing notes electronically. The present research thus adds to the literature on note-taking by comparing handwriting and typing notes in both lecture and textbook-reading contexts. Despite this gap in the literature, a number of studies that examined the generative nature of note-taking and transcription fluency shed light on whether handwriting or typing notes is better for retention. NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 5 Prior Research Past research has studied note-taking effects more broadly. Research by Einstein, Morris, and Smith (1985) and Kiewra and Fletcher (1984) suggested that note-taking has a positive impact on retention and demonstrated that information that is noted is much more likely to be remembered later than is content that is not noted. It is possible to conjecture a number of ways in which note-taking can influence retention (for example, through a kinesthetic function), yet only the generative theory of note-taking has gained a substantial hold in investigation and has prompted further empirical study. The generative theory of note-taking holds that the procedure of taking notes itself is a cognitively active process that encourages cognitive restructuring of information in a way that promotes memory preservation (Peper & Mayer, 1978, 1986). The generative theory utilizes two well-established retention mechanisms established in cognitive psychology: levels of processing theory and the self-reference effect. According to the levels of processing theory, deeper (more semantic) levels of processing allow for richer encoding and later retention through the creation of associations between newly acquired information and past knowledge (Roediger, Gallo, & Garcia, 2002). In addition, information is better remembered when it is associated with one’s self during encoding (Burns, 2006). Together, the generative nature of note-taking results from these active retention strategies to deeply encode information. Studies by Brazeau (2006), Castello and Monereo (2005), and DiVesta and Gray (1972), examining retention in a lecturebased context, showed that participants who generated their own notes had greater NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 6 retention by relating the presented information to previously acquired knowledge and by relating the presented information to their own personal knowledge. Additionally, generating notes has been proposed to enhance retention through greater organizational processing. In a study of college students, Einstein et al. (1985) compared retention in a note-taking group against retention in a listen-only group, both of which were presented with a lecture. Based on analysis of text meaning established by Kintsch (1974), the findings demonstrated that note-takers recalled many more highimportance propositions than low-importance propositions while non-note-takers recalled an equal number of high and low-importance propositions. The retention of proportionally more high-importance propositions than low-importance propositions by the note-taking group suggests that note-taking organized the lecture information such that subjects in the note-taking group could more readily recall important information. Lastly, the generative theory of note-taking has been supported by student report. In interviews of college students on note-taking strategy, respondents reported that the process of creating, rather than passively receiving notes, allowed for better retention through meaningful grouping and connection-making (Van Meter, Yokoi, & Pressley, 1994). Admittedly, student reports are not an objective indicator of the actual effectiveness of note-taking method, but the reports are congruent with empirical findings on the generative effect. Encoding of notes DiVesta and Gray (1972) examined note-taking and hypothesized two cognitive functions that are responsible for its effects on retention: encoding and storage. The encoding function of note-taking is proposed to enhance retention through the process of NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 7 recording notes and works by transferring information from sensory registers to short and long-term memory. The storage function is proposed to enhance retention through reviewing notes, and works by transferring information from long-term memory back into working memory. As posited by Divesta and Gray (1972), the storage function, through review, facilitates consolidation of noted information and either holds off the natural process of forgetting or encourages learners to relearn forgotten information. The storage function of note-taking has been demonstrated to improve retention. In an empirical study of the effect of the storage function on retention (Kiewra, 1989), participants listened to a lecture and took notes. Students who were permitted to review their notes had higher achievements on various subsequent performance tests than those who were not permitted to review their notes. Among studies comparing the encoding and storage functions, the storage function has demonstrated clearer effects on improved retention (Carter & van Matre, 1975; Fisher & Harris, 1973; Kiewra, 1985). The positive effect of note-taking on encoding has also gathered support (Kiewra, 1989). A study of college students found that note-taking activities, through encoding, encourage increased attention and more elaborative processing of specific ideas, and/or support greater organization of lecture material by students (Einstein et al., 1985). Additionally, other studies found that the encoding function requires the learner to prioritize and paraphrase information, engages the learner’s attention, and transitions the information from short-term to long-term memory (DiVesta & Gray, 1972; Katayama & Crooks, 2003). These studies controlled for review of the material by preventing the review of notes before testing retention and therefore addressed the encoding function and not the storage function. NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 8 Surprisingly, the encoding function of note-taking has also been demonstrated to hinder retention in a minority of cases. In an analysis of cognitive strategies in reading and language, Cook and Mayer (1983) put forth that the encoding function of note-taking may hinder initial retention in a reading context because of an individual’s divided attention between reading and note-taking. The analysis held that attentional resources are devoted to note-taking and thereby leave fewer cognitive resources to devote to the initial understanding of the information presented in a reading context. Another study by Mulligan (2000) examining divided attention on item-specific note-taking and relational encoding found mixed results for the encoding function. In immediate recall, both itemspecific retention and relational retention were reduced by perceptual interference (divided attention) on note-taking; in contrast, in delayed recall, perceptual interference enhanced encoding for item-specific information. Because there has been some discrepancy in empirical findings on the encoding function of note-taking, one of the aims of this study will be to add to the literature on the encoding function of note-taking. Typing and transcription Typing notes promotes greater transcription fluency, a component of the encoding process, and may reduce cognitive overload and enhance retention in a lecture context in which information is presented rapidly. It has been posited that the primary obstacle to taking good-quality notes is the amount of cognitive overload experienced by students (Katayama & Robinson, 2000). Transcription fluency is the ease/speed with which one can encode information and for the purpose of note-taking analysis has been measured by the number of letters a person can print/type in a minute. In a study comparing transcription fluency of typing versus handwriting notes during note-taking, Karat, NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 9 Halverson, Horn, and Karat (1999) found that the average typist can produce 33 wordsper-minute (WPM) while the average hand writer has a WPM count of only 19. Taking this into account, it seems that typing notes would allow for greater transcription fluency and in turn would promote retention in a lecture context. Note-taking is a cognitively demanding process that requires the skills of listening, cognitive processing, and recording content in text form (Maydosz & Raver, 2010; Peverely Ramaswamy, Brown, Sumowski, Alidoost, Garner, 2007); it uses both working memory and executive functions (Katayama & Robinson, 2000) that are important to transcription fluency. In a study on predictors of skill in note-taking, Peverely et al. (2007) examined the effect of working memory and executive functioning on note-taking quality, specifically examining transcription fluency, listening span, visual-spatial memory, and set shifting (executive functioning). Participants were asked to watch a video-lecture and take notes and then complete a number of cognitive measures. Results indicated that visual working memory capacity and set shifting were correlated with transcription fluency and also correlated with note-quality. Despite the correlational nature of the study, Perverely et al. (2007) suggested that working memory as demonstrated by visual working memory tasks and executive function as demonstrated by set-shifting tasks, were together responsible for better transcription fluency, notetaking quality, and better retention. As suggested by the study, because there are individual differences in working memory, those with better working memory should have better transcription fluency and better note-taking quality and retention. Although individual differences in working memory may be an important determinant in note-taking quality (Einstein et al., 1985; Peverely et al. 2007), it can be NOTE-TAKING, CONTEXT, AND MEMORY 10 conjectured that note-taking method may be able to mitigate the variance in individual differences of working memory by using a note-taking method that promotes greater transcription fluency. As found by Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, and Whitaker (1997) and Jones and Christensen (1999), students who were able to write out their notes more efficiently (faster words-per-minute (WPM)/transcription fluency) were able to reduce cognitive overload and enhance retention. Taking together the evidence from studies on cognitive overload and transcription fluency, it can be seen that typing notes may be better for retention in contexts in which information is presented rapidly. Conclusion and hypothesis In conclusion, there is evidence that typing notes may improve note-taking in a lecture context in which information is presented rapidly. In addition, both typing and handwriting have been demonstrated to improve retention relative to not taking notes. Because typing and handwriting are different techniques for note-taking, each method of note-taking may influence retention better in different contexts. In an academic setting, lectures and textbooks are two commonly used methods to transmit information. Most research has examined the effects of note-taking on retention in a lecture-context, providing limited information on the effects of note-taking on retention in a textbook-