Abstract
Students record lectures by listening, handwriting or typing notes. It is not clear which note-taking strategy leads to better memory recall. Using levels of processing model, this research used within-groups experiment which note-taking strategy improves memory recall. The sample size was 445 university students (75% females) experimented using three conditions (handwriting, typing and listening), randomized evenly through the participants. Two questionnaires were completed one before the study and three after each condition. Handwriting leads to better recall followed by typing and listening. However, handwriting and typing have slightly different scores. The research showed that note-taking either handwriting or typing may improve recall which may further lead to better academic outcomes.
Introduction and Literature Review
Memory exhibits the varying capabilities of the human brain to save and recall information. Encoding is an important and primary process to create a memory (Burns et al., 2013). Working memory, which is a capacity of the brain to save small amounts of information (Engle, 2018) is not crucial in memory recall rather the encoding strategies (Fiechter et al., 2016). The process through which information is processed also impacts the memory recall. For instance, note-taking strategies adopted by students’ impact their recall. Thus, identifying effective ways of encoding such as note-taking strategies will help students to recall more information and achieve favorable academic results (Peverly et al., 2014).
Because the encoding strategies impact the memory recall, students must consider suitable strategies that create strong memories. Fiechter et al. (2016) argue that encoding strategies that learners use to encode new information impacts their memory recall. This serves as the foundation of Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) model. According to Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels of processing model individuals process information at one of three levels (1) shallow, (2) intermediate and (3) deep, when they interact with verbal information. The deeper and organized the processing is the long-lasting the memory will be. The effective note-taking strategy is the one in which deep processing is administered and information is more organized leading to better recalling of the information.
Studies have been conducted to identify the effectiveness of note-taking in recalling information. Moreover, advancements in technology provide an option to students to record lecture notes on their gadgets. Bui et al. (2013) conducted three experiments to assess the effectiveness of (1) handwriting and (2) typing on memory recall. Experiment 1 found that students who recorded notes using a laptop were able to remember information on current tasks. Experiment 2 found that students who took organized notes effectively remembered information on later tasks. Experiment 3 found that students who verbatim transcribed lectures effectively remembered information in deferred tasks than those who took organized notes. Bui et al. (2013) concluded that students having low working memory can effectively take notes using a laptop.
Note-taking is an effective strategy and proved well in employment interviews (Mundell, 2020) and police investigation interviews (Hanway et al., 2021) as well as in lectures (Salame & Thompson, 2020). Aragón-Mendizábal et al. (2016) validated the findings of Bui et al. to some extent. The sample size was 251 university students (Females = 197, Males = 54). The mean age was 19.2 years and SD was 1.2. Students who used paper-pencil notes performed better in recalling tasks. Aragón-Mendizábal et al. concluded that laptop note-taking strategy is preferable when lower-level processing is required while paper-pencil notes are preferable when deeper processing is required. Thus, students using paper-pencil can perform better on cognitive tasks.
The findings are questionable due to different experimental procedures. Bui et al. (2013) specifically instructed students to take notes instead of conducting the experiment in the actual classroom environment. Similarly, Aragón-Mendizábal et al. (2016) did administer different tasks but they did not apply different note-taking conditions on each student. Therefore, the present study assessed whether handwriting, typing and listening impact memory recall. Based on the literature, the first hypothesis is, on average students are better able to recall the information when they take handwritten notes than not taking any notes. Secondly, on average students are better able to recall the information when they take computer typed notes than not taking any notes.
Method
Participants
Participants in the research were students at a regional Australian university. The number of participants were 445 (Females = 336, Males = 97, Non-binary = 7, Transgender female = 1 and 4 individuals whose gender was unidentified, M = 24.84 years, SD = 9.05). Inclusion criteria include participants must not have any hearing, visual or physical disability and must be competent in English. No monetary incentive or extra credit or marks were offered.
Design
This experiment was conducted within-groups. The dependent variable was memory recall, defined as the ability of participants to recall the content of the videos. The independent variable was note-taking having three conditions (pen, computer and ears. The order of the conditions was randomized evenly through the participants.
Materials
The experiment was conducted in class during a regular workshop in Week 5. Participants were required to bring laptops equipped with ear buds/headphones, notebook, pen/pencil and smartphones. Three unrelated TED talks were included in the experiment. Two online surveys were also provided: (1) demographic and (2) questions related to the topics of the videos. PowerPoint slides were also provided to explain the experiment.
Procedure
The participants were required to remain quiet throughout the experiment, take breaks or ask for help if they needed by simply raising their hand. The participants first read the slides to understand the procedure. To start the experiment, the participants scanned a QR code using their smartphones to access more information about the experiment. They first filled the demographic survey. Participants were also informed which condition they should fulfill before the video begins. For the first and second videos, handwritten and computer typed notes were taken respectively. For the third video, participants only listened and watched the video. Participants were required to email handwritten (by taking a picture) and typed notes (saving them on Word or taking a picture). After watching every video, they also filled the survey regarding videos. Debriefing and questions were answered regarding the experiment in the end.
Results
The data in Table 1 refers to the correct responses provided by the participants regarding questions related to each video. The data is the average response through all participants. The highest score that can be achieved was 10. As per Table 1, memory recall was almost identical in handwriting and typing condition while memory recall was low when they only listened to the video. Variability was higher for listening condition than handwriting and typing. Handwriting condition has slightly higher variability than typing condition.
The overall effect of note-taking condition is highly significant (Table 2), F(2, 888) = 41.15, p < .001. The effect size η² = .037 is small-to-moderate, meaning condition explains about 3.7% of variance in recall scores. The Greenhouse-Geisser ε = .989 is very close to 1, so sphericity is not a concern and no correction is needed.
Post-hoc tests (Table 3) shows both note-taking conditions significantly outperformed listening than handwriting vs. listening (p < .001, g = 0.42) and typing vs listening (p < .001, g = 0.39). Handwriting and typing did not differ significantly from each other (p = 1.000 after correction, g = 0.04), which is consistent with your descriptive results and supports both hypotheses.
Discussion
This research assessed the effectiveness of listening, handwriting and typing note-taking strategies. The hypothesis that students on average are better able to recall information when they take handwritten notes than not taking any notes is supported. The hypothesis that students on average are better able to recall information when they type notes than not taking any notes is also supported. The findings supported note-taking whether it be handwritten or typed.
The results supported Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels of processing model. Note-taking allows students to process information provided in the lecture at a deeper level than just simply listening to it. When students take the notes they are better able to encode the information. The information stays longer in the mind, thus improving the memory recall. It may also appear that note-taking allows students to organize the lecture content which further facilitates their memory recall.
Although the findings of this study are consistent with the wider literature on note-taking from employment interviews to (Mundell, 2020) police interviews (Hanway et al., 2021) they are partially consistent with the findings of Bui et al. (2013). The present study shows that both handwriting and typing conditions are equal in memory recall but Bui et al. found that typing conditions are more effective. Bui et al. excludes the actual classroom condition which undermines the results of their study. However, this study was conducted in a setting that is more representative of an actual classroom like setting. Actual classroom setting is important to improve external validity.
The findings of this study are also partially supported by Aragón-Mendizábal et al. (2016). The present study found that both handwriting and typing conditions produce similar results on recall test while Aragón-Mendizábal et al. argue that handwriting is more effective in short-term memory recall. However, Aragón-Mendizábal et al. research excludes the impact of different conditions on memory recall. Each participant was tested on different note-taking conditions. Thus, it is difficult to identify whether participants consider handwriting more effective than typing or vice-versa. Individual encoding preference is important in memory recall.
This study has both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths are that the sample size is large, conditions were randomized evenly through the participants and all three conditions were assessed including handwriting, typing and listening. The weaknesses are that the Ted Talks may or may not be a representation of actual classroom lecture, undermining the external validity and post-experiment recall was not tested. Future research should overcome these weaknesses.
To conclude this research, note-taking improves memory recall. This is consistent with the Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels of processing model that deep and organized material may lead to better recall. This research showed that handwriting has the highest recall, typing has slightly lower recall than handwriting and listening has the lowest recall among the former two conditions. Thus, students’ academic results may improve if they are encouraged to take lecture notes either handwritten or typing.