Typed Versus Handwritten Lecture Notes and College Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09914-w
Abraham E. Flanigan, Jordan Wheeler, Tiphaine Colliot, Junrong Lu, Kenneth A. Kiewra
{"title":"Typed Versus Handwritten Lecture Notes and College Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Abraham E. Flanigan, Jordan Wheeler, Tiphaine Colliot, Junrong Lu, Kenneth A. Kiewra","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09914-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many college students prefer to type their lecture notes rather than write them by hand. As a result, the number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies comparing these two note-taking mediums has flourished over the past decade. The present meta-analytic research sought to uncover trends in the existing studies comparing achievement and note-taking outcomes among college students. Results from 24 separate studies across 21 articles revealed that taking and reviewing handwritten notes leads to higher achievement (Hedges’ <i>g</i> = 0.248; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), even though typing notes benefits note-taking volume (Hedges’ <i>g</i> = 0.919; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), among college students. Furthermore, our binomial effect size display shows that taking handwritten lecture notes is expected to produce higher course grades than typing notes among college students. We conclude that handwritten notes are more useful for studying and committing to memory than typed notes, ultimately contributing to higher achievement for college students.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09914-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many college students prefer to type their lecture notes rather than write them by hand. As a result, the number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies comparing these two note-taking mediums has flourished over the past decade. The present meta-analytic research sought to uncover trends in the existing studies comparing achievement and note-taking outcomes among college students. Results from 24 separate studies across 21 articles revealed that taking and reviewing handwritten notes leads to higher achievement (Hedges’ g = 0.248; p < 0.001), even though typing notes benefits note-taking volume (Hedges’ g = 0.919; p < 0.001), among college students. Furthermore, our binomial effect size display shows that taking handwritten lecture notes is expected to produce higher course grades than typing notes among college students. We conclude that handwritten notes are more useful for studying and committing to memory than typed notes, ultimately contributing to higher achievement for college students.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打字笔记与手写笔记和大学生成绩:元分析
许多大学生喜欢打字而不是手写课堂笔记。因此,在过去十年中,对这两种笔记媒介进行比较的实验和准实验研究数量激增。本荟萃分析研究试图揭示现有研究中比较大学生学习成绩和记笔记结果的趋势。来自 21 篇文章中 24 项独立研究的结果显示,尽管打字笔记有利于提高大学生的笔记量(Hedges' g = 0.919; p <0.001),但手写笔记和复习笔记会提高成绩(Hedges' g = 0.248; p <0.001)。此外,我们的二项式效应大小显示,在大学生中,手写讲课笔记比打字笔记有望获得更高的课程成绩。我们的结论是,手写笔记比打字笔记更有助于学习和记忆,最终有助于提高大学生的成绩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Self-Regulated Learning Interventions for Pre-service Teachers: a Systematic Review The Effect of the Write, Talk, and Rewrite Dialogic Writing Treatment on Argumentative Texts: a Replication Study in Türkiye Single- and Multilevel Perspectives on Covariate Selection in Randomized Intervention Studies on Student Achievement From Hands to Mind: How Gesture, Emotional Valence, and Individual Differences Impact Narrative Recall Measuring Mathematical Skills in Early Childhood: a Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Early Maths Assessments and Screeners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1