No difference in factual or conceptual recall comprehension for tablet, laptop, and handwritten note-taking by medical students in the United States: a survey-based observational study

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Pub Date : 2022-04-26 DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.8
Warren Wiechmann, R. A. Edwards, Cheyenne Low, A. Wray, Megan Boysen-Osborn, Shannon L. Toohey
{"title":"No difference in factual or conceptual recall comprehension for tablet, laptop, and handwritten note-taking by medical students in the United States: a survey-based observational study","authors":"Warren Wiechmann, R. A. Edwards, Cheyenne Low, A. Wray, Megan Boysen-Osborn, Shannon L. Toohey","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Technological advances are changing how students approach learning. The traditional note-taking methods of longhand writing have been supplemented and replaced by tablets, smartphones, and laptop note-taking. It has been theorized that writing notes by hand requires more complex cognitive processes and may lead to better retention. However, few studies have investigated the use of tablet-based note-taking, which allows the incorporation of typing, drawing, highlights, and media. We therefore sought to confirm the hypothesis that tablet-based note-taking would lead to equivalent or better recall as compared to written note-taking. Methods We allocated 68 students into longhand, laptop, or tablet note-taking groups, and they watched and took notes on a presentation on which they were assessed for factual and conceptual recall. A second short distractor video was shown, followed by a 30-minute assessment at the University of California, Irvine campus, over a single day period in August 2018. Notes were analyzed for content, supplemental drawings, and other media sources. Results No significant difference was found in the factual or conceptual recall scores for tablet, laptop, and handwritten note-taking (P=0.61). The median word count was 131.5 for tablets, 121.0 for handwriting, and 297.0 for laptops (P=0.01). The tablet group had the highest presence of drawing, highlighting, and other media/tools. Conclusion In light of conflicting research regarding the best note-taking method, our study showed that longhand note-taking is not superior to tablet or laptop note-taking. This suggests students should be encouraged to pick the note-taking method that appeals most to them. In the future, traditional note-taking may be replaced or supplemented with digital technologies that provide similar efficacy with more convenience.","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Technological advances are changing how students approach learning. The traditional note-taking methods of longhand writing have been supplemented and replaced by tablets, smartphones, and laptop note-taking. It has been theorized that writing notes by hand requires more complex cognitive processes and may lead to better retention. However, few studies have investigated the use of tablet-based note-taking, which allows the incorporation of typing, drawing, highlights, and media. We therefore sought to confirm the hypothesis that tablet-based note-taking would lead to equivalent or better recall as compared to written note-taking. Methods We allocated 68 students into longhand, laptop, or tablet note-taking groups, and they watched and took notes on a presentation on which they were assessed for factual and conceptual recall. A second short distractor video was shown, followed by a 30-minute assessment at the University of California, Irvine campus, over a single day period in August 2018. Notes were analyzed for content, supplemental drawings, and other media sources. Results No significant difference was found in the factual or conceptual recall scores for tablet, laptop, and handwritten note-taking (P=0.61). The median word count was 131.5 for tablets, 121.0 for handwriting, and 297.0 for laptops (P=0.01). The tablet group had the highest presence of drawing, highlighting, and other media/tools. Conclusion In light of conflicting research regarding the best note-taking method, our study showed that longhand note-taking is not superior to tablet or laptop note-taking. This suggests students should be encouraged to pick the note-taking method that appeals most to them. In the future, traditional note-taking may be replaced or supplemented with digital technologies that provide similar efficacy with more convenience.
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
美国医学生对平板电脑、笔记本电脑和手写笔记的事实或概念回忆理解没有差异:一项基于调查的观察性研究
目的技术进步正在改变学生的学习方式。传统的手写笔记方式已被平板电脑、智能手机和笔记本电脑笔记所补充和取代。理论上,手写笔记需要更复杂的认知过程,并可能导致更好的记忆力。然而,很少有研究调查基于平板电脑的笔记的使用,这种笔记可以结合打字、绘图、亮点和媒体。因此,我们试图证实这样一种假设,即与书面笔记相比,基于平板电脑的笔记会带来同等或更好的回忆。方法我们将68名学生分为长手、笔记本电脑或平板电脑笔记组,他们观看并记录演示文稿,并对其进行事实和概念回忆评估。2018年8月,在加州大学欧文分校的一天时间里,播放了第二段简短的分心视频,随后进行了30分钟的评估。对笔记的内容、补充图纸和其他媒体来源进行了分析。结果平板电脑、笔记本电脑和手写笔记的事实或概念回忆得分没有显著差异(P=0.61)。平板电脑的中位字数为131.5,手写为121.0,笔记本电脑为297.0(P=0.01)。结论鉴于关于最佳记笔记方法的研究存在冲突,我们的研究表明,手写笔记并不优于平板电脑或笔记本电脑记笔记。这表明,应该鼓励学生选择最吸引他们的记笔记方法。未来,传统的笔记可能会被数字技术所取代或补充,这些技术提供了更方便的类似功效。
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
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
期刊最新文献
The irtQ R package: a user-friendly tool for item response theory-based test data analysis and calibration. Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Importance, performance frequency, and predicted future importance of dietitians’ jobs by practicing dietitians in Korea: a survey study Presidential address 2024: the expansion of computer-based testing to numerous health professions licensing examinations in Korea, preparation of computer-based practical tests, and adoption of the medical metaverse. Development and validity evidence for the resident-led large group teaching assessment instrument in the United States: a methodological study.
×
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