information in a variety of domains and subjects. Importantly, comprehension and production processes (which both require working memory resources) are needed simultaneously for optimal learning to occur, making effective note-taking difficult to accomplish. The methods of assessment for notes can be relatively subjective or inconsistent from one study to the next, which makes it difficult to uniformly capture what makes for high-quality notes. Many other aspects of note-taking such as the style or format of notes, different mediums (pen and paper, laptop, handouts), the physical setting, and the act of reviewing notes (including how those notes are reviewed) all have the ability to impact the student learning and understanding of course content. These factors need to be considered carefully by both students and instructors alike, especially given rapid advances in technology and reforms to higher education.
A Note on hybrid note-‐taking systems
A hybrid note-taking system is any hardware or software that combines the advantages of laptop and pen and paper note-taking. Although many forms and variations of hybrid systems exist, this review outlines three such systems. Importantly, many of these systems have yet to be assessed in terms of how they may affect note-taking behaviors and long-term learning:
● Livescribe (starts at $100) – Livescribe is a smartpen that records audio on a microphone and memory stick built into the pen as the learner takes notes. This system also includes a camera built into the tip of the smartpen to identify what is being written down on a second by second basis. The advantage of this system is it
allows the learner to record the lecture and easily replay particular portions of the lecture by tapping the physical figure or words written in their notes. Additionally, the file can be uploaded (either through a wired or wireless connection, depending on the model of smartpen) to a computer allowing the learner to review the lecture and watch a video of their notes being re-created line by line in sync with the lecture audio. The largest drawback to this system is that notes have to be written on specialized dot paper, which can be either created at home via a printer or purchased.
● Evernote (free, or $5 per month to $45 per year) – Evernote is an application that allows you to store files online, making review any digital or scanned document relatively easy on a computer, tablet, or smartphone. By allowing users to create folder and tags, the user can quickly find the desired documents needed. Evernote is also a “master” application that can connect with several other linked applications (including files from Livescribe) that can allow the user to review notes anywhere.
Additionally, the user can also use applications such as Penultimate on a tablet to create handwritten notes. The largest issue with Evernote is that it was not specifically designed for note-taking, but rather for storing all files digitally (text, audio, video, etc.) in one place. Although a learner could use Evernote exclusively for note-taking and be relatively productive, more simplified systems may be ideal.
● Audionote ($5) – Audionote is an application that uses some of the elements from Livescribe, but in a tablet format. Audionote allows the learner to start a recording and take notes on their tablet at the same time using a keyboard, while also allowing the user to draw figures or other relevant non-text information using either their finger or a stylus. Like Livescribe, Audionote allows learners to review the audio
recorded, watch a video of the notes being re-created in sync with the audio, and review specific sections of the audio by touching the associated content in the notes.
The main drawbacks to this system are that it is relatively inefficient switching between typing notes with a tablet and physically drawing figures, and Audionote is an application optimized for tablets, due to the nature of how it functions (although similar applications are available for laptops).
References
Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1300–1308. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.002
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier. In R. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 123-144). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bjork, R. A., & Allen, T. W. (1970). The spacing effect: Consolidation or differential encoding? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 567-572.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
Bohay, M., Blakely, D. P., Tamplin, A. K., & Radvansky, G. A. (2011). Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension. The American Journal of Psychology, 124, 63–
73. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0063
Borbone, M. (2009). From doodle to Google: Exacerbating old problems or causing new ones? The relationship between laptop usage and in-class student behavior. Master’s Thesis. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Boyle, J. R., & Rivera, T. Z. (2012). Note-taking techniques for students with disabilities a systematic review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 131–143.
doi:10.1177/0731948711435794
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 299-309. doi: 10.1037/a0030367
Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note taking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900–904. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.67.6.900
Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1973). Listening and note taking: Immediate and delayed recall as functions of variations in thematic continuity, note taking, and length of listening-review intervals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278-287.
Fisher, J. L., & Harris, M. B. (1974). Note Taking and Recall. The Journal of Educational Research, 67, 291–292. doi:10.2307/27536604
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50, 906–914.
Hadwin, A. F., Kirby, J. R., & Woodhouse, R. A. (1999). Individual differences in notetaking, summarization, and learning from lectures. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 1-17.
Hartley, J. (2002). Notetaking in non-academic settings: A review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 559–574. doi:10.1002/acp.814
Huxham, M. (2010). The medium makes the message: Effects of cues on students’
lecture notes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 179–188.
doi:10.1177/1469787410379681
Jacobs, K. (2008). A comparison of two note taking methods in a secondary English classroom. Retrieved from http://soar.wichita.edu/handle/10057/1388
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating note taking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23-32.
Kiewra, K. A. (1987). Note taking and review: The research and its implications. Journal of Instructional Science, 16, 233-249.
Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147-172.
Kiewra, K. A., DuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., &
Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245.
Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262.
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 219–224.
Manalo, E., Uesaka, Y., Pérez-Kriz, S., Kato, M., & Fukaya, T. (2013). Science and engineering students’ use of diagrams during note taking versus explanation.
Educational Studies, 39, 118–123.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.680577
McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L.
(2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399–414.
doi:10.1037/a0021782
Middendorf, C. H., & Macan, T. H. (2002). Note-taking in the employment interview:
Effects on recall and judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 293–303.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.293
Muller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (in press). The pen is mightier than the keyboard:
Advantages of longhand over laptop note-taking. Psychological Science.
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 514-522.
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34-38.
Peverly, S. T. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2901_10
Piolat, A. (2001). La prise de notes [Note Taking]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291-312.
Rabinowitz, J. C., & Craik, F. I. M. (1986). Specific enhancement effects associated with word generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 226–237. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90031-8
Robin, A., Foxx, R. M., Martello, J., & Archable, C. (1977). Teaching note: Taking skills to underachieving college students. The Journal of Educational Research, 71, 81–85.
doi:10.2307/27537081
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The Power of Testing Memory .: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
Strub, T., & McKimmie, B. (2012). Note takers who review are less vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than note takers who do not review. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 18, 859–876. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.581241
Szpunar, K. K., Moulton, S. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Mind wandering and
education: From the classroom to online learning. Frontiers in Perception Science, 4, 1-7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00495
collaboration in lecture-based learning through shared notes using wireless technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 575–586.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00420.x
Van der Meer, J. (2012). Students’ note-taking challenges in the twenty-first century:
Considerations for teachers and academic staff developers. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 13–23. doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.590974
Vekaria, P. C. (2012). Lecture note-taking in postsecondary students with self-reported attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 72, 4333.
Whitten, W. B., & Bjork, R. A. (1977). Learning from tests: The effects of spacing.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 465-478.
Willams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: Student patterns and instructional strategies. The Journal of General Education, 51, 173-199.
Zaromb, F. M., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 995–1008.
doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.995
Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). When you know that you know and when you think that you know but you don't. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(1), 41-44.