If you’ve spent any time reading about study strategies, you’ve probably encountered some version of this claim: writing notes by hand is better than typing them on a laptop. There seems to be or at least there is reported to be research to back it up. I am normally a “what does the research suggest” guy, but in this case, I am skeptical and find my own experience leads me to a different conclusion.
I try to be careful in thinking through whether any research study matches well with learner behavior in applied settings. To do this, you need to do more than read the abstract or even the discussion section from published studies. You certainly need to do more than read the analyses from “thought leaders” who have only read this content or asked AI to offer an opinion. Here is why. Researchers are free to speculate a bit in pushing an interpretation in these parts of a journal article. Readers should know this and take this into account. The section of the article, expected to be objective and descriptive, is the Methods section. Think of your role as a research consumer like this: here is exactly what he/she did and the results that these experiences produced. Now interpret them yourself given what you know about existing research and knowledge of the Methods and Results in this study. What conclusions do you reach?
Here are some issues I think are important to consider when researching keyboard versus handwritten note-taking. I have ordered this list from most to least influential based on my perception of what matters most when considering what a given study offers for applied note-taking. Don’t take this ranking too seriously, but think about the impact the issues I identify might have.
Look for this issue in the Methods section.
Does the study focus on taking notes from a live lecture? The experience of taking notes from written material or a recorded source is different. You can pause and do not have to experience the working memory overload argued to trigger the more generative processing required to counter the slower process of handwriting? I include this item because so many adults have become interested in Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) strategies and are exposed to summaries of the research on notetaking. The PKM people seem more likely to take notes in response to what they read than students.
Does the study allow a reasonable amount of time to review notes? Does the experiment allow note review or does it focus on learning during the lecture only? What you learn during the input experience is not the entire learning opportunity.
Does the study involve a significant delay between exposure to content and before the collection of the dependent variable? Is the performance data collected as part of the same research session as the input experience?
Is intermediate processing of notes allowed or encouraged? Looking over notes immediately after taking them is a good strategy for students.
Is the digital experience limited to the original input of information? I encourage lecture focused note takers to use an app that records audio while taking notes. Such apps link notes with the audio. This allows gaps or vague notes to be remediated from the time-linked audio in a very efficient manner. Missing something doesn’t have to be permanent and technology allows an easy way to address this issue.
An example of how I analyze a screen/paper study
I have read a large proportion of the published studies comparing keyboard and pen notetaking and have frequently written about my opinions on this matter. I decided to create this post after encountering an oft-cited study I had missed and in reading this study found some of the issues I have just mentioned. Comments related to this specific study may offer additional insights into what I think is being missed.
A 2018 study by Luo, Kiewra, Flanigan, and Peteranetz compared laptop and longhand note-taking and arrived at conclusions that many educators have taken as gospel. Laptop note takers, the study found, tend to transcribe lectures verbatim. They capture more words and paraphrase less. The researchers argue that longhand note takers, constrained by writing speed, are forced to be selective – to summarize and to impose structure. When students later reviewed their notes, the longhand group outperformed the laptop group on achievement measures. The takeaway seemed clear: put down the laptop and take your notes on paper.
But here’s the problem. The study, like many in this line of research, created conditions that almost no student would actually encounter in a real academic setting. And in doing so, the researchers may have reached conclusions that say more about experimental design than about how learning actually works.
What Happens After You Take Notes?
Think about your own experience as a student. Did you ever just take notes during a lecture and then re-read them once before a test? Maybe. But more likely, you did something with those notes afterward. You reorganized them. You filled in gaps possibly be asked to look at a friend’s notes. You rewrote messy sections. You looked up concepts you didn’t understand and added explanations. You highlighted key ideas, drew connections between topics, or created study guides.
These processes – note modification and active review – are where much of the real learning happens. And it’s precisely the step that the Luo et al. study skipped nearly entirely.
In the study, the review condition gave students just 15 minutes to passively reread their notes. No editing. No reorganizing. No supplementing. Just reading what they had already written. Under those conditions, of course longhand notes performed better as a review product – they already contained generative features like paraphrasing and images baked in from the encoding phase. Laptop notes, full of verbatim transcription, offered little additional cognitive benefit from a simple reread. Also, both the learning and the study phases happened back to back. There may be a few situations in which students are tested immediately following exposure to new information but such situations are not where the major portion of student grades are determined.
But this isn’t how students use notes in practice. The laptop note taker’s comprehensive, transcription-heavy notes aren’t a finished product – they’re a first draft intended to be a first draft revisited over time. First drafts are meant to be revised and complete notes allow both further exploration and are more likely to be meaningful after a delay of days and weeks.
The Laptop’s Advantage
Here’s what’s ironic about the study’s findings: the very feature it criticizes – the completeness of laptop notes – is actually a significant advantage when students are allowed to modify their notes and revist them after multi-day delays.
Research on note modification consistently shows that students who revise, reorganize, and elaborate on their notes achieve more than students who simply review them passively. And the richer the initial record, the more material students have to work with during revision. Laptop note-takers, with their more complete capture of lecture content, have a larger, more detailed foundation for generative processing after the fact.
Moreover, laptops offer affordances for modification that longhand simply cannot match. Affordances is a term researchers like to use to refer to possibilities a system makes available. When you have a more complete body of content to work with and this content can easily be reorganized and extended. The generative activity can occur when the learner is less challenged with a rapid input of information and has time to reflect and maybe recall other bits and pieces (a reason reviewing your notes after class is useful).
This study did note that laptop note takers recorded far fewer images than longhand note takers, and this contributed to lower achievement on image-related test items. But this deficit is entirely addressable. Students can take screenshots of lecture slides, paste in diagrams, or create their own visual representations during a modification phase. I acquired this approach while attending conference sessions, and I was surprised when my own students seemed unaware that it was allowed. After being frequently asked to wait so students could draw something from one of my PowerPoint slides into their notes, I offered this advice. I also just made my slides available in our course management system, but that is an entirely separate issue regarding the consequences this practice has. Maybe in another post. The fact that they didn’t capture images in real time doesn’t mean those images are lost forever.
It’s Not About the Medium—It’s About the Strategy
Perhaps the most important insight from note-modification research is this: the debate between laptop and longhand is entirely the wrong debate. What matters isn’t the tool students use to take notes – it’s the strategy they employ before, during, and after note-taking.
The Luo et al. study captured students using their default, untrained behaviors. Laptop users defaulted to transcription because they could. Longhand users defaulted to selectivity and paraphrasing because they had to. Neither group was taught how to take notes strategically, and neither group was given the opportunity to do anything meaningful with their notes afterward.
When students are trained in effective note-taking and modification strategies, the medium effect largely disappears. A laptop user who transcribes during the lecture and then spends time paraphrasing, reorganizing, and adding visual representations is engaging in just as much – if not more – generative processing as a longhand user who paraphrased during encoding but never revisits the notes.
What This Means for Students and Educators
The research isn’t wrong about what it measured. But what it measured isn’t what students actually experience. Any study that freezes the note-taking process at the moment of initial recording and calls it complete is telling only half the story. And in education, half the story can lead to entirely the wrong conclusions. Read the Methods section or follow education bloggers who do.
Reference
Luo, L., Kiewra, K., Flanigan, A., and Peteranetz, M. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: Effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science 46(6), 947-971.
