{"id":7786,"date":"2026-06-29T22:42:37","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T22:42:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learningaloud.com\/blog\/?p=7786"},"modified":"2026-06-29T22:49:13","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T22:49:13","slug":"digital-devices-and-effective-studying-and-long-term-note-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learningaloud.com\/blog\/2026\/06\/29\/digital-devices-and-effective-studying-and-long-term-note-use\/","title":{"rendered":"Digital Devices and Effective Studying and Long-Term Note Use"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Lately, I seem to encounter a great deal of advice warning against reading and note-taking on a device. Paper and a pencil are argued to be better. In a recent post<\/a>, I argued that I found these complaints ill-advised. This is a second attempt to present the same argument and a different way to justify my position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most simply put, I don\u2019t think the researchers and I are talking about the same thing, even though it seems the anti-tech types would make the case that we are. The research frequently cited reading and taking notes tend to focus on more focused and short-term processes than what I have in mind. My focus, and I think the actual focus of most learners, is more on what I might describe as studying or the use of notes as imagined by the PKM\/Second Brain aficionados. When I read a fiction book for pleasure, I might have a better understanding of that book if I read the content on paper. This is very different from how I would best get from reading a textbook to doing well on an exam a couple of months from now. A similar comparison might be made with taking notes during a lecture. I would seldom be taking notes for an exam the same day, but more likely for one week away.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Process Models<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I write a lot about process models relevant to understanding and developing both learning skills and the knowledge that results from applying those skills. The process model of writing (Flower & Hayes) makes a good example. These researchers proposed that a process model of writing was useful to researchers because the model identified subskills that could be studied to see how these contributing skills might explain the performance of more and less effective writers and to educators trying to understand what contributing behaviors might be isolated for practice and development.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I suggest that the same type of process model would be helpful for developing study skills and for taking a different look at the possible advantages of using digital devices for reading and note-taking. The argument in this second case is that research comparing tech vs. traditional approaches has overlooked important processes in studying and note-taking applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Processes in tasks involving the collection and eventual application of information<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There have been efforts to identify the processes involved in translating a presentation (e.g., a lecture or book chapter) into intended applications. Several researchers (e.g., Cojean & Grand, 2024; Flanigan et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2016) have extended the original two-stage model (note-taking and external storage) to emphasize the importance of revision. Returning to the importance of multi-process models in understanding the potential issue of whether it matters if one takes notes on paper or using a device, the studies differ. Flanigan and colleagues engaged the unusual practice of inserting pauses during a presentation to allow for revision and found that those taking notes by hand created more revisions. In contrast, Cojean and Grand found that after class those taking notes on a device made more revisions. Systems of taking notes, for example Cornell Notes (Pauk & Owens, 2011) and recent PKM systems (Ahrens, 2022; Forte, 2022), differentiate revision as a separate process in the use of notes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the spirit of the writing process model, I have created my own identification of note-taking and note-using processes listed as a sequence with the recognition that notetakers frequently revisit earlier processes after finding a limitation in what a later process makes available. The sequence of descriptors for these processes follows. <\/p>\n\n\n\n