

Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking - AjJi
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/6/1159

======
asperous
The author uploaded the full text here:
[http://www.academia.edu/6273095/The_Pen_Is_Mightier_Than_The...](http://www.academia.edu/6273095/The_Pen_Is_Mightier_Than_The_Keyboard_Advantages_of_Longhand_Over_Laptop_Note_Taking)

------
gumby
I'm interested in _why_. The linked paper has some fascinating discussion of
prior research on the "why" question, but as yet really the only data we have
come from correlational studies rather than explanatory ones.

I type a _lot_ (5x-10x?) faster than I can write but I take _all_ my meeting
notes by pen (I use a livescribe but it hasn't changed my workflow much). It's
clearly faster in terms of retention, comprehension and relevance. But why?

I have noticed that in note taking I have my own idiosyncratic handwriting:
primarily joined-up ("cursive"), with many letterforms surviving from my
childhood, but with some that are formed in a way that simply seems more
natural to me (especially the decenders of y and g) intermixed with some
"printed" characters (for example j, as well as almost all the capital
letters, to the extent that I use them at all). Definitely not designed for
someone else to read again, and even in my case I often have to puzzle out
what I had written -- yet still, it has a much better result than typing! I
clearly have adapted my writing to reduce its overhead.

Apart from note taking I almost don't write at all: a few hand-printed notes
("don't throw this away") or addresses, and whiteboards of course. These
always use separated, printed letters and seem cognitively complex to write
(i.e. slow!). Typing is clearly the most effortless.

With my own n of one I have tried taking notes with a wireless keyboard on the
table or my lap (so the screen isn't a barrier between me and my interlocutor)
but it doesn't help. There presumably is some disjoint mechanism between
handwriting and typing, and somehow the handwriting barrier is lower.

------
joshvm
Longhand ruled my course simply because, at the time there were few good
options for fast equation and diagram transcription. 80-90% of our lectures
were equations with short notes around them.

Occasionally we'd have lecturers who handed out dense powerpoint slides and
then went through and explained them very rapidly. Good luck doing that on a
laptop.

I think perhaps 3 out of 80 people used laptops. I usually wrote everything
verbatim with a bit of extra stuff the lecturer was saying if something wasn't
immediately obvious.

I'd then go through and convert it all to LaTeX forcing myself to understand
each equation that went in (i.e. if there was a step with an integral that was
omitted in the lecture, perform it). That way you know exactly how to do all
the steps and you can add your own relevant comments that you may have glossed
over in the auditorium. Worked well for me and I could then recycle the reams
of paper that collected on my shelves.

As for distraction, we played Peggle a lot in quantum mechanics...

------
zhte415
I favour guided note taking a lot. A page, with concepts, and a blocked-off
section for personal questions similar to the Cornell method. Together with
diagrams and drawing lots of arrows, I know of no electronic method which is
as fast as the pen.

If taking notes means essentially taking meeting minutes, the material
provided by the lecturer is lacking.

------
crazygringo
On the other hand, I type at least 10x faster than I write. If people learned
to only take notes on as much as they would write otherwise, it seems you'd
get the best of both worlds -- faster note-taking which would allow time for
_deeper_ processing.

But really, the deeper problem is taking notes at all. Honestly, in what world
is it efficient for a lecturer to recite, and all the students take notes?
Students should be able to pay attention without being distracted, and a
designated note-taker should be taking everything down, getting the professor
to correct any mistakes, and then e-mailing everyone afterwards. Note-taking
is an anachronism that deserves to die.

~~~
pandaman
The point of note-taking is not in passing some oral tradition from the
lecturer to the students. If the information exchange had been an issue then
there had not been any lectures after the invention of printing process - all
lectures had been printed and distributed to students. Such a process, in
fact, exists but does not substitute lectures as you might already know.

The point of note-taking is that people learn better this way as this and
numerous other researches show. One theory is that it's because of activation
of motor cortex, which is largely dedicated to controlling hands and fingers
[1]. It appears that people learn better when the larger parts of their brain
are active. The same principle explains reciting as a learning technique.
Speech also takes a large part of the brain and it similarly helps learning.

On the same note, I believe the failing American education can be explained by
the decline of handwriting. It will be interesting to see how well Finland
will fare after they stop teaching longhand in 2016 [2]

1\.
[http://www.acbrown.com/neuro/Lectures/Motr/NrMotrPrmr.htm](http://www.acbrown.com/neuro/Lectures/Motr/NrMotrPrmr.htm)

2\. [http://www.savonsanomat.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/nappaintaitoja-
op...](http://www.savonsanomat.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/nappaintaitoja-opetellaan-
ekaluokalta-lahtien/1933248)

~~~
SiVal
_I believe the failing American education can be explained by the decline of
handwriting._

Handwriting isn't declining; cursive handwriting is. I strongly believe that
writing things by hand (handwriting) is an aid to learning, but I don't think
learning two different, parallel scripts increases that learning. (I don't
object to cursive as an art form--in fact I love it and practice it--but that
is something for older kids in art class, not something for writing papers and
taking notes while you're still new to writing.)

Those who print all the time can write just as quickly, draw the same
diagrams, arrows, underlining, marginalia, and so on, as those who write in
cursive or in both scripts. Using a single script instead of two will not
lessen the benefits of writing by hand, but using a keyboard instead of
printing by hand is more problematic.

~~~
pandaman
>Those who print all the time can write just as quickly

If they have studied cursive as an art form in the 3d grade then I agree.
Otherwise, not really. Cursive is not an art form, it's an efficient system of
handwriting. If you are seeing it as an art form - you are not using
handwriting enough in my humble opinion. When I went to school, rebelling kids
were developing all kinds of different ways to longhand to stand out and show
their individuality. I have never seen anybody typing voluntarily. It's just
not as quick.

~~~
SiVal
This has been measured by researchers, and cursive provided no speed advantage
over printing. That's why it's so easy and common for people who know how to
write in cursive to revert to printing all the time even after years of
cursive in school.

Cursive as a non-art, general writing system was developed because of the need
to keep the pen nib in contact with the paper as much as possible to draw the
ink drop forward. Each time the nib was lifted, you risked leaving an ink
blob. Kids advancing from pencil to pen needed to also change from printing to
cursive.

The shift away from liquid ink pens (quill, steel, fountain, cartridge) to
polymerizing ("ball point") pens in the second half of the 20th Century
obviated that need.

~~~
pandaman
Have researchers ever published they research? Also, appreciate downvotes from
the illiterate :)

~~~
SiVal
Yes, it has definitely been published in academic journals in the education
field. I apologize for being lazy about looking it up, but if you're
interested, go to scholar.google.com and search for cursive writing and
whatever else makes sense to you. The question of whether or not to teach
cursive in school has been an ongoing controversy in the education field (in
the US) for many years, so it has been formally researched in various ways.

Not surprisingly, of course, the research doesn't simply settle the policy
issue. People's opinions about educational policy are strong and the general
quality of research in the field is, IMO, pretty weak, so it's only quoted
when it supports your opinion and doesn't change anybody else's opinions.

Also, I'll give you a couple of upvotes to hopefully neutralize any downvotes.

~~~
pandaman
I actually read many articles on the topic of handwriting so saying "go to
google and find my arguments for me" is wasted on me. There is no research
that is simultaneously believable and saying what you are saying. Most I could
find that was supporting your opinion were people comparing some canonical
cursive script to other forms of cursive writing and saying that fastest
writers are not using the canonical script the schools in the USA are teaching
but are writing connected letters as opposite to typing each letter
separately. But just to be sure I did a search as you suggested and found that
cursive is now the new enemy of the Left in the US (the Common Core thing,
right?). This explains the hostility and points to the futility of any further
discussion so I will bow out.

------
SyneRyder
I'd be curious to see how these results change with pen-driven technology,
such as the Galaxy Note tablets, or the Livescribe pens (that simultaneously
write to paper, create digital copies stored in Evernote, and also record an
audio version of the lecture/meeting).

I've always felt that when I need to think through concepts, walking away from
the computer & working with pen & paper was a more effective way to do it, at
least for myself.

------
agumonkey
The abstract rings true to me. In high-school I had a fetish for heavy
rewording, formatting of notes. The more I formatted it (indentation, color
coding, consistent abbreviations) the more I learned indirect relationships in
the content.

Out of my hat, I tend to think that digital tools aren't good for learning,
for they are too symbolic. I believe native interactions stimulate the brain
more and feed more data to process that is useful for newcomers.

~~~
tjl
I improved my grades in the later undergrad years by taking the notes from
class and re-writing them in a nice form (like you using colour and cleaning
it up) into bound notebooks, like the kind used for log books. Then, if I
needed to review for a test, I just grabbed the book. Now, I have a handy set
of books on my shelf.

~~~
agumonkey
I'll add that the constraints forced me to focus on what was new and counter-
intuitive to me. Limited space meant I'll have to trim away what felt obvious,
and only keep the obscure.

~~~
tjl
The only problem with trimming away something you feel is obvious is that if
you need to go back to the notes quite some time afterwards, it might not
appear obvious at that time. It's just like when you don't comment something
in code and when you go back to it, you're wondering what you were thinking
when you wrote it.

------
Dewie
> Prior studies have primarily focused on students’ capacity for multitasking
> and distraction when using laptops.

I prefer to not multi-task at all and just pay attention.

~~~
asperous
From the study linked:

> The studies we report here show that laptop use can negatively affect
> performance on educational assessments, even—or perhaps especially—when the
> computer is used for its intended function of easier note taking.

~~~
Dewie
What is your point? I'm saying that I simply pay attention in lectures; I
don't use note taking or use my laptop. My laptop battery wouldn't last a
whole lecture, anyway.

