research on taking notes by hand

Take Notes by Hand for Better Long-Term Comprehension

• Academic Achievement
• Cognitive Processes
• Cognitive Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Long-Term Memory

Dust off those Bic ballpoints and college-ruled notebooks — research shows that taking notes by hand is better than taking notes on a laptop for remembering conceptual information over the long term. The findings are published in Psychological Science , a journal of the Association for Psychological Science .

Walk into any university lecture hall and you’re likely to see row upon row of students sitting behind glowing laptop screens. Laptops in class have been controversial, due mostly to the many opportunities for distraction that they provide (online shopping, browsing Reddit, or playing solitaire, just to name a few). But few studies have examined how effective laptops are for the students who diligently take notes.

“Our new findings suggest that even when laptops are used as intended — and not for buying things on Amazon during class — they may still be harming academic performance,” says psychological scientist Pam Mueller of Princeton University, lead author of the study.

Mueller was prompted to investigate the question after her own experience of switching from laptop to pen and paper as a graduate teaching assistant:

“I felt like I’d gotten so much more out of the lecture that day,” says Mueller, who was working with psychology researcher Daniel Oppenheimer at the time. “Danny said that he’d had a related experience in a faculty meeting: He was taking notes on his computer, and looked up and realized that he had no idea what the person was actually talking about.”

Mueller and Oppenheimer, who is now at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, conducted a series of studies to investigate whether their intuitions about laptop and longhand note-taking were true.

In the first study, 65 college students watched one of five TED Talks covering topics that were interesting but not common knowledge. The students, who watched the talks in small groups, were either given laptops (disconnected from Internet) or notebooks, and were told to use whatever strategy they normally used to take notes.

The students then completed three distractor tasks, including a taxing working memory task. A full 30 minutes later, they had to answer factual-recall questions (e.g., “Approximately how many years ago did the Indus civilization exist?”) and conceptual-application questions (e.g., “How do Japan and Sweden differ in their approaches to equality within their societies?”) based on the lecture they had watched.

The results revealed that while the two types of note-takers performed equally well on questions that involved recalling facts, laptop note-takers performed significantly worse on the conceptual questions.

The notes from laptop users contained more words and more verbatim overlap with the lecture, compared to the notes that were written by hand. Overall, students who took more notes performed better, but so did those who had less verbatim overlap, suggesting that the benefit of having more content is canceled out by “mindless transcription.”

“It may be that longhand note takers engage in more processing than laptop note takers, thus selecting more important information to include in their notes, which enables them to study this content more efficiently,” the researchers write.

Surprisingly, the researchers saw similar results even when they explicitly instructed the students to avoid taking verbatim notes, suggesting that the urge to do so when typing is hard to overcome.

The researchers also found that longhand note takers still beat laptop note takers on recall one week later when participants were given a chance to review their notes before taking the recall test. Once again, the amount of verbatim overlap was associated with worse performance on conceptual items.

“I don’t anticipate that we’ll get a mass of people switching back to notebooks,” says Mueller, “but there are several new stylus technologies out there, and those may be the way to go to have an electronic record of one’s notes, while also having the benefit of being forced to process information as it comes in, rather than mindlessly transcribing it.”

“Ultimately, the take-home message is that people should be more aware of how they are choosing to take notes, both in terms of the medium and the strategy,” Mueller concludes.

As a pre-technology student and a busy working mother who was always forgetting the list I’d written, I’ve always known that writing something down is akin to writing it on the brain,

But, lots of luck convincing today’s younger students who believe they know best. After all, they’re so special they were given stars, trophies and awards just for showing up, permitted to earn a misleading GPA higher than 4.0 ’cause the grading system is so much easier, and permitted to be valedictorian, the best along with 72 other students, each of whom are also the best…as if that could ever make sense

So, naturally, they believe, as tech-era kids, they have a special gift for multi-tasking, yet they lack the cognitive ability to conduct an in-depth analysis of that concept that would reveal what the studies at Stanford have shown — that there’s really no such thing ’cause you can’t really do two things simultaneously, and when we try, one of the two tasks will lack quality.

This should be a heads-up for proponents of digital learning. Some of the old methodologies will always be better than learning with a keyboard and screen, because the claims that it can revolutionize education are no more valid than Thomas Edison’s claim in 1922 that motion pictures would do so and no more valid than the same claims about radio and TV.

Dear Martha Lyon, I just want to make sure that you have any Idea what you are talking about when going on this tirade about the younger generation. When looking at this study, it can be seen that Craik & Tulving (1975) is used to explain the findings and while this is a very valid theory with high heuristic validity, it might become outdated as time progresses and Laptop use becomes more common. Replicating Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) showed that as people get more familiar with note-taking on a laptop, the negative side effects decrease. Also when looking at your comment, using distractions and media induced multitasking as the scapegoat is not right, because Craik & Tulving (1975) is much more important for the results of this study. From this study, all we can conclude is that there might be some kind of disadvantage when using laptop instead of Longhand notetaking, but we have no Idea why so we can’t reject that it might have been a participant bias. Caution should rule the day. Recent history is populated with examples of the public –and even scientists—leaping to conclusions from a sparse number of studies. That was the case several years ago when initial studies had indicated that beta-carotene had cancer-fighting properties. After more studies were done, the scientific community later rejected the initial finding. Personally, I also prefer using pen and paper to take notes, but please check all the research and do some critical thinking before you write such a negative comment next time.

I usually write everything down using pen and paper.

I’m an older adult (58) and I’ve been working in IT for about 25 years. I agree that writing leads to better retention than typing but … I now write on a tablet which captures and saves my work. I can also use character recognition to transcribe my notes. So I find I get the technological benefits of a computer with the human benefits of writing by using a stylus and touch screen tablet. Best of both worlds? Has anyone studied tablets?

I would guess the benefit comes from the use of the hand to write. Whether the hand is writing on paper, a screen or hand made vellum is probably immaterial. I have noticed very tech savvy students using a tablet and stylus to hand write notes.

Great article – just about to take up a course of study and wondered if I should get into the 21st Century by taking notes on my laptop. This has helped me in making the decision to stick to taking notes by hand and subsequently have found a couple a really nice blank notebooks to use during my course.

In college I took notes by hand as fast as I could. I would stay up very late at night transcribing them to make them more legible. Studying before mid-terms and finals was much easier, and I did very well (graduated with honors). In graduate school, I already knew how to process the information to take notes effectively. This worked out well too–completed a Ph.D. and an MBA.

I think this was true if we take notes on laptops we would never take the time to go over them as if we were to take them on paper

Working as a clinical psychologist in a hospital (I’m now retired) I had always used pen and paper to take interview notes, even as come colleagues were beginning to use laptops to do the same. I type faster than I write (especially if I try to write legibly), but the cognitive process is different. It is easier to engage with an interviewee while holding a pen than it is when ‘tending’ a computer. The same could be said about taking notes in lectures. I feel that the process of writing by hand provides an improved level of learning and analysis. The information is ‘digested’ rather than merely recorded.

My contention is dependent on my experience as a student, of course. Had I grown up with computers in my classrooms and lecture halls perhaps I wouldn’t make this assertion.

This research report is good guidance, but many variables would have to be included for a more definitive statement. A student’s learning history and style, as well the subject matter of the lecture would have to be assessed.

I am a second year college student. I always take notes using my notebook and pen for all my classes. I feel like taking longhand notes is more efficient than typing. Sometimes, I also print out the power point slides and take notes on it lecture. I am not one of those students who would use a laptop to take notes and it is very distracting to be honest.

Also one more thing. To be honest, I feel like typing notes on the laptop is only going to make us more lazy and will not make us productive and efficient.

I’m a second-year college student right now. I believe that notes in a lecture should definitely be taken by hand simply because the laptop is too much of a distraction. However, if you’re taking notes out of a textbook, the laptop is much more efficient.

This does not seem to be a well-controlled study. They compared students who chose to use paper and pen over those who used a computer. A better study might have compared students who had to use pen and paper vs. those who had to use computer. In addition, this ignores other electronic technologies, like using electronic pens (e.g., the Apple pen) and touch screens, and other ways to organize notes (e.g., electronic sticky notes) or other software. Furthermore, the study does not address what about writing is more effective than electronic notes.

It is unrealistic to expect a study to address all these points. However, I wanted to point out that the study (or any study) is perfect. The authors provide some thought provoking ideas as well as ideas to help our kids learn better.

I explain to my students every course start why I: a) insist they take notes, b) why my slides and handouts have so little information on them, and, c) why it is a better method than passively reading a wordy slide or handout. a) The students have to process the information through their brains and interpret the words to put them on paper. It imprints that information and it is better retained. I have seen that over the years. b) Having only the high points of the topic on the slides, but fleshing it out with the lecture makes them take notes about the lecture and ask questions about what they didn’t understand. c) Passive learning is little more than memorization and does not encourage critical thinking. I have taught nursing for many years. As a nursing student, my method was to take copious notes in class, then go home and transcribe them with my typewriter. Anything I didn’t understand or I missed, I hauled out my textbook and added it to the notes. I made my own review for testing. I was not the most brilliant student in the class, but I made up for it by putting in the work. This is what is missing with passive learning. They are reading someone else’s interpretation of the topic and just memorizing. Little is retained. I can actually still recall some of the lessons from years ago as a student. That is why I push so hard for students to take notes. They may remember being entertained by an instructor’s class, but do they remember the lessons?

what a wonderful and well research experiment

overwhelming data, in favor of handwritten notes

very helpfull

I’m a builder for a large national construction company and have watched as e-documentation has taken over our industry. I’m a believer (and practitioner) in pencil and paper over computer. But I’ve also seen these trends in the projects we deliver. Those that have an electronic set up for their project (drawings, specifications etc) are seamingly less likely to recite project requirements when questioned, a common response is “I’ll have to look it up”. When visiting sites that still manage documents the old way… plan table with a paper copy that has all changes posted in hand, those project team members have an ability to quote drawing numbers, references and know the details with far greater consistency than their counterparts… I always thought it was just different staff, but in my own little validation the common thread for me is those that use pencil and paper… great piece and interesting insight.

I like taking notes because I can go back an look at things I need refresh on

I am a grandmother of 6 and a great-grandmother of 2 (73). I haven’t seen computer until 35 years later.I write everything down in pen and paper because that’s all we had in the 40’s. I takes notes in school with pen and paper over laptop, it’s more convenient and no distractions.

I am a third-year college student and I have found taking notes on my laptop to be more effective than traditional note-taking. I have a program that has my notes cloud saved on to all my devices so that I can have access to them whenever I would like (i.e. phone, tablet, laptop, desktop). There is no risk of forgetting my notebook or grabbing the wrong notebook before class. Also, electronic note-taking eliminates the problem of having unreadable work or misspellings. Lastly, it makes sharing notes with my classmates much easier. Instead of having them borrow my notebook to copy them, it is as simple as a text or an email away.

I like the idea of using a stylus or pen and tablet its the best of both worlds. Why argue with results ! Just adapt and overcome you will be better for it.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

For more information about this research, please contact study author: Pam A. Mueller

For a copy of the research article and access to other null research findings, please contact: - 202.293.9300

Research Briefs

Recent highlights from APS journals articles on the link between self-esteem and eating disorders, how to be liked in first encounters, the effects of stress on rigid learning, and much more.

Applying Psychological Science to Educational Policy and Practice: COVID-19 and the College Admissions Process

In a July 21 webinar produced by the APS Global Collaboration on COVID-19, four speakers from multiple areas of research and practice discussed how the pandemic has magnified interest in research on test-optional policies for college admissions.

Don’t Ditch the Laptop Just Yet: Replication Finds No Immediate Advantage to Writing Notes by Hand

Attempts to replicate previous studies suggest writing notes by hand may offer no benefit over typing.

Privacy Overview

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Most Effective Notes Are Ones Taken by Hand

Few people bring a pen and notebook to meetings anymore. Instead of taking notes by hand, more and more of us take them on a laptop or tablet. This change makes sense: Digital devices just seem more convenient, plus they let you multitask during the meeting. But research has found that there are real benefits […]

Few people bring a pen and notebook to meetings anymore. Instead of taking notes by hand, more and more of us take them on a laptop or tablet. This change makes sense: Digital devices just seem more convenient, plus they let you multitask during the meeting. But research has found that there are real benefits to taking notes by hand. Studies have shown that typing encourages mindless, verbatim transcription of what you’re hearing, but writing by hand helps us take both fewer and better notes. Longhand’s slower pace forces us to record ideas more succinctly and in our own words, which boosts our ability to recall those ideas later. After all, notes should help us quickly remember the most important points, not the entire meeting. So try bringing a pen and notebook to your next meeting — your memory will thank you.

Source: Adapted from “What You Miss When You Take Notes on Your Laptop,” by Maggy McGloin

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Hum Neurosci

Advantage of Handwriting Over Typing on Learning Words: Evidence From an N400 Event-Related Potential Index

Aya s. ihara.

1 National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, and Osaka University, Kobe, Japan

Kae Nakajima

Akiyuki kake.

2 Wacom Co., Ltd., Kazo, Japan

Kizuku Ishimaru

Kiyoyuki osugi.

3 Graduate School of Frontier Bioscience, Osaka University, Suita, Japan

Yasushi Naruse

Associated data.

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

The growing implementation of digital education comes with an increased need to understand the impact of digital tools on learning. Previous behavioral studies have shown that handwriting on paper is more effective for learning than typing on a keyboard. However, the impact of writing with a digital pen on a tablet remains to be clarified. In the present study, we compared learning by handwriting with an ink pen on paper, handwriting with a digital pen on a tablet, and typing on a keyboard. Behavioral and electroencephalographic indices were measured immediately after learning with each writing tool. The moods of the subjects during the training were also assessed. The participants were divided according to their use of digital pen in their everyday lives, allowing us to take into account the effect of the familiarity with the digital pen on the learning process (familiar group vs. unfamiliar group). We performed an EEG experiment applying a repetition priming paradigm. In each trial, a learned foreign language word (prime word) and a mother tongue word (target word) were consecutively presented. The target word was either semantically identical to the prime word (repetitive condition) or different (non-repetitive condition). We assumed that a larger priming effect on N400 reflects larger learning progress. The familiar group showed a greater N400 priming effect for words learned with the digital or ink pen than those learned with the keyboard. The unfamiliar group showed the greater N400 priming effect for words learned with the ink pen compared with words learned by typing. In addition, positive mood during learning was significantly higher during handwriting than during typing, regardless of the groups. On the other hand, the behavioral indices were not influenced by the writing tool. These results suggest that the movements involved in handwriting allow a greater memorization of new words. The advantage of handwriting over typing might also be caused by a more positive mood during learning. Finally, our results show that handwriting with a digital pen and tablet can increase the ability to learn compared with keyboard typing once the individuals are accustomed to it.

Introduction

To develop efficient education systems, assessing the effect of the use of digital tools on learning is essential. Regarding writing tools, previous behavioral studies have shown that handwriting is more effective for learning than keyboard writing. For example, Longcamp et al. (2005) showed a better recognition of the alphabet letters in preschool children after handwriting training compared with typing training. Similar results were reported in adults for the learning of pseudo-letters ( Longcamp et al., 2006 ). In addition, preschool children who practiced handwriting of the alphabet performed better in free letter and word writing than those who underwent typing training ( Kiefer et al., 2015 ). In adults, free word recall was better for words that were written by hand rather than typed on both a conventional or a touch keyboard ( Mangen et al., 2015 ). The advantage of handwriting over typing is considered to originate from the meaningful coupling between action and perception ( Kiefer et al., 2015 ), on the basis of evidence from electroencephalography (EEG) ( van der Meer and van der Weel, 2017 ) and magnetic resonance imaging studies ( Longcamp et al., 2008 ; Vinci-booher et al., 2016 ). Finally, a behavioral study showed that university students who took notes on a laptop performed worse on conceptual questions than those taking notes by hand. This detrimental effect of typing was suggested to lay in the fact that typing is a verbatim transcription of the lecture, while writing by hand requests processing and rephrasing of the information ( Mueller and Oppenheimer, 2014 ).

These studies focused on conventional handwriting, namely, writing with a pen or pencil on paper. A few reports have investigated the impact of writing with a digital pen on a tablet on learning. Hatano et al. (2015) recorded EEG signals while high school students attending science class were taking notes with a digital pen on a tablet and with a pencil on paper. They found a higher theta-frequency activity in the frontal area of the brain from students taking notes on the tablet compared with those writing on paper. However, the scores achieved at the comprehension and memory tests conducted after the note-taking did show no difference. The study proposed that using the tablet required enhanced cognitive effort to monitor the writing at the cost of content processing and learning. A clear disadvantage of the use of digital tools for handwriting was recently shown in a behavioral study. Preschool children learning the alphabet during 7 weeks were divided into three groups: (1) children writing with a pencil on paper, (2) children writing with a stylus on a tablet, and (3) children typing with a virtual keyboard on a tablet ( Mayer et al., 2020 ). The group using a pencil and paper, but not the group using the stylus and tablet, performed better on letter recognition and showed improved visuospatial skills compared with the group using a virtual keyboard. In addition, the children typing on the keyboard achieved better word writing and reading than those using the stylus and tablet. Thus, writing with a stylus on a tablet might be a less effective way to acquire literacy, possibly because of the increasing demand for motor control. Indeed, several kinematics studies showed impaired motor control when writing with a digital pen on a tablet. For example, a disturbance in the segment trajectory calculation and a reduced control of muscular adjustment were observed ( Alamargot and Morin, 2015 ; Gerth et al., 2016a , b ; Wollscheid et al., 2016 ; Guilbert et al., 2019 ).

However, writing with a digital pen might be disadvantageous as it is an unfamiliar tool. In a previous study ( Osugi et al., 2019 ), we used N400, an event-related potential (ERP) response to compare the effect of handwriting tools (ink pen vs. digital pen) on learning. Then, we took into account the familiarity of the subjects with digital pens as we divided the participants according to their use of digital pen and tablet in their everyday lives (familiar vs. unfamiliar). N400 is related to semantic processing that is elicited by various kinds of stimuli, such as words, speech, and pictures (for a review, see Kutas and Federmeier, 2011 ). The amplitude of N400 is modulated by the ease of accessing information from long term memory and integrating semantic representations into a preceding context (for a review, see Kutas and Federmeier, 2000 ). Thus, N400 changes during language learning ( Ojima et al., 2005 , 2011 ) and developmental progress ( Friedrich and Friederici, 2004 , 2010 ; Reid et al., 2009 ). One important characteristic is that the change of N400 occurs in an earlier stage of learning compared with behavioral responses ( McLaughlin et al., 2004 ). Therefore, N400 is a powerful tool to reveal the effects of learning, especially in the early stage. In our previous study, in the familiar group, the greater N400 effect was recorded for words learned by writing with a digital pen on a tablet, while no significant difference between the words was found in the unfamiliar group. This suggests that, after individuals become accustomed to writing with a digital pen on a tablet, it might be an effective writing tool with regard to learning.

In order to further clarify the effects of the writing tool on brain activity after learning, we conducted an ERP study which builds on our previous study ( Osugi et al., 2019 ) in the following ways: (1) typing was included as an additional writing method, (2) mood assessment was conducted using the profile of mood states (POMS) questionnaire, and (3) participants were given words in an unknown language words (Indonesian) to learn, instead of difficult words in their mother tongue (Japanese), as in the previous paper. To account for the potential effects of familiarity with digital pens, we divided participants into two groups according to whether they routinely used digital pens. As in the previous study, we used the N400 response as an index of learning effect. We recorded EEG signals from adult participants who were native Japanese speakers after they learned Indonesian words by either handwriting with an ink pen on paper, handwriting with a digital pen on a tablet, or typing with a keyboard on a laptop. In our previous study ( Osugi et al., 2019 ), most participants who were familiar with digital pens felt that writing with an ink pen required more effort, while the unfamiliar group perceived writing with a digital pen to be more demanding. Furthermore, most participants who were accustomed to digital pens enjoyed writing with one more than with an ink pen, while a slight majority of the unfamiliar participants favored an ink pen. Therefore, we also investigated whether the mood of the participant during learning was affected by the writing tool used, based on a quantitative analysis.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

We recruited right-handed native Japanese speakers with normal hearing and normal/corrected-to-normal vision. The participants had no history of psychiatric disease and did not speak nor were exposed to the Indonesian language. Additional criteria were as followed: all participants regularly used a keyboard in their everyday lives (more than a few days); participants who wrote with a digital pen on a tablet in their everyday lives (more than a few days) constituted the familiar group and those who did not use it at all formed the unfamiliar group. In total, 39 participants (familiar group, 12 participants; unfamiliar group, 27 participants) were recruited for the experiments. Data measured from six participants who showed an average task accuracy in ERP experiments of less than 60% were excluded from the study. Therefore, we analyzed the data obtained from 33 participants (8 women; age range, 21–48 years old) distributed as follows: 12 participants (2 women; average age, 37.5 ± 5.9 years) for the familiar group and 21 participants (6 women; average age, 34.4 ± 10.0 years) for the unfamiliar group. The study protocol was approved by the Bioinformatics Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, and all subjects provided written informed consent before participating in this study.

Learning Materials

Selection of words for the learning activity.

We selected 60 Indonesian common words, including animal names (e.g., tiger, sheep), body parts (e.g., leg, mouth), and person (e.g., mother, teacher), all of which contained 3–5 letters ( Supplementary Table 1 ). Japanese translations of the Indonesian words were high-frequency words (common logarithm value of frequency per million: 1.7 ± 0.5 1 ) with high familiarity for Japanese people (6.3 ± 0.4 on a 7-point scale) ( Amano and Kondo, 1999 ) and were written in 1–3 kanji morphogram(s) and/or kana syllabogram(s) with 1–4 morae. Sixty pairs of the Indonesian word and the corresponding Japanese word were divided into three learning sets of 20 pairs each. We confirmed that the lexical properties of the Japanese words were matched among the sets based on the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test. Indeed, there were no significant differences in the frequency ( p = 0.25) or in the familiarity ( p = 0.25) across the sets ( Table 1 ). In the learning activity, each participant learned these three sets of words that were randomly selected across the participants.

Lexical properties of the Japanese words corresponding to the Indonesian words in three learning sets.

Stimuli for ERP Experiment

For the ERP experiment, we used a repetition priming paradigm in which the Indonesian words were presented (prime words) and then followed by the Japanese words (target words). The prime and target words were semantically identical (repetitive condition) or not (non-repetitive condition) ( Figure 1 ). The word pairs in the non-repetitive condition were constituted of an Indonesian word from one set and a Japanese word from another set. To prevent unwanted influences from phonological and semantic priming effects on the non-repetitive condition, two evaluators checked the presence of phonological similarity and semantic relationships between the prime and target words in each pair. Only the word pairs approved by both evaluators were used. Each Indonesian word was presented four times as the prime stimulus throughout the experiment: twice for the repetitive condition and twice for the non-repetitive condition. Hence, the participants underwent 240 trials in total, which are organized as follows: the prime stimuli were words written with an ink pen for 40 trials with the repetitive condition and 40 trials with the non-repetitive condition, the prime stimuli were the words written with a digital pen for 40 trials with the repetitive condition and 40 trials with the non-repetitive condition, and the prime stimuli were the words written with a keyboard for 40 trials with the repetitive condition and 40 trials with the non-repetitive condition.

Schematic representation of the repetition priming paradigm. The prime stimuli were Indonesian words written in alphabet, which the participants wrote in the learning activity. The target stimuli were Japanese words written in Japanese morphograms (kanji) and/or syllabograms (kana). The target words were Japanese translations of the prime stimuli in the repetitive condition (i.e., semantically repetitive). In the non-repetitive condition, the target words were not related to the prime stimuli. The prime, target, and cue were presented with a stimulus-onset asynchrony of 1 s. The intertrial interval between the offset of the cue and onset of the next prime was randomly set at 2–3 s. After the presentation of the cue (###), the participants answered whether the target word matched the prime word or not by clicking on a mouse with the right fingers.

Experimental Procedures

The experimental flow was as follows ( Figure 2 ): (1) learning activity and rating of mood states, (2) post-learning test, and (3) EEG measurement. This was all conducted at the same session. The protocols for each of these steps are described below.

Flowchart showing the study design.

Learning Activity

We used a counterbalanced design to determine the order in which participants received each of the following three conditions in the learning activity: the “ink pen” condition, in which the participants wrote the Indonesian words with an ink pen on paper; the “digital pen” condition, in which they wrote with a digital pen on a tablet; and the “keyboard” condition, in which they typed with a keyboard. The participants were given learning sheets on which 20 Indonesian words and their corresponding Japanese translations were written ( Supplementary Figure 1 ). In each condition, each sheet contained the same 20 pairs of words and participants were asked to write the 20 Indonesian words repeatedly on the learning sheets to try to memorize them. As soon as the participants finished one sheet, they continued this process on the next sheet, until the 10 min time limit was reached.

Twenty pairs of Indonesian words and the corresponding Japanese words were written on each learning sheet. The participants were asked to write the Indonesian words to memorize. For the ink pen condition, the learning sheet was physically placed on a pen tablet (Intuos Pro Large PTH-851; Wacom Co., Ltd.), and the participants were instructed to write with an ink pen (Ink Pen KP-130-01; Wacom Co., Ltd.). For the digital pen condition, a PDF file of the learning sheet was displayed to the participants on a pen display (Cintiq 13HD Creative Pen Display DTK-1301; Wacom Co., Ltd.) while the participants wrote with a digital pen (Pro Pen KP503E; Wacom Co., Ltd.). For the keyboard condition, a PDF file of the learning sheet was displayed to the participants on a PC display (ColorEdge CX241; EIZO Corporation) while the participants typed with a keyboard (USB Wired Keyboard 104 Keys Black and Silver KU-0316; HP Inc.).

Rating of Mood States During Learning

To assess the mood states of the participants during each learning activity, we used the POMS2 (2nd edition), short version, for Japanese adults ( Heuchert and McNair, 2015 ), which measures the following dimensions of mood: Anger or Hostility , Confusion or Bewilderment , Depression or Dejection , Fatigue or Inertia , Tension or Anxiety , and Vigor or Activity . At the end of each learning activity, the participants assessed their mood during the learning activity on a 5-point scale (0, not at all; 4, extremely). This rating was completed within 5 min.

Post-learning Test

The performance in memorizing the Indonesian words was tested after the learning activities. The test sheet given to the participants contained all of the Indonesian words, and the participants answered by writing the Japanese translations.

EEG Measurement

The prime, target, and cue (###) were visually presented continuously with each stimulus-onset asynchrony set to 1,000 ms ( Figure 1 ). The presentation duration for the prime and target stimuli was 300 ms, and for the cue, it was 500 ms. The participants were asked to silently read the prime (Indonesian word) and target (Japanese word) and answer whether they matched or not by clicking on the computer mouse with the right hand after the presentation of the cue. The prime for the next trial was presented 2,000–3,000 ms after the cue onset. We used MATLAB (MathWorks, Inc.) and the Psychophysics Toolbox Version 3 2 to run the repetition priming task.

EEG and electrooculography (EOG) signals were continuously measured using an eight-channel wearable EEG device (PolymateMini AP108; Miyuki Giken Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The dry midline electrodes (Unique Medical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) were placed at Fz, Cz, and Pz according to the International 10–20 system. In addition, an electrode was placed on the upper and right sides of the left eye to measure the vertical and horizontal EOG components. The EOG recording allowed the detection of the artifactual eye movements and blinks and the removal of the noise components from the EEG signals. All signals were sampled at 500 Hz with the use of the left earlobe as the ground and the right earlobe as the reference.

Data Analyses

Behavioral indices.

We recorded the number of words written in 10-min learning activity, the number of correct answers on the post-learning test, and the accuracy rates for the judgment task in the EEG experiment for each participant and each learning set. To assess the differences in these behavioral indices between groups and writing tools, a two-factor mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with participant groups (familiar and unfamiliar) and writing tools (ink pen, digital pen, and keyboard) as factors. The significance level was set at 5%. If the Mauchly’s test showed that homogeneity of variance was violated, the degree of freedom was adjusted using the Huynh-Feldt procedure. When a significant interaction was obtained, one-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed for each group, and an unpaired t -test was performed for each writing tool. For all multiple comparisons, p -values were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Statistical analyses in the present study were conducted using IBM SPSS statistics 24.0J software (IBM).

Mood Indices

For each participant, we converted the raw scores on each of the six dimensions to a standardized score ( T -score), using the raw score to T -score conversion tables from the POMS 2 manual of POMS 2 in which the T -scores were calculated using the mean and standard deviation from a sample of Japanese adults ( n = 2,787) ( Heuchert and McNair, 2015 ). A two-factor mixed ANOVA was then performed to analyze the POMS standardized scores for each mood dimension as described for the analysis of the behavioral indices.

Electroencephalographic Indices

The analysis of the EEG and EOG signals was conducted using MATLAB (MathWorks, Inc.) and the EEGLAB toolbox ( Delorme and Makeig, 2004 ). A FIR band-pass filter of 0.5–20 Hz (3,000th) was applied to the measured EEG and EOG signals. The artifact components, mainly caused by eye movements and blinking, were excluded from the EEG signals using noise reduction processing with artifact subspace reconstruction and independent component analysis. In addition, we excluded from the average any trial exceeding ±30 μV on the Fz, Cz, and Pz channels or exceeding ±100 μV on the vertical and horizontal EOG channels. Next, the signals from 100 ms before to 800 ms after target onset were averaged for each condition (repetitive vs. non-repetitive) and each channel. The signals were then corrected using 100 ms before target onset as a baseline.

In this study, difference in N400 amplitude between the repetitive and non-repetitive conditions (i.e., repetition priming effect on N400) was used as an indicator of learning: we assumed that, as learning progressed, a larger difference would occur. To detect a repetition priming effect on N400, the ERP for the repetitive condition was subtracted from the ERP for the non-repetitive condition. A large repetition priming effect (i.e., difference between repetitive and non-repetitive) was shown at the Cz electrode location. Therefore, we averaged the amplitudes of the differential EEG responses at Cz from 300 to 450 ms after target onset and used them as electroencephalographic indices to assess the learning effect of each writing tool. A two-factor mixed ANOVA was used to analyze the difference of the N400 priming effect between the groups and between the writing tools as described above (paragraph 2.4.1.).

Comparison With the Results of Our Previous Study

We compared the learning effect of handwriting with the digital pen and with an ink pen acquired in this study with those obtained in our previous study ( Osugi et al., 2019 ). Previously, the participants were also divided into two groups: those who used the digital pen in their daily lives for the familiar group ( N = 11) and those who did not for the unfamiliar group ( N = 17). Five of them participated in the present study as well. In our 2019 work, the participants learned to read difficult words of their mother tongue by handwriting with an ink and a digital pen. We then conducted an EEG experiment with a repetition priming paradigm similar to what was done here. Briefly, the words written either with an ink or a digital pen in the learning period (prime words) were followed by the words that were reading representation of the prime words (repetitive condition) or not (non-repetitive condition). The learning time, number of words to learn with each pen type, time sequence, and judgment task of the priming paradigm were identical to those used in the present study. Using the behavioral (i.e., numbers of correct answers on the post-learning test and accuracy rates for the judgment task in the ERP experiment) and ERP (i.e., N400 priming effect) indices extracted in the present and 2019 studies, a two-factor ANOVA for each participant group was performed with experiment (previous study and present study) and writing tool (ink pen and digital pen) as factors. The between-experiment difference for each writing tool was assessed using an unpaired t -test.

The numbers of writing repetitions produced by participants per word in the ink pen, digital pen, and keyboard conditions were 9.23 ± 0.90 (mean ± SD), 9.45 ± 0.66, and 12.12 ± 0.98, respectively, for the familiar group and 9.25 ± 0.40, 8.70 ± 0.52, and 10.55 ± 0.55, respectively, for the unfamiliar group ( Supplementary Figure 2A ). The statistical analysis revealed a main effect of the writing tool [ F (1.32, 39.6) = 7.27; p = 0.006, partial η 2 = 0.20; Figure 3A ]. Indeed, the number of writing repetitions was greater in the keyboard condition (11.33 ± 0.68) than in the ink pen (9.24 ± 0.43; p = 0.03) and digital pen (9.10 ± 0.42; p = 0.02) conditions ( Figure 3A ). No main effect of the participant group [ F (1, 30) = 1.17; p = 0.29, partial η 2 = 0.04] and no interaction effect between the two factors [ F (1.32, 39.6) = 0.74; p = 0.43, partial η 2 = 0.24] were detected.

Learning effect of the three methods on behavioral and electroencephalographic indices. The number of writing repetitions per word during the learning activity (A) was significantly greater when written with a keyboard (red) compared with when handwritten with an ink pen (light blue) or a digital pen (dark blue), regardless of the group. The numbers of memorized words in the posttest (B) and task accuracy in the EEG experiment (C) were not affected by the writing tool. The repetition priming effect on N400 was greater for words learned using an ink pen or a digital pen than for words learned using a keyboard (D) . In addition, a significant interaction between the group and writing tool was found (E) . In the familiar group, the repetition priming effect was significantly greater for words learned with a digital pen than for those learned with a keyboard. In the unfamiliar group, the repetition effect was marginally greater for words learned with an ink pen than for those learned with a keyboard. Each bar shows the grand average of the participants. The error bar represents the standard error. * p < 0.05; + p = 0.06.

In the familiar group, 10.25 ± 1.43, 9.42 ± 1.76, and 8.75 ± 0.91 words were memorized in the ink pen, digital pen, and keyboard conditions, respectively. In the unfamiliar group, the average number of words memorized was 11.81 ± 1.12, 10.67 ± 1.13, and 10.95 ± 1.15 in the ink pen, digital pen, and keyboard conditions, respectively ( Supplementary Figure 2B ). There was no main effect of the participant group [ F (1, 31) = 1.01; p = 0.32, partial η 2 = 0.03] or writing tool [ F (2, 62) = 1.72; p = 0.19, partial η 2 = 0.05] and no interaction effect [ F (2, 62) = 0.25; p = 0.78, partial η 2 = 0.01; Figure 3B ].

In the familiar group, the accuracy rate for the judgment task was 82.5 ± 9.7 in the ink pen condition, 82.4 ± 9.7 in the digital pen condition, and 81.0 ± 9.4 in the keyboard condition. In the unfamiliar group, it was 84.9 ± 12.2, 83.1 ± 12.1, and 83.6 ± 12.6 in the ink pen, digital pen, and keyboard conditions, respectively ( Supplementary Figure 2C ). There was no main effect of the participant group [ F (1, 31) = 0.27; p = 0.61, partial η 2 = 0.01] and writing tool [ F (2, 62) = 0.42; p = 0.66, partial η 2 = 0.01] and no interaction effect between the group and writing tool [ F (2, 62) = 0.22; p = 0.81, partial η 2 = 0.01; Figure 3C ].

A positive mood state, Vigor or Activity , showed significant difference depending on the writing tool [ F (2, 62) = 4.48; p = 0.02, partial η 2 = 0.13; Figure 4 ]. The scores were significantly larger in the ink pen as compared with the keyboard condition ( p = 0.036). A significant main effect of the writing tool was also measured for a negative mood state, Anger or Hostilit y [ F (2, 62) = 3.32; p = 0.04, partial η 2 = 0.10]. However, the post hoc analysis did not reveal significant differences between the tools. In the other mood states (i.e., Confusion or Bewilderment , Depression or Dejection , Fatigue or Inertia , and Tension or Anxiety ), the writing tool had no significant main effect. There was also no significant main effect of the participant group and interaction between the group and writing tool in all mood states ( Supplementary Figure 3 ).

Profiles of mood states during learning with the three writing tools. The POMS T -scores of Vigor or Activity were significantly higher when learning by writing with an ink pen (light blue) than when learning with a keyboard (red). The scores of Anger or Hostility showed main effect on the learning (#), but post hoc test did not show significant differences. There was no difference between the writing tools and between the participant groups for the other negative moods, i.e., Confusion or Bewilderment , Depression or Dejection , Fatigue or Inertia , and Tension or Anxiety . Each bar shows the grand average of the participants. The error bar represents the standard error. * p < 0.05.

Electroencephalographic Indices: N400 Repetition Priming Effect

The ERP waveforms averaged across all 33 participants showed that the N400 peak latencies occurred later in the non-repetitive condition (ink pen, 302 ms; digital pen, 294 ms; and keyboard, 300 ms) than in the repetitive condition (ink pen, 348 ms; digital pen, 354 ms; and keyboard, 338 ms) ( Figure 5A ), which suggests that it took longer for semantic processing. Regardless of the writing tool, the repetitive and non-repetitive conditions showed clear differences in the grand average ERPs between 300 and 450 ms ( Figure 5B ). The ERP differences at Cz (i.e., non-repetitive minus repetitive) peaked around 360 ms. The amplitudes around the peaks varied depending on the writing tool, and the main effect of the writing tool was significant [ F (2, 62) = 4.37; p = 0.02, partial η 2 = 0.12]. Indeed, the repetition priming effect was greater in the ink pen ( p = 0.04) and digital pen ( p = 0.03) conditions than in the keyboard condition ( Figure 3D ). A significant main effect of the participant group was also found [ F (1, 31) = 4.29; p = 0.047, partial η 2 = 0.12] and revealed that the repetition priming effect was larger in the unfamiliar group than in the familiar group. The interaction between the group and writing tool was also significant [ F (2, 62) = 3.72; p = 0.03, partial η 2 = 0.11; Figure 3E ]. In the familiar group, the repetition priming effect was significantly larger for the digital pen condition than for the keyboard condition ( p = 0.02) (and marginally ink pen > keyboard; p = 0.06). In the unfamiliar group, although the between-method differences did not reach a significant level, the repetition priming effect was larger for the ink pen condition compared with the keyboard condition ( p = 0.057). In addition, a between-group difference was shown for the ink pen condition, showing that the repetition effect was greater in the unfamiliar group than in the familiar group ( p = 0.002). There was no between-difference for the digital pen ( p = 0.70) and keyboard ( p = 0.10) conditions.

ERPs at Cz (midline vertex) measured in the repetition priming paradigm. (A) The ERPs for the target words learned using an ink pen (light blue), a digital pen (dark blue), and a keyboard (red) in the repetitive (solid line) and non-repetitive (dashed line) conditions were averaged across all participants (left), for the members of the familiar group (middle), and those of the unfamiliar group (right). (B) The ERPs for the repetitive condition were subtracted from those for the non-repetitive condition for each writing tool. The differential ERPs had a negative peak at approximately 360 ms, which represents the repetition priming effect on N400. Mean amplitudes from 300 to 450 ms (shaded in pink) were used as electroencephalographic indices for learning effect. The amplitude was higher for words learned with the ink pen (light blue) or digital pen (dark blue) than for those learned using the keyboard (red).

In the familiar group ( Figure 6A ), a significant main effect of the experiment was found on the number of memorized words [ F (1, 21) = 6.00; p = 0.02, partial η 2 = 0.22] and task accuracy [ F (1, 21) = 8.83; p = 0.007, partial η 2 = 0.30]. Specifically, the performances were worse in the present study than in the previous one. There was no significant main effect of the writing tool [ F (1, 21) = 0.70; p = 0.41, partial η 2 = 0.03] and no interaction effect between the experiment and writing tool [ F (1, 21) = 0.01; p = 0.91, partial η 2 = 0.001] on the number of memorized words. Similarly, no significant main effect of the writing tool [ F (1, 21) = 0.43; p = 0.52, partial η 2 = 0.02] and no interaction effect [ F (1, 21) = 0.35; p = 0.60, partial η 2 = 0.02] on the task accuracy were found. Regarding the N400 priming effect, a main effect of the writing tool was found [ F (1, 21) = 11.05; p = 0.003, partial η 2 = 0.35] as the priming effect was larger for words written with a digital pen than those written with an ink pen. There was no significant main effect of the experiment [ F (1, 21) = 2.37; p = 0.14, partial η 2 = 0.10] and no interaction effect [ F (1, 21) = 0.02; p = 0.88, partial η 2 = 0.001].

Comparison with the results of our previous study ( Osugi et al., 2019 ): influence of the task difficulty. (A) In the familiar group, the number of memorized words and task accuracy were lower in the present study than in the previous one. No significant difference in the N400 priming effect was evidenced between the studies. (B) In the unfamiliar group, the number of memorized words and task accuracy were also lower in the present study than in the previous one. The N400 priming effect in the digital pen condition was significantly smaller in the present study than in the previous one. There was no difference in the N400 priming effect in the ink pen condition between the studies. For the number of memorized words and task accuracy, each bar shows the grand average of the two writing tools across the participants. For the N400 priming effect, each bar shows the grand average across the participants. The error bar represents the standard error. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. n.s., non-significant.

In the unfamiliar group ( Figure 6B ), a significant main effect of the experiment was found on the number of memorized words [ F (1, 36) = 5.21; p = 0.03, partial η 2 = 0.13] and task accuracy [ F (1, 36) = 9.54; p = 0.004, partial η 2 = 0.21]. In addition, the main effect of the writing tool on the number of memorized words was significant [ F (1, 36) = 7.21; p = 0.01, partial η 2 = 0.17], but no significant interaction effect was detected [ F (1, 36) = 0.15; p = 0.70, partial η 2 = 0.004]. This indicates that the performance in the post-learning test was lower in the digital pen condition compared with the ink pen condition. There was no significant main effect of the writing tool [ F (1, 36) = 2.35; p = 0.13, partial η 2 = 0.06] and no interaction effect [ F (1, 36) = 0.01; p = 0.91, partial η 2 = 0.0004] on the task accuracy. A marginal effect of the experiment [ F (1, 36) = 3.88; p = 0.057, partial η 2 = 0.10] and interaction effect between the experiment and writing tool [ F (1, 36) = 2.83; p = 0.10, partial η 2 = 0.07] were found on the N400 priming effect. This indicates that the N400 priming effect in the digital pen condition in the present study was significantly smaller than in the previous study [ t (36) = 2.78, p = 0.009], whereas the priming effect under the ink pen condition was not significantly different between the experiments [ t (36) = 0.42, p = 0.67].

In this study, participants learned words from a foreign language using three different writing tools: handwriting with a pen on paper, handwriting with a digital pen on a tablet, and typing on a keyboard. To our knowledge, this study is the first to provide a complete analysis of multiple factors that influence learning of words. Indeed, we not only measured the impact of the tool on the learning process, taking into account the familiarity with the digital tools, but also directly compared the mood states during learning. Moreover, behavioral and electroencephalographic indices were measured immediately after learning and were further compared between participants who were familiar with writing using a digital pen and those who were not. Regarding the behavioral indices, we showed that the number of writing repetitions per word was greater when typing than it was when handwriting with an ink pen and a digital pen. However, the performances at the post-learning test and judgment task in the EEG experiment were not affected by the writing tools. The repetition priming effect on N400 was larger for words learned by handwriting, regardless of the pen type, than those learned by typing. Furthermore, a significant interaction between the participant groups and writing tools was found. Interestingly, the familiar group showed a greater N400 priming effect for words learned with the digital pen or ink pen than those learned using the keyboard. However, in the unfamiliar group, this greater N400 priming effect concerned only words learned with the ink pen. In addition, we also show that an index of positive mood was higher when handwriting with a pen on paper, compared with typing.

Handwriting is more efficient in learning than typing only considering the N400 priming, but not the performance level. This might reflect a difference in the sensitivity for early stage learning between the EEG and behavioral indices. Indeed, an ERP study by McLaughlin et al. (2004) reported a difference in N400 amplitude between words from a second language (L2) compared with pseudo-words after only 14 h of classroom instruction, while it took longer to observe a difference in the performance in the lexical decision task. This finding suggests that the amplitude modulation of N400 is more sensitive and reflects a stage of language learning compared earlier than is evident in the behavioral indices. In another study where adult participants learned new characters either by handwriting or typing for 3 weeks (1 h/week), no difference in the rate of letter recognition accuracy was evidenced immediately after the end of the training session. However, the rate of recognition accuracy for the typed characters, but not the handwritten one, gradually decreased over the 3 weeks following the training ( Longcamp et al., 2006 ). This constitutes another clear example where the advantage provided by handwriting over typing at the behavioral level was not revealed immediately after training. A similar conclusion was also drawn from another recent study comparing alphabet training in preschool children for 7 weeks by handwriting with a pencil on a sheet of paper, handwriting with a stylus on a tablet computer, or typing letters using a virtual keyboard on a tablet ( Mayer et al., 2020 ). Indeed, no difference regarding letter recognition was evidenced immediately after the training, but a clear advantage of handwriting with a pencil over typing was shown at a follow-up assessment about 4–5 weeks after the training. It should also be noted that the training period in these studies was considerably longer (more than a few weeks) than in the present study (10 min), although there was no difference in the learning content and assessment methods. Our results suggest that the ERP is effective for detecting an effect on learning after a short period of use.

Although handwriting, regardless of the pen type, showed a superior learning effect (i.e., a larger N400 priming effect), the number of writing repetitions per word was higher with typing. This indicates that typing provides the advantage of allowing to write more words; however, this does not contribute to test performance. Similar results have been reported in a behavioral study by Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) . In their study, university students took notes by handwriting or typing while listening to the lecture. They then took a test containing factual and conceptual questions. Students who typed notes wrote more words than those who handwrote notes; however, they performed worse on the conceptual questions. It was proposed to result from the fact that students who type tend to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than process the information and rephrase it in their own words. In our study, the participants were required to copy the Indonesian words presented on the learning sheets; therefore, the effect of the above factor can be excluded. Previous behavioral studies argued that the learning advantage of handwriting over typing is due to the motor-perception integration occurring during handwriting as handwriting movements facilitate the recognition of abstract graphic forms ( Hulme, 1979 ; Naka and Naoi, 1995 ), letters ( Longcamp et al., 2005 , 2006 ), and written words ( Kiefer et al., 2015 ). This hypothesis has been supported by MRI ( Longcamp et al., 2008 ) and EEG studies ( Ose Askvik et al., 2020 ). In the MRI study, a greater activity in response to letters learned by handwriting, compared with those learned by typewriting, was observed in several brain regions involved in the execution, imagery, and observation of actions, such as the left Broca’s area and bilateral inferior parietal lobules. In the EEG study, event-related theta-band synchronization in the parietal and central regions was observed when the participants were writing with a digital pen on a touchscreen, whereas event-related theta- and alpha-band desynchronization in the alpha range were found when the participants were typewriting on a keyboard. In line with these studies, the present results suggest that handwriting movements, regardless of the pen type, allowed a better memorization of new words compared with typing which provided the advantage of writing more words.

We propose that a more positive mood during training might also explain the higher learning efficiency of handwriting compared with typing. Indeed, using the POMS, we show that the participants felt more Vigor or Activity when handwriting with an ink pen than when typing, whereas negative moods, such as Tired and Tension , were not affected by the writing tool. Previous ERP studies showed that mood affects language comprehension ( Federmeier et al., 2001 ; Vissers et al., 2010 , 2013 ; Chwilla et al., 2011 ; Pinheiro et al., 2013 ) and production ( Hinojosa et al., 2017 ). According to these studies, positive mood can facilitate semantic processing. For example, Federmeier et al. (2001) pointed out that mild, transient positive mood leads to access a richer set of semantic properties for upcoming words in a sentence. Therefore, we speculate that the increased positive mood reported while handwriting with an ink pen may facilitate semantic access to the words to be learned. As a result, more semantic representations might be activated for words that were handwritten in the post-learning priming experiment, and a greater priming effect on N400 was produced.

A significant interaction effect on the N400 repetition priming effect was obtained for writing tool by participant group. In the familiar group, the learning effect in the digital pen condition was significantly greater than it was in the keyboard condition and with trend for greater than the effect in the ink pen condition. In the unfamiliar group, the learning effect in the ink pen was non-significant but showed a trend to be greater than the effect in the keyboard condition. These results suggest that handwriting with a digital pen provides an advantage over typing for those familiar with using digital pens, while writing with ink pens might be more advantageous for those unfamiliar with digital tools. In addition, the comparison of the present results with those from our previous study ( Osugi et al., 2019 ) suggests that the familiarity with the writing tools and the difficulty of the learning task influence the learning capacity. Here participants had to write and memorize words from an unknown foreign language (Indonesian) while also writing and memorizing readings of word from their native language (Japanese) in the 2019 study. Regardless of the group, the subjects performed worse for all behavioral indices (i.e., number of memorized words in the post-learning test and task accuracy during the ERP experiment) in the present study. This suggests that the learning task was more difficult in this study than in the previous one. In the familiar group, the difficulty of the learning task had no significant effect on the N400 priming effect. However, in the unfamiliar group, the N400 priming effect for the digital pen condition was significantly smaller in the present study than in the previous studies, while there was no significant difference for the ink pen condition. These results suggest that the difficulty of the task affects learning ability using a digital pen of those who are not accustomed to it. In a behavioral study, Mayer et al. (2020) compared the alphabet learning capacity in preschool children trained by handwriting with a pencil, handwriting with a stylus, and typing on a keyboard during 7 weeks. They showed that handwriting with a pencil improved the performance in letter knowledge and visuospatial skills compared with keyboarding. In contrast, training using a stylus was less efficient for word reading and writing than training using the keyboard. They proposed that writing with a stylus on a touchscreen is the least favorable writing tool probably because of the higher need of motor control. Our results from the familiar group provide evidence that writing with a digital pen and tablet is a better learning tool than typing once individuals are accustomed to it.

There are some limitations to this study. First, although the two-way ANOVA examining the N400 priming effect clearly showed a significant main effect of the writing tool, with a greater effect for handwriting than for typing, the post hoc analysis divided by group showed that the difference between handwriting and typing was not significant in the unfamiliar group ( p = 0.06). Based on the results of a post hoc power analysis on the one-way ANOVA (power = 0.62), we suggest that this may be due to the small sample size ( n = 21). Second, we investigated the difference in behavioral and electroencephalographic indices measured immediately after learning. It remains to be determined if the difference in the repetition priming effect on N400 between handwriting and typing persists in the long term. Third, there is a possible confound, in that five of the subjects also participated in our previous study ( Osugi et al., 2019 ) and thus had some experience in the type of learning and testing phases used. Fourth, we selected participants for the familiar group based on the frequency (i.e., more than a few days a week), but not the duration of use, which might also affect the learning capacities. Finally, we did not measure the time that the participants’ spent monitoring each word they were writing or examine the relationship between this and the type of writing tool used. The difference in the time their working memories spent monitoring each word may have played a role in the observed difference in the learning effects. This possibility should be clarified by future experiments.

To our knowledge, this work is the most complete study so far regarding the impact of handwriting with a pen, a digital pen, or a keyboard on learning processes. Indeed, we have taken into account the familiarity with the tools used to learn and mood state of the participants during training. This works opens new paths of research to better understand the learning processes and improve the efficiency of digital education, which is increasing in demand in the current educational environment.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Bioinformatics Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

AI, YN, KN, AK, and KI designed the study. KN, KO, and KI conducted the experiments. KN prepared the materials and experimental equipment, and analyzed the data. AI wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors revised the draft and approved the final version.

Conflict of Interest

AK and KI were employed by Wacom Co., Ltd. A part of this study was conducted with a research fund from Wacom Co., Ltd. The funder had the following involvement with the study: study design and collection. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Nagisa Kamioka for her assistance with data acquisition and analysis.

1 https://pj.ninjal.ac.jp/corpus_center/bccwj/en/

2 http://psychtoolbox.org/

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.679191/full#supplementary-material

• Alamargot D., Morin M. F. (2015). Does handwriting on a tablet screen affect students’ graphomotor execution? A comparison between Grades Two and Nine. Hum. Mov. Sci. 44 32–41. 10.1016/j.humov.2015.08.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amano S., Kondo T. (1999). Nihongo-No Goitokusei: Lexical Properties of Japanese. Tokyo: Sanseido-shoten Co. Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chwilla D. J., Virgillito D., Vissers C. T. (2011). The relationship of language and emotion: n400 support for an embodied view of language comprehension. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23 2400–2414. 10.1162/jocn.2010.21578 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delorme A., Makeig S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 134 9–21. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Federmeier K. D., Kirson D. A., Moreno E. M., Kutas M. (2001). Effects of transient, mild mood states on semantic memory organization and use: an event-related potential investigation in humans. Neurosci. Lett. 305 149–152. 10.1016/s0304-3940(01)01843-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedrich M., Friederici A. D. (2004). N400-like semantic incongruity effect in 19-month-olds: processing known words in picture contexts. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16 1465–1477. 10.1162/0898929042304705 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedrich M., Friederici A. D. (2010). Maturing brain mechanisms and developing behavioral language skills. Brain Lang. 114 66–71. 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.07.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerth S., Dolk T., Klassert A., Fliesser M., Fischer M. H., Nottbusch G., et al. (2016a). Adapting to the surface: a comparison of handwriting measures when writing on a tablet computer and on paper. Hum. Mov. Sci. 48 62–73. 10.1016/j.humov.2016.04.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerth S., Klassert A., Dolk T., Fliesser M., Fischer M. H., Nottbusch G., et al. (2016b). Is handwriting performance affected by the writing surface? Comparing preschoolers’, second graders’, and adults’ writing performance on a tablet vs. paper. Front. Psychol. 7 : 1308 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01308 eCollection 2016. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guilbert J., Alamargot D., Morin M. F. (2019). Handwriting on a tablet screen: role of visual and proprioceptive feedback in the control of movement by children and adults. Hum. Mov. Sci. 65 30093–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatano A., Sekine T., Herai T., Ihara T., Tanaka Y., Murakami S., et al. (2015). Effects of the use of paper notebooks and tablet devices on cognitive load in learning-An Electroencephalographic (EEG) study. IEICE Technical Rep. 115 39–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heuchert J. P., McNair D. M. (2015). Profile of Mood States 2nd Edition Japanese version. Tokyo: Kaneko Shobo Co., Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinojosa J. A., Fernandez-Folgueiras U., Albert J., Santaniello G., Pozo M. A., Capilla A. (2017). Negative induced mood influences word production: an event-related potentials study with a covert picture naming task. Neuropsychologia 95 227–239. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.12.025 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulme C. (1979). The interaction of visual and motor memory for graphic forms following tracing. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 31 249–261. 10.1080/14640747908400724 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiefer M., Schuler S., Mayer C., Trumpp N. M., Hille K., Sachse S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen- or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Adv. Cogn. Psychol. 11 136–146. 10.5709/acp-0178-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutas M., Federmeier K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4 463–470. 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01560-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutas M., Federmeier K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Ann. Rev. Psychol. 62 621–647. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Longcamp M., Boucard C., Gilhodes J. C., Anton J. L., Roth M., Nazarian B., et al. (2008). Learning through hand- or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: behavioral and functional imaging evidence. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20 802–815. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20504 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Longcamp M., Boucard C., Gilhodes J. C., Velay J. L. (2006). Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: a comparison between handwriting and typing. Hum. Mov. Sci. 25 646–656. 10.1016/j.humov.2006.07.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Longcamp M., Zerbato-Poudou M. T., Velay J. L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: a comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychol. 119 67–79. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangen A., Anda L. G., Oxborough G. H., Brønnick K. (2015). Handwriting versus keyboard writing: effect on word recall. J. Writing Res. 72 227–247. 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer C., Wallner S., Budde-Spengler N., Braunert S., Arndt P. A., Kiefer M. (2020). Literacy training of kindergarten children with pencil, keyboard or tablet stylus: the influence of the writing tool on reading and writing performance at the letter and word level. Front. Psychol. 10 : 3054 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03054. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLaughlin J., Osterhout L., Kim A. (2004). Neural correlates of second-language word learning: minimal instruction produces rapid change. Nat. Neurosci. 7 703–704. 10.1038/nn1264 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mueller P. A., Oppenheimer D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychol. Sci. 25 1159–1168. 10.1177/0956797614524581 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naka M., Naoi H. (1995). The effect of repeated writing on memory. Mem. Cognit. 23 201–212. 10.3758/bf03197222 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ojima S., Nakamura N., Matsuba-Kurita H., Hoshino T., Hagiwara H. (2011). Neural correlates of foreign-language learning in childhood: a 3-year longitudinal ERP study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23 183–199. 10.1162/jocn.2010.21425 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ojima S., Nakata H., Kakigi R. (2005). An ERP study of second language learning after childhood: effects of proficiency. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17 1212–1228. 10.1162/0898929055002436 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ose Askvik E., Van Der Weel F. R. R., Van Der Meer A. L. H. (2020). The importance of cursive handwriting over typewriting for learning in the classroom: a high-density EEG study of 12-year-old children and young adults. Front. Psychol. 11 : 1810 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01810 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osugi K., Ihara A. S., Nakajima K., Kake A., Ishimaru K., Yokota Y., et al. (2019). Differences in brain activity after learning with the use of a digital pen vs. an ink pen-An electroencephalography study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13 : 275 . 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00275. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinheiro A. P., Del Re E., Nestor P. G., Mccarley R. W., Goncalves O. F., Niznikiewicz M. (2013). Interactions between mood and the structure of semantic memory: event-related potentials evidence. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8 579–594. 10.1093/scan/nss035 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid V. M., Hoehl S., Grigutsch M., Groendahl A., Parise E., Striano T. (2009). The neural correlates of infant and adult goal prediction: evidence for semantic processing systems. Dev. Psychol. 45 620–629. 10.1037/a0015209 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Meer A. L. H., van der Weel F. R. R. (2017). Only three fingers write, but the whole brain works: a high-density EEG study showing advantages of drawing over typing for learning. Front. Psychol. 8 : 706 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00706 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vinci-booher S., James T. W., Karin H. (2016). Visual-motor functional connectivity in preschool children emerges after handwriting experience. Trends Neurosci. Edu. 5 107–120. 10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vissers C. T., Chwilla U. G., Egger J. I., Chwilla D. J. (2013). The interplay between mood and language comprehension: evidence from P600 to semantic reversal anomalies. Neuropsychologia 51 1027–1039. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.02.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vissers C. T., Virgillito D., Fitzgerald D. A., Speckens A. E., Tendolkar I., Van Oostrom I., et al. (2010). The influence of mood on the processing of syntactic anomalies: evidence from P600. Neuropsychologia 48 3521–3531. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.08.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wollscheid S., Sjaastad J., Tømte C. (2016). The impact of digital devices vs. pen(cil) and paper on primary school students’ writing skills – A research review. Comput. Edu. 95 19–35. 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Note-taking by hand: A powerful tool to support memory

Professor, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

Disclosure statement

Hetty Roessingh receives funding from SSHRC, Alberta Teachers' Association

University of Calgary provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

University of Calgary provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Do you pick up any old notebook and pen when you need them, or do you have a thing for Moleskines or Montblancs ?

Whether or not you’re picky, know that tools for the hands are tools for the brain. Handwritten notes are a powerful tool for encrypting embodied cognition and in turn supporting the brain’s capacity for retrieval of information. And secondly, when you take notes by hand, your hands create a robust external memory storage: your notebook.

Taking notes by hand is a win-win, and belongs in every student’s cognitive tool kit . Learning how to take notes by hand effectively, and how to ingrain note-taking as a key learning and study tool, can begin as early as grades 3 or 4, but it’s never too late to begin.

We live in a digital age where daily functioning involves digital communication. Automaticity in keyboarding is an important skill too, and the tools and applications for digital communication will continue to evolve and have their place. But keyboarding does not provide the tactile feedback to the brain that contact between pencil or pen and paper does — the key to creating the neurocircuitry in the hand-brain complex .

The processing advantage

While your laptop might seem faster and more efficient, there are good reasons for having a paper-bound notebook and pen — any kind you prefer — at the ready.

Researchers have found that note-taking associated with keyboarding involves taking notes verbatim in a way that does not involve processing information , and so have called this “non-generative” note-taking. By contrast, taking notes by hand involves cognitive engagement in summarizing, paraphrasing, organizing, concept and vocabulary mapping — in short, manipulating and transforming information that leads to deeper understanding.

Note-taking becomes note-making: an active involvement in making sense and meaning for later reflection, study or sharing of notes to compare understanding with lab partners or classmates. This becomes a potent study strategy, as one’s own processing can be further consolidated through talk .

There are templates and formats that teach more effective ways of taking hand-written notes. A popular one is the Cornell style developed by education professor Walter Pauk . You can also explore other ways that can be adapted for different study needs, such as compare/contrast charts or webs .

Cognitive demands of note-taking

Taking good notes depends on fluency of hand, which means legibility and speed combined. This is best achieved with a clean, uncluttered and connected script, meaning cursive writing, that young learners can begin to learn in Grade 2. Fluency of hand comes from instruction and practice in the early years of school , and sustained opportunities for authentic, purposeful literacy engagements in turn allocating working memory space to the cognitive demands of note-taking.

The move from grades 3 to 4 is a big leap for young learners. Content curriculum in science, social studies, English language arts and mathematics makes accelerated demands on children to shift into academic modes of literacy.

Each year of educational advancement makes increasing demands in reading and writing, understanding and making sense of vast amounts of information in multi-modal formats.

Sketching and drawing belong, too!

Leonardo da Vinci wrote: “…the more minutely you describe, the more you will confuse the mind of the reader and the more you will remove him from knowledge of the thing described. Therefore it is necessary to make a drawing … as well as to describe … ”

The artist’s notebooks reveal a creative, inquiring, inventive mind and man of science and art unparalleled , centuries ahead of his time. Fergus Craik and Robert Lockhart, pioneers in cognitive neuroscience research, noted three levels of information processing: their theory lays bare the neuroscience behind da Vinci’s insights centuries ago. When people visually represent knowledge, they can deepen their comprehension of concepts such as cycles and relationships: as a result, some cognitive researchers advocate teaching different ways of representing knowledge from an early age.

Florence Nightingale is remembered for her contributions in reforming medicine through her detailed, meticulous observations, documentation, note-taking and writing . She is credited with creating the pie chart to represent this information .

I assign my own students, preparing to become teachers, the task of sketching the layout of the class where they are working in a field placement. They also take observational hand-written notes recorded in a Cornell template. This assignment is about interpreting what’s going on in the classroom. This process of documenting provides a good scaffold for later review or reflection and theorizing the work of classroom teachers.

If writing is a requirement of your profession whether in journalism, teaching, architecture, engineering, fashion and more, you already know the benefits and importance of note-taking and sketching.

Analogue, digital and legacy formats

When deep understanding and remembering, making personal connection and sparking creative thought are important, hand-written notes matter and endure over time .

Interestingly, the art of keeping a paper diary, journal or planner has generated scores of online communities . Many find pleasure in keeping calendars, daily organizers, cards and notes and lists of all kinds, and writing family stories for the next generation all by hand — and then sharing them digitally .

Read more: Lockdown diaries: the everyday voices of the coronavirus pandemic

For serious students, note-taking is an indispensable cognitive tool and study technique. Creating neurocircuitry for memory and meaning through the hand-brain complex is the key to understanding the value of hand-written notes. Think twice before relying solely on your laptop this fall!

• Note taking
• Back to school 2020
• Back to school Canada 2020
• embodied cognition
• cursive writing

Manager, Regional Training Hub

Head of Evidence to Action

Supply Chain - Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Stronger Brain Activity After Writing on Paper Than on Tablet or Smartphone

Summary: Writing by hand increases brain activity in recall tasks over taking notes on a tablet or smartphone. Additionally, those who write by hand on paper are 25% quicker at note-taking tasks than those who use digital technology.

Source: University of Tokyo

A study of Japanese university students and recent graduates has revealed that writing on physical paper can lead to more brain activity when remembering the information an hour later. Researchers say that the unique, complex, spatial and tactile information associated with writing by hand on physical paper is likely what leads to improved memory.

“Actually, paper is more advanced and useful compared to electronic documents because paper contains more one-of-a-kind information for stronger memory recall,” said Professor Kuniyoshi L. Sakai, a neuroscientist at the University of Tokyo and corresponding author of the research recently published in  Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience . The research was completed with collaborators from the NTT Data Institute of Management Consulting.

Contrary to the popular belief that digital tools increase efficiency, volunteers who used paper completed the note-taking task about 25% faster than those who used digital tablets or smartphones.

Although volunteers wrote by hand both with pen and paper or stylus and digital tablet, researchers say paper notebooks contain more complex spatial information than digital paper. Physical paper allows for tangible permanence, irregular strokes, and uneven shape, like folded corners. In contrast, digital paper is uniform, has no fixed position when scrolling, and disappears when you close the app.

“Our take-home message is to use paper notebooks for information we need to learn or memorize,” said Sakai.

In the study, a total of 48 volunteers read a fictional conversation between characters discussing their plans for two months in the near future, including 14 different class times, assignment due dates and personal appointments. Researchers performed pre-test analyses to ensure that the volunteers, all 18-29 years old and recruited from university campuses or NTT offices, were equally sorted into three groups based on memory skills, personal preference for digital or analog methods, gender, age and other aspects.

Volunteers then recorded the fictional schedule using a paper datebook and pen, a calendar app on a digital tablet and a stylus, or a calendar app on a large smartphone and a touch-screen keyboard. There was no time limit and volunteers were asked to record the fictional events in the same way as they would for their real-life schedules, without spending extra time to memorize the schedule.

After one hour, including a break and an interference task to distract them from thinking about the calendar, volunteers answered a range of simple (When is the assignment due?) and complex (Which is the earlier due date for the assignments?) multiple choice questions to test their memory of the schedule.

While they completed the test, volunteers were inside a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner, which measures blood flow around the brain. This is a technique called functional MRI (fMRI), and increased blood flow observed in a specific region of the brain is a sign of increased neuronal activity in that area.

Participants who used a paper datebook filled in the calendar within about 11 minutes. Tablet users took 14 minutes and smartphone users took about 16 minutes. Volunteers who used analog methods in their personal life were just as slow at using the devices as volunteers who regularly use digital tools, so researchers are confident that the difference in speed was related to memorization or associated encoding in the brain, not just differences in the habitual use of the tools.

Volunteers who used analog methods scored better than other volunteers only on simple test questions. However, researchers say that the brain activation data revealed significant differences.

Volunteers who used paper had more brain activity in areas associated with language, imaginary visualization, and in the hippocampus — an area known to be important for memory and navigation. Researchers say that the activation of the hippocampus indicates that analog methods contain richer spatial details that can be recalled and navigated in the mind’s eye.

“Digital tools have uniform scrolling up and down and standardized arrangement of text and picture size, like on a webpage. But if you remember a physical textbook printed on paper, you can close your eyes and visualize the photo one-third of the way down on the left-side page, as well as the notes you added in the bottom margin,” Sakai explained.

Researchers say that personalizing digital documents by highlighting, underlining, circling, drawing arrows, handwriting color-coded notes in the margins, adding virtual sticky notes, or other types of unique mark-ups can mimic analog-style spatial enrichment that may enhance memory.

Although they have no data from younger volunteers, researchers suspect that the difference in brain activation between analog and digital methods is likely to be stronger in younger people.

“High school students’ brains are still developing and are so much more sensitive than adult brains,” said Sakai.

Although the current research focused on learning and memorization, the researchers encourage using paper for creative pursuits as well.

“It is reasonable that one’s creativity will likely become more fruitful if prior knowledge is stored with stronger learning and more precisely retrieved from memory. For art, composing music, or other creative works, I would emphasize the use of paper instead of digital methods,” said Sakai.

This research is a peer-reviewed, experimental study on people published in  Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience .

Funding: Funding was provided by the Consortium for Applied Neuroscience at NTT Data Institute of Management Consulting, Inc. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of the research paper, or the decision to submit it for publication.

About this neuroscience research news

Source: University of Tokyo Contact: Kuniyoshi L. Sakai – University of Tokyo Image: The image is in the public domain

Original Research: Open access. “ Paper Notebooks vs. Mobile Devices: Brain Activation Differences During Memory ” by Keita Umejima, Takuya Ibaraki, Takahiro Yamazaki, and Kuniyoshi L. Sakai. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience

Paper Notebooks vs. Mobile Devices: Brain Activation Differences During Memory

It remains to be determined how different inputs for memory-encoding, such as the use of paper notebooks or mobile devices, affect retrieval processes.

We compared three groups of participants who read dialogues on personal schedules and wrote down the scheduled appointments on a calendar using a paper notebook (Note), an electronic tablet (Tablet), or a smartphone (Phone).

After the retention period for an hour including an interference task, we tested recognition memory of those appointments with visually presented questions in a retrieval task, while scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging. We obtained three major results.

First, the duration of writing down schedules was significantly shorter for the Note group than the Tablet and Phone groups, and accuracy was much higher for the Note group in easier (i.e., more straightforward) questions. Because the input methods were equated as much as possible between the Note and Tablet groups, these results indicate that the cognitive processes for the Note group were deeper and more solid.

Second, brain activations for all participants during the retrieval phase were localized in the bilateral hippocampus, precuneus, visual cortices, and language-related frontal regions, confirming the involvement of verbalized memory retrieval processes for appointments.

Third, activations in these regions were significantly higher for the Note group than those for the Tablet and Phone groups. These enhanced activations for the Note group could not be explained by general cognitive loads or task difficulty, because overall task performances were similar among the groups.

The significant superiority in both accuracy and activations for the Note group suggested that the use of a paper notebook promoted the acquisition of rich encoding information and/or spatial information of real papers and that this information could be utilized as effective retrieval clues, leading to higher activations in these specific regions.

After reading this article I have decided that I both agree and disagree with this passage. Yes, I agree that taking handwritten notes is better and you can remember things in a more advanced way if you write them down, but I do not agree with the fact that taking handwritten notes is faster because it is different for different people. For me, I type faster than I write by hand. For some people, the whole article could be wrong. They could know things easier if they type them rather than writing them. All people are unique and I know that especially if I am learning a new language that taking and written notes are best for me. But typing I can do faster whether it is n a computer or a phone I can write faster typing then I can handwrite something. Of course, there are certain things that work better. I do not prefer something over the other I just believe each serves a different purpose.

Obviously, I am no authority but I am skeptical. Only recently have tablets become fast enough to be as responsive as physical paper with an electronic pen. Previously tablets worked but not in an equivalent way to paper. I preferred paper over tablets a couple years ago, but now I definitely prefer tablets. They are amazing and much better than paper. The latest tablets are easier to use than paper because you can make instant corrections and move text easily. You can highlight and change colors much more quickly than physical products with paper….. For this study, I wonder why it took 25% longer for people to write the same notes on a tablet than paper? Many people are not familiar with tablet writing apps and many tablet writing apps are not full of useful features (are the tablets the latest tablets too?). Certainly tablets can be set up into individual pages to be like individual pages of paper. The latest tablets, apps and electronic pens have finally matured to match and even exceed the usefulness of paper, in my opinion. The conclusion of this study seems comparable to saying a typewriter is more useful than a word processing program on a computer. The best tablets and electronic pens (starting two years ago) work now like word processing programs.

Comments are closed.

Increase in Protein Linked to Salt Intake Implicated in Multiple Sclerosis

New Imaging Technique Identifies Autism Markers with 95% Accuracy

Gender Nonconformity in Play Linked to ASD and Behavioral Problems

How Moths Evolve Through Time-Based Speciation

June 3, 2014

A Learning Secret: Don't Take Notes with a Laptop

Students who used longhand remembered more and had a deeper understanding of the material

By Cindi May

Mayur Kakade Getty Images

“More is better.”  From the number of gigs in a cellular data plan to the horsepower in a pickup truck, this mantra is ubiquitous in American culture.  When it comes to college students, the belief that more is better may underlie their widely-held view that laptops in the classroom enhance their academic performance.  Laptops do in fact allow students to do more, like engage in online activities and demonstrations, collaborate more easily on papers and projects, access information from the internet, and take more notes.  Indeed, because students can type significantly faster than they can write , those who use laptops in the classroom tend to take more notes than those who write out their notes by hand.  Moreover, when students take notes using laptops they tend to take notes verbatim, writing down every last word uttered by their professor.

Obviously it is advantageous to draft more complete notes that precisely capture the course content and allow for a verbatim review of the material at a later date.  Only it isn’t.  New research by Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer demonstrates that students who write out their notes on paper actually learn more.  Across three experiments, Mueller and Oppenheimer had students take notes in a classroom setting and then tested students on their memory for factual detail, their conceptual understanding of the material, and their ability to synthesize and generalize the information.  Half of the students were instructed to take notes with a laptop, and the other half were instructed to write the notes out by hand.  As in other studies, students who used laptops took more notes.  In each study, however, those who wrote out their notes by hand had a stronger conceptual understanding and were more successful in applying and integrating the material than those who used took notes with their laptops.

What drives this paradoxical finding?  Mueller and Oppenheimer postulate that taking notes by hand requires different types of cognitive processing than taking notes on a laptop, and these different processes have consequences for learning.  Writing by hand is slower and more cumbersome than typing, and students cannot possibly write down every word in a lecture.  Instead, they listen, digest, and summarize so that they can succinctly capture the essence of the information.  Thus, taking notes by hand forces the brain to engage in some heavy “mental lifting,” and these efforts foster comprehension and retention.  By contrast, when typing students can easily produce a written record of the lecture without processing its meaning, as faster typing speeds allow students to transcribe a lecture word for word without devoting much thought to the content.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

To evaluate this theory, Mueller and Oppenheimer assessed the content of notes taken by hand versus laptop.  Their studies included hundreds of students from Princeton and UCLA, and the lecture topics ranged from bats, bread, and algorithms to faith, respiration, and economics.  Content analysis of the notes consistently showed that students who used laptops had more verbatim transcription of the lecture material than those who wrote notes by hand.  Moreover, high verbatim note content was associated with lower retention of the lecture material.  It appears that students who use laptops can take notes in a fairly mindless, rote fashion, with little analysis or synthesis by the brain.  This kind of shallow transcription fails to promote a meaningful understanding or application of the information.

If the source of the advantage for longhand notes derives from the conceptual processes they evoke, perhaps instructing laptop users to draft summative rather than verbatim notes will boost performance.  Mueller and Oppenheimer explored this idea by warning laptop note takers against the tendency to transcribe information without thinking, and explicitly instructed them to think about the information and type notes in their own words.  Despite these instructions, students using laptops showed the same level of verbatim content and were no better in synthesizing material than students who received no such warning.  It is possible these direct instructions to improve the quality of laptop notes failed because it is so easy to rely on less demanding, mindless processes when typing.

It’s important to note that most of the studies that have compared note taking by hand versus laptop have used immediate memory tests administered very shortly (typically less than an hour) after the learning session.  In real classroom settings, however, students are often assessed days if not weeks after learning new material.  Thus, although laptop users may not encode as much during the lecture and thus may be disadvantaged on immediate assessments, it seems reasonable to expect that the additional information they record will give them an advantage when reviewing material after a long delay.

Wrong again.  Mueller and Oppenheimer included a study in which participants were asked to take notes by hand or by laptop, and were told they would be tested on the material in a week.  When participants were given an opportunity to study with their notes before the final assessment, once again those who took longhand notes outperformed laptop participants.  Because longhand notes contain students’ own words and handwriting, they may serve as more effective memory cues by recreating the context (e.g., thought processes, emotions, conclusions) as well as content (e.g., individual facts) from the original learning session.

These findings hold important implications for students who use their laptops to access lecture outlines and notes that have been posted by professors before class.  Because students can use these posted materials to access lecture content with a mere click, there is no need to organize, synthesize or summarize in their own words.  Indeed, students may take very minimal notes or not take notes at all, and may consequently forego the opportunity to engage in the mental work that supports learning.

Beyond altering students’ cognitive processes and thereby reducing learning, laptops pose other threats in the classroom.  In the Mueller and Oppenheimer studies, all laptops were disconnected from the internet, thus eliminating any disruption from email, instant messaging, surfing, or other online distractions.  In most typical college settings, however, internet access is available, and evidence suggests that when college students use laptops, they spend 40% of class time using applications unrelated to coursework, are more likely to fall off task , and are less satisfied with their education.  In one study with law school students, nearly 90% of laptop users engaged in online activities unrelated to coursework for at least five minutes, and roughly 60% were distracted for half the class.

Technology offers innovative tools that are shaping educational experiences for students, often in positive and dynamic ways.  The research by Mueller and Oppenheimer serves as a reminder, however, that even when technology allows us to do more in less time, it does not always foster learning.  Learning involves more than the receipt and the regurgitation of information.  If we want students to synthesize material, draw inferences, see new connections, evaluate evidence, and apply concepts in novel situations, we need to encourage the deep, effortful cognitive processes that underlie these abilities.  When it comes to taking notes, students need fewer gigs, more brain power.

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor  Gareth Cook , a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and regular  contributor  to NewYorker.com. Gareth is also the series editor of  Best American Infographics , and can be reached at garethideas AT gmail dot com or Twitter  @garethideas .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health

• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Why writing by hand beats typing for thinking and learning

Jonathan Lambert

If you're like many digitally savvy Americans, it has likely been a while since you've spent much time writing by hand.

The laborious process of tracing out our thoughts, letter by letter, on the page is becoming a relic of the past in our screen-dominated world, where text messages and thumb-typed grocery lists have replaced handwritten letters and sticky notes. Electronic keyboards offer obvious efficiency benefits that have undoubtedly boosted our productivity — imagine having to write all your emails longhand.

To keep up, many schools are introducing computers as early as preschool, meaning some kids may learn the basics of typing before writing by hand.

But giving up this slower, more tactile way of expressing ourselves may come at a significant cost, according to a growing body of research that's uncovering the surprising cognitive benefits of taking pen to paper, or even stylus to iPad — for both children and adults.

Is this some kind of joke? A school facing shortages starts teaching standup comedy

In kids, studies show that tracing out ABCs, as opposed to typing them, leads to better and longer-lasting recognition and understanding of letters. Writing by hand also improves memory and recall of words, laying down the foundations of literacy and learning. In adults, taking notes by hand during a lecture, instead of typing, can lead to better conceptual understanding of material.

"There's actually some very important things going on during the embodied experience of writing by hand," says Ramesh Balasubramaniam , a neuroscientist at the University of California, Merced. "It has important cognitive benefits."

While those benefits have long been recognized by some (for instance, many authors, including Jennifer Egan and Neil Gaiman , draft their stories by hand to stoke creativity), scientists have only recently started investigating why writing by hand has these effects.

A slew of recent brain imaging research suggests handwriting's power stems from the relative complexity of the process and how it forces different brain systems to work together to reproduce the shapes of letters in our heads onto the page.

Your brain on handwriting

Both handwriting and typing involve moving our hands and fingers to create words on a page. But handwriting, it turns out, requires a lot more fine-tuned coordination between the motor and visual systems. This seems to more deeply engage the brain in ways that support learning.

Shots - Health News

Feeling artsy here's how making art helps your brain.

"Handwriting is probably among the most complex motor skills that the brain is capable of," says Marieke Longcamp , a cognitive neuroscientist at Aix-Marseille Université.

Gripping a pen nimbly enough to write is a complicated task, as it requires your brain to continuously monitor the pressure that each finger exerts on the pen. Then, your motor system has to delicately modify that pressure to re-create each letter of the words in your head on the page.

"Your fingers have to each do something different to produce a recognizable letter," says Sophia Vinci-Booher , an educational neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University. Adding to the complexity, your visual system must continuously process that letter as it's formed. With each stroke, your brain compares the unfolding script with mental models of the letters and words, making adjustments to fingers in real time to create the letters' shapes, says Vinci-Booher.

That's not true for typing.

To type "tap" your fingers don't have to trace out the form of the letters — they just make three relatively simple and uniform movements. In comparison, it takes a lot more brainpower, as well as cross-talk between brain areas, to write than type.

Recent brain imaging studies bolster this idea. A study published in January found that when students write by hand, brain areas involved in motor and visual information processing " sync up " with areas crucial to memory formation, firing at frequencies associated with learning.

"We don't see that [synchronized activity] in typewriting at all," says Audrey van der Meer , a psychologist and study co-author at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. She suggests that writing by hand is a neurobiologically richer process and that this richness may confer some cognitive benefits.

Other experts agree. "There seems to be something fundamental about engaging your body to produce these shapes," says Robert Wiley , a cognitive psychologist at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. "It lets you make associations between your body and what you're seeing and hearing," he says, which might give the mind more footholds for accessing a given concept or idea.

Those extra footholds are especially important for learning in kids, but they may give adults a leg up too. Wiley and others worry that ditching handwriting for typing could have serious consequences for how we all learn and think.

What might be lost as handwriting wanes

The clearest consequence of screens and keyboards replacing pen and paper might be on kids' ability to learn the building blocks of literacy — letters.

"Letter recognition in early childhood is actually one of the best predictors of later reading and math attainment," says Vinci-Booher. Her work suggests the process of learning to write letters by hand is crucial for learning to read them.

"When kids write letters, they're just messy," she says. As kids practice writing "A," each iteration is different, and that variability helps solidify their conceptual understanding of the letter.

Research suggests kids learn to recognize letters better when seeing variable handwritten examples, compared with uniform typed examples.

This helps develop areas of the brain used during reading in older children and adults, Vinci-Booher found.

"This could be one of the ways that early experiences actually translate to long-term life outcomes," she says. "These visually demanding, fine motor actions bake in neural communication patterns that are really important for learning later on."

Ditching handwriting instruction could mean that those skills don't get developed as well, which could impair kids' ability to learn down the road.

"If young children are not receiving any handwriting training, which is very good brain stimulation, then their brains simply won't reach their full potential," says van der Meer. "It's scary to think of the potential consequences."

Many states are trying to avoid these risks by mandating cursive instruction. This year, California started requiring elementary school students to learn cursive , and similar bills are moving through state legislatures in several states, including Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina and Wisconsin. (So far, evidence suggests that it's the writing by hand that matters, not whether it's print or cursive.)

Slowing down and processing information

For adults, one of the main benefits of writing by hand is that it simply forces us to slow down.

During a meeting or lecture, it's possible to type what you're hearing verbatim. But often, "you're not actually processing that information — you're just typing in the blind," says van der Meer. "If you take notes by hand, you can't write everything down," she says.

The relative slowness of the medium forces you to process the information, writing key words or phrases and using drawing or arrows to work through ideas, she says. "You make the information your own," she says, which helps it stick in the brain.

Such connections and integration are still possible when typing, but they need to be made more intentionally. And sometimes, efficiency wins out. "When you're writing a long essay, it's obviously much more practical to use a keyboard," says van der Meer.

Still, given our long history of using our hands to mark meaning in the world, some scientists worry about the more diffuse consequences of offloading our thinking to computers.

"We're foisting a lot of our knowledge, extending our cognition, to other devices, so it's only natural that we've started using these other agents to do our writing for us," says Balasubramaniam.

It's possible that this might free up our minds to do other kinds of hard thinking, he says. Or we might be sacrificing a fundamental process that's crucial for the kinds of immersive cognitive experiences that enable us to learn and think at our full potential.

Balasubramaniam stresses, however, that we don't have to ditch digital tools to harness the power of handwriting. So far, research suggests that scribbling with a stylus on a screen activates the same brain pathways as etching ink on paper. It's the movement that counts, he says, not its final form.

Jonathan Lambert is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance journalist who covers science, health and policy.

• handwriting

Why Writing by Hand Is Better for Your Brain

By stimulating connections, it benefits memory, test scores, and more..

Posted February 6, 2024 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

• Handwriting stimulates complex brain connections essential in encoding new information and forming memories.
• Research shows students who take notes by hand score better on tests than those who type notes.
• People who write calendar events by hand are more likely to remember them later.

Thousands of people now speak to their smart devices to make their grocery lists. Students are more likely to type out notes in class than write them down. And we often type or dictate calendar reminders into our smartphones instead of writing them on a wall calendar. In short, people across the globe and in a wide variety of settings primarily use digital devices to record the things they want to remember.

It turns out, that may not be a good thing. A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that handwriting stimulates different and more complex brain connections that are essential in encoding new information and forming memories.

The most recent study supporting this idea was published last month in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. Researchers in Norway asked university students to write individual words either using a digital pen on a touchscreen or using a single finger to type all while measuring electrical activity in their brains using a high-density electroencephalogram (EEG).

They found that brain connectivity patterns were far more elaborate and widespread for participants who wrote by hand compared to those who typed. This suggests that the precisely controlled hand movements that occur when writing lead to spatial and temporal patterns in the brain that promote learning.

This study adds to a large body of previous research that finds handwriting activates the brain in ways that other forms of recording information do not.

A 2022 systematic review conducted by a doctoral student at the University of Louisville combined data from 33 studies to evaluate whether taking notes by hand versus typing affected how students performed on tests. The review found that students who took handwritten notes scored significantly higher on quizzes about that material compared to students who typed notes.

But you don’t have to be a student to benefit from handwriting. A 2021 study by Japanese researchers found that participants who recorded calendar event information on paper calendars demonstrated more brain activity than subjects who recorded the same information onto a smartphone when they tried to remember details about the information later. In addition, the participants who wrote in their calendars recalled the information 25 percent faster than those who typed it into a smartphone.

In addition, earlier research demonstrates that handwriting is essential in children’s brain development. This study asked five-year-old, preliterate children to write, type, and trace letters while undergoing functional MRI scanning. The students who wrote by hand were the only ones who demonstrated brain activity in a circuit of the brain used in learning to read.

The take-home message: If you need to remember something, write it down! There is clear evidence that the act of writing helps us to learn and remember.

Facebook /LinkedIn image: GaudiLab/Shutterstock

The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research at Cornell University is focused on using research findings to improve health and well-being of people at all stages of life.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

We need your support today

Independent journalism is more important than ever. Vox is here to explain this unprecedented election cycle and help you understand the larger stakes. We will break down where the candidates stand on major issues, from economic policy to immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, and abortion. We’ll answer your biggest questions, and we’ll explain what matters — and why. This timely and essential task, however, is expensive to produce.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Why you should take notes by hand — not on a laptop

by Joseph Stromberg

Walk into a college lecture these days and you’ll see legions of students sitting behind glowing screens, pecking away at keyboards.

Presumably, they're using the computers to take notes, so they better remember the course material. But new research shows that if learning is their goal, using a laptop during class is a terrible idea.

taking notes by hand forces you to actively listen and decide what's important

It’s not just because internet-connected laptops are so distracting. It’s because even if students aren’t distracted, the act of taking notes on a computer actually seems to interfere with their ability to remember information.

Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer, the psychologists who conducted the new research, believe it’s because students on laptops usually just mindlessly type everything a professor says. Those taking notes by hand, though, have to actively listen and decide what’s important — because they generally can’t write fast enough to get everything down — which ultimately helps them learn.

Laptop users remember less information later on

The psychologists’ new paper involved three different studies comparing students’ recall after taking notes on a (non-internet connected) laptop versus by hand, with 327 undergraduates from UCLA and Princeton in total.

For the first study, the students watched a 15-minute TED talk and took notes on it, then took a test on it half an hour afterward. Some of the test questions were straightforward, asking for a particular figure or fact, while others were conceptual, and asked students to compare or analyze ideas.

The two groups of students — laptop users and hand-writers — did pretty similarly on the factual questions. But the laptop users did significantly worse on the conceptual ones:

The researchers also noticed that the laptop users took down many more words, and were more likely to take down speech from the video verbatim.

To see if this rote note-taking was part of the problem, for the second study, they explicitly instructed some of the laptop users to do otherwise: “Take notes in your own words and don’t just write down word-for-word what the speaker is saying,” they said.

The overachieving college students, though, were a heedlessly diligent bunch. Even in this study, the laptop users were once again much more likely to take down notes from the videos verbatim, and once again performed more poorly on the conceptual questions — whether they’d gotten the instructions to avoid word-for-word notes or not.

the laptop users performed similarly on factual questions, but significantly worse on conceptual ones

Both of these studies, though, eliminated a key benefit of laptop note-taking: the ability to look over a much more complete set of notes while studying. So as a final test, the researchers had students watch a seven-minute lecture (taking notes either on a laptop or by hand), let a week pass, then gave some of the students ten minutes to study their notes before taking a test.

Having time to study mattered — but only for students who’d taken notes by hand. These students did significantly better on both conceptual and factual questions. But studying didn’t help laptop users at all, and even made them perform slightly worse on the test.

The researchers explain this by noting previous research showing the act of note-taking can be just as important as a later study of notes in helping students learn.

When done with pen and paper, that act involves active listening, trying to figure out what information is most important, and putting it down. When done on a laptop, it generally involves robotically taking in spoken words and converting them into typed text.

Laptops are also incredibly distracting

Brett Jordan

This new research suggests that even when students aren’t doing anything else, taking notes on a laptop hinders their ability to learn. This is something of a surprise.

What isn’t a surprise, though, is that real-life students that use laptops seldom focus on the lecture.

research shows students who use laptops perform more poorly in classes

You probably know this if you've looked across a lecture hall recently. But in case you want confirmation from professionals, research on both undergrads and law students has shown that those who use laptops have something unrelated to class up on their screens around 40 percent of the time. Ultimately, they perform more poorly in classes and rate themselves as less satisfied with their college educations.

None of this is rocket science. You’re on the internet right now, and there’s a good chance you’re reading this article while distracted from work you’re supposed to be doing. I work on the internet all day and still find it immensely distracting — and at times, I turn it off to focus on something.

But the crazy thing is that the many college students being distracted by their laptops are simultaneously paying tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of doing so.

Science and common sense are both pretty clear here. If you want to learn something from a class or lecture — or, from that matter, a meeting, conference, or any other situation where you’re basically sitting and listening — you’re best off taking notes with pen and paper.

Read more : Re-reading is inefficient. Here are 8 tips for studying smarter.

• Science of Everyday Life

Most Popular

• Did Ukraine just call Putin’s nuclear bluff?
• Mark Zuckerberg’s letter about Facebook censorship is not what it seems
• Georgia’s MAGA elections board is laying the groundwork for an actual stolen election
• How is Kamala Harris getting away with this?
• The hidden reason why your power bill is so high

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Science

The privately funded venture will test out new aerospace technology.

Scientific fraud kills people. Should it be illegal?

The case against Medicare drug price negotiations doesn’t add up.

But there might be global consequences.

Covid’s summer surge, explained

Japan’s early-warning system shows a few extra seconds can save scores of lives.

Literacy Lines

Home » Literacy Lines » The Advantage of Taking Notes by Hand

The Advantage of Taking Notes by Hand

Research shows that taking notes by hand is more effective for remembering conceptual information over the long term than taking notes on a computer or laptop.

I recently read two pieces about research conducted by Mueller and Oppenheimer demonstrating that students who write out their notes on paper learn more than students who type notes on laptops. The first was in Scientific American  and the second was in KQED Public Radio News .

Because students can type significantly faster than they can write, those who use laptops in the classroom tend to take more notes than those who write them out. At first, this may seem like an advantage. However, when students take notes using laptops they tend to take notes verbatim, writing down every last word uttered by the presenter. This requires a different, less challenging type of cognitive processing than taking notes by hand. Because paper note takers can’t write everything down, they have to listen, digest, and paraphrase succinctly to capture information in notes. This “forces” their brains to be more active which in the end fosters stronger comprehension and long-term memory.

Mueller and Oppenheimer’s studies revealed that while both types of note-takers performed equally well answering questions that involved recalling facts, laptop note-takers performed significantly worse on conceptual questions.  The same results occurred even when the researchers told the students to avoid taking verbatim notes on the laptop, suggesting that the urge to do so when typing is hard to overcome. Basically, the shallow transcription that happens with typing notes fails to promote meaningful understanding or application of the information.

Access the studies published in the  Psychological Science Journal .

Implications for the Classroom

The obvious take away from these research findings is to encourage students to hand-write notes rather than type them on laptops. However, I think the finding about the importance of critical thinking and processing while taking notes is the more important take away that has implications for classroom note taking.

For example: Many teachers write notes on the board or in PowerPoints and ask students to copy these notes. Teachers may do this to be sure students get the most important, complete information in their notes. They may also do this because they recognize that too many students do not know how to take their own notes. The problem with this approach is that the teacher, not the students, is doing the thinking and processing. Copying notes, even if it is by hand, is simply transcribing without thinking.

Here is another example: Struggling readers and writers often have educational plans that recommend provision of notes as an accommodation for weak reading, listening, and writing skills. Teachers meet this requirement by giving students a set of the teacher’s notes or copying a set of notes taken by another student. Again, the problem is that these students are deprived of the opportunity to think about and process the information that goes into the notes.

What is the instructional solution?

Several Keys to Literacy professional development programs incorporate the use of two-column notes. This format lists main ideas in the left column and key supporting details in the right column. The format is easy to teach students; it is much harder to teach students the comprehension skills required to identify main ideas and relevant supporting details and the ability to paraphrase wording for notes in the students’ own words.

Here are some instructional suggestions:

• In order to learn note taking skills, students need explicit instruction in the foundational main idea skills. Explicit instruction includes modeling note taking by the teacher using think aloud to make obvious how to apply thinking and processing skills. Students also need lots of guided practice where they learn to improve how they comprehend and write notes. Opportunities to work collaboratively with other students to generate notes is also helpful.
• Along the way, teachers can provide scaffolds to support students who struggle with note taking. They just need to keep in mind that the scaffolds should enable students to do as much of the thinking as possible. For example, instead of giving students a set of completed notes to copy, the teacher can give students partially completed notes   – that is, some of the main ideas and details are provided, but others are not. Teachers can also provide lists of words and phrases that students can access to include in notes, but that still require them to determine where to include them in their notes.
• Students need lots of practice in order to develop fluent note taking skills. Teachers should require students to take notes whenever they read or listen to presentations related to classroom content. Requiring notes pushes students to be active readers and listeners, which will support deeper learning and long-term memory of content.

Here are some additional resources related to note taking instruction:

• Keys to Literacy Archived Newsletter, Volume 5
• Keys to Literacy YouTube training video
• How to Take Great Notes (Great!Kids)
• Take Note: Five Lessons for Note-Taking Fun (Education World)
• Joan Sedita

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Writing notes by hand remains an important skill now. We haven’t yet gone completely digital in our learning and daily lives to give up handwritten notes, it’s true. The skill of note-taking not only helps us to learn more effectively but also to develop our thinking. And it’s really our responsibility to teach kids exactly how to take notes, not dictation or word-for-word rewriting of a PowerPoint slide. https://primeyourpump.com/2018/11/06/note-taking-methods/ – this article describes the most common methods of taking notes. These methods can be scaffolds that help to develop the skill. And I would also like to mention that writing by hand has many advantages itself ( https://themanufacturingconnection.com/2020/11/20-ways-handwriting-helps/ ), and it certainly needs to support students in using pen and paper in the classroom.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• Digital Note Taking - Keys to Literacy - […] The Pen is Mightier Than the Keyboard, by Mueller and Oppenheimer, in my October 2015 post titled The Advantages…

Subscribe by Email

• Adolescent Literacy
• Brain and Literacy
• Close Reading
• College and Career Ready
• Common Core
• Complex Text
• Comprehension Instruction
• Content Literacy
• Decoding and Fluency
• Differentiated Fluency
• Differentiated Instruction
• Digital Literacies
• Disciplinary Literacy
• Elementary Literacy
• English Language Learners
• Grammar and Syntax
• High School Literacy
• Interventions
• Learning Disabilities – Dyslexia
• Middle School Literacy
• MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Support)
• PK – Grade 3 Literacy
• Professional Development
• RTI (Response to Intervention)
• Special Education
• Teacher Education
• Teacher Evaluation
• Text Structures
• Uncategorized
• Vocabulary Instruction
• Writing Instruction

Posts by Author

• Becky DeSmith
• Donna Mastrovito
• Brad Neuenhaus
• Shauna Cotte
• Amy Samelian
• Sue Nichols
• Stephanie Stollar
• Maureen Murgo
• melissa powers
• Sande Dawes
• Colleen Yasenchock

ACCESSING KEYS TO LITERACY PD DURING SCHOOL CLOSURES

We are closely monitoring the covid-19 situation and the impact on our employees and the schools where we provide professional development., during this time period when onsite, face-to-face training and coaching is not possible, we offer multiple options for accessing our literacy pd content and instructional practices., if you are a current or new partner, explore our website or contact us to learn more about:.

• Live virtual training, coaching
• Facilitated and asynchronous online courses
• Free webinars and resources

[email protected] 978-948-8511

• Arts & Culture
• Science & Technology

Davis, California

Handwritten notes can help cut down on study time

By OWEN RUDERMAN — [email protected] 

Like many students, I despise studying. I’ve looked up every trick in the book to try to help me stay focused and motivated, but to no avail. I always end up being sucked into the YouTube rabbit hole or doom-scrolling endlessly on my phone. But it turns out that you don’t have to do all of your studying after your lecture, back at your distraction-filled home. Instead, you can fight half the battle right in the classroom. And it starts with taking notes by hand.

I understand the appeal of taking notes on a laptop, trust me. It was so much easier and more convenient to take notes on the computer during the Zoom era of schooling. And it’s so much faster to type than it is to handwrite notes (at least for me). Also, I can easily access Canvas or my files if I have my laptop with me, and I can easily search the notes that I’ve written for key words or phrases. 

But the thing is, writing notes on a laptop is a dangerous game. It’s so much easier to be distracted when you’re taking notes on a laptop. I can play a game or watch a video in class instead of taking notes, just like I do at home when I should be studying. And because it’s so much easier and faster to type on a laptop, I find myself simply transcribing what the lecturer is saying and copying down what appears on the slides, instead of actually engaging with the material. 

This is where handwriting your notes comes into play. According to a 2014 study , students who took notes by hand ended up learning more effectively than those who took notes on their laptop. This research says that taking notes by hand allows students to summarize and organize information in their own words, ensuring a more organic understanding of the material. Because it’s harder to write fast, and because the physical action of writing with your hands requires you to actively condense and summarize, handwriting notes forces you to absorb the information in your own way and compress it into the core concepts.

Of course, taking notes by hand is not an option for all students. And everyone learns differently and has methods for taking notes that work best for them. It’s entirely possible that the best way to take notes for some is on a laptop. The main idea behind the research is that improvements in learning result from engaging more personally and intentionally with the material. For me personally, I’ve found that taking notes by hand has improved my ability to do that.

Since coming back to in-person classes, I’ve personally experienced the benefits of taking notes by hand. I bought notebooks for each of my classes, and forced myself to physically write. I noticed that handwriting notes made it much easier for me to study. I had already begun memorizing and understanding the material during the lecture, instead of having to go back and review notes that I mindlessly transcribed from slides.

I’m not saying you have to rule out all technology when it comes to note-taking, though. In fact, I think there is a better alternative to writing on paper that strikes the perfect balance between writing by hand and using a laptop: tablets. I haven’t seen this discussed anywhere, but it seems like common sense. If it’s the physical act of writing notes by hand that improves learning, then it shouldn’t matter what surface you write the notes on. And it’s always handy to be connected to the internet to bring up any readings or to answer any questions. All you need to do is download a free note-taking app and you’re good to go. 

Tablets come with a variety of benefits but can be cost-prohibitive for many students. Cheaper tablets go for around $150, but higher quality tablets like iPads go for anywhere between $500 to $900 . And if you want to take handwritten notes on an iPad, an Apple Pencil will cost you another $130 . In light of this, UC Davis should implement a tablet loaner program for students, similar to their laptop loaner program in 2020. 

Everyone should give physical note-taking a try, especially if they are struggling with comprehension or studying. However, everyone learns differently and for some, the benefits outweigh the costs. It just doesn’t work for me. The core thing to take away here is: handwritten notes or not, engaging thoughtfully with the material is what matters.

Written by: Owen Ruderman — [email protected] 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Articles

Campus News

Arts & culture, science & tech, best of davis, diversity report, senior issue.

©2021, ASUCD. Designed by Creative Media.

More From Forbes

Four reasons to take notes by hand.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Holberton  Co-Founder: training Software Engineers, providing high-quality education to the most.

As an entrepreneur, my days are filled with a flow of information that I need to remember: meeting notes, tasks assignment, ideas. As a tech enthusiast and as someone whose handwriting isn’t the best, I have been taking notes on my computer since college. But about two years ago, I decided to switch to pen and paper.

Don’t get me wrong; taking notes on a computer or smartphone has many advantages: unlimited writing space and the ability to access notes across multiple devices, share and search them, or back them in the cloud. However, over the years, I felt increasingly uncomfortable taking notes digitally. While I could not understand why at first, it hit me during a meeting: I felt like my colleague taking notes on his computer was not paying attention to our conversation.

That is when I decided to give a shot at what I was so happy to give up a decade ago: taking notes by hand. Along the way, I have discovered many pros of using ink versus a keyboard, from business to relaxing ones.

1. Avoid Distraction

My co-worker taking notes during our meeting was probably listening to me, but I cannot say for sure. Our digital devices are full of distractions: emails, notifications and those cute kitten pictures. It is very easy to get our attention dragged away from what we need to pay attention to. And while some of us might think that they can do it all – listen and pay attention while answering a Slack message – science suggests otherwise. Neuroscientist Earl Mille shares that "people can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves." Instead, we are switching our attention from task to task very quickly.

InnovationRx: Myocarditis From COVID-19 Is Much More Severe Than From Vaccination

New password hacking warning for gmail, facebook and amazon users, trump vs. harris 2024 polls: harris leads trump in latest post-dnc surveys.

Pen and paper are distraction-free. You won’t have to deal with the urge of quickly checking the notification that just popped up. Plus, your interlocutor is less likely to think that your note-taking is a distraction. Quite the opposite, it signals that you are paying attention and that what they say is of high quality because you are writing it down.

2. Better For Memory

Taking notes on your pad or via your keyboard affects your memory. Research co-led by professors from Princeton and the University of California showed that college students who took notes with pen and paper remembered more than those who used a computer. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal , handwriting also helps to retain visual elements and could be "a good cognitive exercise" for those who want to "keep their minds sharp as they age." It seems that our digital companions are so good at storing information that we don’t even bother remembering it. This may have unwanted long-term negative consequences, causing our memory to slowly erode – preventing us from remembering what matters.

3. Higher-Quality Notes

People who take notes on their laptops tend to type faster than those who write and end up taking verbatim notes , which involves a shallower form of cognitive processing. Those writing with pens tend to take shorter, straight-to-the-point notes. Paper also allows more flexibility: underlining, circling, connecting elements with arrows and doodling, offering a more comfortable note-taking experience that will also allow for faster reviewing when coming back to them.

4. Take Pleasure In The Craft

Writing is a craft, and while my handwriting has never been excellent, I took the time to invest in it. Writing on paper can have a relaxing effect; it’s distraction-free, and putting effort into producing beautiful handwriting can be satisfying. There is also a whole world to explore when it comes to writing instruments: fountain pens, rollerball, gel and ballpoints. What matters is to pick one that fits your style and needs. I decided to invest in a nice-looking rollerball pen, well suited to quick note-taking while allowing for smooth writing. When I work on something more thoughtful, I switch to my fountain pen, better suited for slow and sophisticated handwriting.

For those who are not ready to give up on the advantages that digital-note taking offers, don’t worry! Historical companies, such MontBlanc and Moleskine, or Silicon Valley ones, such Livescribe, offer the best of both worlds: a smart pen that will write on regular paper while recording everything digitally. And while you won’t enjoy as many choices when it comes to pen selection, it might outweigh the trouble of forgetting your notebook in a taxi. Technology always has the last word!

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The effects of the medium of notetaking on the delayed learning effect of college students: a mediated moderation model.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. participants, 2.2. material and measurements, 2.3. procedure, 3.1. descriptive analysis, 3.2. correlation analysis, 3.3. mediation and moderation analyses, 4. discussion, 4.1. relationship between notetaking medium and delayed learning effect under review-absent group, 4.2. relationship between notetaking medium and delayed learning effect under review-present group, 4.3. brief summary, 4.4. limitations and future research, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Zhang, W.-G. Preliminary Application of Electronic Notesin Project Teaching. Value Eng. 2014 , 33 , 256–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morehead, K.; Dunlosky, J.; Rawson, K.A.; Blasiman, R.; Hollis, R.B. Note-Taking Habits of 21st Century College Students: Implications for Student Learning, Memory, and Achievement. Memory 2019 , 27 , 807–819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ravizza, S.M.; Uitvlugt, M.G.; Fenn, K.M. Logged In and Zoned Out: How Laptop Internet Use Relates to Classroom Learning. Psychol. Sci. 2017 , 28 , 171–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mueller, P.A.; Oppenheimer, D.M. The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking. Psychol. Sci. 2014 , 25 , 1159–1168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gilanlioglu, I.; Ertay, Z. Taking images of notes by smartphone (TIN-S): A comparative study. Eğitim Teknol. Kuram Ve Uygul. 2021 , 11 , 308–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flanigan, A.E.; Wheeler, J.; Colliot, T.; Lu, J.; Kiewra, K.A. Typed Versus Handwritten Lecture Notes and College Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2024 , 36 , 78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiewra, K.A. A Review of Note-Taking: The Encoding-Storage Paradigm and Beyond. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1989 , 1 , 147–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, R.-Q. A Study about the Relationship between High School Class Notesand Mathmatic Grades. Master Degree Thesis, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bui, D.C.; Myerson, J.; Hale, S. Note-Taking with Computers: Exploring Alternative Strategies for Improved Recall. J. Educ. Psychol. 2013 , 105 , 299–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benton, S.L.; Kiewra, K.A.; Whitfill, J.M.; Dennison, R. Encoding and External-Storage Effects on Writing Processes. J. Educ. Psychol. 1993 , 85 , 267–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quade, A.M. An Assessment of Retention and Depth of Processing Associated with Notetaking Using Traditional Pencil and Paper and an On-Line Notepad during Computer-Delivered Instruction. In Proceedings of the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 1996; pp. 560–570. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED397825 (accessed on 27 April 2023).
• Braganza, A. Pencil or Pixel? iPad and Apple Pencil versus Pen and Paper Memory Retention in Grades 11-12. 2023. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378127417_Pencil_or_Pixel_iPad_and_Apple_Pencil_Versus_Pen_and_Paper_Memory_Retention_in_Grades_11-12?channel=doi&linkId=65c8274e79007454976fb368&showFulltext=true (accessed on 27 April 2023).
• Siegel, J. Pen and Paper or Computerized Notetaking? L2 English Students’ Views and Habits. Comput. Educ. Open 2023 , 4 , 100120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zimmerman, B.J.; Bandura, A. Impact of Self-Regulatory Influences on Writing Course Attainment. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1994 , 31 , 845–862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reddington, L.A.; Peverly, S.T.; Block, C.J. An Examination of Some of the Cognitive and Motivation Variables Related to Gender Differences in Lecture Note-Taking. Read Writ. 2015 , 28 , 1155–1185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rong, T.-S. Amos and Research Method ; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer, R.E. Information Processing Variables in Learning to Solve Problems. Rev. Educ. Res. 1975 , 45 , 525–541. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bjork, R.A. Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings. In Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing ; Metcalfe, J., Shimamura, A.P., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994; pp. 185–205. ISBN 978-0-262-27969-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conway, M.A.; Gathercole, S.E. Writing and Long-Term Memory: Evidence for a “Translation” Hypothesis. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A 1990 , 42 , 513–527. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiewra, K.A.; DuBois, N.F.; Christian, D.; McShane, A.; Meyerhoffer, M.; Roskelley, D. Note-Taking Functions and Techniques. J. Educ. Psychol. 1991 , 83 , 240–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flanigan, A.E.; Kiewra, K.A.; Lu, J.; Dzhuraev, D. Computer versus Longhand Note Taking: Influence of Revision. Instr. Sci. 2023 , 51 , 251–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flanigan, A.E.; Titsworth, S. The Impact of Digital Distraction on Lecture Note Taking and Student Learning. Instr. Sci. 2020 , 48 , 495–524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, L.; Kiewra, K.A.; Flanigan, A.E.; Peteranetz, M.S. Laptop versus Longhand Note Taking: Effects on Lecture Notes and Achievement. Instr. Sci. 2018 , 46 , 947–971. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bui, D.C.; Myerson, J. The Role of Working Memory Abilities in Lecture Note-Taking. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2014 , 33 , 12–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wood, A.K.; Bailey, T.N.; Galloway, R.K.; Hardy, J.A.; Sangwin, C.J.; Docherty, P.J. Lecture Capture as an Element of the Digital Resource Landscape—A Qualitative Study of Flipped and Non–Flipped Classrooms. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2021 , 30 , 443–458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marin, L.; Sturm, S. ‘Why Aren’t You Taking Any Notes?’ On Note-Taking as a Collective Gesture. Educ. Philos. Theory 2021 , 53 , 1399–1406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, Y.; Yu, Z. The Effect of Laptop Note-Taking on Students’ Learning Performance, Strategies, and Satisfaction. EJEL 2024 , 22 , 78–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flanigan, A.E.; Brady, A.C.; Dai, Y.; Ray, E. Managing Student Digital Distraction in the College Classroom: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2023 , 35 , 60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Witherby, A.E.; Tauber, S.K. The Current Status of Students’ Note-Taking: Why and How Do Students Take Notes? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2019 , 8 , 139–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khasanah, A.N.; Santosa, S.; Indrowati, M.; Septiyanto, A. Effect of Picture and Picture Integration with Guided Note Taking Accompanied by Optimization of Teaching Aids Learning Outcomes. Jppipa Pendidik. Ipa Fis. Biol. Kim. 2022 , 8 , 724–730. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arden, B.; Norris, J.; Cole, S.; Gamble, S.C. Digital Notetaking in Lectures: How Students Adapt to a Multi-Faceted University Learning Environment. Cogent Educ. 2024 , 11 , 2373552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Xu, L.; Cai, S.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Peng, S.; Andrasik, F. The Effects of the Medium of Notetaking on the Delayed Learning Effect of College Students: A Mediated Moderation Model. Behav. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090756

Xu L, Cai S, Liu Y, Chen J, Peng S, Andrasik F. The Effects of the Medium of Notetaking on the Delayed Learning Effect of College Students: A Mediated Moderation Model. Behavioral Sciences . 2024; 14(9):756. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090756

Xu, Lei, Shuangshuang Cai, Yanxi Liu, Jiwen Chen, Shun Peng, and Frank Andrasik. 2024. "The Effects of the Medium of Notetaking on the Delayed Learning Effect of College Students: A Mediated Moderation Model" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9: 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090756

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

When You Write

When The Best Way To Take Notes Is By Hand: Benefits Of Handwritten Notes

You may be thinking, ‘Why bother taking notes by hand when I can just type them up on my laptop or tablet?’

While technology has certainly made our lives easier in many ways, there are still some benefits to good old-fashioned pen and paper.

It has been shown that taking handwritten notes can actually improve your retention and understanding of information. So why is handwriting so effective? For one, it forces you to actively engage with the material.

You can’t just mindlessly copy down what the speaker or teacher is saying – you have to process the information and decide what’s important enough to write down. This process of filtering and summarizing information helps you better understand and remember it.

Additionally, handwriting is a slower process than typing, which can actually be a good thing.

It gives your brain more time to process the information and make connections between different ideas.

Key Takeaways

• Handwritten notes improve retention and understanding of information by engaging different parts of the brain and creating a cognitive connection between writing and content.
• Effective note-taking strategies include summarizing main ideas, synthesizing multiple sources, organizing notes with headings and bullet points, and using colors and highlighting to make important information stand out.
• When deciding between paper and digital note-taking, individual needs and preferences should be considered, as handwritten notes may be more effective for memory retention and focus, while digital notes may be more practical for easy search and organization.
• Note-taking tips include using abbreviations, breaking down notes into smaller sections, using different colors or highlighting, and considering the effectiveness of handwritten vs. digital notes for certain types of learning.

The Science Behind Handwritten Notes

Now, let’s dive into the science behind why taking handwritten notes is actually better for your brain than typing them on a computer.

Research has shown that the act of handwriting engages different parts of the brain than typing does. When you write by hand, you activate the motor cortex, which is responsible for hand movements. This, in turn, activates the sensory cortex, which processes tactile sensations like the feel of the pen on paper. These two areas of the brain work together to create a cognitive connection between the physical act of writing and the content being written.

On the other hand, typing does not require the same level of cognitive processing. With typing, the motor cortex is not as involved, and the sensory cortex is not activated in the same way. This means that there may be less of a connection between what you are typing and what you are trying to remember.

Additionally, typing can be more distracting than handwriting, as it is easier to switch between tasks and get sidetracked by notifications or other digital distractions.

Overall, it seems that the cognitive benefits of handwriting vs typing make handwriting a better choice for note-taking.

Active Listening and Engagement

When it comes to active listening and engagement, there are several key points to consider. First, processing information is a critical component of effective note-taking and retention. You must be able to understand and interpret the information before you can summarize and synthesize it into a meaningful format.

Second, summarizing and synthesizing require you to distill complex information into a concise and coherent summary, which can be challenging but essential for retaining information.

Finally, improving memory retention and recall is critical for effective note-taking and engagement, and there are several strategies you can use to enhance your memory, such as repetition and visual aids.

Processing Information

As you jot down notes by hand, your brain actively processes and organizes the information, creating a mental map that helps with comprehension. This is because when you write by hand, you engage in an active process that involves selecting and synthesizing important information, rather than just copying down everything you hear.

This cognitive processing helps to enhance your understanding of the material and improves your ability to recall it later on. In contrast, typing notes on a computer or other device can lead to a more passive process, as you’re more likely to simply transcribe what you hear without actively engaging with the material.

Additionally, research has shown that taking notes by hand allows for better retention of information and improved long-term memory, as the act of physically writing something down helps to solidify it in your mind. So, if you want to optimize your note-taking strategies and enhance your cognitive processing, consider picking up a pen and paper next time you need to take notes.

Summarizing and Synthesizing

By combining and simplifying information through summarizing and synthesizing, you can create a clear and coherent mental map of the material, allowing for easier comprehension and recall.

Effective strategies for summarizing include identifying the main idea of each passage or section and condensing it into a single sentence. This forces you to focus on the most important information and eliminates unnecessary details, making it easier to remember the material.

Synthesizing involves combining multiple sources of information to create a new understanding or perspective. This can be done by identifying common themes or patterns across sources and integrating them into a coherent whole.

Note-taking techniques that promote synthesis include creating concept maps or diagrams that show how different pieces of information are connected. This helps to see the big picture and how everything fits together, making it easier to understand and remember the material.

By using these effective strategies, you can take better notes and improve your comprehension and recall of the material.

Improving Memory Retention and Recall

Improving memory retention and recall is key to retaining important information and being able to recall it later on. This can be a game-changer for academic success and overall productivity. While note-taking techniques have evolved over the years, there’s no denying the fact that taking notes by hand remains one of the most effective ways to improve memory retention and recall. Here’s why:

• Handwriting engages different cognitive functions than typing, allowing you to process information more deeply and retain it better.
• Writing by hand allows you to better organize your notes and put them into your own words, which reinforces understanding and retention.
• Handwritten notes are more difficult to edit and revise, which forces you to be more selective about what you write down and promotes active listening and engagement.

Incorporating handwritten notes into your study routine can make a significant difference in your ability to recall information and perform well on exams. So next time you’re tempted to type out your notes, consider the benefits of taking them by hand instead.

The Benefits of Handwriting

Hey, did you know that jotting down notes by hand can actually boost your memory retention? It’s like a mental workout!

Research shows that when you write notes by hand, you’re more likely to remember the information compared to typing on a digital device. This is because writing by hand engages multiple areas of the brain, including the motor cortex, which helps with muscle memory.

Additionally, writing by hand allows for more personalization and creativity in note-taking. You can use different colors, underline, circle, or draw diagrams to help you visualize and remember key information.

Handwriting also slows down the note-taking process, allowing you to process and prioritize the information as you go. So next time you have an important meeting or lecture, consider taking notes by hand to boost your memory retention and creativity.

Practical Tips for Effective Note-Taking

Now that you know the benefits of handwriting, let’s talk about practical tips for effective note-taking. Whether you’re a student, a professional, or just someone who likes to take notes (even while sitting under a tree), there are some simple techniques you can use to make sure your notes are organized and easy to understand.

First, consider using abbreviations and symbols to save time and space. For example, instead of writing out the word ‘and,’ you could use the symbol ‘&.’ This can help you take notes more quickly and efficiently, and it can also make your notes easier to read later on.

Additionally, consider using abbreviations for common words or phrases that come up frequently in your notes. This can be especially useful if you’re taking notes in a fast-paced environment where you need to keep up with a lot of information at once.

To further enhance your note-taking skills, consider using organization techniques such as bullet points and headings. Breaking down your notes into smaller, more manageable sections can help you stay focused and ensure that you don’t miss anything important.

Additionally, consider using different colors or highlighting important information to make it stand out.

By using these techniques, you can create a set of notes that is not only easy to understand but also visually appealing and engaging.

And if all that was too much to read, here is a simplified (bullet list) for note-taking tips:

• Save time and space with abbreviations and symbols.
• Use abbreviations for common words or phrases.
• Break down your notes into smaller, more manageable sections with bullet points and headings.
• Use different colors or highlighting to make important information stand out.

When Digital Notes May Be More Appropriate

Sometimes it’s more practical to take digital notes, especially when you need to easily search and organize your notes. With digital notes, you can easily type in keywords and find the exact information you need in seconds.

Additionally, digital notes can be easily backed up and stored in the cloud, ensuring that you never lose your notes. However, there are also some cons to digital note-taking.

For instance, typing notes on a keyboard can be distracting and may prevent you from fully engaging with the material. Furthermore, digital notes may be less effective in terms of memory retention compared to handwritten notes.

Therefore, it’s important to consider the pros and cons of digital vs. paper notes and decide when to switch from paper to digital note-taking based on your individual needs and preferences.

One reason for this is that handwriting requires more cognitive processing than typing, as it involves the integration of visual, motor, and cognitive skills.

When we write by hand, we are more likely to summarize, synthesize, and rephrase information in our own words, which enhances our understanding and retention of the material. In contrast, typing encourages verbatim transcription, which can result in shallow processing and less effective learning.

So, the next time you’re in class or a meeting, consider reaching for pen and paper instead of your laptop or tablet. Not only will you be more actively engaged in the material, but you’ll also be doing your brain a favor by improving your memory and comprehension.

Remember, taking handwritten notes may take a little more effort, but the benefits are well worth it.

Recommended Reading...

Academic writing in resume: how to highlight your academic achievements, active vs passive note-taking: understanding the difference, can you claim resume writing on tax here’s what you need to know, best way to take notes in university: tips for success.

Keep in mind that we may receive commissions when you click our links and make purchases. However, this does not impact our reviews and comparisons. We try our best to keep things fair and balanced, in order to help you make the best choice for you.

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

© 2024 When You Write

There’s a powerful story behind every headline at Ohio State Health & Discovery. As one of the largest academic health centers and health sciences campuses in the nation, we are uniquely positioned with renowned experts covering all aspects of health, wellness, science, research and education. Ohio State Health & Discovery brings this expertise together to deliver today’s most important health news and the deeper story behind the most powerful topics that affect the health of people, animals, society and the world.  Like the science and discovery news you find here? You can support more innovations fueling advances across medicine, science, health and wellness by giving today.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY

• The Ohio State University
• College of Dentistry
• College of Medicine
• College of Nursing
• College of Optometry
• College of Pharmacy
• College of Public Health
• College of Veterinary Medicine
• Ohio State Wexner Medical Center
• Ohio State's Comprehensive Cancer Center – James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute

Subscribe. The latest from Ohio State Health & Discovery delivered right to your inbox.

Does ashwagandha reduce anxiety?

Nurse practitioner Ohio State Wexner Medical Center

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Linkedin
• Share via Email
• Share this page

Ashwagandha , an herb used in traditional Indian medicine for thousands of years, has drawn a lot of attention recently on TikTok, where some promote it as being a buffer against stress .

But is it really?

Many of my patients say it makes them feel calmer and they’re able to sleep better.

Ashwagandha has been shown in studies to improve sleep, lessen anxiety  and lower levels of cortisol, the hormone that responds to stress. You might benefit from taking ashwagandha if you’re living with mild daily stress , mild difficulty sleeping and perimenopausal symptoms.

What are the benefits of taking ashwagandha?

Ashwagandha comes from an evergreen shrub native to Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

It can help:

• Balance out your body’s response to stress
• Improve sleep
• Reduce chronic inflammation

Chronic inflammation may happen when your immune system stays triggered long after a threat is gone. This can cause damage to your cells and systems over time. Chronic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, can develop from chronic inflammation.

Ashwagandha side effects

Typically, people don’t experience side effects with ashwagandha. But side effects are possible, and they commonly include nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.

Who should not take ashwagandha:

• People who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant
• People with autoimmune disorders

If you’re considering taking ashwagandha, first consult with your health care provider, to talk about whether it might help, and if it might interact poorly with other medications you’re on.

How long does it take for ashwagandha to work?

That varies from person to person, just as it does when people try a new medication.

I recommend taking ashwagandha for at least three months to see if you notice a difference. Typically, in four to 12 weeks, you’ll notice feeling calmer and probably sleeping better.

The safety of taking ashwagandha beyond a year has not been studied, so it’s best to take breaks from the supplement. I usually recommend that people take it for six months, then follow up with their health care provider. If you decide to continue to take ashwagandha again after every six months to a year, take a break for one to four weeks before starting up on the herb again.

How much ashwagandha should I take?

Doses of the supplement range from 500 mg to 2,000 mg a day. It’s always best to start at a small dose, then if you have no side effects, you can move up, if necessary.

Ashwagandha comes in many forms — powders, pills, liquid and gummies — and it’s important to make sure the ashwagandha you buy has a label showing that it’s been tested by a third party, such as United States Pharmacopeia (USP).

Although all of the ashwagandha plant is edible, the plant’s root is what’s usually used in supplements. The leaf of the plant may be helpful. It’s just unclear how much medicinal value it offers.

Unlike medication, herbs aren’t required to go through the same process of testing and approval before they’re sold. So third-party testing is important, and various organizations including USP and ConsumerLab.com do third-party testing, randomly testing the supplement to see if it contains what the product label claims.

Is ashwagandha safe for your liver and kidneys?

If you take the appropriate amount your health care provider recommends and you don’t have any pre-existing conditions, ashwangandha will most likely be safe for your liver and kidneys.

When taking ashwagandha, your health care provider can have you take blood tests to make sure liver and kidneys work well.

Does ashwagandha make you emotionally numb?

Everyone reacts differently to herbs as well as medications. Some people are very sensitive to them. So, it’s possible that someone taking ashwagandha can feel numb to their emotions, but it’s not a common side effect.

Ashwagandha is not for everyone. Some people may need medication instead of ashwagandha or another supplement to help them deal with their anxiety and sleep problems.

For others, it just might be the right next step to bringing more calm into their days and nights.

Integrative medicine heals the whole person

Learn more about our programs and schedule an appointment.

• Ashwagandha ,
• Mental Exhaustion ,
• Mental Health ,
• Ohio State Wexner Medical Center ,
• Exercise and Nutrition

Related websites

Articles on wellness.

Eat veggies and protein first, carbs last through ‘meal sequencing’

By Jessica Hernandez, RD, LD

There’s a simple way to bring down your blood sugar levels by eating the veggies first, the carbs last.

Can I eat at a restaurant that uses peanut oil if I have a peanut allergy?

By Monica Kraft, MD

An Ohio State allergy expert explains what risks peanut oil poses to those allergic to peanuts.

The dangers of orthorexia

By Stacy Cleveland, RDN, LD

Explaining turmeric’s health benefits — and limitations

By Mary Mosquera Cochran, RD, LD

Does cooling starchy food after cooking really lower its calories?

By Kristine Dilley, RDN, LD

Get articles and stories about health, wellness, medicine, science and education delivered right to your inbox from the experts at Ohio State.

Required fields

By clicking "Subscribe" you agree to our Terms of Use . Learn more about how we use your information by reading our Privacy Policy .