Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
open access

Published: 26 July 2021

The Effect of Verbatim and Generative Notes Taken by Hand and Keyboard at University Level on Success and Persistence

Tahir GÜR

Gaziantep University, Turkey

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf



Pages: 132-141

Keywords: Handwriting, Keyboard Writing, Note Taking, Success, University Student


The lecturing instruction method stands out as the most used education method in university classrooms. Students and researchers have developed study techniques to reduce the disadvantages of this method to increase success at the undergraduate level. The most important, common, and traditional of them is taking note. The verbatim notetaking, which is widely used outside of the lesson, is seen as well as it is also seen that the note takers take it by generating them in their own way. With the development of technology in the notetaking process, it is seen that digital tools have become widespread in addition to the pen. In this study, the effects of generative and verbatim taking notes on success and its persistence were examined. The study group of the study consists of 116 education faculty students studying in Turkish and Social Sciences education programs. Within the scope of the research, demographic information will be presented to the participants in a way that does not violate personal privacy; In the analysis of the opinions, utmost attention was paid to the rules of scientific and research ethics, assuring that the participants will be coded in a way that does not evoke identity information. A pre-experimental study was conducted with four groups of 29 students. The groups made the verbatim and generative note taking with pen and keyboard. The first and second post-tests were applied to measure the success of taking notes during the lesson and its persistence. According to the results of the study, it was determined that taking notes with a pen by the generative method has more positive effects than using the keyboard or taking verbatim notes on both success and persistence.


  1. Aguilar-Roca N. M., Williams, E., O'Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers & Education59. 1300–1308. https://doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.002.

  2. Aragon-Mendizabel E., Delgado-Casas, C., Navarro-Guzman, J. I., Menacho-Jimenez, I. & Romero-Oliva, M. F. (2016). A comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in notetaking by university students. Media Education Research Journal,48, pp.99-107.

  3. Armbruster, B. B. (2009). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo, & D. C. Caverly (Eds.). Handbook of college reading and study strategy research(pp. 220–248). New York, NY: Routledge.

  4. Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 641-657.

  5. Bauer, A., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in online courses. Proceedings of the sixth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT'06)(pp. 789–793). Kerkrade, The Netherlands: IEEE Computer Society.

  6. Brown, C. M. (1988). Comparison of typing and handwriting in “two-finger typists.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,32(5), 381–385.

  7. Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note taking versus note having. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900–904.

  8. Charles Crook, Lindsey Bennett, Does using a computer disturb the organization of children's writing? Br. J. Dev. Psychol.25 (2) (2007) 313–321.

  9. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 279-310.

  10. Connelly, V., Gee, D. & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 77, 479–492.

  11. Cortada, J. (2015). Before the computer: IBM, NCR, Burroughs, and Remington Rand and the industry they created 1865–1956. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  12. Crawford, C. C. (1925). The correlation between college lecture notes and quiz papers. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 282–291.

  13. Crooks, S. M., White, D. R., & Barnard, L. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of note taking on computer-based graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 369–391.

  14. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 159–162.

  15. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: a meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3(4),422-433.

  16. Dennis Baron, A. (2009). Better Pencil: Readers, Writers, and The Digital Revolution,Oxford University Press, New York.

  17. Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Notetaking, Individual Differences, and Memory for Lecture Information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 522-532. doi:

  18. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relationships and their development. Educational Psychologist,35, 39–50.

  19. Freedman, S. W., Hull, G. A., Higgs, J. M., & Booten, K. P. (2016). Teaching writing in a digital and global age: Toward access, learning, and development for all. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1389–1450). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

  20. Graham, S. (2009/2010). Handwriting still counts. American Educator, 33, 20–27.

  21. Graham, S., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). Writing education around the globe: Introduction and call for a new global analysis. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 781–792.

  22. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 7–87.

  23. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J, & Graesser, A. C. (Eds) (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  24. Hensher, P. (2012). The Missing Ink: The Lost Art of Handwriting. Pan Macmillan, London.

  25. Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. T. (2005). Exploring differences in students' copy-and-paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 103–116.

  26. Ketelaar, E. & Ketelaar, F. C. J. (Eds.) (2006). Sign Here: Handwriting in the Age of New Media,Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

  27. Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative.Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.

  28. Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A. Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Notetaking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245.

  29. Konnikova, M. (2014). What's Lost as Handwriting Fades,New York Times, New York.

  30. Kordigel Aberšek, M., Dolenc, K., Flogie, A., & Koritnik, A (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: to teach or not to teach. Journal of Baltic Science Education,14 (4), 460-473.

  31. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J. M., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J. & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core State Standards. dards. In S.B. Neuman & L.B. Gambreil (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core Standards(pp. 219-236). Newark, DE: International Reading Association

  32. Longcamp, M., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., & Velay, J. L. (2005). Premotor activations in response to visually presented single letters depend on the hand used to write: A study in left-handlers. Neuropsychologia, 43 (12), 1801-1809.

  33. 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 Psychologica119(1), 67–79. doi:

  34. Mangen, A., Anda, L. G., Oxenborough, G. & Brønnick, K. (2015). Handwriting versus typewriting: Effect on word recall. Journal of Writing Research,7 (2), 227-247

  35. McQuiggan, S. W., Goth, J., Ha, E., Rowe, J. P., & Lester, J. C. (2008). Student notetaking in narrative-centered learning environments: Individual differences and learning effects. In B. P. Woolf, E. Aïmeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.).Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (ITS 2008)(pp. 510–519). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  36. Mueller, P. A. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science,25 (6), 1159-1168

  37. Naka, M. (1998). Repeated writing facilitates children's memory for pseudocharacters and foreign letters. Memory and Cognition,26, 804–809.

  38. Naka, M. & Naoi, H. (1995). The effect of repeated writing on memory. Memory and Cognition,23, 201–212.

  39. Neuman, S. B. & Gambrell, L. B. (Eds.), (2013). Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core Standards(219–236). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

  40. O'Hara, S. (2005) Improving Your Study Skills: Study Smart, Study Less. Wiley 57 -70 Cliffs Notes

  41. Peverly, S. T. & Sumowski, J. F. (2012). What variables predict the quality of text notes and are text notes related to performance on different types of tests? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 104–117.

  42. Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M. & Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 167–180

  43. Peverly, S. T. (2006). The Importance of Handwriting Speed in Adult Writing. Developmental Neuropsychology,29(1), 197-216.

  44. Piolat, A., Olive, T. & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive Effort during Note Taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291-312.

  45. Smoker, T. J., Murphy & Rockwell, A., K. (2009). Comparing memory for handwriting versus typing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53 (22), 1744-1747.

  46. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R. & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning Constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation,10 (2), 117-139.

  47. Spiro, R. J. (2004). Principled pluralism for adaptive flexibility in teaching and learning. In Ruddel, R. B. & Unrau, n. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading(5th Ed., 654-659). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

  48. Stefanou, C., Hoffman, L. & Vielee N. (2008). Note Taking in the College Classroom as Evidence of Generative Learning. Learning Environments Research, 11, 1-17. doi:

  49. Steimle, J., Brdiczka, O., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2009). Collaborative Paper-based Annotation of Lecture Slides. Educational Technology & Society,12, 125-137. doi: 9.27

  50. Sülzenbrück, S., Hegele, M., Rinkenauer, G. & Heuer, H. (2011). The Death of Handwriting: Secondary Effects of Frequent Computer Use on Basic Motor Skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(3), 247-251. doi:

  51. Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.New York: Academic Press.

  52. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2008). Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and Instruction,Vol 16, No.1, 79