Taking Notes in The Digital Age

Taking notes in the Digital Age:
Evidence from Classroom Random Control Trials
Benjamin Artz, Marianne Johnson, Denise Robson, Sarinda Taengnoi Siemers
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Existing studies of how note-taking tools affect student learning typically find that students who
choose to take notes on a computer perform worse on assessments than students who take notes on
paper. To our knowledge, the literature has not disentangled whether this result is due to the note-
taking process itself, or instead due to the characteristics of students who choose to use computers
to take notes. In order to answer this question we employ a within-subject random control trial
experiment and conclude that taking notes on computers does not have a statistically meaningful
impact on student performance.
Key Words: Computers, Classrooms, Note-Taking, Experiment
Corresponding author: Marianne Johnson, Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin

Oshkosh. Email: johnsonm@uwosh.edu. Phone: (920) 424-1441. Mailing address: Department of
Economics, College of Business, 800 Algoma Blvd., UW Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI, 54901, USA.
1

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

Taking notes in the Digital Age:
Evidence from Classroom Random Control Trials
Introduction
The ability of computers to improve pedagogical outcomes has long been debated, and their
use in taking notes is increasingly prevalent. Yet, although taking notes is considered a vital part of
learning, particularly in lecture-oriented courses, the effectiveness of taking notes via computers is
unresolved. Latent student characteristics may be associated with course performance as well as the
choice to take notes via computer. This complicates the existing literature’s efforts to measure the
effect of computer note-taking on academic performance. We deconstruct this problem by
employing a within-subject random control experimental design. Our experiment is operationalized
in the classroom by requiring students to take notes using paper in one trial and computers in
another. We then record, compare and analyze student performance on related assessments. The
results of our analysis indicate that for typical students, taking notes on the computer does not lead
to poorer performance on quizzes or exams in an introductory microeconomics course, even in
situations with questions that involve mathematical or graphical representations or analysis. Our
finding has important implications for introductory business instructors wrestling with students’ use
of computers in the classroom.
We begin the paper by briefly surveying the related literature on note-taking, and then follow
by describing the experiment, data, and the methodology. In the next section we present the results
of our study using t-tests for group comparisons and ordinary least squares (OLS) fixed effects
regressions for greater insights into the data. We then analyze the students’ choice to use computers
2


and their opinions on computer note-taking. We conclude the paper by discussing the implications
of this study and avenues for future research.
Literature review
The use of computers in the classroom can improve student engagement and educational
outcomes by fostering active learning and improved collaboration (Efaw, Hampton, Martinez, &
Smith, 2004; Fried, 2008; Trimmel & Bachman, 2004; Wurst, Smarkola, & Gaffney, 2008). Yet
computers in the classroom also provide opportunities for distraction and, consequently, can have a
deleterious effect on course performance (Aguilar-Roca, Williams, & O'dowd, 2012; Hembrooke, &
Gay, 2003; Kraushaar, & Novak, 2010; Patterson & Patterson, 2017; Sana, Weston, & Cepeda,
2013).
Computers’ increasingly ubiquitous presence in classrooms is largely due to their use by
students for taking notes. The educational psychology literature suggests note-taking affects
academic performance through an “encoding function”, which is the process of generating
personalized, non-verbatim notes (Igo, Brunning, & McCrudden, 2005). Encoding requires
inference, integration, and structuring of the material being presented. Learning occurs because
students engage in selecting important information and summarizing it while still actively listening to
the lecture (Beck, 2014). The process of writing notes by hand is thought to be closely associated
with encoding and thus, hand-written notes are generally believed to be associated with better recall
than notes taken on a computer or other device (Olive & Barbier, 2017; Patterson & Patterson,
2017).
Most studies tasked with observing how note-taking behavior relates to information recall
take place in laboratory environments, often testing students on the same day the material was
presented (Beck, 2014; Bui, Myerson, & Hale, 2013; Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014; Olive &
Barbier, 2017; Sana et al., 2013; Wei, Wang, & Fass, 2014). Yet this approach may be problematic.
3


The artificiality and selection bias inherent in laboratory studies that, for example, test volunteers’
recall on TED talks (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014) or lectures on non-fiction books (Bui et al.,
2013) do not capture the reality of student life in the classroom (Harrison & List, 2004). While some
laboratory-based studies do offer course extra credit (Beck., 2014) or some nominal amount of
course participation points (Bui et al., 2013; Igo et al., 2005; Sana et al., 2013), others rely on
volunteers (Kiewra, Dubois, Christian, Mcshane, & Al, 1991; Olive & Barbier, 2017; Wei et al., 2014;
Wurst et al., 2008) or cash payments (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). This begs the question
whether laboratory results can fully inform on classroom outcomes.
Studies conducted in a classroom setting (field experiments) can overcome two important
issues that bedevil laboratory experiments. First, student recall and understanding is tested on a
timeframe consistent with a typical course schedule for giving quizzes and exams. Second, the stakes
become much more realistic in the classroom, as students’ grades – and hence their ability to move
forward with their university education – depend on recall and understanding of lecture content.
Patterson and Patterson (2017) leverage an institutional policy for a natural experiment at the U.S.
Military Academy and find that optional classroom computer use is negatively associated with GPA
outcomes across disciplines. In two additional field experiments, Fried (2008) and Aguilar-Roca et al.
(2012) allow students to self-select computer usage in the classroom. Both studies find that a
student’s choice to use computers to take notes during lectures is associated with lower course
performance. Carter, Greenberg and Walker (2017) find that for West Point Principles of
Economics students, those in sections allowed to take notes on a computer exhibited poorer
performance on the course’s common final exam (about 1.7 points on a 100-point scale). By
allowing students to choose their method of note-taking, field experiments conducted in the
classroom can still suffer from a variation of self-selection problems if the characteristics that lead
4


students to choose to take notes on the computer are also the characteristics that are associated with
poorer class performance (e.g., high distractibility).
Research question
Building on this previous literature, our research question is: does a student who uses a
computer to take notes in the classroom perform worse on course assessments than if (s)he would
have taken notes on paper?
Experiment design and methodology
Participants
We employed a within-subjects random control trial experiment design, or a variation of
what Harrison and List (2004) call a framed field experiment. The experiment was administered
during the Fall 2016 semester at a U.S. regional comprehensive university located in the Upper-
Midwest. Participation in the experiment included completing pre- and post-experiment surveys
designed to collect demographic information and information on student studying and note-taking
preferences.1 During this semester, all students in all five of the scheduled Principles of
Microeconomics sections participated in the study. Approximately 45 students were enrolled in each
section for an initial sample of 230. Three sections met for 60 minutes on Mondays, Wednesdays
and Fridays; the remaining two sections met for 90 minutes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Three of
the five sections met during the morning; the remaining sections met during the early afternoon.
Three different tenured professors used a whiteboard for primary instruction and Microsoft
PowerPoint slides as supplements to teach the five sections. Scores on the experiment’s multiple-

1
We had some mild attrition over the course of the semester, losing 11 students across all five
sections. This rate was statistically equivalent to the attrition rate for introductory microeconomics at
our university for all sections over the past two years.
5


choice exam and quiz questions factored substantially into students’ course grades. Thus, students
were incentivized to treat the experiment and its assessments seriously.
Experimental design
A fourth tenured professor met with each section on two separate, rigorously scheduled
occasions for our experimental trials. For each trial, the fourth instructor lectured for the first thirty
minutes of class on a topic that, although common to introductory economics courses, could be
taught as a small, independent and stand-alone unit. These topics were not covered by the primary
instructors at all.2 The first topic was Consumer Theory and involved a short lecture on indifference
curves and budget constraints as an extension of demand analysis. The second topic was Income
Inequality as measured by Lorenz Curves and Gini Coefficients. The primary instructors could
answer specific questions about the topics and remind the students that they would be covered on
quizzes and exams. The primary instructors did not otherwise elaborate on these topics in lectures.
Students in each section were randomly assigned to one of two groups based on whether the last
digit of their student identification (ID) number was odd or even. In Trial 1, students whose ID
ended with an odd digit (ODDS) were instructed to use laptop computers to take notes, while the
second group (EVENS) were instructed to take notes on paper (Figure 1). Students could choose to
use their own paper notebooks or laptop computers. Paper, pencils and university laptops were
supplied to any student who requested them. ODDS could take notes using whatever computer
program they preferred, though most used Microsoft Word. In the second trial, which occurred
approximately one month later, the ODDS and EVENS reversed their note-taking restrictions.

2
Both topics are discussed in brief chapters in the recommended textbooks (Hubbard & O’Brien,
any edition; Miller, any edition; McEachern, 2017).
6


This within-subjects random control trial experimental design provides a distinct advantage over
studies that rely on either self-choice of computer use or studies that assign a student a single option.
First, because we randomly assign a note-taking method, sample selection bias is negated. Second,
because each student had to take notes using both paper and a computer, we are able to capture the
within-subject (same person) effect of switching note-taking tools. Though previous studies have
examined the actual notes taken by students for ‘number of ideas recorded’ or ‘number of words
recorded’ or other content measures, our experimental method obviates the necessity for this
because each individual takes notes using both methods. Thus, our design can test whether taking
notes by computer is more detrimental to assessment scores than taking notes by paper-and-pencil
for an individual student.
Figure 1
Experimental design
Must Take Notes on a Must Take Notes on
Trial Laptop Computer Paper
Trial 1 Odds Evens
(Topic = Consumer Theory) (N = 127) (N = 103)
Trial 2 Evens Odds
(Topic = Economic Inequality) (N = 103) (N = 127)
Instructor 4 taught the same material to all five sections and followed a highly structured
lecture outline using only the classroom whiteboard. Students were notified by their primary
instructor that they would be quizzed on their knowledge of the lecture material during the next
class period (in two days’ time). Students were also told the material would be covered on the next
course exam (two to three weeks later). Thus, the students were acutely aware that their knowledge
7


of the lecture material would affect their course grade. Primary instructors observed students
throughout the experimental lectures to ensure note-taking compliance.
While the instructors set their own grading schemes, course schedules and textbooks,
everything related to the experiment was highly controlled, including the dates of the lectures and
quizzes, and the relative value of experimental points in the total course grade. Since we are only
interested in how students performed on the quiz and exam questions related to the special lecture
(trial) material, other variations in class organization are irrelevant to our study.
Quiz and exam performance data
Identical ten-question, multiple-choice quizzes were administered in each section two days
after the experimental lecture to test student recall. The questions are representative of typical
introductory economics questions and are much like what is found in a standard textbook question
bank. Students faced an additional two multiple-choice questions on the experimental lecture topic
seeded into instructor-specific exams.
Patterson and Patterson (2017) suggested that students in quantitative courses would
experience a greater penalty from taking notes on computers rather than paper. Mueller and
Oppenheimer (2014) supported this finding by showing that laptop note-takers perform equivalently
on recall questions but worse on quantitative questions relative to paper note-takers. Cognizant of
these concerns, and because mathematical and graphical content are standard in the course, we
identify a subset of three to four quiz questions in each trial that require a greater level of
quantitative knowledge (as compared to more definitional questions).
Data Collection
8


Students completed pre-experiment and post-experiment surveys that provide demographic
data along with information regarding student note-taking and studying preferences. The pre-
experiment survey was done on the first day of class when the experiment was explained. The post-
experiment survey was completed on the same day as the last quiz.
Summary statistics are presented in Table 1. Our random selection mechanism placed
roughly 55% of the students in one group (ODDS) and 45% in the other (EVENS). While one
might suppose that each group should be essentially the same size, a random selection process need
not guarantee this. More than 90% of students attended the special lectures. Women made up 36%
of the sample. Most students were sophomores and with the average slightly over 20 years of age.
The average student grade point average (GPA) was 3.145 and the mean ACT composite test score
was close to 23. Most of the students work while attending school; the average number of hours
worked per week during the semester was slightly over 11 hours.
Mean quiz grades were approximately 80% for each trial of the experiment; mean scores for
exam questions exhibited more variation with an average of less than one question correct in trial 1
and 1.3 questions correct in trial 2 (out of two total questions). We provide these separately and
summed into a “total” score (73.3% for trial 1 and 77.5% for trial 2). In addition, Table 1 reports the
average number correct from the subset of questions identified as “quantitative”. Students score
slightly lower on the quantitative questions, but the difference is not statistically significant.
Table 2 provides summary statistics separately by group allowing for simple unconditional
comparisons. The similarity in characteristics between the ODD and EVEN groups is indicative of
the randomness of our sorting. The groups are statistically insignificantly different from each other
in terms of gender, race, age, scholastic ability as measured by GPA or ACT score, and outside work
effort. We note that attendance in trial 2 decreased slightly in the group scheduled to take notes
9


using a computer. There is no clear reason for this, other than normal midterm attrition, and the
difference is not statistically significant.
Results
Examination of t-tests
Since the treatment and control groups were randomly assigned, unconditional mean
comparisons offer a meaningful and statistically relevant way to examine how note-taking influences
recall. In order to test for a statistically significant difference in assessment scores by note-taking
method, we first employ simple, unpaired two-sample t-tests.
Table 3 presents the results of these t-tests (Ho: mean (handwritten) – mean (computer) =
0). The columns successively offer group means for each assessment. The first row of Table 3
features t-tests that assume equal variances in the groups’ scores. While a simple F-test fails to reject
the null hypothesis of equal variances between the groups’ scores, we also include t-test mean
comparisons that assume unequal variances in row 2. Insofar as we are measuring how note-taking
behavior affects assessment scores, it is also prudent to provide mean comparisons between groups
consisting only of students that attended each lecture. These results are presented in Row 3.
We are not able to discern statistically significant differences between paper and computer
note-taker assessment scores in any of the group comparisons. Our t-tests indicate that when
students are randomly assigned to take notes by computer, it does not, in fact, lead to lower
assessment scores. These findings suggest that it may be the choice to take notes by computer that is
driving the negative results in previous studies, and not the computer notes, per se.
OLS fixed effects regression results
10


While indicative, mean comparisons offer few insights regarding the lack of difference
between our groups. For example, t-tests cannot identify by how much note-taking method
influences assessment scores. To identify effect magnitudes, we employ OLS fixed effects regression
analysis.
Our experiment’s design allows us to measure changes to assessment scores from switching
between note-taking methods. Our within-subject design randomly assigns a student to take notes
by one method for one lecture-assessment pair (trial 1), and then assigns the same student to switch
methods for a second lecture-assessment pair (trial 2). This unique feature allows us to isolate the
effect of taking notes by computer for an individual student, abrogating the influence of choice.
Though actual examination of course notes could prove an interesting extension as to why
differences might occur, in this study we narrowly focus on the question of whether an individual
student performs differently when taking notes using a different method.
If taking notes by computer negatively affects student scores in actual classroom settings,
then within-student (fixed effects) OLS estimations should result in statistically significant negative
coefficients on the computer note-taking indicator variable.3 Random assignment of groups means
that other covariates should be unnecessary to assess performance.
We proceed by first standardizing assessment scores, done by fitting them to the standard
normal distribution using all observations, where:

. Student scores are thus measured in

terms of standard deviations from the mean of each assessment. We identify the change in a

3
A fixed effects model controls for any unobserved, time-invariant factors (fixed effects) associated
with an individual such as gender, race, ACT scores, etc. In doing so, the variation related to those
factors are removed, which then allows us to observe within-individual variation explained by the
computer note-taking.
11


standardized assessment score when a student switches between note-taking methods. Table 4
presents the results for our four assessment measures (quiz questions, exam questions, combined
total and the quantitative subset). We do this for the whole sample and then once more including a
control that identifies students who attended a lecture and completed the quiz versus those who did
not attend the lecture but still completed the quiz.
The estimated coefficients are uniformly negative. They suggest that students taking notes
on computers scored between 0.03 and 0.12 of a standard deviation lower than students taking notes
on paper (roughly equivalent to 0.2 of a quiz question or 0.02 of an exam question worse). The
results are remarkably robust even when controlling for attendance. However, none of the results
are statistically significant, meaning we cannot conclude that the estimated coefficients are
meaningfully different from zero. Additionally, none of the results are of a magnitude that is
practically significant in determining final grades. In other words, a typical student taking notes by a
computer performs in a statistically equivalent way to when the same student takes notes on paper.
Discussion
Computers or the choice to use computers?
To our knowledge, studies thus far have been unable to separate the student’s choice to take
notes on a computer from the process or effect of taking notes on a computer. As noted earlier,
previous studies conflate the two due to problems of experimental design and/or self-selection bias.
That we find no statistically significant difference in recall by individual students across computer
and paper note-taking tools suggests that the negative impact of computer note-taking is related to
the choice of students to use a computer in the classroom and not how notes are taken.
This suggests that students who choose to take notes by computer may harbor latent
characteristics correlated with lower assessment scores than students who opt to take notes on
12


paper.4 In order to test this hypothesis we use the pre-experiment survey to identify the students
who primarily use laptop or tablet computers to take notes. Our small sample of only 18 computer
note-takers constrains our ability to draw statistically strong conclusions regarding these students’
characteristics relative to the remaining students. Nevertheless, the results in Table 5 offer some
suggestive evidence that students who choose computers are somewhat different from students who
choose paper, and that these differences may correlate with lower assessment scores.
Based on these sometimes statistically significant differences between computer and paper
note-takers, we might presume the computer note-taking students would perform worse on
assessments, regardless of note-taking tool. Indeed, Table 6 presents estimates of simple OLS
regressions controlling only for students’ choice of primary note-taking tool. Like previously cited
studies, we allow characteristics that correlate with assessment performance and the likelihood to
choose computers for note-taking to vary between students. The often statistically significant
negative coefficient on the single control in the regressions cannot isolate whether it is the student’s
individual-specific characteristics that are causing lower assessment scores or the method of note-
taking the student chooses.
Student opinions of note-taking
Aguilar-Roca et al., (2012) found that students had strong and largely uniform opinions
about use of computers in the classroom. We also find remarkable homogeneity of opinion across
our students regarding computer use. At the beginning of the semester 92.1% of our students
reported that they prefer to take notes on paper. Only one student took notes on a tablet with an
attached keypad, and seventeen students (7.5%) reported that they usually take notes on their

4
Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) surmise that students more susceptible to distraction or students
with lower impulse control may be both more likely to choose to take notes on the computer and
more likely to fare poorly in the course, even when controlling for other factors.
13


laptop.5 This is significantly lower than the estimated 25% to 30% of students using computers for
note-taking reported by Aguilar-Roca et al. (2012).
Although 89.2% of students responded that they felt hand-written notes were associated
with better quiz and exam performance, not one student who primarily used computers to take
notes planned on switching to use paper and pencil after completing our experiment. Among
primary paper and pencil note-takers though, 2.7% decided to switch to using computers. In a more
general form of the question, 89.7% of students believed that hand-written notes were associated
with better quiz and exam scores for “the class in general.” Some of the student responses were
driven by the content of the course: 88.7% of students believed they “wrote down” less
mathematical or graphical content when using the computer. Overall, 41.9% of students agreed with
the statement that some methods of note-taking are better for some classes than others (7.39% of
students reported that electronic and paper note-taking were equivalent; 49.3% agreed with the
statement that taking notes by hand is superior; and 1.5% believed taking notes electronically was
superior). From these results it appears the students did not change their views on their method of
note-taking as a result of this experiment.
Conclusions
This paper attempts to answer whether the process of taking notes on the computer leads to
poorer test scores. Many existing studies demonstrate that students taking notes on computers
perform worse than students taking notes on paper. However, these studies’ experimental designs
and self-selection problems arrest their ability to disentangle whether the lower test scores are due to
the students’ choice to take notes on a computer or the process of taking notes on the computer.

5
Despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, zero students reported “I do not regularly take notes”
on the pre-experiment survey and only 7.9% rated their note-taking skills as poor (zero rated their
note-taking skills as “very poor”).
14


Our experiment tackles such shortcomings by requiring each student in the sample to participate in
both types of note-taking. The results reveal that the process of computer note-taking does not have a
statistically significant impact on student performance on multiple-choice quizzes and exams.
Our results highlight important avenues for future research. There is little comprehensive
understanding about why the choice to use laptops correlates with negative assessment outcomes.
We show, albeit with a very small sample, that students who choose to take notes on the computer
may be poorer students. The New York Times reported “The research is unequivocal: Laptops
distract from learning, both for users and for those around them” (Dynarski, 2017), but little has
been done to study whether the distractions are associated with a student’s choice to take notes
using a computer.
Where does this leave the typical introductory economics or business instructor? Instructors
should not ban computers and presume students will perform better if they are compelled to take
notes by using paper. Students view computers in the classroom positively and are strongly opposed
to laptop bans (Nemetz, Eager, & Limpaphayom, 2017). Fried (2008) suggests educators examine
how they can maximize student learning in a digital environment and minimize student distractions
from learning. For example, instructors can recommend software applications that allow students to
transform a tablet computer into computerized paper, or alternatively how to use a digital pen on a
tablet. They can help students to be more engaged in their note-taking by providing them with an
outline of a lecture. In either case, students can benefit from the cognitive process of handwriting
while still being able to take advantage of the conveniences offered by computers, especially for
storing and sharing lecture notes. Although the evidence supporting the benefits of taking notes
using computers is weak or nonexistent, computers are increasingly important in classrooms and are
not going away. Instructors need to be willing to work with their students to increase the efficacy of
their computer use.
15


16


References
Aguilar-Roca, N.M., Williams, A.E., & O'dowd, D.K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on
student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computer & Education, 59(4), 1300-1308.
Beck, K. (2014). Note Taking Effectiveness in the Modern Classroom. The Compass, 1(1), 1-14.
Bui, D.C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative
strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 299-309.
Carter, S.P., Greenberg, K., & Walker, M.S. (2017). The impact of computer usage on academic
performance: Evidence from a randomized trial at the United States Military Academy.
Economics of Education Review, 56(C), 118-132.
Dynarski, S. (2017, November 22). Laptops are great. But not during a lecture or a meeting. The New
York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/business/laptops-not-
during-lecture-or-meeting.html
Efaw, J., Hampton, S., Martinez, S., & Smith, S. (2004). Miracle or menace: Teaching and learning
with laptop computers in the classroom. Educause Quarterly, 27(3), 10 – 19.
Fried, C.B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computer & Education,
50(3), 906-914.
Haley, M.R., Johnson, M., & Mcgee, M.K. (2010). A framework for reconsidering the Lake
Wobegon Effect. The Journal of Economic Education, 41(2), 95-109.
Harrison, G.W., & List, J.A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009-1055.
Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in
learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46-64.
Hubbard, R.G. & O'Brien, A.P. (2006). Microeconomics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Igo, L.B., Bruning, R., & Mccrudden, M.T. (2005). Exploring differences in students' copy-and-paste
17


decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
97(1), 103-116.
Kiewra, K.A., Dubois, N.F., Christian, D., Mcshane, A., & Al, E. (1991). Note-taking functions and
techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240-245.
Kirschner, P.A., & Karpinski, A.C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(6), 1237-1245.
Kraushaar, J.M., & Novak, D.C. (2010). Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops
during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241-251.
McEachern, W. A., & Trost, S. C. (2017). Econ micro: Principles of microeconomics. Boston, MA: Cengage
Learning.
Milller, R.L. (2016). Economics Today: Student value edition. New York, NY: Pearson.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard. Psychological
Science, 25(6), 1159-1168.
Nemetz, P. L., Eager, W. M., & Limpaphayom, W. (2017). Comparative effectiveness and student
choice for online and face-to-face classwork. Journal of Education for Business, 92(5), 210-219.
Olive, T., & Barbier, M. (2017). Processing time and cognitive effort of longhand note taking when
reading and summarizing a structured or linear text. Written Communication, 34(2), 210-219.
Patterson, R.W., & Patterson, R.M. (2017). Computers and productivity: Evidence from laptop use
in the college classroom. Economics of Education Review, 57(C), 66-79.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N.J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for
both users and nearby peers. Computer & Education, 62, 24-31.
Trimmel, M., & Bachmann, J. (2004). Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students
in laptop classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 151-158.
18


Wei, F.F., Wang, Y.K., & Fass, W. (2014). An experimental study of online chatting and notetaking
techniques on college students’ cognitive learning from a lecture. Computers in Human
Behavior, 34, 148-156.
Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education:
Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors
and traditional classrooms. Computer & Education, 51(4), 1766-1783.
19


Table 1
Summary statistics
Variable description Obs. Mean
(St Dev.)
Computer 1: assigned to use computer in trial 1 ODDS 230 0.552
(0.498)
Computer 2: assigned to use computer in trial 2 EVENS 230 0.448
(0.498)
Attendance 1: attended lecture in trial 1 230 0.930
(0.255)
Attendance 2: attended lecture in trial 2 230 0.913
(0.282)
Female: = 1 if student is a woman and 0 otherwise 228 0.360
(0.481)
Non-white: = 1 if student’s race is not white and 0 otherwise 228 0.105
(0.308)
Age: age of student in years 227 20.251
(2.936)
GPA: cumulative college grade point average (at start of the 225 3.145
semester)a (1.727)
ACT: student composite ACT score 213
22.732
(3.140)
Hours: number of hours per week student works for pay 226
11.280
(11.703)
Quiz 1: score on trial 1 quiz (out of 10) 220
8.018
(1.627)
Quiz 2: score on trial 2 quiz (out of 10) 215 7.972
(1.694)
Quantitative Subset 1: score on trial 1 quiz subset 220 2.808
Questions (2), (4), (7) and (8) (1.018)
Questions (4), (7) and (10) (0.756)
Exam 1: score on trial 1 exam questions (out of 2) 223 0.767
(0.722)
20


(0.761)
Total 1: sum of trial 1 quiz and exam scores (out of 12) 217 8.806
(1.903)
(2.028)
GPA: cumulative college grade point average (at start of the 225 3.145
semester)a (1.727)
ACT: student composite ACT score 213 22.732
(3.140)
Hours: number of hours per week student works for pay 226 11.280
(11.703)
(1.627)
(1.694)
Questions (2), (4), (7) and (8) (1.018)
Questions (4), (7) and (10) (0.756)
(0.722)
(0.761)
(1.903)
(2.028)
a
We rely on student-reported GPA and ACT measures rather than institutional data. Haley,
Johnson, & McGee (2010) demonstrate that self-reported and institutional measures of
GPA and ACT scores are distributionally equivalent and can therefore be used
interchangeably in research of this type.
21


Table 2
Summary statistics by group
Variable Computer Group in Trial 1 Computer Group in Trial 2

ODDS EVENS
Female 0.376 0.340
(0.486) (0.476)
Non-white 0.128 0.078

(0.335) (0.269)
Age 20.097 20.437

(1.985) (3.780)
GPA 3.289 2.970

(2.293) (0.452)
ACT 22.839 22.600

(3.323) (2.908)
Trial 1 Trial 2
Computer Paper group Computer Paper group

Variable group (EVENS) group (ODDS)
(ODDS) (EVENS)
Attendance 0.929 0.932 0.883 0.937
(0.259) (0.253) (0.322) (0.244)
Quiz Score (Out of 10) 7.924 8.129 7.916 8.017

(1.688) (1.553) (1.760) (1.645)
Quantitative Subset Score 2.831 2.782 2.295 2.375

(Out of 4; Out of 3) (1.032) (1.006) (0.770) (0.745)
Exam Score (Out of 2) 0.754 0.782 1.323 1.333

(0.742) (0.701) (0.740) (0.781)
Total Score 8.675 8.960 9.213 9.390

(Quiz + Exam, Out of 12) (1.995) (1.786) (2.047) (2.017)
22


Table 3
Unpaired two-sample t-tests
Trial 1 assessments Trial 2 assessments
Model Quiz 1 Exam 1 Total 1 Quantitative Quiz 2 Exam 2 Total 2 Quantitative

Subset 1 Subset 2
(1) Equal 0.928 0.288 1.1 -0.35 0.433 .098 0.631 0.773
variances (0.355) (0.773) (0.273) (0.727) (0.666) (0.922) (0.529) (0.441)
{220} {223} {217} {219} {215} {219} {212} {215}
(2) Unequal 0.934 0.290 1.109 -0.35 0.430 0.098 0.630 0.770
variances (0.351) (0.772) (0.269) (0.727) (0.668) (0.922) (0.530) (0.442)
{220} {223} {217} {219} {215} {219} {212} {215}
(3) If students 1.030 0.259 0.986 -0.119 0.619 0.741 0.984 1.245
attended (0.304) (0.796) (0.325) (0.906) (0.537) (0.460) (0.326) (0.214)
each lecture {208} {209} {207} {207} {203} {202} {200} {203}
(equal
variances)
Note. Ho: mean(handwritten) - mean(computer) = 0.

Format: t-statistic, (p-value in parentheses), {number of observations in brackets}
23


Table 4
Fixed effects OLS regressions of standardized scores (z scores)

All Students Controlling for Lecture Attendance
Variable Quiz Exam Total Subset Quiz Exam Total Subset
-0.123 -0.027 -0.119 -0.056 -0.123 -0.025 -0.119 -0.055
Computer notes
(-1.47) (-0.37) (-1.53) (-0.61) (-1.49) (-0.34) (-1.54) (-0.59)
0.688*** 0.067 0.491** 0.314

Attended class ----- ----- ----- -----
(3.12) (0.25) (2.25) (1.16)
0.061 0.013 0.059 0.278 -0.590*** -0.050 -0.406** -0.270
Constant
(1.47) (0.37) (1.53) (0.61) (-2.82) (-0.20) (-1.98) (-1.06)
Observations 435 442 431 437 435 442 431 437
R-squared 0.002 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.029 0.002 0.023 0.007
F-statistic 2.16 0.13 2.34 0.37 5.62*** 0.10 3.36** 0.79
Note. t-statistics are in parentheses; *** indicates statistical significance at better than the 1% level (p < 0.01); ** indicates
statistical significance at better than the 5% level (p < 0.05). Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors are clustered at the
individual level.
.
24


Table 5
Select descriptive statistics by note-taking preferences: mean (st. dev.)

Computer Paper
Variable preference preference
(n = 18) (n = 212)
Attendance: = 1 if student attended both trial lectures 0.722 0.882

and 0 otherwise (0.461) (0.324)
Note-taking skills: = 1 if “very good” (best chosen 0.000*** 0.118***

category) and 0 otherwise (0.000) (0.323)
0.722 0.811
Note-taking skills: = 1 if “good” and 0 otherwise
(0.461) (0.392)
Note-taking skills: = 1 if “poor” (lowest chosen category) 0.278* 0.061*

and 0 otherwise (0.461) (0.240)
Study habits: =1 if student studies notes several times 0.500 0.656
before every assessment (best chosen category) and 0
otherwise (0.514) (0.476)
Useful notes: = 1 if student thinks notes are typically 0.333* 0.580*

“very useful” for performing well in courses and 0
otherwise (0.485) (0.495)
Note. We test for statistical significance in the characteristics’ differences between groups using
unpaired two-sample t-tests, assuming unequal variances when necessary, and the null
hypothesis: Ho: mean(paper preference) - mean(computer preference) = 0. t-statistics are in
parentheses; *** indicates statistical significance at better than the 1% level (p < 0.01); **
indicates statistical significance at better than the 5% level (p < 0.05). Heteroskedasticity
robust standard errors are clustered at the individual level.
25


Table 6
Simple OLS assessment scores controlling only for primary note-taking tool
Trial 1 assessments Trial 2 assessments
Quiz 1 Concept Exam 1 Total 1 Quiz 2 Concept Exam 2 Total 2

Variable Subset 1 Subset 2
Computer -0.721* -0.063 -0.230 -0.939** -0.645 -0.367** -0.152 -0.810**

preference (-1.807) (-0.264) (-1.354) (-2.200) (-1.636) (-1.978) (-0.670) (-2.108)
Constant 8.074*** 2.813*** 0.785*** 8.880*** 8.020*** 2.367*** 1.340*** 9.372***

(70.877) (38.956) (15.527) (65.831) (66.426) (44.254) (25.409) (63.622)
Observations 220 219 223 217 215 215 219 212
R-squared 0.014 0.000 0.008 0.018 0.010 0.016 0.003 0.011
F-statistic 3.26* 0.07 1.83 4.84** 2.68 3.91** 0.45 4.44**
Note. t-statistics are in parentheses; *** indicates statistical significance at better than the 1% level (p
< 0.01); ** indicates statistical significance at better than the 5% level (p < 0.05). Heteroskedasticity
robust standard errors are clustered at the individual level.
26


Pre-Experiment Survey
Please answer the following questions by recording your answer on the provided scantron sheet.
There are 4 questions at the end of the survey which ask you to fill in the blank.
1. I identify my gender as
a. Female
b. Male
c. Other
2. My college class status is

a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior
e. Super Senior
f. Other
3. I identify my racial or ethnic background as

a. Black
b. Hispanic/Latino(a)
c. Native American
d. Asian/Pacific Islander
e. Caucasian/White
f. Other
4. To the best of my knowledge, I am eligible for federally-funded financial aid such as Pell
Grants, loans, or work-study.
a. Yes
b. No
5. I am a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces.

a. Yes
b. No
6. I am currently employed for pay on or off campus (for 5 hours or more per week).
a. Yes
b. No
7. When taking notes in class, I primarily use

a. Pen/pencil and paper (notebook)
b. A tablet computer with keyboard
c. A tablet computer with stylus
d. A laptop computer
e. I do not regularly take notes
8. I would rate my note-taking skills as

27


a. Very good
b. Good
c. Poor
d. Very Poor
9. When the instructor speaks I will typically

a. write down everything the instructor says
b. write down some of the things the instructor says
c. write down none of the things the instructor says
10. When the instructor writes on the board I will typically

a. write down everything written on the board
b. write down some of the things written on the board
c. write down none of the things written on the board
11. When taking notes on topics that involve graphical analysis or mathematics, I
a. Copy everything exactly, including labeling axes and all mathematical steps, even if I
know how to do the problem
b. I copy most of the material in the graph or most of the mathematics
c. I sketch the graph or just write down the main equation
d. I don’t usually make notes of graphs or math
12. How often do you consult your lecture notes to study for scheduled exams or quizzes?
a. I consult my notes several times prior to every assessment
b. I consult my notes only once prior to every assessment
c. I consult my notes prior to most, but not all, assessments
d. I consult my notes prior to assessments only when I am unsure of the subject matter
e. I rarely consult my notes
f. I never consult my notes
13. How useful would you say your notes typically are for performing well in your courses?
a. Very useful
b. Somewhat useful
c. Not very useful
d. Not useful at all
Please record your answer to the following questions in the accompanying blanks. If you are not
sure, please record to the best of your ability.
14. My age is ______________
15. My current cumulative college GPA is ____________
16. My composite ACT or SAT score was _____________
17. How many hours do you work for pay in an average week during the semester?
____________
28


Post-Experiment Survey
1. Which method of note-taking do you think was associated with better quiz and exam scores
for yourself?
a. hand-written notes on paper
b. notes taken electronically on a laptop, tablet, or phone
c. no note-taking, but listening to lectures
d. hand-written notes and electronic notes are equivalent (there is no difference)
2. Based on your experiences this semester, are you

a. more likely to switch your note-taking habit and take notes by hand and on paper in the
future
b. more likely to switch your note-taking habit and take notes electronically (computer,
tablet, phone, etc.) in the future
c. unlikely to change your note-taking habits
3. For the class in general, which method of note-taking do you think was associated with
better quiz and exam scores?
a. hand-written notes on paper
b. notes taken electronically on a laptop, tablet, or phone
c. no note-taking, but listening to lectures
d. hand-written notes and electronic notes are equivalent (there is no difference)
4. When taking notes electronically, what method did you use?

a. I typed my notes in Word or an equivalent program
b. I used a stylus and tablet to take notes
c. I used another program or method
5. When you were asked to take notes electronically, you found

a. the note-taking harder than expected
b. the note-taking easier than expected
c. neither harder nor easier than expected
6. When taking notes about graphs or mathematics electronically, you

a. ‘wrote down’ less than you would if you had taken notes by hand (e.g. not label axis, not
use subscripts, not label lines in the graph)
b. ‘wrote down’ as much as you would if you had taken notes by hand
c. ‘wrote down’ more than you would if you had taken notes by hand (e.g. labeled more
lines, wrote more descriptive explanations, used subscripts, labeled more lines on the
graphs)
7. Please indicate which statement you agree with the most

a. taking notes by hand and electronically are both equally good methods
b. taking notes by hand is superior
c. taking notes electronically is superior
d. some methods are better for some classes than others
29


8. Please rate the following statement on a scale of “a” to “e”, with “a” being “I am not at all
distracted” and “e” indicating “I am highly distracted.”
I am distracted when students around me use their computers or tablets in class.
a b c d e
Not at all distracted Highly distracted
9. Please indicate which of the following statements best reflects your attitude about
participating in this study.
a. I highly enjoyed participating in this study
b. I generally enjoyed participating in this study
c. I was indifferent to participating in this study
d. I did not enjoy participating in this study
e. I strongly disliked participating in this study
10. Did you borrow a university laptop to take notes for either of the consumer behavior or
inequality lectures?
a. Yes
b. No
13. Did having the extra credit available from the experiment alter the amount of effort you
put into this course, relative to your other courses?
a. Yes
b. No
14. Did you ever feel the need, because of the experiment’s design, to study with a student in
the other group (for instance, if you are even, you wanted to study with an odd)?
a. Yes
b. No
30


Trial 1 Quiz and Exam Questions
1) An indifference curve shows all combinations of two goods that

A) are equally preferable by a consumer
B) a consumer does not prefer to purchase
C) could be available to the consumer in a given time period
D) a consumer could buy with a given income
2) On the graph above, when the budget line shifts from BL2 to BL1, the consumer whose
preferences are shown in the graph above will buy
A) More of K and more of L
B) Less of K and less of L
C) More of K and less of L
D) Less of K and more of L
3) Which of the following happens to a consumer’s budget line if that consumer’s budget
(income) increases? The budget line _____________.
A) becomes steeper
B) shifts farther away from the origin of the graph
C) becomes more horizontal
D) shifts closer to the origin of the graph
31


4) The graph above indicates that the consumer prefers combination
A) A more than B.
B) C more than B.
C) B more than D.
D) D more than A.
5) All points on or below a budget constraint

A) are attainable with the given income.
B) are equally desirable.
C) represent market basket combinations that exhaust the income available.
D) are described, in part, by answers a, b, and c above.
6) When the price of a product rises, consumers shift their purchases to other products whose
prices are now relatively lower. This statement describes.
A) the rationing function of prices
B) the substitution effect
C) the law of supply
D) the income effect
7) As long as all prices remain constant, an increase in money income results in

A) an increase in the slope of the budget line.
B) a decrease in the slope of the budget line.
C) an increase in the intercepts of the budget line.
D) a decrease in the intercepts of the budget line.
32


8) In the above figures, which one reflects an increase in the price of chicken?
A) Figure A
B) Figure B
C) Figure C
D) Figure D
9) In the above figures, which one reflects an increase in the consumer’s income?
A) Figure A
B) Figure B
C) Figure C
D) Figure D
10) The substitution effect explains that when the price of a good increases, consumers will
consume
A) less of the good and more of some other good
B) more of the good and less of some other good
C) more of the good because their real incomes are lower after the price increase
D) less of the good because their real incomes are higher after the price increase
33


Trial 1 Exam Questions
1) On the graph above, if the budget line shifts from BL2 to BL1, it is because the price of
A) K increased
B) K decreased
C) L increased
D) L decreased
2) The graph above indicates that the consumer

A) at point A is indifferent between a of apples and b of butter
B) at point A is consuming either a of apples or b of butter.
C) is indifferent between a of apples plus b of butter on the one hand and c of apples
plus d of butter on the other.
D) is correctly described by all of the above.
34


Trial 2 Quiz and Exam Questions
1) When a Lorenz curve is as far away from the equality line as possible, there is
A) perfect income equality.
B) perfect income inequality.
C) a Gini coefficient close to zero.
D) an equal distribution of income.
2) The closer the Gini coefficient is to zero, the

A) greater the degree of income inequality.
B) less the degree of income inequality.
C) greater the degree of discrimination.
D) less the degree of discrimination.
3) Compared to the distribution of income, the distribution of wealth is

A) about the same
B) much more equal
C) much less equal
D) a little more equal
4) Which of the following statements is false?

A) The Lorenz curve expresses the relationship between cumulative percentage of
households and cumulative percentage of income.
B) If there was perfect income equality, the Lorenz curve would be a 45-degree line.
C) The Gini coefficient is a measurement of the degree of inequality in the income
distribution.
D) The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 100.
5) The Lorenz curve for the United States economy has:

A) shifted further away from the line of equality over the years.
B) shifted toward the line of perfect equality over the years.
C) equaled the line of perfect equality in recent years.
D) become a vertical line in recent years.
6) The Lorenz curve is helpful in visualizing the:

A) Tradeoff between unemployment and inflation
B) Relationship between the prices received and paid by farmers
C) Degree of inequality in the distribution of income
D) Relationship between education and income
35


7) According to the graph above, which curve shows the most unequal distribution of
income?
A) A.
B) B.
C) C.
D) D.
8) The Gini coefficient:

A) measures the relative extent of poverty in a nation.
B) compares the income of persons, households, or households at the 90th percentile
of the income distribution to the income at the 10th percentile.
C) is a numerical measure of the overall dispersion of income in a nation.
D) is a ratio consisting of (in the numerator) the entire area below and to the right of
the equality line in a Lorenz diagram and (in the denominator) the area between
the equality line and Lorenz curve.
9) Which of the following Gini coefficients indicates the highest degree of income
inequality?
A) 0.78
B) 0.65
C) 0.29
D) 0.42
10) Which of the following statements is true?

A) If the Gini coefficient is large, then the space between the Lorenz curve and the
line of perfect income equality will be small.
B) If the Gini coefficient is 1.00, then the Lorenz curve and the line of perfect
income equality coincide.
C) If the government succeeds in decreasing income inequality, then the Gini
coefficient will decrease.
D) If the Gini coefficient is 0.50, then one-half of the households earn one-half of the
income, and the other half of the households earn the other half.
36


Trial 2 Exam Questions
1) Refer to the above diagram where curves (a) through (e) represent five different countries. If
curve (c) reflects the Lorenz curve in the U.S., which curves would reflect the Lorenz curve
of Brazil and of Canada?
A) curve (b) for Canada and curve (d) for Brazil.
B) curve (d) for Canada and curve (b) for Brazil.
C) curve (a) for Canada and point (e) for Brazil.
D) point (e) for Canada and curve (a) for Brazil.
2) Wealth in the United States is:

A) distributed in a way that reduces the degree of income inequality.
B) more unequally distributed than is income.
C) less unequally distributed than is income.
D) distributed in a way that has no effect on income inequality.
37


38

OLS Full Specification Cross-Sections
Mean Trial 1 Assessments Trial 2 Assessments

(St. Dev.) Quiz 1 Exam 1 Quiz 2 Exam 2
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Computer -0.209 -0.104 -0.108 0.079
(-0.979) (-1.043) (-0.472) (0.788)
Attendance 0.940 -0.099 1.108* 0.045
(1.509) (-0.410) (1.948) (0.191)
Female -0.493** 0.254** -0.113 -0.008
(-1.996) (2.179) (-0.444) (-0.071)
Non-white -0.395 0.042 -0.222 -0.116
(-0.990) (0.203) (-0.580) (-0.610)
Age -0.093* -0.027 -0.131 -0.049*
(-1.725) (-0.862) (-1.442) (-1.904)
ACT 0.094* 0.065*** 0.154*** 0.051***
(1.807) (3.743) (4.222) (3.406)
GPA 0.167*** -0.007 -0.025 -0.005
(4.256) (-0.427) (-0.864) (-0.461)
Hours 0.004 -0.001 -0.001 0.001
(0.329) (-0.163) (-0.133) (0.205)
Sophomore: = 1 if student is a sophomore and 0 0.548 -0.104 -0.019 0.230 0.087
otherwise (0.499) (-0.398) (-0.161) (0.882) (0.775)
Financial aid eligible: = 1 if student is eligible for 0.826 0.231 0.064 -0.894*** -0.003
financial aid and 0 otherwise (0.380) (0.724) (0.452) (-3.278) (-0.024)
Veteran: = 1 if student is an armed forces veteran 0.013 0.833 -0.360 0.874* 0.438*
and 0 otherwise (0.114) (1.370) (-1.457) (1.712) (1.670)
Computer preference: = 1 if student primarily uses a 0.078 -0.148 -0.337* -0.599 -0.351*
computer or tablet to take notes and 0 otherwise (0.269) (-0.337) (-1.822) (-1.034) (-1.781)
Very good note-taker: = 1 if student thinks she is 0.109 0.373 0.110 0.149 0.218
a very good note-taker and 0 otherwise (0.312) (0.941) (0.701) (0.475) (1.403)
Poor note-taker: = 1 if student thinks she is a poor 0.078 -0.098 0.155 0.145 -0.080
note-taker and 0 otherwise. (0.269) (-0.198) (0.743) (0.270) (-0.305)
Writes all instructor says: = 1 if student writes down 0.139 0.216 -0.039 0.165 -0.185
all the instructor says and 0 otherwise (0.347) (0.773) (-0.283) (0.584) (-1.442)
Writes all instructors writes: = 1 if student writes 0.748 -0.201 -0.025 0.184 0.020
down all the instructor writes and 0 otherwise (0.435) (-0.788) (-0.208) (0.704) (0.172)
Writes all math and graphs: = 1 if students writes all 0.691 0.139 0.090 -0.311 0.041
math and graphs from the lecture and 0 otherwise (0.463) (0.534) (0.796) (-1.216) (0.358)
Studies often: = 1 if student studies notes several 0.643 -0.221 0.166 0.110 -0.050
times before each assessment and 0 otherwise (0.480) (-0.938) (1.541) (0.457) (-0.496)
Notes are useful: = 1 if students thinks her notes are 0.561 0.373 0.019 0.890*** 0.076
very useful and 0 otherwise (0.497) (1.527) (0.176) (3.601) (0.770)
Section 2 0.009 -0.452*** 0.188 0.570***

39

(0.026) (-2.920) (0.522) (3.402)
Section 3 -0.065 -0.113 -0.147 0.618***
(-0.222) (-0.722) (-0.396) (3.974)
Section 4 -0.404 -0.166 0.295 0.788***
(-0.972) (-0.998) (0.783) (5.450)
Section 5 0.314 -0.057 -0.389 -0.086
(0.949) (-0.341) (-1.121) (-0.509)
Constant 6.418*** -0.134 6.370*** 0.642
(3.247) (-0.160) (2.672) (0.825)
Observations 202 204 198 202
R squared 0.183 0.196 0.299 0.337
F-stat 2.58*** 2.76*** 4.30*** 6.35***
t-statistics are in parentheses; *** indicates statistical significance at better than the 1% level (p < 0.01); ** indicates
statistical significance at better than the 5% level (p < 0.05); * indicates statistical significance at better than the 10% level
(p < 0.10). Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors are clustered at the individual level.

Taking Notes in The Digital Age

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Taking Notes in The Digital Age

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taking Notes in The Digital Age

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taking notes in the Digital Age:

Evidence from Classroom Random Control Trials

Benjamin Artz, Marianne Johnson, Denise Robson, Sarinda Taengnoi Siemers

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

impact on student performance.

Key Words: Computers, Classrooms, Note-Taking, Experiment

Corresponding author: Marianne Johnson, Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

Evidence from Classroom Random Control Trials

effect of computer note-taking on academic performance. We deconstruct this problem by

employing a within-subject random control experimental design. Our experiment is operationalized

to poorer performance on quizzes or exams in an introductory microeconomics course, even in

of computers in the classroom.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

of this study and avenues for future research.

Computers’ increasingly ubiquitous presence in classrooms is largely due to their use by

academic performance through an “encoding function”, which is the process of generating

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

whether laboratory results can fully inform on classroom outcomes.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

poorer class performance (e.g., high distractibility).

have taken notes on paper?

Experiment design and methodology

We employed a within-subjects random control trial experiment design, or a variation of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

were incentivized to treat the experiment and its assessments seriously.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

for an individual student.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

throughout the experimental lectures to ensure note-taking compliance.

Quiz and exam performance data

seeded into instructor-specific exams.

quantitative knowledge (as compared to more definitional questions).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

difference is not statistically significant.

method, we first employ simple, unpaired two-sample t-tests.

OLS fixed effects regression results

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

student performs differently when taking notes using a different method.

that other covariates should be unnecessary to assess performance.

normal distribution using all observations, where:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

not attend the lecture but still completed the quiz.

Computers or the choice to use computers?

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

taking the student chooses.

Student opinions of note-taking

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

note-taking reported by Aguilar-Roca et al. (2012).

note-taking as a result of this experiment.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

statistically significant impact on student performance on multiple-choice quizzes and exams.

their computer use.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3036455

strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 299-309.

0.688* 0.067 0.491 0.314

Note-taking skills: = 1 if “very good” (best chosen 0.000* 0.118*

Computer -0.721* -0.063 -0.230 -0.939 -0.645 -0.367 -0.152 -0.810**

Constant 8.074* 2.813* 0.785* 8.880* 8.020* 2.367* 1.340* 9.372*

F-statistic 3.26* 0.07 1.83 4.84 2.68 3.91 0.45 4.44**