1

Crystal Gay

Quantitative Article Critique

Georgia Southern University

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. doi:10.1037/a0030367Bui, Myerson, and Hale (2013) conducted three experiments exploring the relationship of note-taking and recall. Each experiment was a 2 x 2 between-subjects design and included organized note taking versus transcription, computer versus hand writing, immediate testing versus delayed testing, and study versus no study. This was a quantitative study that had the following three goals: Compare test performance of students how take notes by hand to those who use a computer Compare effects of organized note taking to those who transcribe a lecture Examine how working memory is involved in the two strategies including looking at individual working memory differencesMethods for all three experiments were similar. All participants completed tasks to measure working memory, would take notes while listening to a recorded lecture, and were tested on the material. Each experiment had a 2 x 2 design. Correlational analysis was performed for all three experiments. The authors found that for participants that took organized notes, working memory predicted quantity of notes, which in turn predicted recall. For participants who transcribed the lecture, only note quantity was a predictor of recall. They also state that those with poor working memory can take effective notes if they use a note-taking strategy.Participants completed a reading span task, a lexical decision task, and would listen to an 11-minute lecture that contained a passage from a nonfiction book. The authors utilized a scoring system created by previous researchers who used this passage. The system selected the main points of the passage and coded them as main points, important details, and unimportant details. Two types of tests were also used, free recall and short answer. Blind raters were used to score the free recall test and notes. Independent variable were the conditions that participants were placed while the dependent variables were performance on the text even at the end.Participants in the three experiments were undergraduate students, proficient English speakers, and received course credit for participation. Experiment 1 had 80 students (53 females and 27 males). Experiment 2 had 76 students (37 females and 39 males). Experiment 3 had 72 students (47 females and 25 males). Participants in Experiment 1 were put into one of the following conditions: organized note taking by hand, organized note taking by computer, transcription by hand, or transcription by computer. The authors found that notes taken by computer had more of the idea units, as did the transcribed notes. Those who took computer notes also had higher recall, as did those who transcribed. Computer note taking led to better text performance and transcribed notes also led to better performance. The authors also note that those who hand wrote notes did not write more if they were in the transcribing group. This is attributed to the physical limitation of handwriting. Those who used a computer to transcribe notes had the best performance in testing.Participants in Experiment 2 were put into the following groups: organized note taking with test delay, organized note taking with immediate testing, transcription with delayed testing, and transcription with immediate testing. Those in the delayed testing were tested 24 hours after the note-taking portion of the experiment. All participants used a computer and were randomly assigned to the delay groups. Those who transcribed notes took a greater quantity of notes. Recall was higher for those tested immediately than those who had delayed testing. Those who took organized note taking showed superior performance on the delayed test than the transcription group. As was the case in Experiment 1, those in the transcription group with a computer had better performance in the immediate testing. The authors state while trying to transcribe a lecture using a computer may be an immediately effective way to talk notes, the benefits of such a strategy can be very short-lived (p. 304).Participants in Experiment 3 were place in the following groups: organized note taking with study condition, organized note taking with no study condition, transcription with study condition, or transcription with no study condition. After the note-taking portion of the experiment half of the participants were told to study their notes for 5 minutes. All participants took the test 24 hours later. Participants allowed to study showed superior delayed recall in the transcription group. Those with no study time did better when they had taken organized notes.The authors went on to hypothesize that students with poor working memory should be able to utilize transcription as effectively as those with better working memory. To test this, they used data from all three experiments from the following four groups all who used a computer: organized notes/immediate testing, transcribed notes/immediate testing, organized notes/delayed testing, and transcribed notes/delayed testing. They also pulled data from experiment 3 where participants were allowed to study the material prior to the delayed testing. They found state that our findings suggest not only that transcribing using a computer can lead to superior immediate recall, but also that working memory does not play a role in the process (p. 306). In the delayed condition it was found the there was less forgetting with those who had a higher working memory. In the study condition with delayed testing those who transcribed the notes performed better. The overall conclusion in the article is that note quality (organized) versus quantity (transcription) both are important depending on the situation. Quantity is important with studying was allowed prior to a delayed test. When studying was not allowed quality was more important. The authors did a good job addressing concerns they had with the study. This included that participants may not have followed instructions in regards to what type of notes to take. They examined the notes provided to look for markers to indicate if the assigned method was followed and determined that they were. They also discussed how transcribing using a computer would not be beneficial to those who cannot type well. They also discuss how reasonable it would be to ask students to transcribe lectures. They end the article stating, research is needed on how individual differences interact with note-taking strategies so that students can be guided toward strategies that rely on cognitive abilities that they are stronger in, or toward strategies that depend less on the abilities they are weaker in. For students who have poor working memory, at least, help may be on its way (p. 308). The researchers identified an issue that could be helpful to those in education, which is strength. Other strengths include the authors detailed and easy to follow description of the methods used. The information was also given in a neutral tone and the literature review added to the information needed to understand what they authors wished to study. They also took the previous research and decided to further it in a way that had not been previously researched. The research used in the literature review help build the understanding of what the authors were interested in regarding note-taking and working memory.I believe the structure of the delayed testing and study/no study condition is a weakness if the authors wish to use their findings in real world scenarios. In the current higher education climate there is usually more than a 24-hour delay in testing. Also, students usually review material right before testing, not right after taking the notes and then not looking at them again. I do recognize that trying to design and carry out a study that would be reminiscent of the normal college experience would be very daunting and may not be possible. Another weakness is that it is not mentioned if the females and males were split evenly between the two groups in each experiment. Considering the amount of research regarding the difference in recall between the genders this information would be helpful to see if gender difference could have affected the data in any way. I am left feeling like the authors have a good start to something but were unable to find a solution. The authors only hypothesis was stated after all the experiments were completed and they pooled data from those experiments to look at it. That hypothesis was discussed very briefly, only stating that to find an effective note-taking strategy for those with lower working memory ability, these results may appear problematic. However, they come from participants who were not allowed to study their notes (p. 306). The author continues to discuss the effect of studying note and test performance but they had a very small sample and were unable to draw a conclusion. The authors do state that further research is needed regarding individual differences and note-taking strategies in order to help guide students into using strategies suited for their abilities. I feel the research is useful but it needs to be expanded for it can be applied. Improvements would have been to be mindful of gender differences and working memory and to speak in a little more detail toward the hypothesis. The methods were explained very well and the discussion following each experiment were excellent, but the general discussion section for the entire paper seemed lacking. In this section the authors did well in discussing possible future studies including the grasp of information on a conceptual level (p. 308). I also wonder if this research would include a survey of participants regarding stress levels during the note taking exercise. Transcribing can be very difficult and if the authors feel that it would be beneficial to those with poor working memory it would be advantageous to if this method of note taking add additional stress to the students.Overall, the article was well written and very descriptive. It was easy to follow the methods used and each experiment was explained well and had result section that helped to sum up each experiment. There are some unanswered questions, but it would be interesting to see more research into this topic.