There are studies that show that verbatim computer note taking is actually inferior to remembering the lecture content:
A Learning Secret: Don’t Take Notes with a Laptop
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret...
I think people should be careful when looking at such things. 'There are studies' is not really the same as 'there is scientific consensus with demonstrated repeatability'. Ultimately though, you can't tell someone they're doing it wrong when they're successful, so YMMV.
The first kind are notes that you take because the process helps memorize in that moment. The writing is a tool to help you manipulate and focus the idea in your head. The output is much less important than the experience. These are the records that -- in practice -- you will seldom go back to read.
The second kind are notes you take because you can't memorize them right now and plan to review or reuse them later in some way. When taking notes this way, you mentally avoid thinking too hard about what the note means, in order to copy it faithfully.
Personally, I think handwriting works better for the write-only notes, while typing (and copy-pasting, and links, etc.) are great for notes that are going to be reused later.
Additional benefits by using a laptop to take notes is that they are searchable, archived and accessible for however long you like, and sharable between classmates. Hand written notes can obviously be shared and archived as well, but nowhere near as easily.
That's exactly the point: you get a free exercise in divided attention, plus you are forced to digest your notes to only essentials, not full transcript of the lecture. That process is what makes handwritten notes superior - it forces you to focus and think, not just mindlessly type.
And for things that you didn't have time to note you still have a textbook. Handwritten notes are just outline, a basis to build upon.
I wonder how you do that - I can't imagine I would be able to make notes in LaTeX in real-time. To me, paper is just faster than any computer solution. Also sometimes you need to draw a diagram or arrow in the notes.
> Slowing down to a pace comfortable for you means, at least in my classes, that you'll miss the next thing in the presentation.
I was thinking about this recently. I teach (assembly programming) in our company using slideshow. But most teachers at my university used blackboard (for math). I am beginning to think that using blackboard is better, despite more effort, because it also forces the teacher to slow down.
Having worked on online learning applications since then, I still think that his was the best system for transferring complex knowledge in a classroom setting.
An example PDF that I found through a quick Google search: http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~jstiles/312/handouts/312_Introductio...
When I was in school I was often hard pressed to keep up with simple paper and pencil.
Only math is done in LaTeX, for clarification. They're rendered as images and imported into OneNote (via EqualX, if anyone's looking to do the same).
This doesn't work well in certain classes (e.g. math classes where you have to copy every word of a proof and analyze it later).
If you're at a computer looking for a reference then there are better sources available than hastily typed notes.
What makes handwriting different from typing in terms of memory recall, other than the fact that most, if not everyone, have written with pen and paper for far longer than typing?
Typing vs handwriting is like finding the right door in an unnumbered hotel vs a picturesque medieval town
I still don't get how that'd be any different. Location on a page corresponds with which notebook and section I may have taken notes down in OneNote, especially since you can also position notes all over the page.
All kinds of factors fit both of the media, IMO.
I spent my first year and a half of college at a community college. They arent exactly known for their academic rigor. However first semester I took World History 1. There were only like 3 tests and 5 Quizzes that made up our grade. The tests were not multiple choice or fill in the blank like some professors might do. They were several short essay questions and a long form essay. You would have a choice of like 6 short essay questions which you had to pick 3 to answer. and then had a choice of 3 long essay topics from which we had to pick one.
The Professor about 2 weeks prior to the exams gave us a handout of 12 short essay questions and 6 long essay questions. He randomized the questions that were on the test so that while we knew what questions were possibly going to be on the test we did not know which ones would. He also expected us to know both the facts such as people, places, dates and events. but also the concepts. If you only got the concepts but did not know the factual material you were in trouble and vice versa.
I took all my notes in that class on a laptop using OneNote 2003 (It came out right at the start of my first semester in college.)
As the semester went on I got into the habit of skimming over my previous notes for that class and adding annotations about connections to other concepts and facts in the class. I also would review my notes at the end of the day while it was still fresh in my mind, but had taken some time to digest the material to add things that I missed or make my notes more clear.
When it came time to start preparing for the tests the first thing I did was take my notes, create a new section in my notebook just for that test. I took all my notes for that test and instead of organizing them by lecture, i condensed them into a more concise and coherent form that linked all the different concepts and facts together. I also outlined my strategy for each question. Then I printed it out and put it in a ring binder, as I refined my notes, I printed out new copies for the binder. I probably printed about 200 pages for each test.
Maybe Writing them out would have been more effective for memorization in most cases. But to me there was simply too much information to memorize in one pass. and Wrot memorization was not going to cut in this class. I also think the fact that I was constantly working with those notes and synthesizing new material from them, replaced alot of the feedback loop of writing it all out by hand.
I learned a lot of history in that class. But more importantly I learned how to interpret requirements, sift through large amounts of information, making connections between that information and developing strategies to accomplish a goal.
Worked pretty well for most courses and meant I had explanations of everything come revise time. The only problem is it took about 4 years to really nail down the routine and by the time I had it perfect (I really wish I'd done it in first year), it was time to leave. Such is life.
The poster is doing this in addition to actually writing the notes - I've done something similar. Sometimes I take the initial notes on a computer. Later I hand-write them once or twice. Once immediately and once later on to narrow focus down on things I was having more trouble remembering.
The biggest benefit is that such a system gives some repetition. For me, this repetition is superior to only reading notes because I wind up working with the information physically as it changes form. I do get better results in some subjects if I work plenty of problems in addition to this - for example, foreign/second language and maths.
The only times I've found this sort of thing generally unhelpful is with things like music, art, and physical education/sports. These rely on a lot of muscle memory, and it is hard to get by writing.
The common thread in all of these is practice and review. The main difference is in the way they are carried out.
Typesetting gave me a set of digital, neat lectures notes (goodbye folders of paper). I also understood everything better because I'd read through it twice. Most importantly it was good bargaining material for skipping lectures and getting notes from other people.
I also flash-carded all my lectures in 3rd/4th year which undoubtedly bumped my grade up. The key was timing it so your peak recall was at the exam, given the volume of information. It was useless for long term memory though.
The full study is paywalled, but based on the SA article it had students take notes two ways, then tested them on retention and synthesis later - without any secondary study. That's not necessarily a good mirror for actual long-running courses.
I used both approaches in college. Longhand note-taking was vastly better for my retention of material, I don't dispute that. But computer transcription let me get everything, and sometimes that mattered more. I had to study more outside class when I typed, but I was aware of that and it was a worthwhile tradeoff for completeness.
Professors are not necessarily good, or even tolerable, at supporting effective learning strategies. They can click through dense Powerpoint slides faster than I can type or write. And they can refuse to release those slides, then test on material from them not available elsewhere. If writing means I get 60% and retain it, while typing means I get 90% and have to study further, typing wins without question.
More broadly, my take would be: many real classrooms are vastly less student-friendly than your average study environment. That changes what works.