Test format and timing moderate note-taking effects: congruent note-taking and testing modalities improved performance, and transcribed notes won only at immediate test¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Barrett et al. (2014) found participants whose note-taking and testing procedures were congruent (both writing or both typing) scored better than incongruent participants. → Jansen 2017
q2 i? Bui et al. (2013, study 2) found transcribed notes were best at immediate test but organised notes were better when the test was delayed 24 hours. → Jansen 2017 (2)
Evidence¶
Jansen 2017¶
Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.001
q2 · i? · review · r3
Narrative review of Barrett et al. (2014), in which participants watched a 15-minute lecture on APA style and answered 20 free response questions by computer or handwriting. The review reports a significant interaction without an effect size.
"Results showed a significant interaction effect. Those for which the note-taking and testing procedures were congruent (i.e., both writing or both typing) scored better on the free response test than participants in the incongruent conditions."
Jansen 2017 (2)¶
Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.001
q2 · i? · review · r3
Narrative review of Bui et al. (2013, study 2, n = 76), a 2x2 design with organised versus transcribed notes and immediate versus 24-hour delayed free recall tests. The review reports the crossover without an effect size.
"When administering the test immediately after the 11 minute lecture, performance was best with transcribed notes compared to the organised notes. When the test was delayed 24 hours after the end of the lecture, performance was better for people who had taken organised notes."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Laptop versus longhand note-taking effects are mixed: typing benefited memory in some studies but longhand benefited conceptual questions in others — related
- Lecture modality (written, audio, video, live) shows no consistent effect on memory for lecture content or on the note-taking effect — related
- Transcribed versus organised note-taking effects depend on lecture format: transcription won with audio lectures, summarising won with text — related
- Taking and reviewing handwritten notes yields slightly higher achievement than typing notes among college students, by one meta-analysis reported second-hand — related
- Typically developing children benefit from both handwriting and typing when learning novel words — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
test-format-timing-moderate-note-taking-effects |
title |
Test format and timing moderate note-taking effects: congruent note-taking and testing modalities improved performance, and transcribed notes won only at immediate test |
description |
Test format and timing moderate note-taking effects: congruent note-taking and testing modalities improved performance, and transcribed notes won only at immediate test |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — jansen-2017, jansen-2017-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.