簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 洪渝詞
Hung, Yu-Tzu
論文名稱: 手寫與數位筆記對論文閱讀理解成效之研究
Notes-worthy? Effects of Longhand vs Laptop Note-taking on Reading Comprehension of Research Papers
指導教授: 劉宇挺
Liu, Yeu-Ting
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年: 2020
畢業學年度: 108
語文別: 英文
論文頁數: 88
中文關鍵詞: 筆記方式教育科技閱讀理解
英文關鍵詞: note-taking modality, educational technology, reading comprehension
DOI URL: http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202000357
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:353下載:78
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 現存研究指出,做筆記的行為能透過增加訊息記憶、增強理解力,並提高後續的表現來有效輔助第一及第二語言學習者。然而,這些研究大多是在第一語言的課堂環境中進行的——也就是受試者邊聆聽課堂邊做筆記。此外,隨著科技的進步,越來越多的學生開始選擇筆記型電腦而不是紙筆來做筆記。為了使學習中記筆記的教育價值發揮到極致,必須了解第二語言學習者的記筆記的行為如何影響他們的閱讀理解。因此,本研究旨在探究台灣英語學習者對閱讀理解的不同筆記方式(筆記型電腦和手寫)的影響以及他們的筆記內容如何不同。
    所有26名受試者都在閱讀研究論文的同時,用筆記本電腦或紙筆記筆記。接著,他們完成閱讀理解測驗,包含二十個問題(十個事實問題和十個概念性問題)。結果顯示,以不同方式記錄筆記的參與者在閱讀理解表現沒有顯著差異。此外,兩種筆記的字數沒有顯著差異。但是,使用Leximancer概念構圖系統分析,兩種筆記的內容在重要關鍵字(如概念Concept和主題Theme)中顯示出明顯的差別,本研究發現筆記型電腦的筆記與原始閱讀文本更相似。另一方面,手寫的受試者雖然記下較少關鍵字,但其理解結果與使用筆記型電腦的受試者相當。

    Existing research has established that the act of note-taking can theoretically benefit both L1 and L2 students by increasing the information recalled, enhancing comprehension and leading to better later performance. However, these studies were mostly done in L1 lecture settings where participants listened and took notes. In addition, with the improvement of technology, more students start to choose laptop over pen and paper to take notes. To optimize the pedagogical value of taking notes during learning, it is important to understand how L2 learners’ note-taking can affect their reading comprehension. The current study was therefore set out to investigate the effects of different note-taking modalities (laptop versus longhand) on L2 reading comprehension of 26 Taiwanese EFL learners and how their note contents differ.
    All participants read through a research paper while took notes with laptops or longhand. They then completed a reading comprehension test with 20 questions (10 factual questions and 10 conceptual questions). The results showed no significance difference on the reading comprehension between participants who took notes with different modalities. Moreover, the word count of the two notes were not significantly different. However, with Leximancer concept-mapping system, the contents of the two notes showed salient differences in their key idea units (Concepts and Themes). Laptop notes were found to be more similar to the original reading text. On the other hand, longhand participants took down fewer key concepts but had comparable comprehension outcome with their laptop counterparts.

    CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Rationale of the Study 4 1.3 Scope of the Study 5 1.4 Significance of the Study 6 1.5 Research Questions 6 1.6 Organization of the Study 7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8 2.1 Theoretical Accounts on the Functions of Note-taking 8 2.1.1 Functions of note-taking in reading 9 2.2 Theoretical Accounts on Modality Effects on Handwriting vs. Typing  11 2.2.1 Kinesthetic engagement 12 2.2.2 Attention and distraction 14 2.3 Empirical Studies of Longhand vs Laptop Note-taking 15 2.3.1 Empirical studies of longhand vs laptop note-taking effects on lecture comprehension 16 2.3.1.1 Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) 16 2.3.1.2 Bui, Myerson, & Hale (2013) 20 2.3.1.3 Kirkland (2016) 23 2.3.2 Empirical study of longhand vs laptop note-taking effects on reading comprehension 25 2.3.2.1 Horwitz (2017) 25 2.3.3 General findings from empirical studies of longhand vs laptop 
note-taking 28 2.3.3.1 Analysis of note content 30 2.3.3.2 Comprehension test performance 31 2.4 Major Findings and Research Gap 33 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 35 3.1 Participants 36 3.2 Material and Design 37 3.2.1 Reading Source 37 3.2.2 Design 39 3.3 Instruments 40 3.3.1 Note-taking Instruments 40 3.3.2 Reading Comprehension Test 41 3.3.3 Leximancer System 43 3.4 Procedures of the Study 45 3.5 Data Analysis 46 3.5.1 Analysis of comprehension test 46 3.5.2 Analysis of note content 47 3.6 Summary and Hypothesis 47 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 49 4.1 Which kind of note-taking modality (i.e., longhand or laptop) leads to better reading comprehension? 50 4.2 Are there any quantitative (i.e., word count) and qualitative (i.e., idea units) differences between longhand and laptop notes? If so, what are they? 53 4.2.1 Quantitative differences between longhand and laptop notes 53 4.2.2 Qualitative differences between longhand and laptop notes: Leximancer content analysis 55 4.2.2.1 Results of Themes from different materials 55 4.2.2.2 Results of concepts from different materials 59 4.3 Summary of the Quantitative and Qualitative Results 61 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 62 5.1 Note-taking and Reading Comprehension Test Performance 62 5.2 Differences between laptop notes and longhand notes 65 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 68 6.1 Summary of the Major Findings 68 6.2 Pedagogical Implications 69 6.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research 70 REFERENCES 73 APPENDIX A: Comprehension Questions 84

    Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(3), 439-444. doi: 10.1037/h0076613
    Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 206-219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01412.x
    Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (p. 175–199). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
    Barnett, J. E., Di Vesta, F. J., & Rogozinski, J. T. (1981). What is learned in note taking?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 181-192. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.2.181
    Barnhart, A. S., & Goldinger, S. D. (2010). Interpreting chicken-scratch: Lexical access for handwritten words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 906-923. doi: 10.1037/a0019258
    Bohay, M., Blakely, D. P., Tamplin, A. K., & Radvansky, G. A. (2011). Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension. The American Journal of Psychology, 124(1), 63-73. doi: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0063
    Bonifacio, A., Kerin, R., Hartley, S., Rudelius, W., & Clements, C. (2015). Marketing: The Core (4th Canadian ed.). Toronto: McGraw- Hill Ryerson.
    Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students engage in note‐taking strategies. Journal of research in science teaching, 43(8), 786-818. doi: 10.1002/tea.20115
    Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 145-153. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(79)90069-9
    Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso, 209-233. Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
    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/a0030367
    Conway, M. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (1990). Writing and long-term memory: Evidence for a “translation” hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 42(3), 513-527. doi: 10.1080/14640749008401235
    Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118-1133. doi: 10.1037/a0019902
    Corcoran, D. W. J., & Rouse, R. O. (1970). An aspect of perceptual organization involved in reading typed and handwritten words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(3), 526-530. doi: 10.1080/14640747008401930
    Corey, S. M. (1935). The efficacy of instruction in note making. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26(3), 188-194. doi: 10.1037/h0055288
    Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
    Crawford, C. C. (1925). Some experimental studies of the results of college note-taking. The Journal of Educational Research, 12(5), 379-386. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1925.10879612
    Di Vesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of educational psychology, 63(1), 8. doi: 10.1037/h0032243
    Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of educational research, 61(2), 239-264. doi: 10.3102/00346543061002239
    Dunkel, P. (1988). The content of L1 and L2 students' lecture notes and its relation to test performance. Tesol Quarterly, 22(2), 259-281. doi: 10.2307/3586936
    Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational psychology, 77(5), 522-532.
    Ford, B., & Banks, W. P. (1977). Perceptual differences between reading handwritten and typed words. Memory & cognition, 5(6), 630-635. doi: 10.3758/BF03197409
    Frase, L. T. (1970). Boundary conditions for mathemagenic behaviors. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 337-347. doi: 10.3102/00346543040003337
    Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906-914. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006
    Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Gipson, S. Y. M. T., Kim, J. W., Shin, A. L., Kitts, R., & Maneta, E. (2017). Teaching child and adolescent psychiatry in the twenty-first century: A reflection on the role of technology in education. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 26(1), 93-103. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2016.07.004
    Horwitz, S. M. (2017). Is Note-Taking More Effective with a Keyboard or a Pen? (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). University of Colorado, Boulder.
    Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. (2005). Encoding disruption associated with copy and paste note taking. Technologybased education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together, 107-119.
    James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in neuroscience and education, 1(1), 32-42. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001
    Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Exploring the benefits and challenges of using laptop computers in higher education classrooms: A formative analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1-18.
    Kiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N. M., Hille, K., & Sachse, S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen-or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in cognitive psychology, 11(4), 136-146. doi: 10.5709/acp-0178-7
    Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Students' note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor's notes for review. Contemporary educational psychology, 10(4), 378-386. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(85)90034-7
    Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163-182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
    Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294.
    Kirkland, K. M. (2016). The Effect of Note Taking Media and Preference on the Cognitive Processes Involved in Learning (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). University of Colorado, Boulder.
    Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Mankinen, J. M. (2005). Visual and haptic exploratory procedures in children's judgments about tool function. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(3), 240-249. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.05.002
    Kunkel, K. R. (2004). A research note assessing the benefit of presentation software in two different lecture courses. Teaching Sociology, 32(2), 188-196. doi: 10.1177/0092055X0403200204
    Lalchandani, L., & Healy, A. F. (2016). Disentangling the effects in note-taking strategy: Generation and summarization (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Colorado, Boulder.
    Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.00195
    Leximancer Pty Ltd. (2018). Leximancer user guide: Release 4.5 Retrieved July 8, 2019, from http://doc.leximancer.com/doc/LeximancerManual.pdf
    Lin, L., & Bigenho, C. (2011). Note-taking and memory in different media environments. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 200-216. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2011.594989
    Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Lonka, K., & Leskinen, E. (1996). Selecting students for medical school: What predicts success during basic science studies? A cognitive approach. Higher Education, 31(4), 507-527. doi: 10.1007/BF00137129
    Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J. C., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., & Velay, J. L. (2008). Learning through hand-or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: Behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20(5), 802-815. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20504
    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 psychologica, 119(1), 67-79. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019
    Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The modern language journal, 75(2), 196-204. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05350.x
    Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International journal of educational research, 58, 61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
    Mangen, A., & Velay, J. L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: reflections on the haptics of writing. Advances in haptics, 385-401.
    Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 270-298. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001
    Morrow, L. M. (2008). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. Guilford Press.
    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. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581
    Nakamura, K., Kuo, W. J., Pegado, F., Cohen, L., Tzeng, O. J., & Dehaene, S. (2012). Universal brain systems for recognizing word shapes and handwriting gestures during reading. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), 20762-20767.
    O'malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner‐Manzanares, G. L. O. R. I. A., Russo, R. P., & Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL quarterly, 19(3), 557-584. doi: 10.2307/3586278
    Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension. System, 29(3), 357-370. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00023-9
    Page, B., Sharp, A., Lockshin, L., & Sorensen, H. (2018). Parents and children in supermarkets: Incidence and influence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.023
    Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 514-522. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.514
    Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational psychology, 78(1), 34-38. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.34
    Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. The science of reading: A handbook, 227-247.
    Perea, M., Gil-López, C., Beléndez, V., & Carreiras, M. (2016). Do handwritten words magnify lexical effects in visual word recognition?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(8), 1631-1647. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1091016
    Peverly, S. T., Garner, J. K., & Vekaria, P. C. (2014). Both handwriting speed and selective attention are important to lecture note-taking. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 1-30. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9431-x
    Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291-312. doi: 10.1002/acp.1086
    Pressley, M. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic performance. Brookline Books.
    Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 233-239. doi: 10.1037/a0017678
    Salataci, R. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a foreign language, 14(1), 1-17.
    Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31. doi: j.compedu.2012.10.003
    Skolnik, R., & Puzo, M. (2008). Utilization of laptop computers in the school of business classroom. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(2), 1-10.
    Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, 4(6), 592-604. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
    Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1998.0980
    Smoker, T. J., Murphy, C. E., & Rockwell, A. K. (2009, October). Comparing memory for handwriting versus typing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 53, No. 22, pp. 1744-1747). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
    Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. L. F. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286. doi: 10.1177/154193120905302218
    Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking within MetaTutor: interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 507-528.
    Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp. 11-12). New York: Academic Press.
    Van Hove, S., Vanderhoven, E., & Cornillie, F. (2017). The tablet for Second Language Vocabulary Learning: Keyboard, Stylus or Multiple Choice. Comunicar, 25(50), 53.
    Wolf, D. F. (1993). Issues in reading comprehension assessment: Implications for the development of research instruments and classroom tests. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 322-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb02289.x
    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. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1766-1783. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.006
    Yamamoto, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the hassles?. Journal of Legal Education, 57(4), 477-520. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/42894041
    Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation‐model construction. Discourse processes, 21(3), 289-327. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544960

    下載圖示
    QR CODE