Palabras clave

Tomar notas, escritura manual, escritura electrónica, memoria a corto plazo, niveles de procesamiento, educación superior

Resumen

La toma de apuntes es una estrategia generalizada del alumnado de Educación Superior y se ha constatado su influencia en el rendimiento académico. El uso del ordenador está desplazando al método tradicional de lápiz y papel. El presente estudio pretende arrojar luz sobre las ventajas y los inconvenientes derivados del uso de uno u otro método en la toma de apuntes en las aulas universitarias. Un total de 251 estudiantes universitarios de ciencias sociales y ciencias de la salud participaron en el estudio. Se plantearon dos condiciones experimentales: toma de notas de forma manual (n=211) y de manera electrónica (n=40). Se hallaron diferencias a favor del grupo que usó el ordenador en las tareas basadas en completar el abecedario, escribir frases y reconocer palabras anotadas previamente (p<.05). Sin embargo, en la tarea de recuerdo libre los resultados reflejaron un mejor desempeño del grupo que tomó notas manualmente (p<.05). Se rechazó la hipótesis de igualdad entre los grupos (X2=60,98; p<.0001). Además, el análisis discriminante confirmó que el 77,3% de los alumnos fueron clasificados correctamente según su condición experimental. El uso del ordenador resultó muy útil cuando se trataba de anotar datos con rapidez; sin embargo, en las tareas de recuerdo los alumnos de escritura manual obtuvieron mejores puntuaciones que los de escritura electrónica.

Ver infografía

Referencias

Beck, K.M. (2014). Note Taking Effectiveness in the Modern Classroom. The Compass, 1(1). (http://goo.gl/7k4TOj) (2015-09-05).

Link Google Scholar

Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of Pen and Keyboard Transcription Modes in Children with and without Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 123-141. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27740364

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Bui, D.C., & Myerson, J. (2014). The Role of Working Memory Abilities in Lecture Note-taking. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 12-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.002

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030367

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Cassany, D. (2012). En línea. Leer y escribir en la Red. [On line. Reading and Writing on the Web]. Barcelona: Anagrama.

Link Google Scholar

Cermak, L.S., & Craik, F.I. (2014). Levels of Processing in Human Memory (PLE: Memory) (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Link Google Scholar

Clayton, E. (2015). La historia de la escritura. [The History of Writing]. Madrid: Siruela.

Link Google Scholar

Conard, E.U. (1935). A Study of the Influence of Manuscript Writing and of Typewriting on Children’s Development. The Journal of Educational Research, 29(4), 254-265. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1935.10880582

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A Comparison of Keyboarded and Handwritten Compositions and the Relationship with Transcription Speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 479-492. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709906X116768

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671- 684. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Craik, F.I. (2002). Levels of Processing: Past, Present... and Future? Memory, 10(5-6), 305-318. doi: http://dx.doi.org/0.1080/096582102440001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J., & Willingham, D.T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.522

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fisher, J.L., & Harris, M.B. (1973). Effect of Note Taking and Review on Recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(3), 321-325. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035640

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fried, C.B. (2008). In-class Laptop Use and its Effects on Student Learning. Computers & Education 50(3), 906-914. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Hyden, P. (2005). Teaching Statistics by Taking Advantage of the Laptop’s Ubiquity. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 101, 37-42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.184

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Jasmin, K., & Casasanto, D. (2012). The Qwerty Effect: How Typing Shapes the Meanings of Words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 499-504. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0229-7

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Kay, R., & 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. (http://goo.gl/qh3Wjw) (2015-11-07).

Link Google Scholar

Kobayashi, K. (2005). What Limits the Encoding Effect of Note-taking? A Meta-analytic Examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Lockhart, R.S., & Craik, F.I.M. (1990). Levels of Processing: A Retrospective Commentary on a Framework for Memory Research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 87-112. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0084237

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Moin, L., Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2009). Instructional Activities and Group Work in the U.S. Inclusive High School Co-taught Science Class. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 677-697. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9133-z

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Mueller, P.A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The Pen is Mightier than the Keyboard. Advantages of Longhand over Laptop Note Taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159-1168. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Paschek, G. (2013). Las ventajas de escribir a mano. [Advantages of Handwriting]. Mente y Cerebro, 62, 18-21.

Link Google Scholar

Rabinowitz, J.C., & Craik, F.I. (1986). Specific Enhancement Effects Associated with Word Generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 226-237. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90031-8

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Ragan, E.D., Jennings, S.R., Massey, J.D., & Doolittle, P.E. (2014). Unregulated Use of Laptops over Time in Large Lecture Classes. Computers & Education, 78, 78-86. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.002

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Rogers, J., & Case-Smith, J. (2002). Relationships between Handwriting and Keyboarding Performance of Sixth-grade Students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(1), 34-39. doi:10.5014/ajot.56.1.34

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Sevillano, M.L., Quicios, M.P., & González-García, J.L. (2016). Posibilidades ubicuas del ordenador portátil: percepción de estudiantes universitarios españoles [The Ubiquitous Possibilities of the Laptop: Spanish University Students’ Perceptions]. Comunicar, 46(24), 87-95. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C46-2016-09

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Smoker, T.J., Murphy, C.E., & Rockwell, A.K. (2009). Comparing Memory for Handwriting versus Typing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53(22), 1.744-1.747. Sage Publications. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193120905302218

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Stefanou, C., Hoffman, L., & Vielee N. (2008). Note Taking in the College Classroom as Evidence of Generative Learning. Learning Environments Research, 11, 1-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-007-9033-0

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Steimle, J., Brdiczka, O., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2009). Collaborative Paper-based Annotation of Lecture Slides. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 125-137. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.27

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Sülzenbrück, S., Hegele, M., Rinkenauer, G., & Heuer, H. (2011). The Death of Handwriting: Secondary Effects of Frequent Computer Use on Basic Motor Skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(3), 247-251. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2011.571727

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Treisman, A. (2014). The Psychological Reality of Levels of Processing. In L.S. Cermak & F.I. Craik (Eds.), Levels of Processing in Human Memory (pp. 301-330). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Link Google Scholar

Tront, J.G. (2007). Facilitating Pedagogical Practices through a Large-scale Tablet PC Development. IEEE Computer 40(9), 62-68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MC.2007.310

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Weaver, B.E., & Nilson, L.B. (2005). Laptops in Class: What are they good for? What can you do with them? New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 101, 3-13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.181

Link DOI | Link Google Scholar

Fundref

Este trabajo no tiene ningún soporte financiero

Crossmark

Ficha técnica

Recibido: 18-11-2015

Revisado: 04-01-2016

Aceptado: 22-02-2016

OnlineFirst: 15-05-2016

Fecha publicación: 01-07-2016

Tiempo de revisión del artículo : 47 (en días) | Media de tiempo de revisión de los manuscritos del número 48: 29 (en días)

Tiempo de aceptación del artículo: 96 (en días) | Media tiempo aceptación de los manuscritos del número 48: 73 (en días)

Tiempo de edición OnlineFirst: 180 (en días) | Media tiempo edición de los OnlineFirst del número 48: 157 (en días)

Tiempo de publicacicón final del artículo: 225 (en días) | Media tiempo de publicación final de los articulos del número 48: 202 (en días)

Métricas

Métricas de este artículo

Vistas: 42201

Lectura del abstract: 26728

Descargas del PDF: 15473

Métricas completas de Comunicar 48

Vistas: 335526

Lectura del abstract: 228963

Descargas del PDF: 106563

Citado por

Citas en Web of Science

Berns, Anke; Palomo-Duarte, Manuel; Isla-Montes, Jose-Luis; Dodero, Juan-Manuel; Delatorre, Pablo. The collaborative agenda for language learning: from paper to the mobile device RIED-REVISTA IBEROAMERICANA DE EDUCACION A DISTANCIA, 2017.

https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.2.17713

Jansen, Renee S.; Lakens, Daniel; IJsselsteijn, Wijnand A.. An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW, 2017.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.001

Shibata, Hirohito; Omura, Kengo. Reconsideration of the Effects of Handwriting: Comparing Cognitive Load of Handwriting and Typing ITE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDIA TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS, 2018.

https://doi.org/10.3169/mta.6.255

Weigelt-Marom, Hayley; Weintraub, Naomi. Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities: Does touch-typing assist in narrowing the gap? COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.008

Sage, Kara; Augustine, Heather; Shand, Hannah; Bakner, Kaelah; Rayne, Sidny. Reading from print, computer, and tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2

Halpern, Daniel; Pina, Martina; Ortega-Gunckel, Constanza;. School performance: New multimedia resources versus traditional notes COMUNICAR , 2020.

https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-04

Bouriga, Sirine; Olive, Thierry;. Is typewriting more resources-demanding than handwriting in undergraduate students? READING AND WRITING , 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10137-6

Umejima, Keita; Ibaraki, Takuya; Yamazaki, Takahiro;. Paper Notebooks vs. Mobile Devices: Brain Activation Differences During Memory Retrieval FRONTIERS IN BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE , 2021.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158

Citas en Scopus

Halpern, D., Piña, M., Ortega-Gunckel, C. . School performance: New multimedia resources versus traditional notes), Comunicar, .

https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-04

Ito, R., Hamano, K., Nonaka, K., (...), Kake, A., Ishimaru, K. . Comparison of the Remembering Ability by the Difference Between Handwriting and Typeface), Communications in Computer and Information Science, .

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50726-8_69

Jansen, R.S., Lakens, D., IJsselsteijn, W.A.. An integrative review of the cognitive costs, benefits of note-taking), Educational Research Review, .

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.10.001

Sage, K., Augustine, H., Shand, H., Bakner, K., Rayne, S.. Reading from print, computer,, tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age), Education and Information Technologies, .

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2

Cárdenas, M.I.Z., Ortiz, C.A.G. . The university book in digital format. Analysis model for the circulation of academic knowledge | [El libro universitario en formato digital Modelo de análisis para la circulación del conocimiento académico]), Informacion, Cultura y Sociedad, .

https://doi.org/10.34096/ics.i41.6482

Manuel, P.-D., Berns, A., Isla-Montes, J.-L., Dodero, J.-M., Kabtoul, O.. A collaborative mobile learning system to facilitate foreign language learning, assessment processes), ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, .

https://doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012575

Weigelt-Marom, H., Weintraub, N. . Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities: Does touch-typing assist in narrowing the gap?), Computers and Education, .

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.008

Kryzhevich, L.S. . Method of user authentication on the basis of recognition of computer handwriting peculiarities), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, .

Link Google Scholar

Umejima, K., Ibaraki, T., Yamazaki, T., Sakai, K.L. . Paper Notebooks vs. Mobile Devices: Brain Activation Differences During Memory Retrieval), Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, .

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158

Bouriga, S., Olive, T. . Is typewriting more resources-demanding than handwriting in undergraduate students?), Reading and Writing, .

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10137-6

Citas en Google Scholar

Berns, A., Duarte, M. P., Montes, J. L. I., Beardo, J. M. D., & Delatorre, P. (2017). Agenda colaborativa para el aprendizaje de idiomas: del papel al dispositivo móvil. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 20(2), 119-139.

http://revistas.uned.es/index.php/ried/article/view/17713

Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2017). An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review, 22, 223-233.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X17300374

Weigelt-Marom, H., & Weintraub, N. (2018). Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities: Does touch-typing assist in narrowing the gap?. Computers & Education, 117, 132-140.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131517302348

Texeira, J., Realini, L., Nicoliello, M., Fernández, F., & Mesta, M. (2019). Estudio de toma de apuntes en un centro de profesores uruguayo. InterCambios. Dilemas y transiciones de la Educación Superior, 6(1), 23-33.

http://www.scielo.edu.uy/scielo.php?pid=S2301-01262019000100023&script=sci_abstract&tlng=en

Binkley, Z. W. M. (2017). Quantitative Study on Computer Self-Efficacy and Computer Anxiety Differences in Academic Major and Residential Status (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).

...

Sánchez, F. G. Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM 16) GRIAL Research Group Research Institute for Educational Sciences (IUCE) Paseo de Canalejas 169.

...

Shibata, H., & Omura, K. (2018). Reconsideration of the Effects of Handwriting. ITE Transactions on Media Technology and Applications, 6(4), 255-261.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mta/6/4/6_255/_article/-char/ja/

Jansen, R. S., Lakens, D., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. Educational Research Review.

...

Ryff, T. D. (2018). The Use of Cursive Writing in a Digital Age: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Differences between Modes of Transcription in Private Schools (Doctoral dissertation, Northwest Nazarene University).

...

Özçakmak, H., & Sarigöz, O. (2019). Evaluation of Turkish Teacher Candidates' Perception of Note Taking Concept. Educational Research and Reviews, 14(3), 78-86.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1203856

Maclaren, P. (2018). Enhancing the teaching of mathematically intensive STEM disciplines at a tertiary level through the use of pen-enabled Tablet PCs (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).

...

Horwitz, S. M. (2017). Is Note-Taking More Effective with a Keyboard or a Pen?.

https://scholar.colorado.edu/honr_theses/1369/

Sage, K., Augustine, H., Shand, H., Bakner, K., & Rayne, S. (2019). Reading from print, computer, and tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age. Education and Information Technologies, 1-26.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2

Karjo, C. H. (2018). Comparing the effect of ICT and longhand note-taking instructions towards learners’ comprehension test results. Indonesian JELT, 13(1), 17-30.

http://ojs.atmajaya.ac.id/index.php/ijelt/article/view/1170

Palomo-Duarte, M., Berns, A., Isla-Montes, J. L., Dodero, J. M., & Kabtoul, O. (2016, November). A collaborative mobile learning system to facilitate foreign language learning and assessment processes. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 567-572). ACM.

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3012575

Hamza, A. (2018). STL-metoden-en social process som ökar motivationen hos elever i läs-och skrivsvårigheter: Några lärarens uppfattningar, strategier och förutsättningar för att arbeta med STL-metoden för elever i läs-och skrivsvårigheter.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1222613

Saxin, J., & Nyvaller, H. (2018). Traditionellt och digitalt. En forskningsöversikt om datorers påverkan på läsning och skrivande i skolan.

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/56432

Lindell, I. (2017). Penna eller tangentbord?:–En litteraturstudie om två verktyg för att skriva anteckningar och dess påverkan på lärande vid anteckningsmoment.

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1140074

Descarga

Métricas alternativas

Cómo citar

Aragón-Mendizábal, E., Delgado-Casas, C., Navarro-Guzmán, J., Menacho-Jiménez, I., & Romero-Oliva, M. (2016). A comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in note-taking by university students. [Análisis comparativo entre escritura manual y electrónica en la toma de apuntes de estudiantes universitarios ]. Comunicar, 48, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-10

Compartir

           

Apartado de Correos 527

21080 Huelva (España)

Administración

Redacción

Creative Commons

Esta web utiliza cookies para obtener datos estadísticos de la navegación de sus usuarios. Si continúas navegando consideramos que aceptas su uso. +info X