Simon's Slate

Category: Education

  • Which type of note-taking is better for learning: laptop or pen and paper?

    Which type of note-taking is better for learning: laptop or pen and paper?

    Penny Van Bergen, Macquarie University; Emma Burns, Macquarie University, and Hua-Chen Wang, Macquarie University

    Once upon a time, university lectures were accompanied by the sound of pens scribbling on paper. But if you go into a lecture hall today, you will hear students tapping on laptops.

    Devices are now an accepted and important part of modern learning. But this does not necessarily mean students should forget the old-fashioned ways of taking notes.

    Research shows pen and paper can help students learn and remember more from class.

    The benefits of note-taking

    Studies have long shown students who take notes during a lecture, class, or while reading are able to remember more of that content later.

    One reason is note-taking is more active than listening or reading, which helps us maintain attention.

    And students often go beyond just recording the information being said.

    Note-taking means students are trying to understand their teacher by making assessments about what is important in real time. They might also organise the content into themes and sub-themes or highlight things that stand out.

    These activities are examples of active engagement which strengthens the “encoding process”: the way new knowledge moves into long-term memory and forms memory pathways.

    Strong memory pathways enable knowledge to be more easily accessed later, such as when problem solving in class or doing an exam.

    Students in a lecture hall taking notes
    Taking notes during class can help keep your focus and make it easier to retain information. Matej Kastelic/Shutterstock

    Note-taking on a laptop

    Research shows the kinds of notes students take when typing on a laptop differ from those taken with traditional pen and paper.

    A 2018 study in the United States found college students took longer lecture notes (both in word count and quantity of ideas) when typing on a laptop than when writing by hand. They also recorded longer sections verbatim from the lecture. This might occur because students typically type faster than they handwrite.

    However, while students are faster on a laptop, they are also likely to become distracted.

    A 2021 study of US college students used tracking software and found the average student was distracted for about half their lecture by social media, assignments, shopping and other off-task internet activities.

    Note-taking with a pen

    So how do pen and paper compare?

    A 2024 meta-analysis of 24 international studies showed taking lecture notes by hand resulted in stronger overall test performance and course grades for undergraduate students.

    This is because handwriting engages the brain in a more active way than typing, which is better for learning.

    Students who take notes by hand use more shorthand, visual signals (for example, bolding, underlining, arrows and stars) and images (diagrams, graphs and tables) than those who type.

    Taking notes by hand is particularly helpful if a lecturer or teacher pauses during a lecture or lesson, so students can revise or add to their notes in real time. In one US study, students using longhand added three times as many new ideas to their notes during lecture pauses as laptop users did.

    Woman highlighting words in a notebook
    Notetaking on pen and paper can help students form strong connections between ideas. ABO PHOTOGRAPHY/Shutterstock

    Are there times laptops might be better?

    Despite the benefits of handwriting, there are some situations where laptops may be more appropriate for note-taking.

    Students who struggle with slow handwriting or spelling may find pen and paper note-taking interferes with their learning. This is because they need to focus more on the physical act of writing so it becomes harder to process new knowledge.

    Some neurodivergent students may also find handwriting challenging. For instance, autistic students often experience difficulties with fine motor skills like handwriting. Similarly, students with dyslexia or dysgraphia may struggle with handwriting tasks.

    For these students, typing with features like spell-check and auto-correction can allow them to focus on understanding and fully participating in class.

    But for those who find both handwriting and typing equally comfortable, the research shows using a pen and paper are more effective for learning.

    Penny Van Bergen, Associate Professor in the Psychology of Education, Macquarie University; Emma Burns, ARC DECRA fellow and Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Macquarie University, and Hua-Chen Wang, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Macquarie University

  • Africa needs better science capacity to meet environmental challenges

    Africa needs better science capacity to meet environmental challenges

    Colin A. Chapman, McGill University and Patrick Omeja, Makerere University

    Humanity faces unprecedented environmental challenges. Nowhere are the challenges greater than in Africa, the second most populous continent. Over the next century Africa will replace Asia as the driver of global population increase and the impact of climate change will be severe.

    Already, an area more than half the size of Nigeria has been deforested. And by 2100, more than half of all bird and mammal species in Africa are projected to be lost.

    With colleagues, we recently brought these strands together and linked them to the need for a significant improvement in the continent’s higher education and research capacity.

    The reasons for this are clear. The higher education sector in Africa expanded rapidly: enrolment doubled from 6.1 million to 12.2 million between 2000-2013. But funding and capacity – such as the number of teachers, salaries and research support – have not kept pace.

    Africa imports more research expertise when it comes to biodiversity research, than any other region. And in international collaborations, the participation of African scholars has been frequently limited to providing access to study sites or data. Trends such as these are partially due to teaching loads. Professors often teach more classes with more students leaving little time for research and other scholarly activities.

    Beyond facing the problem of having over-enrolled and outdated classrooms, poorly paid faculty are taking on additional paid work to make a reasonable living for their families. For example, in Uganda, professors will often cancel classes for a few weeks so they can take on consultancies for groups like the World Bank, leaving their students to learn the material themselves.

    Despite these difficulties, this could be a very exciting time for research to address Africa’s environmental issues. Improvements in access to pre-university education have provided a large talent pool, and widening internet access has made collaboration more realistic. The stage is set for the African scientific community to reach out globally so that, through collaboration, they can set the agenda and play a significant role in science development.

    The way forward

    Our article points to three ways forward:

    1. Change the incentive system in high-income countries to facilitate African collaboration and training;
    2. Modify international programmes for African students; and
    3. Help African universities attract and retain the most qualified home-country educators.

    We present a training model suited to surmounting Africa’s environmental challenges. One of the most effective models has been close one-on-one collaborations between African students and internationally respected scientists. These scientists have long-term, site-based training and research programmes in Africa. This approach has led to research, training, and funding opportunities that last decades and form broad networks.

    In addition to the typical professor-student mentoring, research collaborations like this usually create opportunities for African students to attend conferences, provide access to literature and software, and generate long-term collaboration involving grants, publications, student exchanges, and much more.

    But this model has not been scaled to meet Africa’s current environmental challenges. The model needs the participation of hundreds of dedicated scientists, each having long-term, but not necessarily large, funding. The model has huge potential. The training that takes place within the context of long-term research collaborations, builds the research network needed for the rapid growth of training for future generations of Africans.

    The next generation would have the knowledge, skills, and connections to address the critical environmental issue. There are numerous examples of this model working extremely well when used by single researchers or a small group of researchers, but it has never been brought up to the scale now needed in Africa.

    Another area that needs urgent action is that African research institutions must improve working conditions. Without this they risk losing the talent fostered by these high quality research collaborations and the networks they engender to private enterprise, non-governmental agencies, or migration aboard.

    Researchers only have access to limited facilities and support for research. Only 0.4% of Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spent on research and development, compared to 2.4% in North America and Western Europe. On a positive note, Kenya recently announced that it intends to increase spending on research and development from 0.4% of GDP to 2.0%

    Without access to suitable resources and technical support, many African PhDs find it nearly impossible to remain competitive in their chosen field. Instead, they opt to leave academic life for more lucrative work. This needs to change.

    What needs to be done

    The changes necessary to implement these recommendations at sufficient scales are not massive or too difficult to overcome. They include: increasing funding to support African students and early career researchers; improved salaries and infrastructure in African universities; and additional incentives to entice faculty from high-income countries to form collaborations and networks where African students are trained and mentored.

    Africa must tackle the effects of biodiversity loss and climate change and be an essential player in addressing global environmental issues more generally.

    The environmental challenges are huge. The continent’s high biodiversity is at risk with over 6 000 animal and 3 000 plant species being threatened with extinction. Africa’s carbon dioxide emissions increased 12 fold in roughly 50 years, and by the end of the next decade its organic carbon emissions will make up 50% of global emissions.

    Given Africa’s projected population growth, management of its environment must be a global priority. A stronger Africa benefits not only Africans, but everyone on our increasingly interconnected planet.

    Claire A. Hemingway from the National Science Foundation is also a co-author of this work. She would like to clarify that contents of this publication are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the foundation.

    Colin A. Chapman, Professor, Canada Research Chair, Royal Society Member, McGill University and Patrick Omeja, Field Manager, Makerere University Biological Field Station, Makerere University

  • How Biden’s request for more education funding would shift more power to the federal government

    How Biden’s request for more education funding would shift more power to the federal government

    Nicholas Tampio, Fordham University

    The president has called on Congress to make a “historic investment” in the Title I grant program. The program provides financial assistance to school districts that have high numbers or percentages of students from low-income families. The Biden administration wants US$36.5 billion for the program, an increase of $20 billion from the 2021 enacted level.

    As a political scientist who examines education policy, I believe this larger influx of cash would give the president more power to shape the structure of American education.

    I also believe it could make it harder for states to push back against the federal government when it comes to such matters as standardized testing.

    History shows how a larger federal role is part of an ongoing trend. Since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the federal government has attached conditions that states and districts must meet to get federal education funds. Based on these conditions, if Biden succeeds in his plan to increase federal spending by 41% in fiscal 2022, then the federal government will have even more control over school spending.

    From ‘cradle to college’

    In 2009, the Obama administration launched a competitive grant program, Race to the Top, that financially rewarded states that invested in early childhood education, standards to promote college and career readiness and systems to collect students’ test data throughout their time in public education. The Biden administration is similarly seeking to build an education system that takes young people from “cradle to college.”

    When President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, federal investment in public education more than doubled from under $1 billion to nearly $2 billion. Upon signing the act, President Johnson said, “From our very beginnings as a nation, we have felt a fierce commitment to the ideal of education for everyone.” One of the debates since then, however, has been how much the federal government should steer – as well as help fund – public education.

    The 1994 version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act required states to adopt standards-based education reform for all schools, not just high-poverty ones, to receive Title I grants.

    Masked children raise their hands in class.
    The federal government covers about 8.5% of K-12 school districts’ budgets. Halfpoint Images/Moment via Getty Images

    The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 expected states to test students in reading and math on a fixed schedule, bring all students to the proficient level by the 2013-2014 school year and hold schools accountable for student outcomes.

    In 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which gave states some leeway about their education plans. Still, the new law required states to place “much greater weight” on academic indicators such as test scores and graduation rates than more subjective measures.

    Conditional contributions

    The federal government covers about 8.5% of K-12 school districts’ budgets. However, the percentage varies by state. In fiscal 2017 in New York, for example, federal funding made up approximately $1.6 billion of the more than $70 billion that the state spent on elementary and secondary education. Given that there are costs associated with meeting the conditions necessary to get Title I funds, it might make sense for the state to forgo Title I grants and instead increase state school aid for high-need school districts.

    The country’s elementary and high school education does not mandate what states and school districts do. Instead, school districts and states apply for Title I grants, and the federal government comes up with the conditions to get the money.

    People close to the Biden administration are aware of Title I’s power to nudge states and school districts to do things they might not otherwise want to do. For instance, Ary Amerikaner, vice president of The Education Trust, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income students and students of color, as well as a member of Biden’s education transition team, supports the requested $20 billion increase in Title I. However, she wants the Biden administration to “leverage it to change the vast rest of the public education spending inequities in our country.”

    Resisting federal authority

    Or take the topic of administering tests during a pandemic. In February 2021, Ian Rosenblum, acting assistant secretary of education, told chief state school officers that the Biden administration expects states to administer federal tests. “We remain committed to supporting all states in assessing the learning of all students,” he stated. The U.S. Department of Education has denied requests for a testing waiver from some states, including New York, Georgia and South Carolina.

    The chancellor and commissioner of the New York State Education Department told the Biden administration that his department was “deeply disappointed” with the U.S. Department of Education’s denial of its request for a testing waiver. They added that “canceling state assessments would be the most appropriate and fair thing to do” for students living through a pandemic.

    In a decision that seems to thwart the Biden administration’s expectation that states assess the learning of all students, New York officials decided this spring to have students “opt in” if they want to take the state test.

    New York education leaders are taking a risk that the federal government might financially retaliate. In 2005, the U.S. Secretary of Education threatened to withhold $76 million from Utah’s federal education funds if the state did not use No Child Left Behind’s way to measure student achievement. In 2019, the U.S. Department of Education told Arizona that it could lose $340 million in Title I funding if it did not comply with federal testing requirements.

    Biden’s pitch to increase Title I funding is not just about investing more federal money in education. It is also about giving more education power to the federal government.

    [Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter.]

    Nicholas Tampio, Professor of Political Science, Fordham University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

  • Why being forced to precisely follow a curriculum harms teachers and students

    Why being forced to precisely follow a curriculum harms teachers and students

    Cara Elizabeth Furman, Hunter College

    In teaching, “fidelity” refers to closely following specific procedures for how to teach a lesson or respond to student behavior. For example, following a curriculum to fidelity might mean a teacher is required to read from a script, use a certain tone or expression, or teach from a designated page in a guidebook on a specific day.

    In the past 20 years, teachers have experienced diminished control over what and how they teach. Simultaneously, the idea of teaching to fidelity has increasingly become the norm. Today, policymakers commonly suggest that fidelity is synonymous with good teaching. While prevalent across the country, this kind of micromanaging is more common in urban and rural schools that serve low-income and minority students.

    I’m a former elementary school teacher and I now study how teachers make ethical decisions. This includes how they observe their students and try to help them – regardless of whether their decisions align with a prescribed curriculum.

    In a recent study, I interviewed 12 teachers, primarily in rural towns in the Northeast, about how they deal with problems that arise in the classroom every day. They discussed how they came up with responses based on best practices they had learned in school from resources such as books and videos. They also spoke of techniques they learned in professional development workshops.

    Of the nine who worked in public schools or publicly funded child care centers, however, all but one of the teachers were influenced by pressure to follow a curriculum to fidelity. This pressure came from administrators in the form of threats of punishments and even job loss, as well as from colleagues who questioned when they taught a curriculum differently.

    My study echoes previous research demonstrating that fidelity interferes with teachers’ capacity to best serve students. It also prompts many qualified teachers to leave the profession.

    a woman writes on post it notes on a calendar at a teacher's desk in front of a classroom
    Teachers teach better when they’re given flexibility over their lesson plans. nattrass/E+ via Getty Images

    How fidelity affects teachers

    The term “fidelity” comes from the sciences and refers to the precise execution of a protocol in an experiment to ensure results are reliable. However, a classroom is not a lab, and students are not experiments.

    As a result, teachers and teacher educators have long decried fidelity and the impact it has on them and their students.

    One participant in my study, a fourth grade public school teacher, described an oppressive environment at her school: “They were really driving the curriculum down our throats. We need to meet this at this date. And everyone should be at this lesson at this date.”

    This counteracted what she was taught in college – every student is different, and every classroom is different. Not all teachers will be on the same lesson on the same day.

    A kindergarten teacher in the study also described being “boxed” in and forced into a mold.

    Students face the consequences of following a curriculum to fidelity. For example, this kindergarten teacher described how when she was teaching preschool her students who lived in a rural area did not understand references to crossing busy city streets in a book she was required to read as part of the curriculum. She brought her students outside to the parking lot to practice street crossing and listen to the noises of local traffic. This was not part of the curriculum. Had the teacher followed the curriculum to a tee, the students may not have been able to grasp the lesson from the book.

    When teachers are trusted and given greater flexibility, they teach better. They also feel more supported. The fourth grade teacher in my study began to feel she could better meet the needs of her students only when she changed schools and principals.

    Of her new placement: “My administrator is always saying, ‘If there’s anything that you feel your students need, then do it. If it doesn’t completely align with the expensive curriculum we’ve invested in, that’s okay,’” she said. “It’s been a weight lifted off my shoulders.”

    A new path forward

    Research shows that flexibility in teaching methods and curricula allows teachers and students to participate more fully in the learning process – and even promotes a more democratic society.

    Instead of mandating that teachers stick to the curriculum word for word, schools can implement these more flexible approaches:

    1. Trust teachers. Asked why they want to teach, prospective and current teachers say they care deeply about children and want to help them. Working with teachers should begin with the belief in their good intentions.

    2. Follow the evidence. Learning is complex, and educators’ knowledge of how students learn evolves as new research comes out. When following a specific curriculum to fidelity, teachers are sometimes required to use methods that are no longer evidence-based. In fact, teachers have been forced to follow a curriculum to fidelity even when they have evidence that the curriculum is interfering with student learning.

    3. Allow teachers to tweak curriculum to meet their students’ needs and experiences. For example, in most instructional materials, white authors and protagonists are overrepresented. Effective and ethical teaching requires that teachers support and incorporate their students’ cultures into their lessons, meaning they may have to make changes to a curriculum.

    Cara Elizabeth Furman, Associate Professor of Literacy Education, Hunter College

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.