I type a lot (5x-10x?) faster than I can write but I take all my meeting notes by pen (I use a livescribe but it hasn't changed my workflow much). It's clearly faster in terms of retention, comprehension and relevance. But why?
I have noticed that in note taking I have my own idiosyncratic handwriting: primarily joined-up ("cursive"), with many letterforms surviving from my childhood, but with some that are formed in a way that simply seems more natural to me (especially the decenders of y and g) intermixed with some "printed" characters (for example j, as well as almost all the capital letters, to the extent that I use them at all). Definitely not designed for someone else to read again, and even in my case I often have to puzzle out what I had written -- yet still, it has a much better result than typing! I clearly have adapted my writing to reduce its overhead.
Apart from note taking I almost don't write at all: a few hand-printed notes ("don't throw this away") or addresses, and whiteboards of course. These always use separated, printed letters and seem cognitively complex to write (i.e. slow!). Typing is clearly the most effortless.
With my own n of one I have tried taking notes with a wireless keyboard on the table or my lap (so the screen isn't a barrier between me and my interlocutor) but it doesn't help. There presumably is some disjoint mechanism between handwriting and typing, and somehow the handwriting barrier is lower.
Occasionally we'd have lecturers who handed out dense powerpoint slides and then went through and explained them very rapidly. Good luck doing that on a laptop.
I think perhaps 3 out of 80 people used laptops. I usually wrote everything verbatim with a bit of extra stuff the lecturer was saying if something wasn't immediately obvious.
I'd then go through and convert it all to LaTeX forcing myself to understand each equation that went in (i.e. if there was a step with an integral that was omitted in the lecture, perform it). That way you know exactly how to do all the steps and you can add your own relevant comments that you may have glossed over in the auditorium. Worked well for me and I could then recycle the reams of paper that collected on my shelves.
As for distraction, we played Peggle a lot in quantum mechanics...
If taking notes means essentially taking meeting minutes, the material provided by the lecturer is lacking.
But really, the deeper problem is taking notes at all. Honestly, in what world is it efficient for a lecturer to recite, and all the students take notes? Students should be able to pay attention without being distracted, and a designated note-taker should be taking everything down, getting the professor to correct any mistakes, and then e-mailing everyone afterwards. Note-taking is an anachronism that deserves to die.
I've seen undergrad classes where the students get the notes and I saw two main problems. They often either don't bother coming to class or they don't pay attention. In some of my grad courses, we got notes ahead of time and then made personal notes during the lectures on top of the supplied ones, but we were a bit more motivated than the average undergrad.
An alternative that seemed to work well in the undergrad courses I had was notes that had portions for students to fill in. The only problem with this approach is that it requires careful consideration by the lecturer. This approach is actually what is suggested by some of the research [1] on note-taking and lectures.
While the research is mixed on note-taking, overall it seems to suggest that some note-taking is good as long as the lectures are set to accommodate it. For example, looking at a study by Kiewra and Benton [2] it says the "amount of note-taking is related to academic achievement" and "ability to hold and manipulate propositional knowledge in working memory is related to the number of words, complex propositions, and main ideas recorded in notes."
[1] McAndrew, Donald A. "Underlining and notetaking: Some suggestions from research," Journal of Reading, 27(2), November 1983, pp. 103-108.
[2] Kiewra, Kenneth A., and Benton, Stephen L. "The relationship between information-processing ability and notetaking," Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 1988, pp. 33-44.
Taking notes on paper is far more effective, because you cannot type diagrams or equations or draw arrows, etc. The batteries never die on notepaper, they're light and easy to carry, they don't make noise, the display doesn't distract the folks behind you, etc.
Later, just run the notes through a scanner.
The point of note-taking is that people learn better this way as this and numerous other researches show. One theory is that it's because of activation of motor cortex, which is largely dedicated to controlling hands and fingers [1]. It appears that people learn better when the larger parts of their brain are active. The same principle explains reciting as a learning technique. Speech also takes a large part of the brain and it similarly helps learning.
On the same note, I believe the failing American education can be explained by the decline of handwriting. It will be interesting to see how well Finland will fare after they stop teaching longhand in 2016 [2]
1. http://www.acbrown.com/neuro/Lectures/Motr/NrMotrPrmr.htm
2. http://www.savonsanomat.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/nappaintaitoja-op...
Handwriting isn't declining; cursive handwriting is. I strongly believe that writing things by hand (handwriting) is an aid to learning, but I don't think learning two different, parallel scripts increases that learning. (I don't object to cursive as an art form--in fact I love it and practice it--but that is something for older kids in art class, not something for writing papers and taking notes while you're still new to writing.)
Those who print all the time can write just as quickly, draw the same diagrams, arrows, underlining, marginalia, and so on, as those who write in cursive or in both scripts. Using a single script instead of two will not lessen the benefits of writing by hand, but using a keyboard instead of printing by hand is more problematic.
I've always felt that when I need to think through concepts, walking away from the computer & working with pen & paper was a more effective way to do it, at least for myself.
Out of my hat, I tend to think that digital tools aren't good for learning, for they are too symbolic. I believe native interactions stimulate the brain more and feed more data to process that is useful for newcomers.
I prefer to not multi-task at all and just pay attention.
> The studies we report here show that laptop use can negatively affect performance on educational assessments, even—or perhaps especially—when the computer is used for its intended function of easier note taking.
