Technology in Note Taking and Assessment: The Effects of Congruence on Student Performance

Abstract

This study examined the encoding specificity principle in relation to traditional and computer-based note taking and assessment formats in higher education. Students (N = 79) took lecture notes either by hand (n = 40) or by computer (n = 39) and then completed either a computer or a paper-based assessment. When note taking and assessment formats were congruent, students scored significantly higher on the assessment when compared to students whose note taking and assessment format were incongruent. These findings highlight the importance of research on how in-class technology may affect student performance, and suggest that faculty and administrators seek to coordinate and standardize the use of assessment and note taking technologies where possible

Keywords

• Technology; encoding specificity principle; assessment; note taking; education human factors; online education.

Technology in Note Taking and Assessment: The Effects of Congruence on Student Performance

Öz

-

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Abernethy, E. M. (1940). The effect of changed environmental conditions upon the results of college examinations. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 10, 293-301.
2. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The Continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,1(1). Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol1/1/
3. 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, 479-492. DOI: 10.1348/000/709906X116768.
4. Crook, C. (2002). Deferring to resources: Collaborations around traditional vs computer-based notes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 64-76.
5. Delialioglu, O. & Yildirim, Z. (2008) Design and development of a technology enhanced hybrid instruction based on MOLTA model: Its effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction. Computers & Education, 51, 474- 483. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.006
6. Ellis, R. A., Taylor, C. E., & Drury, H. (2007). Learning science through writing: associations with prior conceptions of writing and perceptions of a writing program. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(3), 297–311.
7. Escudier, M. P., Newton, T. J., Cox, M. J., Reynolds, P. A. & Odell, E. W. (2011). University students’ attainment and perceptions of computer delivered assessment; a comparison between computer-based and traditional tests in a ‘high-stakes’ examination. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 27, 440-447.
8. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Paper-based aids for learning with a computer-based game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(4), 1074-1082.

9. Godden, D. R. & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 325–331.
10. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992–2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1–51.
11. Goodwin, D. W. (1969). Alcohol and recall: State-dependent effects in man. Science, 163(3873), 1358-1360.
12. Hasselbring, T. S. & Glaser, C. H. W. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology, 10, 102–122.
13. Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. T. (2005). Exploring differences in students’ copyand-paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 103-116. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.103
14. Igo, L. B. & Kiewra, K. A. (2007). How do high-achieving students approach web-based, copy and paste note taking? Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 512-529.
15. Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R. N., & Doctor, T., (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 129–131.
16. Kirkwood, A. & Price, L. (2011). Enhancing learning and teaching through technology: a guide to evidence-based practice for academic developers. Higher Education Academy, York, UK.
17. Landrum, R. E. (2010). Faculty and student perceptions of providing instructor lecture notes to students: Match or mismatch? Journal of Instructional Technology, 37, 216-221.
18. Larwin, K. (2012). Student prepared testing aids: A low-tech method of encouraging student engagement. Journal of Instructional Technology, 39, 105-111.
19. Loyd, B. H. & Loyd, D. E. (1985). Reliability and factorial validity of instrument for the assessment of computer attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(4), 903–908. MacCann, R., Eastment, B., & Pickering, S. (2002). Responding to free response examination questions: Computer versus pen and paper. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 173–188.
20. Mogey, N., Sarab, G., Haywood, J., van Heyningen, S., Dewhurst, D., Hounsell, D., & Neilson, R. (2008). The end of handwriting? Using computers in traditional essay examinations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 39–46.
21. Morgan, M., Brickell, G., & Harper, B. (2008). Applying distributed cognition theory to the redesign of the ‘copy and paste’ function in order to promote appropriate learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 50, 125-147. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.006
22. Peverly, S. T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowski, J., Alidoost, M., & Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 167–180.
23. Powers, D. E., Fowles, M. E., Farnum, M., & Ramsey, P. (1994). They think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 220-2
24. Piolat, A., Barbier, M, & Roussey, J. (2008). Fluency and cognitive effort during first- and second-language writing by undergraduate students. European Psychologist, 13(2), 114-125. DOI: 1027/1016-9040.13.2.114
25. Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellog, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291-312. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1086
26. Plunkett, S. W., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. Y. (2003). The relationship between parenting and adolescent academic outcomes in Mexican-origin immigrant families in Los Angeles. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 222-239.
27. Rudland, J. R., Schwartz, P., & Ali, A. (2011). Moving a formative test from a paper-based to a computer-based format. A student viewpoint. Medical teacher, 33(9), 738-743.
28. Russell, M. & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3), 1–20.
29. Tulving, E. & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352-373. Turkish Abstract
30. Not Alma ve Değerlendirmede Teknoloji: Öğrenci Performansında Uyumun Etkileri Bu çalışma kodlama özgüllüğü prensibini yükseköğretimde geleneksel ve bilgisayar tabanlı not alma ve değerlendirme formatlarıyla ilişkili olarak incelemiştir. Öğrenciler (N=79) elle (n=40) veya bilgisayarla (n=39) derste not almışlar ve bilgisayarda veya kâğıtta değerlendirme yapmışlardır. Not alma ve değerlendirme formatları aynı olduğunda, öğrenciler not alma ve değerlendirme formatları aynı olmayan öğrencilerle karşılaştırıldığında değerlendirmede kayda değer şekilde daha yüksek not almışlardır. Bu bulgular sınıf içi teknolojinin öğrenci performansını nasıl etkileyebileceği konusunda çalışmanın önemini vurgulamakta ve yöneticilere ve öğretim elemanlarına mümkün olduğu kadar not alma teknolojilerini ve değerlendirmeyi standartlaştırma ve uyum sağlatmayı önermektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Teknoloji, Kodlama Özgüllüğü Prensibi, Değerlendirme, Not Alma, Eğitimde İnsan Faktörleri, Online Eğitim French Abstract La Technologie en Prise de Notes et en Évaluation: les Effets de la Congruence sur la Performance des Apprenants Cette étude a examiné le principe d’encodage spécifique par rapport à la prise de notes traditionelle, la prise de notes sur ordinateur et les formats d’évaluation dans l’enseignement supérieur. Les apprenants (N=79) ont pris des notes de cours à la main ( n=40) ou par ordinateur (n=39). Puis ils ont completé l’évaluation sur ordinateur ou l’évaluation sur papier. Quand la prise de notes et l’évaluation était congruents, les apprenants ont obtenu de meilleurs rşesultats sur l’évaluation par rapport aux étudiants dont la prise des notes et le formats d’évaluation étaient incongrues. Ces découvertes soulignent l’importance de la recherche sur comment la technologie en classe peut affecter la performance de l’étudiant. Aussi, ils suggèrent que les facultés et les administrateurs cherchent à coordonner et standardiser l’utilisation de l’évaluation et la prise de notes technologies où possible. Mots Clés: Technologie; Principe D’encodage Spécifique; Evaluation; Prise de Notes; Educations Des Facteurs Humains; Education en Ligne. Arabic Abstract بلاطلا ءادأ ىلع ماجسنلإا رثأ :مييقتلاو تاظحلاملا نيودت يف ايجولونكتلا ىلا ةبسنلاب زيمرتلا ةيصوصخ أدبم ةسارلا هذه تصحف نيودت يف بوساحلا بولسا و يديلقتلا بولسلاا يف اهتقلاع رتويبمكلا قيرط نع وا ديلاب ةباتكلا قيرط نع تاظحلاملا ذخاب بلاطلا ماق.يلاعلا ميلعتلا يف يمييقتلا ميمصتلاو تاظحلاملا تاظحلاملا نيودت ناك امدنع.رتويبمكلا مادختساب وا قرولا مادختساب مييقت لامكاب اوماق مث نمو لجس ,مييقتلا عم اقباطتم ثحبلا ةيمها ىلع ءوضلا جئاتنلا هذه تقلا.ًاقباطتم مهمييقت و مهتانيودت نكت مل نيذلا بلاطلاب ةنراقم ىلعا ةجيتن بلاطلا لصوتلا نيلوؤسملاو ةيلكلا ىلع حرتقتو ,بلاطلا ءادا ىلع ةيفصلا ةفرغلا لخاد ةمدختسملا ايجولونكتلا ريثات ةيناكما لوح ت ىلا .اهمادختسا انكمم ناك امثيح تاظحلاملا نيودت ايجولونكت و مييقتلا مادختسا ديحوت و قيس