Dijital Çağda Kalemin Gücü: Tıp Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Not Alma Tercihleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmamız, tıp fakültesi öğrencilerinin not alma sıklıkları ile not alma aracı tercihlerini, ayrıca bunların sosyodemografik değişkenler, algılanan akademik başarı ve el yazısı bozulması algıları ile ilişkisini araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: Bu kesitsel çalışma, Gazi Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi birinci, ikinci ve üçüncü sınıfta eğitim gören 407 tıp fakültesi öğrencisini kapsamıştır. Not alma alışkanlıkları, not alma aracı tercihi, algılanan akademik başarı ve algılanan el yazısı bozulması ile ilgili verileri toplamak için araştırmacılar tarafından literatüre dayalı olarak geliştirilen, kapalı uçlu sorulardan oluşan bir sosyodemografik form kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel analizlerde ki-kare testleri, non-parametrik karşılaştırmalar ve ikili lojistik regresyon modelleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Öğrencilerin çoğunluğu (%62,7) not alma stratejisi kullandığını söylemiş ve dijital araçlara göre kalem ve kâğıdı (%82,7) tercih ettiğini belirtmiştir. Not alma, kadın cinsiyet ve algılanan akademik başarının yüksekliği ile anlamlı bir şekilde ilişkiliydi (p<0,001). Lojistik regresyon analizi, erkek öğrencilerin not almama olasılığının 3,17 (95% CI=2,004–5,014) kat daha fazla olduğunu ve not almama olasılığının akademik yıl ile arttığını ortaya koydu (2. sınıf vs 1.: OR=3,29; 3. sınıf vs 1.: OR=4,45). Ayrıca, el yazısındaki bozulma algısı, not alan öğrenciler arasında anlamlı bir şekilde daha yüksekti (p=0,013). Sonuç: Dijital araçların giderek yaygınlaşmasına rağmen, kalem ve kâğıt hala baskın not alma yöntemi olmaya devam etmektedir. Not alma, bu çalışmadaki tıp fakültesi öğrencileri için algılanan akademik başarı ile anlamlı bir şekilde ilişkiliydi. Öğrencilerin not alma alışkanlıklarının cinsiyet, akademik yıl, başarı algısı ve el yazısı kalitesiyle ilişkili olduğu bulunmuştur. Not alma stratejisinin uzun vadeli bilişsel ve eğitimsel etkilerini araştırmak için uzunlamasına ve çok merkezli çalışma tasarımlara sahip daha fazla araştırma yapılması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• akademik başarı
• el yazısı
• not alma
• öğrenme stratejileri
• tıp eğitimi

The Power of the Pen in the Digital Age: A Study on the Note-Taking Preferences of Medical School Students

Öz

Objective: This study investigates the note-taking frequency and tool preferences of medical school students, as well as their relationship with sociodemographic variables, perceived academic achievement, and perceptions of handwriting deterioration. Method: This cross-sectional study included 407 medical students from the first, second, and third academic years at Gazi University Faculty of Medicine. A sociodemographic form developed by the researchers based on the literature and consisting of closed-ended questions was used to collect data on note-taking habits, tool preferences, perceived academic achievement, and perceived handwriting deterioration. Chi-square tests, non-parametric comparisons, and binary logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses. Results: The majority of students (62.7%) reported using a note-taking strategy and stated a preference for pen and paper (82.7%) over digital tools. Note-taking was significantly associated with the female gender and higher perceived academic achievement (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that male students were 3.17 (95% CI=2.004–5.014) times more likely not to take notes, and the likelihood of not taking notes increased with the academic year (Year 2 vs Year 1: OR=3.29; Year 3 vs Year 1: OR=4.45). Furthermore, the perception of deterioration in handwriting was found to be significantly higher among students who took notes (p=0.013). Conclusion: Despite the increasing prevalence of digital tools, pen and paper remain the dominant note-taking method. Note-taking was significantly associated with perceived academic achievement for the medical students in this study, and note-taking habits were associated with gender, academic year, perception of achievement, and handwriting quality. Further research with longitudinal and multi-center study designs is needed to investigate the long-term cognitive and educational impact of note-taking strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• academic success
• handwriting
• learning strategies
• medical education
• note-taking

Kaynakça

1. Jiang Y, Clarke-Midura J, Keller B, Baker RS, Paquette L, Ocumpaugh J. Note-taking and science inquiry in an open-ended learning environment. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2018;55:12–29.
2. Marin L, Sturm S, Vlieghe J. Notes on note-making: Introduction. Educ Philos Theory. 2021;53(13):1316–20.
3. Jansen RS, Lakens D, IJsselsteijn WA. An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educ Res Rev. 2017;22:223–33.
4. Voyer D, Ronis ST, Byers N. The effect of notetaking method on academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2022;68:102025.
5. Gür T. The effect of verbatim and generative notes taken by hand and keyboard at university level on success and persistence. Educ Q Rev. 2021;4(3):132–41.
6. Terry WS. İnsan belleği: Kavramsal yaklaşımlar. In: Cangöz B, ed. Öğrenme ve bellek. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2013. p.327–384.
7. Dror IE. Gold mines and land mines in cognitive technology. In: Dror IE, ed. Cognitive technologies and the pragmatics of cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins; 2007. p.1–7.
8. Ahrens S. How to take smart notes: One simple technique to boost writing, learning and thinking—for students, academics and nonfiction book writers. Charleston (SC): CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2017.

9. Forte T. The case for digital notes [Internet]. Forte Labs; 2018 Aug 23 [cited 2026 May 1]. Available from: https://fortelabs.com/blog/the-case-for-digital-notes/
10. Kadavy D. Digital Zettelkasten: Principles, methods & examples. Omaha (NE): Kadavy Inc.; 2021.
11. Khan AA, Nawaz S, Newn J, Lodge JM, Bailey J, Velloso E. Using voice note-taking to promote learners’ conceptual understanding [Preprint]. 2020. arXiv:2012.02927
12. Mueller PA, Oppenheimer DM. The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note-taking. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(6):1159–68.
13. Urry HL, Crittle CS, Floerke VA, Leonard MZ, Perry CS, Akdilek N, et al. Don’t ditch the laptop just yet: A direct replication of Mueller and Oppenheimer’s (2014) study 1 plus mini meta-analyses across similar studies. Psychol Sci. 2021;32(3):326–39.
14. Flanigan AE, Wheeler J, Colliot T, Lu J, Kiewra KA. Typed versus handwritten lecture notes and college student achievement: A meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev. 2024;36(3):78.
15. Luo L, Kiewra KA, Flanigan AE, Peteranetz MS. Laptop versus longhand note taking: Effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instr Sci. 2018;46(6):947–71.
16. Morehead K, Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Blasiman R, Hollis RB. Note-taking habits of 21st century college students: Implications for student learning, memory, and achievement. Memory. 2019;27(6):807–19.
17. Wong SSH, Lim SWH. Take notes, not photos: Mind-wandering mediates the impact of note-taking strategies on video-recorded lecture learning performance. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2023;29(1):124–35.
18. Salame II, Thompson A. Students’ views on strategic note-taking and its impact on performance, achievement, and learning. Int J Instruct. 2020;13(2):1–16.
19. Arden B, Norris J, Cole S, Gamble SC. Digital notetaking in lectures: How students adapt to a multi-faceted university learning environment. Cogent Educ. 2024;11(1):2373552.
20. Wiechmann W, Edwards R, Low C, Wray A, Boysen-Osborn M, Toohey S. No difference in factual or conceptual recall comprehension for tablet, laptop, and handwritten note-taking by medical students in the United States: A survey-based observational study. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:8.
21. Siegel J. Pen and paper or computerized notetaking? L2 English students’ views and habits. Comput Educ Open. 2023;4:100120.
22. Crumb RM, Hildebrandt R, Sutton TM. The value of handwritten notes: A failure to find state-dependent effects when using a laptop to take notes and complete a quiz. Teach Psychol. 2022;49(1):7–13.
23. Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory. New York (NY): Springer; 2011.
24. Reddington LA, Peverly ST, Block CJ. An examination of some of the cognitive and motivation variables related to gender differences in lecture note-taking. Read Writ. 2015;28(8):1155–85.