International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2023, Vol. 19(2) 1-18

Are iGen Freshman Different? Notetaking Habits of STEM Students: A Descriptive Study

Marie-Christine Potvin, Monique Chabot, Abigail Garrity, Richard Hass, Colleen Zane & Anne Bower

pp. 1 - 18   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2023.534.1   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2102-20-0002.R1

Published online: April 01, 2023  |   Number of Views: 258  |  Number of Download: 260


Abstract

Notetaking practices (e.g., modality, strategies) as well as confidence with notetaking has been linked to college success. A descriptive study was undertaken to explore the notetaking practice of a sample of freshman STEM students (n=139) over the duration of their first semester in college. The study found that iGen STEM students prefer taking handwritten notes when entering college, and that this preference persists throughout the first semester. Students report using a variety of strategies consistently throughout the semester while taking notes (e.g., abbreviation, summarizing, highlighting) and a desire to improve their time efficiency with notetaking.  Students report use of more active learning strategies when interacting with their notes by the end of the first semester. While the amount of time spent engaging with their notes remained constant at 2.5 to 3 hours per week per class, more students created their own test questions, used drawing and labelling, and wrote connections between concepts by the end of the first semester.  STEM students from the iGen generation demonstrate a preference for handwritten notes.  They appear to adjusted their notetaking strategies over the semester and interacted with their notes in ways that supported learning.

Keywords: Note-Taking, iGen, Freshman


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Potvin, M., Chabot, M., Garrity, A., Hass, R., Zane, C. & Bower, A. (2023). Are iGen Freshman Different? Notetaking Habits of STEM Students: A Descriptive Study . International Journal of Progressive Education, 19(2), 1-18. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2023.534.1

Harvard
Potvin, M., Chabot, M., Garrity, A., Hass, R., Zane, C. and Bower, A. (2023). Are iGen Freshman Different? Notetaking Habits of STEM Students: A Descriptive Study . International Journal of Progressive Education, 19(2), pp. 1-18.

Chicago 16th edition
Potvin, Marie-Christine, Monique Chabot, Abigail Garrity, Richard Hass, Colleen Zane and Anne Bower (2023). "Are iGen Freshman Different? Notetaking Habits of STEM Students: A Descriptive Study ". International Journal of Progressive Education 19 (2):1-18. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2023.534.1.

References
  1. Aguilar-Roca, N. M., Williams, A. E., & O'Dowd, D. K. (2012). The impact of laptop-free zones on student performance and attitudes in large lectures. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1300-1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.002  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Annis, L. F. (1981). Effect of preference for assigned lecture notes on student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 179-182 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bonner, J. M., & Holliday, W. G. (2006). How college science students engage in note‐taking strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 786-818. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20115    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Boyle, J. R., Forchelli, G. A., & Cariss, K. (2015). Note-taking interventions to assist students with disabilities in content area classes. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(3), 186-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.903463    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030367    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Carrier, C. A., Williams, M. D., & Dalgaard, B. R. (1988). College students' perceptions of notetaking and their relationship to selected learner characteristics and course achievement. Research in Higher Education, 28(3), 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992232    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Chabot, M., Potvin, M.C., Hass, R., Garrity, A., & Bower, A. (2021). Development, preliminary validation, and reliability of the Notetaking Abilities and Strategies of University Students (NASUS) Questionnaire. Department of Occupational Therapy Faculty Papers, Paper 81. https://jdc.jefferson.edu/otfp/81  [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, P. H., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2017). Effects of guided notes on enhancing college students’ lecture note-taking quality and learning performance. Current Psychology, 36(4), 719-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-016-9459-6    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Fiegener, M. K. (2013). Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2010. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. National Science Foundation, 3-327. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906-914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Gonzalez, H. B. & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf [Google Scholar]
  12. Gose, B. (2017). Gen Z changes the debate about devices in the classroom. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 64(4). https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-new-generation-of-digital-distraction  [Google Scholar]
  13. Graham, L. P. (2018) Generation Z goes to law school: Teaching and reaching law students in the post-millennial generation. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 41(1), 29. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3271137    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940852   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Kim, H. (2018). Impact of slide-based lectures on undergraduate students’ learning: Mixed effects of accessibility to slides, differences in note-taking, and memory term. Computers & Education, 123, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.004  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: Effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science, 46(6), 947-971. https://doi:10.1007/s11251-018-9458-0    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., & Samuelson, L. (2016). Revising lecture notes: how revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement. Instructional Science, 44(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9370-4  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Manalo, E., Uesaka, Y., Pérez-Kriz, S., Kato, M., & Fukaya, T. (2013). Science and engineering students’ use of diagrams during note taking versus explanation. Educational Studies, 39(1), 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.680577  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. McGuire, S. (2015).  Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation. Stylus Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  20. Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Blasiman, R., & Hollis, R. B. (2019). Note-taking habits of 21st century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement. Memory, 27(6), 807-819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1569694  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop notetaking. Psychological Science. 25(6), 1159-1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. National Academies Press.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Palmatier, R. A., & Bennett, J. M. (1974). Notetaking habits of college students. Journal of Reading, 18, 215-218. [Google Scholar]
  24. Peverly, S. T., Vekaria, P. C., Reddington, L. A., Sumowski, J. F., Johnson, K. R., & Ramsay, C. M. (2013). The relationship of handwriting speed, working memory, language comprehension and outlines to lecture note-taking and test-taking among college students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 115-126. https://doi.org:10.1002/acp.2881  [Google Scholar]
  25. Portney, L.G. & Watkins, M.P. (2009). Descriptive research. In L.G. Portney & M.P. Watkins (Eds.), Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice (3rd ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Quade, A. Q. (1996). An assessment of retention and depth of processing associated with notetaking using traditional pencil and paper and an on-line notepad during computer-delivered instruction. In M. R. Simonson, M. Hays, & S. Hall (Eds.), Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 559–570).  [Google Scholar]
  27. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org   [Google Scholar]
  28. Ramsay, C. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2011). Exploring main idea generation via electronic note-taking. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 12(1), 26-64. [Google Scholar]
  29. Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Northwestern University. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html  [Google Scholar]
  30. Rue, P. (2018). Make way, millennials, here comes Gen Z. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 23(3), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086482218804251  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Schepman, A., Rodway, P., Beattie, C., & Lambert, J. (2012). An observational study of undergraduate students’ adoption of (mobile) note-taking software. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 308-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.014   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Shatto, B., & Erwin, K. (2016). Moving on from millennials: Preparing for generation Z. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 47(6), 253-254. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20160518-05    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Skolnik, R., & Puzo, M. (2008). Utilization of laptop computers in the school of business classroom. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3218.6962  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Stacy, E. M., & Cain, J. (2015). Note-taking and handouts in the digital age. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(7), 107. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe797107  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M.K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Petters, S.E., …& Young, A.M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468-1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Wickham, H. (2007). Reshaping data with the reshape package. Journal of Statistical Software, 21(12), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i12  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Witherby, A. E., & Tauber, S. K. (2019). The Current Status of Students’ Note-Taking: Why and How Do Students Take Notes?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.04.002  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1766-1783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.006    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students' theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.323  [Google Scholar] [Crossref]