Several years ago, I read about a study that showed the value of handwritten notes compared to typed notes. As soon as I read it, I immediately recognized two issues that I have repeatedly pushed back against regarding these kinds of studies. Perhaps it's finally time for me to explain why I viewed the study as something only worthy of a trash can.
The first issue is that the study did not take individuality into consideration. It looked for overall trends. Saying that the average student would learn best by handwriting their notes does not establish that any specific student would learn best in such a manner. Because this study resulted in some schools changing policy, students who would do better with typing notes are effectively being forced to take an approach that does not work nearly as well for them.
The other big issue is that the study was fixated on a low-value interpretation of learning that is completely irrelevant to practical learning. The focus was on memorization. They also embraced the flawed lecture-then-test approach. How you take notes in anticipation of a test, especially when forgetting after the test has no apparent drawbacks, has no value regarding practical learning.
I should probably clarify something. I'm not saying the results of the study were wrong. I'm not trying to convince people to type notes when they would be better off handwriting them. My issue is that the study lacks any real value. Overall trends about how students can best utilize short-term memory for a test should not dictate the tactics of every single child in every single situation. We need to do a better job of recognizing that there are variables. We need to do a better job of meeting individual needs over a wide variety of circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment