ArticleBMC medical education2025
Exploring the impact of note taking methods on cognitive function among university students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTaking notes during lectures plays a vital role in enhancing learning outcomes. With technological advancements, digital note-taking has gained popularity among university students in recent years due to its convenience, ease of storage, sharing, and searching. Different versions of digital note-taking have been introduced, including the use of styluses on tablets, which offer a blend of traditional handwriting and digital advantages. However, the use of digital devices may introduce distractions, such as access to social media, potentially disrupting focus and impacting learning effectiveness. Therefore, their impact on learning and cognition remains a topic of ongoing exploration. This study aimed to investigate the differences in cognitive functions between university students practicing either longhand or styluses digital note-taking methods in the United Arab Emirates.
methodsOne hundred students participated in this cross-sectional study. Sociodemographic information, including age, sex, nationality, and study year were obtained. Participants reported the note-taking method they use (longhand vs. digital note-taking with styluses). A battery of cognitive tests was used in this study to assess different cognitive functions, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R), and the Stroop Color and word test. The Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess differences in different cognitive domains between participants following longhand and styluses digital note-taking.
resultsStudents that used longhand note-taking demonstrated significantly higher overall cognitive scores (MoCA, p = 0.005), along with superior information processing speed, working memory (SDMT, p = 0.045), and better visual memory (BVMT-R, p = 0.01), compared to those who used styluses digital note-taking. However, students using styluses digital note-taking exhibited better inhibitory cognitive control (Stroop test, p = 0.020).
conclusionsAlthough using styluses offers a hybrid experience by combining the tactile benefits of handwriting with the digital advantages of electronic devices, students who employed longhand note-taking demonstrated significantly higher cognitive scores across several domains compared to their peers using stylus-based digital methods. However, while these differences were statistically significant, the effect size was small. Longitudinal cohort studies are needed to further examine the predictive, mediating, and confounding factors related to note-taking methods and cognitive abilities in students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.