Highlighting and taking notes are equally ineffective when Reading paper or eText

Abstract

The present study examined whether there is a difference in comprehension when reading from computer-based text versus reading from paper-based text and whether there is any benefit from the ability to take notes and highlight text while reading. In two experiments, students’ reading times and comprehension scores were compared between electronic text and paper text excerpted from a popular psychology textbook. In the first experiment, students were only allowed to read, while the second experiment allowed the use of highlighting and note-taking. The results revealed no significant difference in reading times and comprehension scores across conditions. More important, there was no significant difference in highlighting and note-taking across text formats. Overall, comprehension was poor and this may reflect highlighting and note-taking as ineffective or rather the type of behavior when engaging in these types of reading aids should be reconsidered. Alternatively, poor comprehension may have been a result of low motivation from participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Content area textbooks. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools (pp. 193–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56(11), 851–864.

  3. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baron, N, S. (2014). How e-reading threatens learning in the humanities. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/How E-Reading-threatens/147661/?Cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en.

  5. Berg, H., & Dawson. (2010). Not on the same page. Undergraduates’ Information retrieval in electronic and print books., 36(6), 518–525.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Byrnes, J. P. (2001). Minds, brains, and learning: Understanding the psychological and educational relevance of neuroscientific research. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chulkov, V. & VanAlstine, J. (2013). College student choice among electronic and printed textbook options. Journal of Education for Business, 88(4), 216–222.

  8. Daniel, D. B., & Willingham, D. T. (2012). Electronic textbooks: Why the rush? Science, 335. Retrieved October 16, 2012 from: www.sciencemag.org, 1569–1571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fowler, R. L., & Barker, A. S. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 358–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gier, V. S., Herring, D., Hudnell, J., Montoya, J., & Kreiner, D. S. (2010). Active reading procedures for moderating the effects of poor highlighting. Reading Psychology, 31, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hartley, J., Bartlett, S., & Branthwaite, A. (1980). Underlining can make a difference—Sometimes. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 218–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heppner, F. H., Anderson, J. G. T., Farstrup, A. E., & Weiderman, N. H. (1985). Reading performance on a standardized test is better from print than from computer display. Journal of Reading, 28(4), 321–325.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kobrin, J. L., & Young, J. W. (2003). The cognitive equivalence of reading comprehension test items via computerized and paper-and-pencil administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mueller, P., & Oppenheimer, D. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Myers, D, C. (2011). Exploring psychology: 8th edition. Worth Publishers.

  19. National Association of College Stores, OnCampus Research, “Update: Electronic book and eReader device report” (2011); www.nacs.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uIf2NoXApKQ%3D&tabid=2471&mid=3210.

  20. Nist, S. L., & Hogrebe, M. C. (1987). The role of underlining and annotating in remembering textual information. Reading Research and Instruction, 27, 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Peterson, S. E. (1992). The cognitive functions of underlining as a study technique. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pickering, S, J. (2006). Working memory and education. Academic Press.

  23. Rockinson-Szapkiw, Couruff, Carter, & Bennett (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students’ learning, 63, 259–266.

  24. Shepperd, J. A., Grace, J. L., & Koch, E. J. (2008). Evaluating the electronic textbook: Is it time to dispense with the paper text? Teaching of Psychology, 35, 2–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Silvers-Gier, V., Kreiner, D. S., & Natz-Gonzalez, A. (2009). Harmful effects of preexisting inappropriate highlighting on reading comprehension and metacognitve accuracy. The Journal of General Psychology, 136, 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sommers, S., Shin, L., Greenebaum, S., Merker, J., & Sanders, A. (2018). Quasi-experimental assessment of electronic textbook experiences: Student perceptions and test performance. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Terpend, R., Gattiker, T. F., & Lowe, S. E. (2014). Electronic textbooks: Antecedents of students' adoption and learning outcomes. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 12(2), 149–173

  28. Wieder, B. (2012). Digital Textbooks Gaining Traction in States. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from http://www.governing.com/news/state/digital-textbooks-gaining-traction-in-states.html

  29. Woody, W., Daniel, D., & Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers and Education, 55, 945–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Stroud.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• The purpose of the current study was to compare reading comprehension based on paper text versus electronic text when given the option to highlight or take notes.

• In two experiments, participants read a chapter from a popular introductory psychology textbook followed by a set of comprehension questions drawn from the publishers supplied database. In both experiments, half of the participants read from a traditional textbook and half read on a desktop computer. In Experiment 1, participants were only allowed to read and in Experiment 2, they could highlight the text and take notes.

• The findings demonstrated no difference in terms of comprehension regardless of the format of the text or if given the option to highlight and take notes.

• The results of the current study are informative when recommending the type of text format. They should not be taken as a recommendation to not take notes or highlight, but rather the method of taking notes and highlighting should be considered while reading.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leonard, S., Stroud, M.J. & Shaw, R.J. Highlighting and taking notes are equally ineffective when Reading paper or eText. Educ Inf Technol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10448-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • E-text
  • Reading
  • Textbooks
  • Highlighting
  • Note-taking