Is there evidence that suggests students should take notes?

Question

I hear a lot about good note-taking strategies vs bad note-taking strategies, and I have seen a lot of research papers on different styles of note-taking. What I haven't seen though is any study that has asked if we should even be taking notes in the first place.

Specifically I would like to know the long-term effects of taking notes vs not taking notes. It is clear to me that if someone has taken notes their entire academic career, then immediately stops, their performance will probably plummet, but how do students who have never taken notes compare to students who have always taken notes?

I would guess certain learning styles would benefit from note-taking while other learning styles are hindered by note-taking, but I would like to see some actual data on this if anyone knows anything about it. A cursory Google search didn't return anything, so I hope there is someone on here that may be able to shed some light on this.

Edit: A lot of people have taken this question to solely be asking for research on this topic. While I would most like to see actual data, I did not intend this to solely be a literature search, and people can post their anecdotal evidence, as long as it is pointed at the long-term difference in note-taking vs not taking notes.

Answer 1

You said you're not looking for research on note-taking, so consider this a freebie.

That said, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for here. There's a preponderance of research showing that (1) putting things in your own words and (2) recall exercises over time significantly improve memory. This pdf has some good overviews, and points to this academic publication (note: paywall) which contains a bunch of actual references.

Actually, the more I'm researching here, there does seem to be significant evidence that the act of note-taking itself is beneficial to recall and understanding. Two more recent examples relate to mock jurors watching a mock trial while either taking notes or not [1][2]. There's a paper which I can't seem to download but I've seen cited a few times that discusses the positive effect of note taking on student performance [3].

All this said, there's more to it than this. There are numerous note-taking methods, and they have a literature all of their own (e.g., [4]). The way you take notes definitely affects how effective the note-taking will be.

So yeah, it helps.

---

Edit based on comments: There is substantial evidence that note-taking, by itself, improves retention. That said, the OP seems to be curious whether the fact that we take notes at all is biasing our results; perhaps we should be focusing on comparing pure memory recall techniques to note-taking. Said differently, will someone with memory training outperform someone proficient at note-taking?

I still think that this question itself has issues. Specifically:

1. There is a significant difference between someone who simply doesn't take notes and someone who has trained themselves to not need written notes. I know people who avoid writing anything (mostly psychiatrists who don't want everything written down and subpoena-able), and it took years of mental training to get there. That is different from the lazy kid who just says "I can remember everything."
2. As with note-taking, there are many different techniques for remembering without notes, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. I think that ignoring the techniques ignores an important part of the question.
3. I don't think this question is even answerable anymore. Most of the modern world takes notes in some form (source: I made this up), whereas a very minor percentage of people nowadays use purely memory-based techniques (source: I made this up too). As such, finding a representative sample from the second group for our comparison would be pretty doggone difficult.

Answer 2

Anecdotally, not taking notes worked well for me in CS, but the optimal strategy depends on the particular style of instructor delivery.

If tests covers content directly from the texts, it's often beneficial to not to take notes, and give 100% focus to the lectures and engaging in discussion. This approach maximizes real time absorption, giving your brain precious extra seconds to consider the implications of each concept you hear, and to ask clarifying questions. Notes are replaced with the text or course materials for later review.

Alternatively, some instructors will test on concepts from lectures that are not part of course text or materials. In these cases, there is not really much choice other than to take notes (or use recordings) to make sure you have what's needed for exam review.

Answer 3

I'm addressing different points in my response.

Should you take notes? (Short answer is yes for most subjects especially if you're new to the material and/or have terrible memory)

The long answer is it depends on the subject, individual, and level of expertise in the subject. As an example of the first, it's not uncommon in music to learn by listening so note-taking benefits are limited. For the second, some people can capture information without the need for notes but there is plenty of literature (and this has also been joked as the "Lake Wobegon" effect) that most people feel they can capture information without note-taking but when actually tested their performance was weaker. But recognize most of these studies were for people studying new subjects, which brings me to the final point. If you've been practicing the field for awhile, then the knowledge is embedded in your head so your need for note-taking is less. From experience, you know what you need to pay attention to so you may not write it down. As an example, I've worked with two world leaders in their respective domains. I rarely saw them taking notes when it came down to their own fields but for new materials they did: one was biochemical engineering (expertise thermodynamics) and the other was statistics (expertise biochemical engineering).

What does the science say about note-taking?

It's actually quite complicated for a variety of reasons but here's a short synopsis. First, most people don't know how to take notes and there have been studies on people learning from their own notes vs. those provided by the professors. People did better with the latter but considering that doesn't happen most of the time I consider it a moot point. But if you can get lecture notes from the source use them.

Second, science has actually looked at listening vs. taking notes (and not reviewing- called encoding) vs. storage (which is reviewing notes either you've taken or provided by the expert) and there are many papers that talk about it but one pretty good review paper is by Kenneth Kiewra (1989) Review of Note-Taking: The Encoding-Storage Paradigm and Beyond). Below is a relevant excerpt

From Kiewra's paper: "In 61 studies reviewed by Hartley (1983) and/or Kiewra (1985a), 35 found facilitative encoding effects, 23 indicated that note-takers and listeners did not differ significantly on performance tests, and three studies reported that listening without note-taking led to better performance than note-taking. Among studies comparing the storage and encoding functions, the storage function has proven more beneficial (e.g., Carter and Van Matre, 1975; Fisher and Harris, 1973; Kiewra, 1985b; Rickards and Friedman, 1978)." [Complication was that testing immediately after lecture revealed in many cases no difference but after waiting a week or longer after the lecture the note-takers/reviewers often did better. So, for most realistic settings either take or review your notes. Cramming is not recommended]

What's the best note-taking technique?

People state Cornell but the reality is unless you review, reflect, and synthesize your notes it doesn't matter which approach you take. Cornell just makes it easier to do those steps but the others can be modified to do the same.

Now in the words of one of my professors, "You are not asking the right question."

If the objective is to learn, then note-taking is one way to do that and is the preferred route for most topics and beginners (aka students). But it is not the only way, deliberate practice which may or may not include note-taking is a more general strategy for acquiring expertise. K. Anders Ericsson published a layman's book on it called Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise if you want to learn more. (But even his research has its critics)

Answer 4

I think it is important to distinguish two kinds of note-takers.

The first kind of note taker takes notes because they can't understand the material in real-time. This group of note-takers plan to learn by poring over the notes later, perhaps in several iterations. Such note-takers are, of course, not the creme of the crop academically.

The second kind of note taker takes notes because writing things down is their way of memorizing things. Members of this group of note-takers rarely, if ever, refer back to their notes. Their notes may be distinctly less organized than those of the first group of note-takers. They may also have poor memory when it comes to anything non-academic that they wouldn't necessarily think of writing down.

It's also important to distinguish two kinds of non-note-takers: Students who don't take notes because they plan to barely pass the course versus students why are exceptionally capable of memorizing things without aids.

As you can see, overall, both "good" and "bad" students span the entire spectrum of note-taking, making it difficult to make accurate judgements based on observing note-taking behavior alone.