‘I felt a new connection between my fingers and brain’: a thematic analysis of student reflections on the use of pen and paper during lectures

References

• Aguilar-Roca, Nancy M., Adrienne E. Williams, and Diane K. O'Dowd. 2012. “The Impact of Laptop-free Zones on Student Performance and Attitudes in Large Lectures.” Computers & Education 59 (4): 1300–1308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, María A. Pérez. 2015. “Metacognition and Sensorimotor Components Underlying the Process of Handwriting and Keyboarding and Their Impact on Learning: An Analysis from the Perspective of Embodied Psychology.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 176 (Feb.): 263–269.
   Google Scholar
• Badley, Graham. 2009. “A Reflective Essaying Model for Higher Education.” Education+Training, May. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910910964548.
   Google Scholar
• Bentley, Michael, Stephen C. Fleury, and Jim Garrison. 2007. “Critical Constructivism for Teaching and Learning in a Democratic Society.” Journal of Thought 42 (3–4): 9..
   Google Scholar
• Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2012. “Thematic Analysis.” In APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological, 57–71. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, Virginia, Victoria Clarke, Nikki Hayfield, and Gareth Terry. 2018. “Thematic Analysis.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, edited by Pranee Liamputtong, 1–18. Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_103-1.
   Google Scholar
• Crawley, Sara L. 2008. “Full-contact Pedagogy: Lecturing with Questions and Student-centered Assignments as Methods for Inciting Self-reflexivity for Faculty and Students.” Feminist Teacher 19 (1): 13–30.
   Google Scholar
• Desselle, Shane, and Patricia Shane. 2018. “Laptop Versus Longhand Note Taking in a Professional Doctorate Course: Student Performance, Attitudes, and Behaviors.” Innovations in Pharmacy, January, [Article 15]. https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v9i3.1392.
   Google Scholar
• Dijck, Jose van. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dysthe, Olga, and Frøydis Hertzberg. 2006. “‘Skriv Alt Du Vet Om … ’ Bruk Av Mikrooppgaver i Undervisningen.” In Når Læring Er Det Viktigste: Undervisning i Høyere Utdanning [When Learning Is the Most Important Thing: Teaching in Higher Education], edited by Helge I. Strømsø, Kirsten Hofgaard Lycke, and Per Lauvås, 177–193. Oslo: Cappelen Akademiske Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott-Dorans, Lauren R. 2018. “To Ban or Not to Ban? The Effect of Permissive Versus Restrictive Laptop Policies on Student Outcomes and Teaching Evaluations.” Computers & Education 126 (Nov.): 183–200.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, Andrew. 2002. Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, Andrew. 2017. “A Critical Theory of Technology.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 635–663. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282229.n9.
   Google Scholar
• Fink, Joseph L. 2010. “Why We Banned Use of Laptops and ‘Scribe Notes’ in Our Classroom.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 74 (6): 1–2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933023/.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortunati, Leopoldina, and Jane Vincent. 2014. “Sociological Insights on the Comparison of Writing/Reading on Paper with Writing/Reading Digitally.” Telematics and Informatics 31 (1): 39–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freire, Paulo. 2013. Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fried, Carrie B. 2008. “In-class Laptop Use and Its Effects on Student Learning.” Computers & Education 50 (3): 906–914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaver, William W. 1991. “Technology Affordances.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’91, 79–84. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856.
   Google Scholar
• Gehlen-Baum, Vera, and Armin Weinberger. 2012. “Notebook or Facebook? How Students Actually Use Mobile Devices in Large Lectures.” In 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills, edited by Andrew Ravenscroft, Stefanie Lindstaedt, Carlos Delgado Kloos, and Davinia Hernández-Leo, 103–112. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, James Jerome. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hartson, Rex. 2003. “Cognitive, Physical, Sensory, and Functional Affordances in Interaction Design.” Behaviour & Information Technology 22 (5): 315–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horbury, Simon R., and Caroline J. Edmonds. 2020. “Taking Class Notes by Hand Compared to Typing: Effects on Children’s Recall and Understanding.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2020.1781307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosein, Anesa, and Namrata Rao. 2017. “Students’ Reflective Essays as Insights into Student Centred-pedagogies Within the Undergraduate Research Methods Curriculum.” Teaching in Higher Education 22 (1): 109–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutcheon, Thomas G., Aileen Lian, and Anna Richard. 2019. “The Impact of a Technology Ban on Students’ Perceptions and Performance in Introduction to Psychology.” Teaching of Psychology 46 (1): 47–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold, Tim. 2008. “In Defence of Handwriting.” Writing Across Boundaries (blog). https://www.dur.ac.uk/writingacrossboundaries/writingonwriting/timingold/.
   Google Scholar
• Karjo, Clara Herlina. 2017. “The Effects of ICT and Longhand Note-taking on Students’ Comprehension.” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities 82: 64–66.
   Google Scholar
• Kincheloe, Joe L. 2011. “Critical Pedagogy and the Knowledge Wars of the Twenty-first Century.” In Key Works in Critical Pedagogy, 385–405. Bold Visions in Educational Research. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_29.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner, Paul A., and Pedro De Bruyckere. 2017. “The Myths of the Digital Native and the Multitasker.” Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (Oct.): 135–142.
   Google Scholar
• Leijen, Äli, Kai Valtna, Djuddah A.J. Leijen, and Margus Pedaste. 2012. “How to Determine the Quality of Students’ Reflections?” Studies in Higher Education 37 (2): 203–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenhard, Wolfgang, Ulrich Schroeders, and Alexandra Lenhard. 2017. “Equivalence of Screen Versus Print Reading Comprehension Depends on Task Complexity and Proficiency.” Discourse Processes 54 (5–6): 427–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, Linlin, Kenneth A. Kiewra, Abraham E. Flanigan, and Markeya S. Peteranetz. 2018. “Laptop Versus Longhand Note Taking: Effects on Lecture Notes and Achievement.” Instructional Science 46 (6): 947–971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangen, Anne, and Lillian Balsvik. 2016. “Pen or Keyboard in Beginning Writing Instruction? Some Perspectives from Embodied Cognition.” Trends in Neuroscience and Education 5 (3): 99–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangen, Anne, and Jean-Luc Velay. 2010. “Digitizing Literacy: Reflections on the Haptics of Writing.” In Advances in Haptics, edited by Mehrdad Hosseini. https://doi.org/10.5772/8710. InTech.
   Google Scholar
• Mangen, Anne, Bente R. Walgermo, and Kolbjørn Brønnick. 2013. “Reading Linear Texts on Paper Versus Computer Screen: Effects on Reading Comprehension.” International Journal of Educational Research 58 (Jan.): 61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, Pam A., and Daniel M. Oppenheimer. 2014. “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking.” Psychological Science 25 (6): 1159–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, Donald A. 1998. The Design of Everyday Things. London: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Piper, Anne Marie, and James D. Hollan. 2009. “Tabletop Displays for Small Group Study: Affordances of Paper and Digital Materials.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’09, 1227–1236. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518885.
   Google Scholar
• Ragan, Eric D., Samuel R. Jennings, John D. Massey, and Peter E. Doolittle. 2014. “Unregulated Use of Laptops Over Time in Large Lecture Classes.” Computers & Education 78 (Sept.): 78–86.
   Google Scholar
• Sana, Faria, Tina Weston, and Nicholas J. Cepeda. 2013. “Laptop Multitasking Hinders Classroom Learning for Both Users and Nearby Peers.” Computers & Education 62 (Mar.): 24–31.
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, Andrea, Christine Noweski, and Christoph Meinel. 2012. “Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action: Design Thinking in Education.” Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 17 (3): 12.
   Google Scholar
• Selwyn, Neil. 2016. “Digital Downsides: Exploring University Students’ Negative Engagements with Digital Technology.” Teaching in Higher Education 21 (8): 1006–1021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shotter, John. 1983. “‘Duality of Structure’ and ‘Intentionality’ in an Ecological Psychology.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 13 (1): 19–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, Lauren M., and Patricia A. Alexander. 2017. “Reading Across Mediums: Effects of Reading Digital and Print Texts on Comprehension and Calibration.” The Journal of Experimental Education 85 (1): 155–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taipale, Sakari. 2014. “The Affordances of Reading/Writing on Paper and Digitally in Finland.” Telematics and Informatics 31 (4): 532–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, Sharon, Danielle DeVoss, and Mark Hara. 1998. “Toward a Critical Theory of Technology and Writing.” The Writing Center Journal 19 (1): 73–86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43442636.
   Google Scholar
• Tynjälä, Päivi. 1998. “Writing as a Tool for Constructive Learning: Students’ Learning Experiences During an Experiment.” Higher Education 36 (2): 209–230. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1030879&site=ehost-live.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Velden, Maja. 2016. “Design as Regulation.” In Culture, Technology, Communication: Common World, Different Futures, edited by José Abdelnour-Nocera, Michele Strano, Charles Ess, Maja Van der Velden, and Herbert Hrachovec, 32–54. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• van der Velden, Maja, Suhas Govind Joshi, and Alma Culén. 2018. “Designed for Learning: Experiences with the Intensive Course Format in Informatics.” In Proceedings from the Annual NOKOBIT Conference Held at Svalbard the 18th–20th of September 2018, Vol. 26. https://ojs.bibsys.no/index.php/Nokobit/article/view/555.
   Google Scholar
• Wrigley, Stuart. 2019. “Avoiding ‘de-Plagiarism’: Exploring the Affordances of Handwriting in the Essay-writing Process.” Active Learning in Higher Education 20 (2): 167–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, Jefferey R. 2006. “The Fight for Classroom Attention: Professor vs. Laptop.” Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (39): A27–A29. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21116420&site=ehost-live.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar