You are here:

Designing an Online Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up

, , Carnegie Mellon University, United States

AACE Award

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Montreal, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-56-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


Though note taking applications have been built for educational purposes, none have been evaluated experimentally. It is therefore unclear whether digital note taking realizes the same benefits observed in traditional note taking. We present an initial experimental study aimed at addressing this problem. This study compares notes taken in an online course using an embedded note taking tool with notes taken using paper. We found that students using the tool produced more notes overall. The increase came in the form of verbatim notes, and students in both conditions took an equivalent amount of notes in their own words. No difference was seen on an immediate post-test. A majority of students stated that they would use the embedded text-editor in an online course. Future research will address the long-term impact of the increase in verbatim notes.


Bauer, A. & Koedinger, K. (2005). Designing an Online Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 4181-4186). Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Abowd, G.D. (1999). Classroom 2000: An experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment. IBM Systems Journal 38(4), 508-530
  2. Bretzing, B.H., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology 4, 145-153.
  3. Bretzing, B.H., Kulhavy, R.W. (1981). Notetaking and Passage Style. Journal of Educational Psychology 73(2), 242-250
  4. Card, S.K., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  5. Crawford, C.C. (1925) The correlation between college lecture notes and quiz papers. Journal of Educational Research, 12, (4), 282-291.
  6. Kiewra, K.A., & DuBois, N.F. (1991). Notetaking Functions and Techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology 83 (2). 240-245
  7. Lakmazaheri, S. (2004). SideNote: A Web Annotation Tool for E-Learning in Graphics-Rich Disciplines. World Conference on E-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health., & Higher Ed. 2004(1), 2737-2742
  8. Lebow, D., Lick, D., & Hartman, H. (2004). Interactive Annotation for Teaching and Learning. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (1), 1781-1786.
  9. Mason, H., Rebelsky, S., & Luebke, S. (1999). Annotating the World-Wide Web. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 1999 (1), 409-414
  10. Nye, P., Crooks, T., Powley, M., & Tripp, G. (1984). Student notetaking related to university examination performance. Higher Education 13, 85-97.
  11. Van Meter, P.M., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College Students’ Theory of Notetaking Derived From Their Perceptions of Notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology 86 (3), 323-338
  12. Williams, R.L., & Eggert, A.C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: Student patterns and instructional strategies. The Journal of General Education 51 (3), 173-199

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact