Just like that, another syllabus week has come and gone. Between questions about the exams and discussions on whether or not we have to buy the textbook, the inevitable conversation about 'technology in the classroom' is had. Some teachers could care less if your laptop is open during class; they're getting paid either way, so why not? Other professors, considering the potential for distractions, choose to ban the use of all technology during regular lectures.

It is obvious that students can take more notes with their laptops as they are able to type faster than they can write. In today's competitive world of education, is prohibiting the use of technology in the classroom really worth it? A psychological study conducted by Princeton's Pam A. Mueller and UCLA's Daniel M. Oppenheimer says unequivocally, yes.

It's impossible to argue that technology doesn't provide ample opportunity for distraction. Whether it's an alarm going off, a new email, or an unbearably adorable puppy video, the connected world is constantly creating an excuse for us to look at a screen. Even when researchers took out this distraction factor, the use of technology still pales in comparison to traditional pen and paper. The study, aptly titled "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard", found that using a laptop to take notes resulted in mindless, verbatim transcript rather than deep thought and understanding. Writing notes longhand, however, proved to be beneficial factually and conceptually in both the short and long term.

To come to these conclusions, researchers performed three experiments with college students at Princeton University. In each experiment, the students were asked to watch a TED talk video and take notes. Half of the students used their laptops (disconnected from the internet to avoid the intrusion of distractions), while the other half used old fashioned pen and paper. Afterward, students "responded to both factual-recall questions and conceptual-application questions" regarding the video.

Though "participants who took longhand notes wrote significantly fewer words," these students were undoubtedly able to better answer conceptual questions. Mueller and Oppenheimer observed that the students on laptops attempted to write every word, rather than forming their own sentences and summaries. Therefore, their brains were processing at a much shallower level than those writing less, but arguably more meaningful, notes.

Using this theory as a basis for the second study, researchers then asked students with laptops to “take notes in your own words and don’t just [type] word-for-word what the speaker is saying.” Despite these instructions, Mueller and Oppenheimer found students were unable to avoid transcription-like notes and continued to perform poorly on the test.

For the third study, researchers focused on the quantity aspect of the notes. Since students typing could include more details, Mueller and Oppenheimer speculated, "Is it possible that this increased external-storage capacity could boost performance on tests taken after an opportunity to study one’s notes?" In other words, if the laptop notetakers were given a chance to study their notes, would they be able to excel? As it turns out, no. The researchers found, "Even when allowed to review notes after a week’s delay, participants who had taken notes with laptops performed worse on tests of both factual content and conceptual understanding, relative to participants who had taken notes longhand."

As the first study to look at the difference in note-taking behavior between writing longhand and typing, Mueller and Oppenheimer offer a convincing argument to leave the laptop at home.