Walk into almost any classroom and you can still predict the workflow: the teacher talks, students copy, and the notebook becomes proof that learning happened.
That routine survives because it is easy to manage. It is also outdated.
I have been arguing this for years, starting with a simple claim from my 2008 article, Ditch Paper and Get to the Thinking Faster: “Taking notes is never necessary. Everything is posted.” That was not theory. It was a description of what happened when my professional development went paperless: participants walked in, downloaded the materials, and used their time to think, discuss, and produce instead of copying.
The real problem is transcription, not the tool
The laptop versus handwriting debate is often framed as a verdict: handwriting is better.
A more honest reading is that the real risk is verbatim transcription and shallow processing. In Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014), the key difference is not the device itself, but that laptop note-takers were more likely to type verbatim, which can reduce the kind of generative processing that supports understanding.
A direct replication, Urry et al. (2021), found that while laptop note takers typed more and showed more verbatim overlap, the expected longhand advantage on immediate quiz performance did not reliably appear.
So the question schools should be asking is not “pen or keyboard?” It is “are we designing learning that turns students into transcription machines instead of thinkers?”
Note-taking is not learning, even when it works
Notes can be useful as a personal thinking tool, but they should not be the primary classroom task. The most useful research frame is not tool-based. It is purpose-based.
Across decades of work, researchers distinguish between the “encoding” benefit (processing while writing) and the “external storage” benefit (having notes available later). Encoding effects exist, but they are generally modest, and depend heavily on conditions and what students actually do while taking notes (see Kobayashi’s meta-analysis).
Translation: copying more does not mean learning more.
If notes are the output, give students the notes
This is the move schools resist for cultural reasons: provide students the notes, slides, and materials up front. When you do, class becomes the place students work with ideas, not copy them.
I put it bluntly in 2016 in my article, Don’t Waste Student’s Time with Note Taking. Something Better.: “Teachers must update their practice by removing notetaking from the work their students do.” In the same post I describe the alternative as routine practice: students get the teacher notes, slides, videos, transcripts, and materials so they can spend class time making meaning instead of recording words.
Research backs that stance. Students’ notes are often incomplete, and instructor-provided notes can improve achievement, especially when students use them for review (see Kiewra, 1985, Providing the Instructor’s Notes).
This is not lowering expectations. It is removing busywork that masquerades as rigor.
Lecture culture is the real problem
If students are taking notes because they are trapped in lecture, the bigger issue is the model.
In Moving From Lecture to Learning, I lean on Harvard professor Eric Mazur’s critique and make the point plainly: students do not need to “watch someone talk and furiously copy down notes.” A speaker can provide notes, transcripts, materials, and video for review, and then class time can shift to learning.
When you stop treating information delivery as the main event, you can design class around what students can do with information.
The equity angle schools avoid naming
The “notes equal learning” model is disproportionately common in environments where compliance is treated as achievement. Meanwhile, many students with more access get more of the learning experiences that demand doing, making, presenting, and iterating.
Opportunity-to-learn gaps are not only about resources. They are also about who gets consistent access to higher-order learning experiences. In some schools, students spend class time copying. In others, they spend it presenting, building, and defending ideas. The Learning Policy Institute’s Equity and ESSA report is a strong reference point for naming this clearly.
Where AI note-taking fits now
Artificial intelligence (AI) transcription and summarization tools make the old argument for mass manual note-taking even weaker. Capture is becoming automated.
That does not mean learning is automated. It means educators can stop pretending capture is the goal, provide the materials up front, and use class time for judgment, synthesis, and creation.
For an example of how this looks in practice, read my Tech & Learning post, Forget Taking Notes. 2 Strategies to Get to Thinking & Sharing Faster, which describes a simple system: shared digital materials plus collective, networked capture, so participants can get to the thinking faster.
What replaces note-taking
Once students are not stuck in capture mode, class can be built around real work:
Analyzing a case or scenario
Designing a solution for an authentic audience
Building, testing, and revising
Defending choices with evidence
Publishing work that leaves the classroom
This shift is not just philosophy. A major meta-analysis (Freeman et al., 2014) found that active learning improves performance and reduces failure rates in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) courses. Project-based learning (Chen and Yang, 2019) shows positive effects on academic achievement across studies as well.
The point is not the notes. It is the learning design.
The debate about note-taking is often framed as a choice between tools: paper or laptop, handwriting or typing. That framing misses the point. The real question is what we want students doing with their limited time and attention.
If we treat transcription as learning, we will keep designing classrooms where the safest move is to copy, comply, and wait for the “right answer.” If we provide the content up front, we can design for what matters: making meaning, building, revising, and creating for real audiences.
This is also an equity issue. Students with the most access often spend less time proving they were paying attention and more time doing work that proves they can think. All students deserve that.
AI makes the choice even clearer. Capture has become automatic, so schools need to stop spending human brainpower on it. Give students the slides. Give them the transcript. Give them the notes. Then use learning time for judgment, synthesis, and creation.
When we stop grading students on capture, we can start designing for thinking and work that leaves the room. If you want a concrete starting point, begin where I began years ago: Don’t Waste Student’s Time with Note Taking. Something Better. and Ditch Paper and Get to the Thinking Faster.
