↓ Skip to main content

The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 3,705)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
318 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1789 Mendeley
citeulike
16 CiteULike
Title
The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard
Published in
Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), April 2014
DOI 10.1177/0956797614524581
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pam A. Mueller, Daniel M. Oppenheimer

Abstract

Taking notes on laptops rather than in longhand is increasingly common. Many researchers have suggested that laptop note taking is less effective than longhand note taking for learning. Prior studies have primarily focused on students' capacity for multitasking and distraction when using laptops. The present research suggests that even when laptops are used solely to take notes, they may still be impairing learning because their use results in shallower processing. In three studies, we found that students who took notes on laptops performed worse on conceptual questions than students who took notes longhand. We show that whereas taking more notes can be beneficial, laptop note takers' tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,752 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,789 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 69 4%
United Kingdom 25 1%
Germany 9 <1%
Canada 9 <1%
Brazil 7 <1%
Australia 6 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
New Zealand 5 <1%
Sweden 4 <1%
Other 44 2%
Unknown 1606 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 308 17%
Student > Bachelor 281 16%
Student > Master 227 13%
Researcher 193 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 133 7%
Other 531 30%
Unknown 116 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 507 28%
Social Sciences 304 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 127 7%
Computer Science 121 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 78 4%
Other 480 27%
Unknown 172 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3776. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#344
of 15,115,672 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.)
#1
of 3,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2
of 191,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.)
#1
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,115,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 191,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.