In Reply to “Why We Banned Use of Laptops and ‘Scribe Notes’ in Our Classroom”

To the Editor. In the contemporary world of higher education, institutions are usually quick to adopt the newest technologies. However, some college faculty members appear to be reverting back to traditional methods and steering away from laptop computers and Web-based learning. The laptop and “Scribe Notes” ban mentioned in a previous letter, “Why We Banned Use of Laptops and ‘Scribe Notes’ in Our Classroom,” by Fink JL brought to light the difficulties inherent in today's use of computers and the Internet in the classroom.¹ Despite the distractions that laptops cause, to ban their use along with “Scribe Notes” is in essence to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” The distraction in classrooms is not a factor of the device, but rather a direct measure of students' willingness to pay attention. It is a commonly held belief that when bored, students will G-chat, check e-mail or Facebook, shop, check sports scores, and even play solitaire. However, based on the undergraduate university experiences of the authors, such inattentive behavior existed in classrooms before computers were commonplace. Therefore, such actions by a minority of uninterested students do not adequately justify elimination of electronic learning for the class as a whole.

Scientists (and clinicians) rightly acknowledge that association does not equal causation. To assert that laptops and other technology are the cause of classroom distraction is debatable. A review of classroom etiquette reveals that students create distractions through behaviors beyond those involving computers, eg, talking, reading a newspaper, napping, walking in late or leaving early, chewing gum, or even littering.⁶ Seeing that it is not simply the modern device that causes distractions, one must look elsewhere to discover the reason for lack of student interest and engagement during lectures. Dr. Fink mentions that his course is “designed as a professional practice course,” however, eliminating computers from the learning phase when they are universally used in professional health systems creates an environment that is incongruent with professional practice as well as the academic teaching presentation norm.

Fink's recommendation that a ban on “Scribe Notes” (or similar electronic “note tools or aids”) establishes a precedent such that each student “generate(s) his or her own notes just as would be expected when interacting with a patient” is without merit. Most lectures create a passive learning environment, whereas a patient interview is a dynamic and intimate exchange between the healthcare provider and patient. This provider-patient interaction often involves the provider asking specific (and unscripted) questions followed by the provider explaining concepts in an active-learning environment. Juxtaposing the use of “Scribe Notes” with the assumption that students will be ill prepared to write their own notes is at best an “apples to oranges” comparison. In addition, if the goal of guiding students to “generate their own notes” were to be successful, it seems more would have to be done than simply eliminating electronic note aids. As observed by this student author, students regularly study and share notes with one another outside of the classroom. Group study and group office hours are similar to “Scribe Notes” and other note aids in that they help students collaborate and share ideas from classroom lectures. Following Fink's reasoning, since group studying does not exist during patient interviews in the professional world, should group studying also be banned from his course? Electronic learning aids such as Scribe Notes greatly benefit students who do not take adequate notes in a passive-learning environment. They also serve as a safeguard to ensure that presented classroom material is accurately conveyed to the entire class. More specifically, electronic learning aids serve as a reasonable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation for those with language and learning disabilities. Sacrificing an available and useful learning tool is unnecessary to properly prepare students for their future professional work environment and may actually be detrimental to certain students.

Much of the research surrounding the debate of computer use in the classroom centers around law schools and courses taught in the undergraduate setting at larger universities.^2,3 Teaching modalities are likely similar among various disciplines and pharmacy education is not unique wherein an increasing number of instructors are lecturing with the use of electronic presentations. Some lecturers find that creative use of technology enables a shift from passive learning towards active student engagement. Students who would otherwise not participate in a large non-intimate lecture could do so in novel ways including anonymous questions, Web-based research, or pop quizzes that take only a few minutes.⁵ Generally, lecturers use technology to provide students with notes or summaries beforehand as it is advantageous for students to have all their notes in one place with the ability to quickly and accurately access a myriad of educational resources. To assume that the learning environment is enhanced among distracted students and tedious lecturers by banning laptops, electronic notes, or other technology requires a quantum leap of faith.

The Fink Hypothesis of enhancing the learning environment by banning computers, electronic notes, or other technology from the classroom is no exception to requirement of proof via the empirical method. Until sufficient data are presented to support his hypothesis, it should not be readily accepted as the truth by academics. At the end of this discussion the reader may wonder what the best solution is. As John Deighton at Harvard Business School elegantly stated, “Ultimately the only way to ensure that a class member is not on the Web,” or at least not being distracted, “is to conduct an engaging class.” Perhaps a better approach to banning laptops and electronic note aids in the pharmacy classroom is the banning of non-engaging lecturers and delivery techniques.

Roger Wright, PharmD Candidate (Class of 2011), Paul J Perry, PhD, Keith Yoshizuka, PharmD, MBA, JD, Mitchell J. Barnett, PharmD, MSTouro University College of Pharmacy, vallejo, CA

• © 2011 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy