Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection - Revision history

Abauer: /* Further Information */

2007-04-13T18:21:00Z

Further Information

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 13 April 2007
Line 130:		Line 130:

	== Further Information ==		== Further Information ==
	Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication		Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication [http://www.learnlab.org/uploads/mypslc/publications/bauer-chi2007.doc Word File, Final Version]

Abauer at 18:03, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T18:03:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 13 April 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\| '''PIs''' \|\| Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger		\| '''PIs''' \|\| Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''Other Contributers''' \|\| ~~<b>Graduate Students:</b> Andy Tzou (CMU HCII)<br>~~		\| '''Other Contributers''' \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''Study Start Date''' \|\| May 1, 2006		\| '''Study Start Date''' \|\| May 1, 2006

Abauer at 17:59, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T17:59:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 13 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Summary Table ===		=== Summary Table ===
	~~====Study 1====~~
	{\| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"		{\| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
	\| '''PIs''' \|\| Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger		\| '''PIs''' \|\| Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger
Line 10:		Line 9:
	\| '''Study End Date''' \|\| July 20, 2006		\| '''Study End Date''' \|\| July 20, 2006
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''Laboratory Study'''		\| '''Laboratory Study''' \|\|
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''LearnLab Course''' \|\| Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)		\| '''LearnLab Course''' \|\| Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)

Abauer at 17:58, 13 April 2007

2007-04-13T17:58:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 13 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			=== Summary Table ===
			====Study 1====
			{\| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"
			\| '''PIs''' \|\| Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger
			\|-
			\| '''Other Contributers''' \|\| <b>Graduate Students:</b> Andy Tzou (CMU HCII)<br>
			\|-
			\| '''Study Start Date''' \|\| May 1, 2006
			\|-
			\| '''Study End Date''' \|\| July 20, 2006
			\|-
			\| '''Laboratory Study'''
			\|-
			\| '''LearnLab Course''' \|\| Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)
			\|-
			\| '''Number of Students''' \|\| 93
			\|-
			\| '''Total Participant Hours''' \|\| 260
			\|-
			\| '''DataShop''' \|\| Log data is not in DataShop. Should be available Fall 2007
			\|}
			<br>

	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

Koedinger: /* Hypotheses */

2007-04-13T15:35:42Z

Hypotheses

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 13 April 2007
Line 77:		Line 77:

	== Hypotheses ==		== Hypotheses ==
	1. 'Refinement': Restrictions on selections will increase the students' [[focusing\|focus]] on the ideas being recorded, resulting in improved learning gains relative to unrestricted copy-paste.		1. '[[Refinement]]': Restrictions on selections will increase the students' [[feature focusing\|focus]] on the ideas being recorded, resulting in improved learning gains relative to unrestricted copy-paste.

	2. 'Coordination': Viewing multiple versions of the same idea will require students to coordinate material, resulting in improved learning gains (less forgetting) relative to copy-paste.		2. '[[Coordination]]': Viewing multiple versions of the same idea will require students to coordinate material, resulting in improved learning gains (less forgetting) relative to copy-paste.

	== Findings ==		== Findings ==

Koedinger: /* Abstract */

2007-04-13T15:34:11Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 13 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

	This study evaluates two hypothesis regarding negative learning effects observed for note-taking tools with copy-paste functionality. Two novel tools are compared with two tools that use standard functionality: one that only allows copy-paste, and the other that only allows typing. The first novel tool restricts the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, in order to increase attention to what is being recorded. The comparison between restricted and unrestricted copy-paste thus evaluates a [[focusing]] hypothesis within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The second tool requires students to choose a reworded version of the idea selected, in order to evaluate whether it is important that students create their notes or simply view reworded versions of the ideas they want to record. The comparison between this tool and the other tools evaluates a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis. Our study found that both novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than the standard tools, which may be due to an observed user frustration with the novel interaction techniques. We also found that copy-paste only functionality increased the efficiency of learning relative to typing. In other words, people using the copy-paste tool learned the same amount in less time than users of the typing tool.		This study evaluates two hypothesis regarding negative learning effects observed for note-taking tools with copy-paste functionality. Two novel tools are compared with two tools that use standard functionality: one that only allows copy-paste, and the other that only allows typing. The first novel tool restricts the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, in order to increase attention to what is being recorded. The comparison between restricted and unrestricted copy-paste thus evaluates a [[feature focusing]] hypothesis within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The second tool requires students to choose a reworded version of the idea selected, in order to evaluate whether it is important that students create their notes or simply view reworded versions of the ideas they want to record. The comparison between this tool and the other tools evaluates a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis. Our study found that both novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than the standard tools, which may be due to an observed user frustration with the novel interaction techniques. We also found that copy-paste only functionality increased the efficiency of learning relative to typing. In other words, people using the copy-paste tool learned the same amount in less time than users of the typing tool.

	For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies\|top-level page.]]		For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies\|top-level page.]]

Koedinger: /* Dependent Variables */

2007-04-13T15:17:38Z

Dependent Variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 13 April 2007
Line 31:		Line 31:
	[[Note:]] all tests include both multiple choice and free response questions. The multiple choice questions all involve solving problems (for example, given a response structure, which variables are direct causes of an effect, or which interact to produce an effect). In addition, some free response questions ask students to explain terminology used in the module.		[[Note:]] all tests include both multiple choice and free response questions. The multiple choice questions all involve solving problems (for example, given a response structure, which variables are direct causes of an effect, or which interact to produce an effect). In addition, some free response questions ask students to explain terminology used in the module.

	''Normal ~~Learning, immediate~~:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.		''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.

	''Long-~~Term Retention, Normal Learning~~:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.		''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.

	''~~Normal Learning,~~ review:'' After taking the long-term retention test, students are given their notes to review for 5 minutes. Following this review period, students take a final test.		''[[Long-term retention]] after review:'' After taking the long-term retention test, students are given their notes to review for 5 minutes. Following this review period, students take a final test.

Abauer: /* Background/Significance */

2007-03-30T00:07:51Z

Background/Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 30 March 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	== Background/Significance ==		== Background/Significance ==

	In a previous study, we showed that copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to reduce [[long-term retention]] relative to note-taking using typing or handwriting. In the previous study we found that when using copy-paste functionality, ideas that were recorded in a more wordy fashion were forgotten more than less wordy notes. ~~This was not the case for~~ typed or handwritten notes. This study evaluates two hypotheses regarding these learning differences.		In a previous study, we showed that copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to reduce [[long-term retention]] relative to note-taking using typing or handwriting. In the previous study we found that when using copy-paste functionality, ideas that were recorded in a more wordy fashion were forgotten more than less wordy notes. Neither typed nor handwritten notes showed similar effects of wording. This study evaluates two hypotheses regarding these learning differences.

	As the cost of wordy notes is low using copy-paste, we believed that wordy notes are indicative of decreased attention to the idea being recorded. In addition, while in typing and handwriting wordiness is associated with more time spent on the idea being recorded, this is not the case for copy-paste. We designed a tool to restrict the amount of text students could select in any one copy-paste action in order to increase the attention required to record a note. We believed this would result in superior learning. It is important to note that whereas in our previous study all tools had typing functionality, in this case only users of the typing tool could type.		As the cost of wordy notes is low using copy-paste, we believed that wordy notes are indicative of decreased attention to the idea being recorded. In addition, while in typing and handwriting wordiness is associated with more time spent on the idea being recorded, this is not the case for copy-paste. We designed a tool to restrict the amount of text students could select in any one copy-paste action in order to increase the attention required to record a note. We believed this would result in superior learning. It is important to note that whereas in our previous study all tools had typing functionality, in this case only users of the typing tool could type.

Abauer: /* Abstract */

2007-03-30T00:07:00Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 30 March 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

	This study evaluates two hypothesis regarding negative learning effects observed for note-taking tools with copy-paste functionality. Two novel tools are compared with two tools that use standard functionality: one that only allows copy-paste, and the other that only allows typing. The first novel tool restricts the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, in order to increase attention to what is being recorded. ~~This tool~~ evaluates a [[focusing]] hypothesis within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The second tool requires students to choose a reworded version of the idea selected, in order to evaluate whether it is important that students create their notes or simply view reworded versions of the ideas they want to record. ~~This~~ tool evaluates a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis. Our study found that both novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than the standard tools, which may be due to an observed user frustration with the novel interaction techniques. We also found that copy-paste only functionality increased the efficiency of learning relative to typing. In other words, people using the copy-paste tool learned the same amount in less time than users of the typing tool.		This study evaluates two hypothesis regarding negative learning effects observed for note-taking tools with copy-paste functionality. Two novel tools are compared with two tools that use standard functionality: one that only allows copy-paste, and the other that only allows typing. The first novel tool restricts the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, in order to increase attention to what is being recorded. The comparison between restricted and unrestricted copy-paste thus evaluates a [[focusing]] hypothesis within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The second tool requires students to choose a reworded version of the idea selected, in order to evaluate whether it is important that students create their notes or simply view reworded versions of the ideas they want to record. The comparison between this tool and the other tools evaluates a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis. Our study found that both novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than the standard tools, which may be due to an observed user frustration with the novel interaction techniques. We also found that copy-paste only functionality increased the efficiency of learning relative to typing. In other words, people using the copy-paste tool learned the same amount in less time than users of the typing tool.

	For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies\|top-level page.]]		For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies\|top-level page.]]

Abauer: /* Abstract */

2007-03-30T00:06:10Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 30 March 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==

	This study evaluates two hypothesis regarding negative learning effects observed for note-taking tools with copy-paste functionality. Two novel tools are compared with two tools that use standard functionality: one that only allows copy-paste, and the other that only allows typing. The first novel tool restricts the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, in order to increase attention to what is being recorded. This evaluates a [[focusing]] hypothesis within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The second requires students to choose a reworded version of the idea selected, in order to evaluate whether it is important that students create their notes or simply view reworded versions of the ideas they want to record. This ~~falls within the~~ [[Coordinative Learning]] ~~cluster~~. Our study found that both novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than the standard tools, which may be due to an observed user frustration with the novel interaction techniques. We also found that copy-paste only functionality increased the efficiency of learning relative to typing. In other words, people using the copy-paste tool learned the same amount in less time than users of the typing tool.		This study evaluates two hypothesis regarding negative learning effects observed for note-taking tools with copy-paste functionality. Two novel tools are compared with two tools that use standard functionality: one that only allows copy-paste, and the other that only allows typing. The first novel tool restricts the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, in order to increase attention to what is being recorded. This tool evaluates a [[focusing]] hypothesis within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. The second tool requires students to choose a reworded version of the idea selected, in order to evaluate whether it is important that students create their notes or simply view reworded versions of the ideas they want to record. This tool evaluates a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis. Our study found that both novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than the standard tools, which may be due to an observed user frustration with the novel interaction techniques. We also found that copy-paste only functionality increased the efficiency of learning relative to typing. In other words, people using the copy-paste tool learned the same amount in less time than users of the typing tool.

	For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies\|top-level page.]]		For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies\|top-level page.]]