https://learnlab.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Abauer&feedformat=atomLearnLab - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T15:57:35ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.31.12https://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=7872Note-Taking: Coordination2008-04-21T14:44:50Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Note-Taking: Coordinating content with notes==<br />
<br />
Aaron Bauer, Ken Koedinger<br />
*PI: Aaron Bauer<br />
*Key faculty: Ken Koedinger<br />
*Studies: 1 complete<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || March 1, 2008<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || March 27, 2008<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 51<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 120<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Will attach file, May ‘08<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
This project examines the part the presence of a notepad plays in the educational benefits of note-taking. Some forms of note-taking involve the creation of a document that is available while they are reading learning materials. Such is the case when students record notes on a blank piece of paper, or type or paste them into a text-editor underneath a browser. In other forms of note-taking, such as highlighting, students lose access to their notes when they change pages. By comparing interfaces that do and do not include a notepad, this project explores the hypothesis that the availability of notes allows students to coordinate what they are learning with what they are learning, strengthening the connections between [[knowledge components]].<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
* [[Co-presence Of Text]]: The principle that having multiple related documents simultaneously available increases learning by increasing connections made between knowledge components.<br />
*Note-taking: The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
*Select/ion: This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
*Copy-Paste: This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
*Highlighting:The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
==Research Question==<br />
Previous studies have shown that the simultaneous presence of related texts increases learning. Does the simple presence of a notepad play the same role for note-takers? <br />
<br />
==Background and Significance==<br />
<br />
There is a long history of research connecting note-taking with increased performance on learning outcomes. While some researchers believe note-taking gains are achieved when students connect learning materials with prior knowledge, there is little behavioral data to support such a thesis. Students' notes rarely show indications of material external to what they are learning. In fact, notes are often recorded verbatim. Still, there is evidence that note-takers perform better on tests addressing robust learning measures (Peper and Mayer, 1986), which should derive from such connective behavior.<br />
<br />
Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Learning Outcomes'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''[[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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting with Notepad:'' Students highlight notes as above. In this condition, every highlight immediately appears in a notepad below the learning content. This has a similar appearance to the Paste condition, but students cannot edit or organize their notes. <br />
<br />
''No Notes:'' Control condition in which students read through the learning material without taking notes of any form.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
The [[Co-presence Of Text]] provided by the notepad plays a role in the learning gains achieved through note-taking. When the notepad is taken away, students will learn less because they will not be able to easily coordinate what they are learning with what they had previously learned. Therefore the highlighting condition will perform worse on learning outcomes than the Highlighting with Notepad and Pasting conditions. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
NOTE: graphics to be added<br />
* There are no differences on immediate or delayed learning tests, meaning there are no processing benefits of note-taking even over no notes. <br />
* Students using tools with a notepad (Paste and Highlighting with Notepad) perform better on the review tests. <br />
* Students taking any form of notes receive a review benefit, whereas there is not a retesting effect for no-notes. <br />
* Most students in the Paste and Highlighting with notepad conditions report referring to notes from previous pages while reading the learning materials. <br />
* Highlighting with Notepad is more efficient than other tools.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
It appears that there is no process benefit of note-taking, as no tools perform better on learning outcomes until after students are given access to their notes. While there is a benefit for review for all conditions, only the conditions with notepads perform better on the review test. However, when reviewing, highlighters generally have access to the entire document, not just the highlighted material. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
# Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=7871Note-Taking: Coordination2008-04-21T14:41:24Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Note-Taking: Coordinating content with notes==<br />
<br />
Aaron Bauer, Ken Koedinger<br />
*PI: Aaron bauer<br />
*Key faculty: Ken Koedinger<br />
*Studies: 1 complete<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || March 1, 2008<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || March 27, 2008<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 51<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 120<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Will attach file, May ‘08<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
This project examines the part the presence of a notepad plays in the educational benefits of note-taking. Some forms of note-taking involve the creation of a document that is available while they are reading learning materials. Such is the case when students record notes on a blank piece of paper, or type or paste them into a text-editor underneath a browser. In other forms of note-taking, such as highlighting, students lose access to their notes when they change pages. By comparing interfaces that do and do not include a notepad, this project explores the hypothesis that the availability of notes allows students to coordinate what they are learning with what they are learning, strengthening the connections between [[knowledge components]].<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
* [[Co-presence Of Text]]: The principle that having multiple related documents simultaneously available increases learning by increasing connections made between knowledge components.<br />
*Note-taking: The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
*Select/ion: This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
*Copy-Paste: This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
*Highlighting:The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
==Research Question==<br />
Previous studies have shown that the simultaneous presence of related texts increases learning. Does the simple presence of a notepad play the same role for note-takers? <br />
<br />
==Background and Significance==<br />
<br />
There is a long history of research connecting note-taking with increased performance on learning outcomes. While some researchers believe note-taking gains are achieved when students connect learning materials with prior knowledge, there is little behavioral data to support such a thesis. Students' notes rarely show indications of material external to what they are learning. In fact, notes are often recorded verbatim. Still, there is evidence that note-takers perform better on tests addressing robust learning measures (Peper and Mayer, 1986), which should derive from such connective behavior.<br />
<br />
Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Learning Outcomes'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''[[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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting with Notepad:'' Students highlight notes as above. In this condition, every highlight immediately appears in a notepad below the learning content. This has a similar appearance to the Paste condition, but students cannot edit or organize their notes. <br />
<br />
''No Notes:'' Control condition in which students read through the learning material without taking notes of any form.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
The [[Co-presence Of Text]] provided by the notepad plays a role in the learning gains achieved through note-taking. When the notepad is taken away, students will learn less because they will not be able to easily coordinate what they are learning with what they had previously learned. Therefore the highlighting condition will perform worse on learning outcomes than the Highlighting with Notepad and Pasting conditions. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
NOTE: graphics to be added<br />
* There are no differences on immediate or delayed learning tests, meaning there are no processing benefits of note-taking even over no notes. <br />
* Students using tools with a notepad (Paste and Highlighting with Notepad) perform better on the review tests. <br />
* Students taking any form of notes receive a review benefit, whereas there is not a retesting effect for no-notes. <br />
* Most students in the Paste and Highlighting with notepad conditions report referring to notes from previous pages while reading the learning materials. <br />
* Highlighting with Notepad is more efficient than other tools.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
It appears that there is no process benefit of note-taking, as no tools perform better on learning outcomes until after students are given access to their notes. While there is a benefit for review for all conditions, only the conditions with notepads perform better on the review test. However, when reviewing, highlighters generally have access to the entire document, not just the highlighted material. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
# Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=7870Note-Taking: Coordination2008-04-21T14:40:45Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Note-Taking: Coordinating content with notes==<br />
<br />
Aaron Bauer, Ken Koedinger<br />
*PI: Aaron bauer<br />
*Key faculty: Ken Koedinger<br />
*Studies: 1 complete<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || March 1, 2009<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || March 27, 2008<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 51<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 120<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Will attach file, May ‘08<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
This project examines the part the presence of a notepad plays in the educational benefits of note-taking. Some forms of note-taking involve the creation of a document that is available while they are reading learning materials. Such is the case when students record notes on a blank piece of paper, or type or paste them into a text-editor underneath a browser. In other forms of note-taking, such as highlighting, students lose access to their notes when they change pages. By comparing interfaces that do and do not include a notepad, this project explores the hypothesis that the availability of notes allows students to coordinate what they are learning with what they are learning, strengthening the connections between [[knowledge components]].<br />
<br />
==Glossary==<br />
* [[Co-presence Of Text]]: The principle that having multiple related documents simultaneously available increases learning by increasing connections made between knowledge components.<br />
*Note-taking: The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
*Select/ion: This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
*Copy-Paste: This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
*Highlighting:The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
==Research Question==<br />
Previous studies have shown that the simultaneous presence of related texts increases learning. Does the simple presence of a notepad play the same role for note-takers? <br />
<br />
==Background and Significance==<br />
<br />
There is a long history of research connecting note-taking with increased performance on learning outcomes. While some researchers believe note-taking gains are achieved when students connect learning materials with prior knowledge, there is little behavioral data to support such a thesis. Students' notes rarely show indications of material external to what they are learning. In fact, notes are often recorded verbatim. Still, there is evidence that note-takers perform better on tests addressing robust learning measures (Peper and Mayer, 1986), which should derive from such connective behavior.<br />
<br />
Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Learning Outcomes'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''[[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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting with Notepad:'' Students highlight notes as above. In this condition, every highlight immediately appears in a notepad below the learning content. This has a similar appearance to the Paste condition, but students cannot edit or organize their notes. <br />
<br />
''No Notes:'' Control condition in which students read through the learning material without taking notes of any form.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
The [[Co-presence Of Text]] provided by the notepad plays a role in the learning gains achieved through note-taking. When the notepad is taken away, students will learn less because they will not be able to easily coordinate what they are learning with what they had previously learned. Therefore the highlighting condition will perform worse on learning outcomes than the Highlighting with Notepad and Pasting conditions. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
NOTE: graphics to be added<br />
* There are no differences on immediate or delayed learning tests, meaning there are no processing benefits of note-taking even over no notes. <br />
* Students using tools with a notepad (Paste and Highlighting with Notepad) perform better on the review tests. <br />
* Students taking any form of notes receive a review benefit, whereas there is not a retesting effect for no-notes. <br />
* Most students in the Paste and Highlighting with notepad conditions report referring to notes from previous pages while reading the learning materials. <br />
* Highlighting with Notepad is more efficient than other tools.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
It appears that there is no process benefit of note-taking, as no tools perform better on learning outcomes until after students are given access to their notes. While there is a benefit for review for all conditions, only the conditions with notepads perform better on the review test. However, when reviewing, highlighters generally have access to the entire document, not just the highlighted material. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
# Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Co-presence_Of_Text&diff=7590Co-presence Of Text2008-03-30T19:17:54Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Brief statement of principle==<br />
Learning from multiple related textual sources will be more robust when textual materials are presented simultaneously, allowing students to easily coordinate the sources.<br />
==Description of principle==<br />
This principle regards how to present students with multiple textual materials that regard the same topic. Simultaneous availability of the materials facilitates the creation of strong links between related [[knowledge components]]. It may also result in students spending more time with individual [[knowledge components]], reading them multiple times. <br />
<br />
===Operational definition===<br />
When students are referring to multiple textual sources, they will show increased [[long-term retention]] when these sources are presented simultaneously than when they are presented individually. <br />
===Examples===<br />
Bauer and Koedinger are currently conducting [[Note-Taking:_Coordination|a study]] to evaluate whether the presence of a notepad showing students' notes from previous pages facilitates [[robust learning]].<br />
==Experimental support==<br />
===Laboratory experiment support===<br />
Wiley found that students who were presented with an interface that required the simultaneous viewing of texts performed better on essays than students who read documents individually. Interestingly, when given the choice, students preferred to view documents individually.<br />
===In vivo experiment support===<br />
==Theoretical rationale== <br />
Presenting multiple textual sources simultaneously is meant to encourage [[coordination]] processes. In Kintsch's prominent model of reading comprehension, when the multiple windows involve the same document, they would facilitate bridging inferences, strengthening the reader's textbase. If the windows present separate documents, the reader would be more likely to strengthen their situation model, creating more robust learning. <br />
==Conditions of application==<br />
This research is focused on presentation of learning materials of a mostly textual nature. <br />
==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==<br />
* As of yet, empirical studies are limited to the presentation of two documents simultaneously. It is apparent that interface restrictions could make more documents intractable.<br />
==Variations (descendants)==<br />
==Generalizations (ascendants)==<br />
==References==<br />
* Kintsch, W., Text Comprehension, Memory, and Learning American Psychologist, 1994, 49(4), 294-303<br />
* Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
[[Category:Glossary]]<br />
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Co-presence_Of_Text&diff=7589Co-presence Of Text2008-03-30T19:15:27Z<p>Abauer: New page: ==Brief statement of principle== Learning from multiple related textual sources will be more robust when textual materials are presented simultaneously, allowing students to easily coordin...</p>
<hr />
<div>==Brief statement of principle==<br />
Learning from multiple related textual sources will be more robust when textual materials are presented simultaneously, allowing students to easily coordinate the sources.<br />
==Description of principle==<br />
This principle regards how to present students with multiple textual materials that regard the same topic. Simultaneous availability of the materials facilitates the creation of strong links between related [[knowledge components]]. It may also result in students spending more time with individual [[knowledge components]], reading them multiple times. <br />
<br />
===Operational definition===<br />
===Examples===<br />
==Experimental support==<br />
===Laboratory experiment support===<br />
Wiley found that students who were presented with an interface that required the simultaneous viewing of texts performed better on essays than students who read documents individually. Interestingly, when given the choice, students preferred to view documents individually.<br />
<br />
Bauer and Koedinger are currently conducting [[Note-Taking:_Coordination|a study]] to evaluate whether the presence of a notepad showing students' notes from previous pages facilitates [[robust learning]].<br />
<br />
===In vivo experiment support===<br />
==Theoretical rationale== <br />
Presenting multiple textual sources simultaneously is meant to encourage [[coordination]] processes. In Kintsch's prominent model of reading comprehension, when the multiple windows involve the same document, they would facilitate bridging inferences, strengthening the reader's textbase. If the windows present separate documents, the reader would be more likely to strengthen their situation model, creating more robust learning. <br />
==Conditions of application==<br />
This research is focused on presentation of learning materials of a mostly textual nature. <br />
==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==<br />
* As of yet, empirical studies are limited to the presentation of two documents simultaneously. It is apparent that interface restrictions could make more documents intractable.<br />
==Variations (descendants)==<br />
==Generalizations (ascendants)==<br />
==References==<br />
* Kintsch, W., Text Comprehension, Memory, and Learning American Psychologist, 1994, 49(4), 294-303<br />
* Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
[[Category:Glossary]]<br />
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Feature_focusing&diff=7588Feature focusing2008-03-29T22:23:23Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Brief statement of principle==<br />
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward on irrelevant [[features]]. <br />
==Description of principle==<br />
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].<br />
===Operational definition===<br />
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction. <br />
===Examples===<br />
Examples include the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster. <br />
<br />
==Experimental support==<br />
===Laboratory experiment support===<br />
Two note-taking studies have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.<br />
===In vivo experiment support===<br />
==Theoretical rationale== <br />
Feature focusing is a [[refinement]] process, where students are identifying the key ideas, and rejecting irrelevant or unimportant ideas. With regards to feature focusing in learning of explicit textual content, focusing on key ideas may be related to previous results where summaries were found to produce superior outcomes to full text (see Reder & Anderson).<br />
<br />
==Conditions of application==<br />
<br />
==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==<br />
==Variations (descendants)==<br />
==Generalizations (ascendants)==<br />
==References==<br />
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.<br />
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990.<br />
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793.<br />
* Reder, L. M. & Anderson, J. R. (1980a). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 198, 121-134. <br />
[[Category:Glossary]]<br />
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]<br />
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Feature_focusing&diff=7587Feature focusing2008-03-29T22:16:54Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Brief statement of principle==<br />
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward on irrelevant [[features]]. <br />
==Description of principle==<br />
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].<br />
===Operational definition===<br />
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction. <br />
===Examples===<br />
Examples include the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster. <br />
<br />
==Experimental support==<br />
===Laboratory experiment support===<br />
Two note-taking studies have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.<br />
===In vivo experiment support===<br />
==Theoretical rationale== <br />
(These entries should link to one or more [[:Category:Learning Processes|learning processes]].)<br />
==Conditions of application==<br />
==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==<br />
==Variations (descendants)==<br />
==Generalizations (ascendants)==<br />
==References==<br />
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2008. Note-Taking, Selecting, and Choice: Designing Interfaces that Encourage Smaller Seelctions. Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2008). To Appear.<br />
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2007. Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). 981-990<br />
* Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. 2006. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE ICALT ’06. 789-793<br />
<br />
[[Category:Glossary]]<br />
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]<br />
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Feature_focusing&diff=7586Feature focusing2008-03-29T22:15:01Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Brief statement of principle==<br />
Instruction leads to more robust learning when it guides the learner's attention ("focuses") toward relevant [[features]] of the material, as opposed to unfocused instruction or instruction that guides attention toward on irrelevant [[features]]. <br />
==Description of principle==<br />
This principle involves encouraging students to focus on the key [[knowledge components]] in the educational material they are studying. Feature focusing instruction may help students to learn [[knowledge components]] with higher [[feature validity]]. More geneally, attention [[focusing]] may also result in students spending more time during a [[learning events|learning event]] on a particular [[knowledge component]] and thus increase its [[strength]].<br />
===Operational definition===<br />
Instruction that guides the student to key [[knowledge components]] will result in superior [[long-term retention]] than unfocused instruction. <br />
===Examples===<br />
Examples include the [[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts| Note-Taking]] studies in the Refinement and Fluency cluster. <br />
<br />
==Experimental support==<br />
===Laboratory experiment support===<br />
Two note-taking studies have found that when copy-pasting notes, students perform better on both [[Normal post-test|Normal post-tests]] and [[long-term retention]] tests when they make selections that include only single ideas, rather than multiple ideas. While behavioral interventions have been effective in reducing selection size, they have not produced increased learning outcomes. With regards to note-taking students' ability to identify key [[knowledge components]] may be limited by their understanding of the material, rather than the note-taking interface.<br />
===In vivo experiment support===<br />
==Theoretical rationale== <br />
(These entries should link to one or more [[:Category:Learning Processes|learning processes]].)<br />
==Conditions of application==<br />
==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==<br />
==Variations (descendants)==<br />
==Generalizations (ascendants)==<br />
==References==<br />
[[Category:Glossary]]<br />
[[Category:Instructional Principle]]<br />
[[Category:Refinement and Fluency]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4782Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-04-13T18:23:24Z<p>Abauer: /* Further Information */</p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || March 1, 2005<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || June 10, 2005<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 69<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 207<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Log data is not in DataShop. Should be available Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported here was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools. Most of these verbatim ideas were recorded using copy-paste functionality. Pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
* The copy-paste tool recorded far wordier ideas than either of the other tools. Ideas pasted using more words were associated with increased forgetting relative to ideas that were pasted using fewer words.<br />
* There was not a significant difference with regards to completion time.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
* The copy-paste tool appears to result in both increased verbatim note-taking and reduced [[long-term retention]]. Copy-paste may thus be a negative behavior, potentially allowing students to record ideas in their notes without paying much attention to them. <br />
* Students will take advantage of copy-paste functionality when available. While students in the copy-paste condition could type, the overwhelming proportion of their notes were pasted. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793 [http://www.learnlab.org/uploads/mypslc/publications/471bau.doc Word File, Published Version]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4781Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-04-13T18:21:00Z<p>Abauer: /* Further Information */</p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || May 1, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || July 20, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 93<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 260<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Log data is not in DataShop. Should be available Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material. <br />
<br />
''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''[[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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
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]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking_Technologies&diff=4777Note-Taking Technologies2007-04-13T18:08:00Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
We are conducting an investigation into the relationship between note-taking and learning in online courses. The literature has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our completed studies indicate that the features included in online note-taking applications can have an effect on these process benefits. Analyses of our results have led us to explore the effect of selection-based note-taking on both behavior and learning. <br />
<br />
Via several completed and proposed experiments, we are exploring two general hypothesis regarding the effect of note-taking on learning. First, we believe that note-taking encourages active processing, and thus long-term retention, when it requires students to attend to the critical elements of the learning material. This results in increased [[feature validity]] of the mental representation of the [[knowledge component]]. This falls within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. Our second hypothesis is that note-taking facilitates [[long-term retention]] when it involves the use of multiple representations of concepts. This falls within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Our studies are designed to evaluate these hypotheses by comparing note-taking tools offering different functionality. <br />
<br />
View the [[#Descendents|'Descendents']] section to view experiments associated with these hypotheses.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Practical question: Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes?<br />
<br />
<br />
Scientific question: What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying learning gains from note-taking?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention (Kobayashi 2005, 2006). Two main processes have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind learning gains. The attention hypothesis is that "note-taking forces the learner to pay more attention to the presented material", while the generation hypothesis states that note-taking causes students to "actively relate the material to existing knowledge" (Peper and Mayer, 1986). There is little behavioral data to support either of these hypothesis. Technology may allows us to investigate these hypothesis in greater detail, as our preliminary studies indicate it provides a level of control over the note-taking process, and thus behavior. <br />
<br />
It is useful to cast the two above hypotheses in PSLC terms. The attention hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[focusing]] aspect of [[Refinement and Fluency]]. Note-taking thus facilitates learning when it requires students to focus on the critical [[knowledge components]] of the learning material. The generation hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Note-taking facilitates learning when it requires students to coordinate multiple versions of the same learning material. <br />
<br />
Our [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|preliminary results]] indicate some support for the focusing hypothesis. We found that when students use copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on items that they recorded in a wordy fashion than they did on items they recorded more efficiently. The wordiness may be an indication of students' [[focusing|focus]], showing a lack of attention to the critical components of the ideas. In addition, copy-paste functionality increased the number of items students recorded when compared to note-taking via typing. This may be an indication of decreased attention to key ideas. <br />
<br />
Technology offers a valuable comparison by which to evaluate the coordination hypothesis. While copy-paste note-taking involves the creation of a secondary notepad, which is available at all times, highlighting does not involve a notepad. Coordinating the information in the notepad with the information in the window may promote learning, much as seen in Wiley's work (Wiley, 2001).<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
Described on individual study pages. [[Long-term retention]] measures are included in all but the initial study.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of the various manipulations is described on the individual study pages.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. ''Attention/Fluency-[[Refinement]]:'' Note-taking benefits students when it requires them to focus on the critical components of the ideas they are recording. Restricting the amount of material students can select in any individual selection behavior will increase the attention paid to critical features of the learning material. This will result in improved retention compared to unrestricted selection. <br />
<br />
2. ''Coordinative Learning/Additional Representation:'' Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously [[coordinate]] two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
* Copy-Paste vs. Typing<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Copy-paste, when combined with Typing functionality, appears to result in reduced long-term retention than Typing alone. ]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Copy-paste, when alone, appears to result in more efficient learning than typing alone. Students learn the same amount in less time.]] <br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Given both copy-paste and typing functionality, students' will tend to paste ideas more often then they type ideas.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|When students record wordy ideas using copy-paste functionality, they perform worse on learning outcomes than when they record ideas using fewer words.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Students have a certain resistance to novel interaction techniques that makes it difficult to create interventions to evaluate note-taking hypothesis. This indicates the need for careful design of interventions.]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|These novel tools produce inferior learning to standard interaction techniques.]]<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
See individual experiment pages listed below in the Descendents section.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Copy Paste]]: compares Paste and Type with Typing-Only and Pencil-and-Paper<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]: compares Typing, Paste-Only, Restricted-Paste, and Selection<br />
'''Planned Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves coordinating the notepad with the learning materials by comparing performance using copy-paste with performance using highlighting.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves attention to what is being recorded by comparing unrestricted copy-paste with a restricted copy-paste.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves focusing on key concepts by comparing a tool that allows students to record as many ideas as they desire with a tool that limits the number of notes students can record.<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'''References'''<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2005). What Limits the Encoding Effect of Note-Taking? A meta-analytic examination., Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined Effects of Note-Taking/-Reviewing on Learning and the Enhancement Through Interventions: A meta-analytic review. (1986). Educational Psychology 26, 3 (2006) 459-477<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
#Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
<br />
The following papers report our earlier studies contrasting handwriting, typing, and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), 5-7 July, Kerkrade, Netherlands.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Quantity&diff=4775Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity2007-04-13T18:06:38Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || October 1, 2007<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || November 31, 2007<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 60 (expected)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 180 (expected)<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Not collected. Expected Winter 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking research often limits the amount of notes students can take, believing that too much note-taking will be detrimental to learning. However, this belief has not been fully validated. Our own work has shown that the tools students use to take notes can affect the amount of notes students record. Specifically, students using a selection-based tool, which allows them to select material and paste it into their notes, record far more notes than students who type. This disinhibition of note-taking behavior provides the opportunity to explore the question of note quantity in greater depth. <br />
<br />
The research described here will evaluate how the quantity of notes students can take affects learning. We hypothesize that restricting the number of notes they can record will require students to [[focusing\focus]] on the most critical ideas within the learning material. This will result in a deeper textbase, and increased performance on learning outcomes.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
How does the quantity of notes students record influence what they learn?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
There is a common belief among note-taking researchers that "the amount of underlining must be controlled...otherwise a few subjects underline everything or underline nothing.” (Johnson, 1988). Due to this, most note-taking studies of reading have restricted the amount of notes students take, from 1 line per paragraph (Rickards & August, 1975) to 7 lines per page (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1981). However, there is little rationale behind any specific restriction, and only one study comparing restricted note-taking with unrestricted note-taking (Santa et. al., 1979), which found that restrictions on quantity increased performance on tests where students were not allowed to review. <br />
<br />
My own research has found that selection-based note-taking results in far more note-taking activity than other forms of note-taking such as typing. The research cited above would cite this as a negative behavior, though students using the tool performed equivalently on learning outcomes to students who typed. It may be, however, that they would have shown superior performance if they had limited the amount of notes they had recorded. This experiment evaluates this hypothesis.<br />
<br />
Our previous data also provides us with the ability to create more rational restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take. As described above, previous research has created limitations at both the page level as well as the paragraph level. It may also be appropriate to attach restrictions to an entire module. Additionally, the form of a restriction may vary by page or paragraph. An information rich page may require more notes than a sparse one. This research will evaluate the behavior of effective self-restrictors in our previous experiments to determine the appropriate form of restriction. <br />
<br />
This research will be explored using either a highlighting or copy-paste tool, both of which use a similar selection-based interaction technique. The specific tool will be chosen based on the results of a comparison [[Note-Taking:_Coordination|experiment]] being conducted within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. As in another note-taking [[Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Concepts|experiment]] within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster, restrictions will take two forms. Required restrictions will not allow students to take more than the maximum number of notes, and recommended restrictions will inform students when their note quantity has reached the threshold, and recommend a paring down of notes.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Unrestricted Interface:'' Students can use the note-taking application to record as many notes as they like.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Interface:'' Students can only record a limited amount of notes using the note-taking application.<br />
<br />
''Read-Only:'' In this condition, students do not take notes, they are only allowed to read the material.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. (Central Hypothesis) Restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take will improve performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
2. Restricting note quantity will decrease time on task.<br />
<br />
== Expected Findings ==<br />
We expect restrictions to cause students to increase their focus on critical components of the learning material by forcing them to identify key ideas. This will result in a stronger understanding of the structure of the learning materials, and will thus improve their performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
In addition, restrictions will result in less note-taking activity, which will in turn reduce time on task relative to unrestricted note-taking. This would be a large win, as copy-paste note-taking is already more efficient than other forms of note-taking such as typing. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
''References''<br />
#Bretzing, B.H., Kulhavy, R.W. "Note-taking and Passage Style", Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 2 (1981) 242-250<br />
#Johnson, L.L. Effects of Underlining Textbook Sentences on Passage and Sentence Retention. Reading and Research Instruction 28, 1 (1988), 18-32<br />
#Rickards, J.P., August, G.J. (1975) Generative Underlining Strategies in Prose Recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 860-865<br />
#Santa, C.M., Abrams, L., Santa, J.L (1979) Effects of Notetaking and Studying on the Retention of Prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3) 247-260</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4774Note-Taking: Coordination2007-04-13T18:05:54Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || Aug 1, 2007<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || Sept 31, 2007<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 60 (expected)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 180 (expected)<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Not collected. Expected Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
There is a long history of research connecting note-taking with increased performance on learning outcomes. While some researchers believe note-taking gains are achieved when students connect learning materials with prior knowledge, there is little behavioral data to support such a thesis. Students' notes rarely show indications of material external to what they are learning. In fact, notes are often recorded verbatim. Still, there is evidence that note-takers perform better on tests addressing robust learning measures (Peper and Mayer, 1986), which should derive from such connective behavior.<br />
<br />
It may be that generation effects are due to a process of coordinating multiple sources of information. Jennifer Wiley's work shows that students able to easily transition between multiple documents write better essays than students who view one page or document at a time. The notepad involved in note-taking may serve a similar purpose, allowing students to easily coordinate what they are learning with what they have already learned. <br />
<br />
This study evaluates this hypothesis by comparing two note-taking tools, one (copy-paste) which uses a notepad with one (highlighting) that does not. If the coordination hypothesis is correct, students using the copy-paste tool should perform better on learning outcomes than students using the highlighting tool.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
# Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Concepts&diff=4773Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts2007-04-13T18:05:10Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || June 1, 2007<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || July 31, 2007<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 60 (expected)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 180 (expected)<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Not collected. Expected Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
This experiment evaluates the hypothesis that note-taking promotes learning where it requires students to increase their [[focusing|focus]] on the ideas they record in their notes. It does so by increasing both the attention paid to the critical components of the key idea, and the amount of time students spend rehearsing the idea in working memory. Previous research indicates that when students use copy-paste functionality to take notes on text-based material, they learn less when they create wordier notes. We believe these results come from the low cost of such wordy notes. Using copy-paste functionality, students can easily select large amounts of text after a cursory read-through.<br />
<br />
This experiment compares unrestricted copy-paste with restricted copy-paste, in which the amount of text students can select in any one action is limited. Restrictions are aimed at increasing attention paid to what is being recorded, and thus increasing learning. Two types of restrictions will be evaluated: those that are required, and those that are recommended.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning by increasing focus on the ideas students are recording?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Many researchers believe that the beneficial learning outcomes observed for note-taking are derived from an increased attention to learning materials (see Peper & Mayer, 1986). Most studies that evaluate what students record show that recorded ideas are much more likely to be recalled at testing than ideas that are not recorded (Crawford, 1925 for earliest). The wordiness with which an idea is recorded in notes may also be an attentional component of note-taking . However, the research is somewhat equivocal as to whether wordiness is beneficial or detrimental (fewer words better: Howe, 1970; worse Kiewra, 1987). <br />
<br />
My own research has shown that the benefits of wordiness vary according to how notes are recorded. Specifically, when ideas are recorded using copy-paste functionality, wordiness appears detrimental to learning. This is not the case for handwritten or typed notes. There may be two processes involved here. First, wordy notes have little associated cost when pasted. Using the mouse to select more text takes an insignificant amount of time. Secondly, selecting more text may be an indicator of less focus on the important components of the idea being recorded. As ideas are easier to record than when they are typed or handwritten, students may be less motivated to identify the critical components for recording. <br />
<br />
The hypothesis of this experiment is that increasing the cost of recording notes may motivate students to focus more on what they are recording. By restricting the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, we hope to increase student focus. An earlier interface designed showed both lower learning and reduced usage, perhaps due to student frustration. Due to this inhibited behavior, we were unable to evaluate the stated hypothesis. In this experiment, we aim to design more user-friendly restrictions, and evaluate the difference between required restrictions, where students are not allowed to make inappropriate selections, and recommended restrictions, where students are told when their selections may be suboptimal.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Unrestricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Required Restriction:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. However, students are restricted with regards to how much text they can select in any single pasting action. These restrictions are absolute, so that any restrictions above the given criterion will not be allowed. <br />
<br />
''Recommended Restriction:'' Like "Required Restriction," only now students are told when the criterion is violated, but can still choose to make the selection.<br />
<br />
''Read-Only:'' In this condition, students do not take notes, they are only allowed to read the material.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
1. (Central Hypothesis) The restricted note-taking tools will show better performance on learning outcomes than the unrestricted tools.<br />
<br />
2. The required will show better learning outcomes than the recommended tool, as the recommended tool will allow students to lapse into negative behaviors.<br />
<br />
3. All note-taking tools will perform better than read-only, as note-taking has been shown to be a positive behavior.<br />
<br />
== Expected Findings ==<br />
<br />
If note-taking involves increasing focus on ideas being recorded in notes, we expect that the restrictions on note-taking will result in superior performance on learning outcomes. Restrictions will require students to identify the critical information to record, whereas using an unrestricted tool students would be more likely to copy-paste large swaths of text without attending to the material. <br />
<br />
Designing required restrictions may be an intractable problem, as students appear to have strong opinions regarding how to take notes. Frustrating tools will result in suboptimal note-taking behavior. This is more likely with the required tool than it is with the recommended tool. We hope that recommendations are enough to influence student behavior in a positive fashion, so that note-taking interfaces can offer user freedom. Therefore both behavioral and learning differences between the recommended and required tool will be important to evaluate. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
''References''<br />
*Crawford, C.C. The correlation between college lecture notes and quiz papers. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 4 (1925) 282-291.<br />
*Howe, M.J. Using students' notes to examine the role of the individual learner in acquiring meaningful subject matter. Journal of Educational Research 64, 2 (1970), 61-63<br />
*Kiewra, K.A., Notetaking and Review: The research and its implications. Instructional Science 16, (1987) 233-249<br />
*Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 (1986) 34-38</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4772Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-04-13T18:03:41Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || May 1, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || July 20, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 93<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 260<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Log data is not in DataShop. Should be available Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material. <br />
<br />
''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''[[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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4771Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-04-13T18:03:12Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || March 1, 2005<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || June 10, 2005<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 69<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 207<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Log data is not in DataShop. Should be available Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported here was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools. Most of these verbatim ideas were recorded using copy-paste functionality. Pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
* The copy-paste tool recorded far wordier ideas than either of the other tools. Ideas pasted using more words were associated with increased forgetting relative to ideas that were pasted using fewer words.<br />
* There was not a significant difference with regards to completion time.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
* The copy-paste tool appears to result in both increased verbatim note-taking and reduced [[long-term retention]]. Copy-paste may thus be a negative behavior, potentially allowing students to record ideas in their notes without paying much attention to them. <br />
* Students will take advantage of copy-paste functionality when available. While students in the copy-paste condition could type, the overwhelming proportion of their notes were pasted. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4770Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-04-13T17:59:32Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <b>Graduate Students:</b> Andy Tzou (CMU HCII)<br><br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || May 1, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || July 20, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study''' ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 93<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 260<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Log data is not in DataShop. Should be available Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material. <br />
<br />
''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''[[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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4769Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-04-13T17:58:59Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>=== Summary Table ===<br />
====Study 1====<br />
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: left;"<br />
| '''PIs''' || Aaron Bauer & Kenneth R. Koedinger<br />
|-<br />
| '''Other Contributers''' || <b>Graduate Students:</b> Andy Tzou (CMU HCII)<br><br />
|-<br />
| '''Study Start Date''' || May 1, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Study End Date''' || July 20, 2006<br />
|-<br />
| '''Laboratory Study'''<br />
|-<br />
| '''LearnLab Course''' || Causal and Statistical Reasoning (OLI)<br />
|-<br />
| '''Number of Students''' || 93<br />
|-<br />
| '''Total Participant Hours''' || 260<br />
|-<br />
| '''DataShop''' || Log data is not in DataShop. Should be available Fall 2007<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''[[Normal post-test]]:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material. <br />
<br />
''[[Long-term retention]]:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''[[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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4286Note-Taking: Coordination2007-03-30T00:27:05Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
There is a long history of research connecting note-taking with increased performance on learning outcomes. While some researchers believe note-taking gains are achieved when students connect learning materials with prior knowledge, there is little behavioral data to support such a thesis. Students' notes rarely show indications of material external to what they are learning. In fact, notes are often recorded verbatim. Still, there is evidence that note-takers perform better on tests addressing robust learning measures (Peper and Mayer, 1986), which should derive from such connective behavior.<br />
<br />
It may be that generation effects are due to a process of coordinating multiple sources of information. Jennifer Wiley's work shows that students able to easily transition between multiple documents write better essays than students who view one page or document at a time. The notepad involved in note-taking may serve a similar purpose, allowing students to easily coordinate what they are learning with what they have already learned. <br />
<br />
This study evaluates this hypothesis by comparing two note-taking tools, one (copy-paste) which uses a notepad with one (highlighting) that does not. If the coordination hypothesis is correct, students using the copy-paste tool should perform better on learning outcomes than students using the highlighting tool.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
# Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4285Note-Taking: Coordination2007-03-30T00:26:33Z<p>Abauer: /* Further Information */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
There is a long history of research connecting note-taking with increased performance on learning outcomes. While some researchers believe note-taking gains are achieved when students connect learning materials with prior knowledge, there is little behavioral data to support such a thesis. Students' notes rarely show indications of material external to what they are learning. In fact, notes are often recorded verbatim. Still, there is evidence that note-takers perform better on tests addressing robust learning measures (Peper and Mayer, 1986), which should derive from such connective behavior.<br />
<br />
It may be that generation effects are due to a process of coordinating multiple sources of information. Jennifer Wiley's work shows that students able to easily transition between multiple documents write better essays than students who view one page or document at a time. The notepad involved in note-taking may serve a similar purpose, allowing students to easily coordinate what they are learning with what they have already learned. <br />
<br />
This study evaluates this hypothesis by comparing two note-taking tools, one (copy-paste) which uses a notepad with one (highlighting) that does not. If the coordination hypothesis is correct, students using the copy-paste tool should perform better on learning outcomes than students using the highlighting tool.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
None at this time<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
# Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4284Note-Taking: Coordination2007-03-30T00:26:08Z<p>Abauer: /* Background/Significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
There is a long history of research connecting note-taking with increased performance on learning outcomes. While some researchers believe note-taking gains are achieved when students connect learning materials with prior knowledge, there is little behavioral data to support such a thesis. Students' notes rarely show indications of material external to what they are learning. In fact, notes are often recorded verbatim. Still, there is evidence that note-takers perform better on tests addressing robust learning measures (Peper and Mayer, 1986), which should derive from such connective behavior.<br />
<br />
It may be that generation effects are due to a process of coordinating multiple sources of information. Jennifer Wiley's work shows that students able to easily transition between multiple documents write better essays than students who view one page or document at a time. The notepad involved in note-taking may serve a similar purpose, allowing students to easily coordinate what they are learning with what they have already learned. <br />
<br />
This study evaluates this hypothesis by comparing two note-taking tools, one (copy-paste) which uses a notepad with one (highlighting) that does not. If the coordination hypothesis is correct, students using the copy-paste tool should perform better on learning outcomes than students using the highlighting tool.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
None at this time<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
<br />
Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4283Note-Taking: Coordination2007-03-30T00:11:43Z<p>Abauer: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[Coordinative Learning]] hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our preliminary studies have provided strong evidence that the features included in online note-taking applications impact how students take notes. We have also found that these differences can affect learning in several ways. These differences provide an opportunity to learn more about note-taking. Our main research question regards how and when note-taking increases long-term retention. By addressing this question, we have the opportunity to develop note-taking applications that encourage active processing and retention. <br />
<br />
There is extensive research on note-taking in both the educational psychology and educational technology fields. About half of note-taking studies have shown the process of note-taking to be beneficial to learning. Three-fourths of studies find that notes are a valuable resource when they can be reviewed (Kiewra, 1991). The cause of note-taking benefits is unclear, however. It has been attributed to rewording or summarizing, but experimental results are equivocal.<br />
<br />
Note-taking technology provides new ways of studying note-taking, and provides investigators with more control over the note-taking process. This gives us the opportunity to study note-taking in further depth, perhaps elucidating the circumstances in which note-taking is beneficial. Unfortunately, few researchers have taken advantage of this opportunity. Most note-taking technology is developed to simply mimic paper-based practices, or provide new ways of taking notes. <br />
<br />
These new devices have been shown to change the way students take notes, reinforcing the need to study how note-taking practices affect learning, if at all. Our investigations our a first step in doing so.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
None at this time<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
<br />
Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4282Note-Taking: Coordination2007-03-30T00:10:41Z<p>Abauer: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a [[coordinative learning]] hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our preliminary studies have provided strong evidence that the features included in online note-taking applications impact how students take notes. We have also found that these differences can affect learning in several ways. These differences provide an opportunity to learn more about note-taking. Our main research question regards how and when note-taking increases long-term retention. By addressing this question, we have the opportunity to develop note-taking applications that encourage active processing and retention. <br />
<br />
There is extensive research on note-taking in both the educational psychology and educational technology fields. About half of note-taking studies have shown the process of note-taking to be beneficial to learning. Three-fourths of studies find that notes are a valuable resource when they can be reviewed (Kiewra, 1991). The cause of note-taking benefits is unclear, however. It has been attributed to rewording or summarizing, but experimental results are equivocal.<br />
<br />
Note-taking technology provides new ways of studying note-taking, and provides investigators with more control over the note-taking process. This gives us the opportunity to study note-taking in further depth, perhaps elucidating the circumstances in which note-taking is beneficial. Unfortunately, few researchers have taken advantage of this opportunity. Most note-taking technology is developed to simply mimic paper-based practices, or provide new ways of taking notes. <br />
<br />
These new devices have been shown to change the way students take notes, reinforcing the need to study how note-taking practices affect learning, if at all. Our investigations our a first step in doing so.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
None at this time<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
<br />
Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4281Note-Taking: Coordination2007-03-30T00:10:27Z<p>Abauer: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a ''coordinative learning'' hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our preliminary studies have provided strong evidence that the features included in online note-taking applications impact how students take notes. We have also found that these differences can affect learning in several ways. These differences provide an opportunity to learn more about note-taking. Our main research question regards how and when note-taking increases long-term retention. By addressing this question, we have the opportunity to develop note-taking applications that encourage active processing and retention. <br />
<br />
There is extensive research on note-taking in both the educational psychology and educational technology fields. About half of note-taking studies have shown the process of note-taking to be beneficial to learning. Three-fourths of studies find that notes are a valuable resource when they can be reviewed (Kiewra, 1991). The cause of note-taking benefits is unclear, however. It has been attributed to rewording or summarizing, but experimental results are equivocal.<br />
<br />
Note-taking technology provides new ways of studying note-taking, and provides investigators with more control over the note-taking process. This gives us the opportunity to study note-taking in further depth, perhaps elucidating the circumstances in which note-taking is beneficial. Unfortunately, few researchers have taken advantage of this opportunity. Most note-taking technology is developed to simply mimic paper-based practices, or provide new ways of taking notes. <br />
<br />
These new devices have been shown to change the way students take notes, reinforcing the need to study how note-taking practices affect learning, if at all. Our investigations our a first step in doing so.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
None at this time<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
<br />
Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Coordination&diff=4280Note-Taking: Coordination2007-03-30T00:09:05Z<p>Abauer: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking has been found to be an effective learning activity, though it is unclear why this may be. One hypothesis we are pursuing is that note-taking requires students to actively coordinate multiple versions of the same material. Previous research has found that simultaneously coordinating multiple sources facilitates learning (Wiley 2001). Note-taking often involves the creation of a separate representation of the learning material, which remains available for review while the student is learning new material. If the availability of multiple sources is responsible for positive learning outcomes, then note-taking methods such as highlighting, which does not produce a separate copy of the learning materials, should not produce similar learning results to copy-paste. This is a ''self-explanation'' hypothesis of note-taking. <br />
<br />
The study described here will compare two forms of note-taking, copy-paste and highlighting. They share a similar selection-based interaction. In both conditions, to record a note students select the important material with the cursor. In the copy-paste condition, students then copy the selection to a notepad. In the highlighting condition, students highlight the note, which changes its background. Notes are thus not available in subsequent pages. <br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning due to the creation of an always available copy-of the learning material? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our preliminary studies have provided strong evidence that the features included in online note-taking applications impact how students take notes. We have also found that these differences can affect learning in several ways. These differences provide an opportunity to learn more about note-taking. Our main research question regards how and when note-taking increases long-term retention. By addressing this question, we have the opportunity to develop note-taking applications that encourage active processing and retention. <br />
<br />
There is extensive research on note-taking in both the educational psychology and educational technology fields. About half of note-taking studies have shown the process of note-taking to be beneficial to learning. Three-fourths of studies find that notes are a valuable resource when they can be reviewed (Kiewra, 1991). The cause of note-taking benefits is unclear, however. It has been attributed to rewording or summarizing, but experimental results are equivocal.<br />
<br />
Note-taking technology provides new ways of studying note-taking, and provides investigators with more control over the note-taking process. This gives us the opportunity to study note-taking in further depth, perhaps elucidating the circumstances in which note-taking is beneficial. Unfortunately, few researchers have taken advantage of this opportunity. Most note-taking technology is developed to simply mimic paper-based practices, or provide new ways of taking notes. <br />
<br />
These new devices have been shown to change the way students take notes, reinforcing the need to study how note-taking practices affect learning, if at all. Our investigations our a first step in doing so.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Student Variables'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life. <br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously coordinate two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
If coordination is an important factor in note-taking, the highlighting tool should perform worse on learning outcomes than the copy-paste tool, as it does not involve the creation of a separate set of notes. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
<br />
None at this time<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
<br />
Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4279Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-03-30T00:07:51Z<p>Abauer: /* Background/Significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4278Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-03-30T00:07:00Z<p>Abauer: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4277Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-03-30T00:06:10Z<p>Abauer: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4276Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-03-30T00:04:12Z<p>Abauer: /* Background/Significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4275Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-03-30T00:02:31Z<p>Abauer: /* Background/Significance */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported here was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools. Most of these verbatim ideas were recorded using copy-paste functionality. Pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
* The copy-paste tool recorded far wordier ideas than either of the other tools. Ideas pasted using more words were associated with increased forgetting relative to ideas that were pasted using fewer words.<br />
* There was not a significant difference with regards to completion time.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
* The copy-paste tool appears to result in both increased verbatim note-taking and reduced [[long-term retention]]. Copy-paste may thus be a negative behavior, potentially allowing students to record ideas in their notes without paying much attention to them. <br />
* Students will take advantage of copy-paste functionality when available. While students in the copy-paste condition could type, the overwhelming proportion of their notes were pasted. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking_Technologies&diff=4274Note-Taking Technologies2007-03-30T00:01:04Z<p>Abauer: /* Independent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
We are conducting an investigation into the relationship between note-taking and learning in online courses. The literature has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our completed studies indicate that the features included in online note-taking applications can have an effect on these process benefits. Analyses of our results have led us to explore the effect of selection-based note-taking on both behavior and learning. <br />
<br />
Via several completed and proposed experiments, we are exploring two general hypothesis regarding the effect of note-taking on learning. First, we believe that note-taking encourages active processing, and thus long-term retention, when it requires students to attend to the critical elements of the learning material. This results in increased [[feature validity]] of the mental representation of the [[knowledge component]]. This falls within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. Our second hypothesis is that note-taking facilitates [[long-term retention]] when it involves the use of multiple representations of concepts. This falls within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Our studies are designed to evaluate these hypotheses by comparing note-taking tools offering different functionality. <br />
<br />
View the [[#Descendents|'Descendents']] section to view experiments associated with these hypotheses.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Practical question: Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes?<br />
<br />
<br />
Scientific question: What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying learning gains from note-taking?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention (Kobayashi 2005, 2006). Two main processes have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind learning gains. The attention hypothesis is that "note-taking forces the learner to pay more attention to the presented material", while the generation hypothesis states that note-taking causes students to "actively relate the material to existing knowledge" (Peper and Mayer, 1986). There is little behavioral data to support either of these hypothesis. Technology may allows us to investigate these hypothesis in greater detail, as our preliminary studies indicate it provides a level of control over the note-taking process, and thus behavior. <br />
<br />
It is useful to cast the two above hypotheses in PSLC terms. The attention hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[focusing]] aspect of [[Refinement and Fluency]]. Note-taking thus facilitates learning when it requires students to focus on the critical [[knowledge components]] of the learning material. The generation hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Note-taking facilitates learning when it requires students to coordinate multiple versions of the same learning material. <br />
<br />
Our [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|preliminary results]] indicate some support for the focusing hypothesis. We found that when students use copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on items that they recorded in a wordy fashion than they did on items they recorded more efficiently. The wordiness may be an indication of students' [[focusing|focus]], showing a lack of attention to the critical components of the ideas. In addition, copy-paste functionality increased the number of items students recorded when compared to note-taking via typing. This may be an indication of decreased attention to key ideas. <br />
<br />
Technology offers a valuable comparison by which to evaluate the coordination hypothesis. While copy-paste note-taking involves the creation of a secondary notepad, which is available at all times, highlighting does not involve a notepad. Coordinating the information in the notepad with the information in the window may promote learning, much as seen in Wiley's work (Wiley, 2001).<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
Described on individual study pages. [[Long-term retention]] measures are included in all but the initial study.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of the various manipulations is described on the individual study pages.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. ''Attention/Fluency-[[Refinement]]:'' Note-taking benefits students when it requires them to focus on the critical components of the ideas they are recording. Restricting the amount of material students can select in any individual selection behavior will increase the attention paid to critical features of the learning material. This will result in improved retention compared to unrestricted selection. <br />
<br />
2. ''Coordinative Learning/Additional Representation:'' Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously [[coordinate]] two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
* Copy-Paste vs. Typing<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Copy-paste, when combined with Typing functionality, appears to result in reduced long-term retention than Typing alone. ]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Copy-paste, when alone, appears to result in more efficient learning than typing alone. Students learn the same amount in less time.]] <br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Given both copy-paste and typing functionality, students' will tend to paste ideas more often then they type ideas.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|When students record wordy ideas using copy-paste functionality, they perform worse on learning outcomes than when they record ideas using fewer words.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Students have a certain resistance to novel interaction techniques that makes it difficult to create interventions to evaluate note-taking hypothesis. This indicates the need for careful design of interventions.]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|These novel tools produce inferior learning to standard interaction techniques.]]<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
See individual experiment pages listed below in the Descendents section.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Copy Paste]]: compares Paste and Type with Typing-Only and Pencil-and-Paper<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]: compares Typing, Paste-Only, Restricted-Paste, and Selection<br />
'''Planned Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves coordinating the notepad with the learning materials by comparing performance using copy-paste with performance using highlighting.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves attention to what is being recorded by comparing unrestricted copy-paste with a restricted copy-paste.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves focusing on key concepts by comparing a tool that allows students to record as many ideas as they desire with a tool that limits the number of notes students can record.<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'''References'''<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2005). What Limits the Encoding Effect of Note-Taking? A meta-analytic examination., Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined Effects of Note-Taking/-Reviewing on Learning and the Enhancement Through Interventions: A meta-analytic review. (1986). Educational Psychology 26, 3 (2006) 459-477<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
#Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
<br />
The following papers report our earlier studies contrasting handwriting, typing, and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), 5-7 July, Kerkrade, Netherlands.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, in submission</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking_Technologies&diff=4273Note-Taking Technologies2007-03-30T00:00:31Z<p>Abauer: /* Dependent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
We are conducting an investigation into the relationship between note-taking and learning in online courses. The literature has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our completed studies indicate that the features included in online note-taking applications can have an effect on these process benefits. Analyses of our results have led us to explore the effect of selection-based note-taking on both behavior and learning. <br />
<br />
Via several completed and proposed experiments, we are exploring two general hypothesis regarding the effect of note-taking on learning. First, we believe that note-taking encourages active processing, and thus long-term retention, when it requires students to attend to the critical elements of the learning material. This results in increased [[feature validity]] of the mental representation of the [[knowledge component]]. This falls within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. Our second hypothesis is that note-taking facilitates [[long-term retention]] when it involves the use of multiple representations of concepts. This falls within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Our studies are designed to evaluate these hypotheses by comparing note-taking tools offering different functionality. <br />
<br />
View the [[#Descendents|'Descendents']] section to view experiments associated with these hypotheses.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Practical question: Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes?<br />
<br />
<br />
Scientific question: What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying learning gains from note-taking?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention (Kobayashi 2005, 2006). Two main processes have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind learning gains. The attention hypothesis is that "note-taking forces the learner to pay more attention to the presented material", while the generation hypothesis states that note-taking causes students to "actively relate the material to existing knowledge" (Peper and Mayer, 1986). There is little behavioral data to support either of these hypothesis. Technology may allows us to investigate these hypothesis in greater detail, as our preliminary studies indicate it provides a level of control over the note-taking process, and thus behavior. <br />
<br />
It is useful to cast the two above hypotheses in PSLC terms. The attention hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[focusing]] aspect of [[Refinement and Fluency]]. Note-taking thus facilitates learning when it requires students to focus on the critical [[knowledge components]] of the learning material. The generation hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Note-taking facilitates learning when it requires students to coordinate multiple versions of the same learning material. <br />
<br />
Our [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|preliminary results]] indicate some support for the focusing hypothesis. We found that when students use copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on items that they recorded in a wordy fashion than they did on items they recorded more efficiently. The wordiness may be an indication of students' [[focusing|focus]], showing a lack of attention to the critical components of the ideas. In addition, copy-paste functionality increased the number of items students recorded when compared to note-taking via typing. This may be an indication of decreased attention to key ideas. <br />
<br />
Technology offers a valuable comparison by which to evaluate the coordination hypothesis. While copy-paste note-taking involves the creation of a secondary notepad, which is available at all times, highlighting does not involve a notepad. Coordinating the information in the notepad with the information in the window may promote learning, much as seen in Wiley's work (Wiley, 2001).<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
Described on individual study pages. [[Long-term retention]] measures are included in all but the initial study.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of the various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. ''Attention/Fluency-[[Refinement]]:'' Note-taking benefits students when it requires them to focus on the critical components of the ideas they are recording. Restricting the amount of material students can select in any individual selection behavior will increase the attention paid to critical features of the learning material. This will result in improved retention compared to unrestricted selection. <br />
<br />
2. ''Coordinative Learning/Additional Representation:'' Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously [[coordinate]] two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
* Copy-Paste vs. Typing<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Copy-paste, when combined with Typing functionality, appears to result in reduced long-term retention than Typing alone. ]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Copy-paste, when alone, appears to result in more efficient learning than typing alone. Students learn the same amount in less time.]] <br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Given both copy-paste and typing functionality, students' will tend to paste ideas more often then they type ideas.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|When students record wordy ideas using copy-paste functionality, they perform worse on learning outcomes than when they record ideas using fewer words.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Students have a certain resistance to novel interaction techniques that makes it difficult to create interventions to evaluate note-taking hypothesis. This indicates the need for careful design of interventions.]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|These novel tools produce inferior learning to standard interaction techniques.]]<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
See individual experiment pages listed below in the Descendents section.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Copy Paste]]: compares Paste and Type with Typing-Only and Pencil-and-Paper<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]: compares Typing, Paste-Only, Restricted-Paste, and Selection<br />
'''Planned Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves coordinating the notepad with the learning materials by comparing performance using copy-paste with performance using highlighting.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves attention to what is being recorded by comparing unrestricted copy-paste with a restricted copy-paste.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves focusing on key concepts by comparing a tool that allows students to record as many ideas as they desire with a tool that limits the number of notes students can record.<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'''References'''<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2005). What Limits the Encoding Effect of Note-Taking? A meta-analytic examination., Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined Effects of Note-Taking/-Reviewing on Learning and the Enhancement Through Interventions: A meta-analytic review. (1986). Educational Psychology 26, 3 (2006) 459-477<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
#Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
<br />
The following papers report our earlier studies contrasting handwriting, typing, and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), 5-7 July, Kerkrade, Netherlands.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, in submission</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking_Technologies&diff=4272Note-Taking Technologies2007-03-30T00:00:04Z<p>Abauer: /* Dependent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
We are conducting an investigation into the relationship between note-taking and learning in online courses. The literature has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our completed studies indicate that the features included in online note-taking applications can have an effect on these process benefits. Analyses of our results have led us to explore the effect of selection-based note-taking on both behavior and learning. <br />
<br />
Via several completed and proposed experiments, we are exploring two general hypothesis regarding the effect of note-taking on learning. First, we believe that note-taking encourages active processing, and thus long-term retention, when it requires students to attend to the critical elements of the learning material. This results in increased [[feature validity]] of the mental representation of the [[knowledge component]]. This falls within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. Our second hypothesis is that note-taking facilitates [[long-term retention]] when it involves the use of multiple representations of concepts. This falls within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Our studies are designed to evaluate these hypotheses by comparing note-taking tools offering different functionality. <br />
<br />
View the [[#Descendents|'Descendents']] section to view experiments associated with these hypotheses.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Practical question: Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes?<br />
<br />
<br />
Scientific question: What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying learning gains from note-taking?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention (Kobayashi 2005, 2006). Two main processes have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind learning gains. The attention hypothesis is that "note-taking forces the learner to pay more attention to the presented material", while the generation hypothesis states that note-taking causes students to "actively relate the material to existing knowledge" (Peper and Mayer, 1986). There is little behavioral data to support either of these hypothesis. Technology may allows us to investigate these hypothesis in greater detail, as our preliminary studies indicate it provides a level of control over the note-taking process, and thus behavior. <br />
<br />
It is useful to cast the two above hypotheses in PSLC terms. The attention hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[focusing]] aspect of [[Refinement and Fluency]]. Note-taking thus facilitates learning when it requires students to focus on the critical [[knowledge components]] of the learning material. The generation hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Note-taking facilitates learning when it requires students to coordinate multiple versions of the same learning material. <br />
<br />
Our [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|preliminary results]] indicate some support for the focusing hypothesis. We found that when students use copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on items that they recorded in a wordy fashion than they did on items they recorded more efficiently. The wordiness may be an indication of students' [[focusing|focus]], showing a lack of attention to the critical components of the ideas. In addition, copy-paste functionality increased the number of items students recorded when compared to note-taking via typing. This may be an indication of decreased attention to key ideas. <br />
<br />
Technology offers a valuable comparison by which to evaluate the coordination hypothesis. While copy-paste note-taking involves the creation of a secondary notepad, which is available at all times, highlighting does not involve a notepad. Coordinating the information in the notepad with the information in the window may promote learning, much as seen in Wiley's work (Wiley, 2001).<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
Described on individual study pages. [[Robust measures]] include [[long-term retention]].<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of the various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. ''Attention/Fluency-[[Refinement]]:'' Note-taking benefits students when it requires them to focus on the critical components of the ideas they are recording. Restricting the amount of material students can select in any individual selection behavior will increase the attention paid to critical features of the learning material. This will result in improved retention compared to unrestricted selection. <br />
<br />
2. ''Coordinative Learning/Additional Representation:'' Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously [[coordinate]] two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
* Copy-Paste vs. Typing<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Copy-paste, when combined with Typing functionality, appears to result in reduced long-term retention than Typing alone. ]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Copy-paste, when alone, appears to result in more efficient learning than typing alone. Students learn the same amount in less time.]] <br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Given both copy-paste and typing functionality, students' will tend to paste ideas more often then they type ideas.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|When students record wordy ideas using copy-paste functionality, they perform worse on learning outcomes than when they record ideas using fewer words.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Students have a certain resistance to novel interaction techniques that makes it difficult to create interventions to evaluate note-taking hypothesis. This indicates the need for careful design of interventions.]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|These novel tools produce inferior learning to standard interaction techniques.]]<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
See individual experiment pages listed below in the Descendents section.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Copy Paste]]: compares Paste and Type with Typing-Only and Pencil-and-Paper<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]: compares Typing, Paste-Only, Restricted-Paste, and Selection<br />
'''Planned Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves coordinating the notepad with the learning materials by comparing performance using copy-paste with performance using highlighting.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves attention to what is being recorded by comparing unrestricted copy-paste with a restricted copy-paste.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves focusing on key concepts by comparing a tool that allows students to record as many ideas as they desire with a tool that limits the number of notes students can record.<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'''References'''<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2005). What Limits the Encoding Effect of Note-Taking? A meta-analytic examination., Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined Effects of Note-Taking/-Reviewing on Learning and the Enhancement Through Interventions: A meta-analytic review. (1986). Educational Psychology 26, 3 (2006) 459-477<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
#Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
<br />
The following papers report our earlier studies contrasting handwriting, typing, and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), 5-7 July, Kerkrade, Netherlands.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, in submission</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Coordinative_Learning&diff=4271Coordinative Learning2007-03-29T23:58:47Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The PSLC Coordinative Learning cluster ==<br />
<br />
=== Abstract ===<br />
The studies in the Coordinative Learning cluster tend to focus on varying ''a)'' the types of information available to learning or ''b)'' the instructional methods that they employ. In particular, the studies focus on the impact of having learners coordinate two or more types. Given that the student has multiple [[sources]]/methods available, two factors that might impact learning are:<br />
<br />
*What is the relationship between the content in the two sources or the content generated by the two methods? Our hypothesis is that the two sources or methods facilitate [[robust learning]] when a [[knowledge component]] is difficult to understand or absent in one and is present or easier to understand in the other.<br />
*When and how does the student coordinate between the two sources or methods? Our hypothesis is that students should be encouraged to compare the two, perhaps by putting them close together in space or time. <br />
<br />
At the micro-level, the overall hypothesis is that robust learning occurs when the [[learning event space]] has target paths whose [[sense making]] difficulties complement each other (as expressed in the first bullet above) and the students make path choices that take advantage of these [[complementary]] paths (as in the second bullet, above). This hypothesis is just a specialization of the [[Root_node|general PSLC hypothesis]] to this cluster.<br />
<br />
=== Glossary ===<br />
[[:Category:Coordinative Learning|Coordinative Learning]] glossary.<br />
<br />
*'''[[Co-training]]'''<br />
*'''[[Complementary]]'''<br />
*'''[[Conceptual tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Contiguity]]'''<br />
*'''[[Coordination]]'''<br />
*'''[[Ecological Control Group]]'''<br />
*'''[[External representations]]'''<br />
*'''[[Input sources ]]'''<br />
*'''[[Instructional method]]'''<br />
*'''[[Multimedia sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Procedural tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Self-explanation]]'''<br />
*'''[[Self-supervised learning]]'''<br />
*'''[[Sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Strategies]]'''<br />
*'''[[Unlabeled examples]]'''<br />
<br />
=== Research question ===<br />
<br />
When and how does coordinating multiple sources of information or lines of reasoning increase robust learning?<br />
<br />
Two sub-groups of coordinative learning studies are exploring these more specific questions:<br />
<br />
1) Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
<br />
When does adding visualizations or other multi-modal input enhance robust learning and how do we best support students in coordinating these sources?<br />
<br />
2) Examples and Explanations<br />
<br />
When and how should example study by combined and coordinated with problem solving to increase robust learning? When and how should explicit explanations be added or requested of students before, during, or after example study and problem solving practice?<br />
<br />
=== Independent variables ===<br />
<br />
*Content of the sources (e.g., pictures, diagrams, written text, audio, animation) or the encouraged lines of reasoning (e.g., example study, self-explanation, conceptual task, procedural task) and combinations<br />
<br />
*Instructional activities designed to engage students in [[coordination]] (e.g., conceptual vs. [[procedural]] exercises, contiguous presentation of sources, [[self-explanation]])<br />
<br />
=== Dependent variables ===<br />
[[Normal post-test]] and measures of [[robust learning]].<br />
<br />
=== Hypotheses ===<br />
When students are given sources/methods whose [[sense making]] difficulties are complementary and they are engaged in coordinating the sources/methods, then their learning will be more robust than it would otherwise be.<br />
<br />
=== Explanation ===<br />
<br />
There are both [[sense making]] and [[foundational skill building]] explanations. From the sense making perspective, if the sources/methods yield complementary content and the student is engaged in coordinating them, then the student is more likely to successfully understand the instruction because if a student fails to understand one of the sources/methods, he can use the second to make sense of the first. From a foundational skill building perspective, attending to both sources/methods simultaneously associates [[features]] from both with the learned knowledge components, thus potentially increasing feature validity and hence robust learning.<br />
<br />
=== Descendents ===<br />
<br />
Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
*[[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project) | Visual-verbal learning in geometry (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
**[[Contiguous Representations for Robust Learning (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
*[[Visual Representations in Science Learning | Visual Representations in Science Learning (Davenport, Klahr & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Co-training of Chinese characters| Co-training of Chinese characters (Liu, Perfetti, Dunlap, Zi, Mitchell)]]<br />
*[[Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head”| Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head” (Liu, Massaro, Dunlap, Wu, Chen,Chan, Perfetti)]] [Was in Fluency]<br />
<br />
Examples and Explanations<br />
*[[Booth | Knowledge component construction vs. recall (Booth, Siegler, Koedinger & Rittle-Johnson)]]<br />
*[[Stoichiometry_Study | Studying the Learning Effect of Personalization and Worked Examples in the Solving of Stoichiometry Problems (McLaren, Koedinger & Yaron)]]<br />
*[[Note-Taking_Technologies | Note-taking Project Page (Bauer & Koedinger)]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]] (completed)<br />
**[[Note-Taking: Coordination]] (planned)<br />
*[[REAP_main | The REAP Project: Implicit and explicit instruction on word meanings (Juffs & Eskenazi)]]<br />
*[[Help_Lite (Aleven, Roll)|Hints during tutored problem solving – the effect of fewer hint levels with greater conceptual content (Aleven & Roll)]]<br />
*[[Effect of adding simple worked examples to problem-solving in algebra learning (Anthony, Yang & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Bridging_Principles_and_Examples_through_Analogy_and_Explanation | Bridging Principles and Examples through Analogy and Explanation (Nokes & Vanlehn)]]<br />
<br />
=== Annotated Bibliography ===<br />
Forthcoming<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cluster]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Refinement_and_Fluency&diff=4270Refinement and Fluency2007-03-29T23:58:16Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The PSLC Refinement and Fluency cluster ==<br />
<br />
=== Abstract ===<br />
The studies in this cluster concern the design and organization of instructional activities to facilitate the acquisition, [[refinement]], and fluent control of critical [[knowledge components]]. The research of the cluster addresses a series of core propositions, including but not limited to the following.<br />
<br />
1. task analysis: To design effective instruction, we must analyze learning tasks into their simplest components.<br />
<br />
2. fluency from basics: For true fluency, higher level skills must be grounded on well-practiced lower level skills.<br />
<br />
3. scheduling of practice: [[Optimized scheduling]] of [[practice]] uses principles of memory to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.<br />
<br />
4. [[explicit instruction]]: Explicit rule-based instruction facilitates the acquisition of specific skills, but only if the rules are simple.<br />
<br />
5. [[implicit instruction]]: On the other hand, implicit instruction or exposure serves to foster the development of initial familiarity with larger patterns.<br />
<br />
6. immediacy of feedback: A corollary of the emphasis on in vivo evaluation, scheduling, and explicit instruction is the idea that immediate feedback facilitates learning.<br />
<br />
7. [[cue validity]]: In both explicit and implicit instruction, cue validity plays a central role in determining ease of learning of knowledge components.<br />
<br />
8. focusing: Instruction that focuses the learner's attention on valid cues leads to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.<br />
<br />
9. learning to learn: The acquisition of skills such as analysis, help-seeking, or advance organizers can promote future learning.<br />
<br />
10. [[transfer]]: A learner's earlier knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while blocking others.<br />
<br />
The overall hypothesis is that instruction that systematically reflects the complex [[features]] of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. The principle is that the gap between targeted knowledge and existing knowledge needs to be directly reflected in the organization of instructional events. This organization includes the structure of knowledge components selected for instruction, the scheduling of learning events, practice, recall opportunities, explicit and implicit presentations, and other activities.<br />
<br />
This hypothesis can be rephrased in terms of the PSLC general hypothesis, which is that [[robust learning]] occurs when the [[learning event space]] is designed to include appropriate target paths, and when students are encouraged to take those paths. The studies in this cluster focus on the formulation of well specified target paths with highly predictable learning outcomes.<br />
<br />
===Significance===<br />
A core theme in this cluster is that instruction in basic skills can facilitate the acquisition and refinement of knowledge and prepare the learner for [[fluency]]-enhancing practice. Instruction that provides practice and feedback for basic skills on a schedule that closely matches observed student abilities is important for this goal, and can be effectively delivered by computer. In the area of second language learning, the strengths of computerized instruction are matched by certain weaknesses. In particular, computerized tutors are not yet good at speech recognition, making it difficult to assess student production. Moreover, contact with a human teacher can increase the breadth of language usage, as well as motivation. Therefore, an optimal environment for language learning would combine the strengths of computerized instruction with those of classroom instruction. It is possible that a similar analysis will apply to science and math.<br />
<br />
=== Glossary ===<br />
[[:Category:Refinement and Fluency|Refinement and Fluency]] glossary.<br />
<br />
=== Research question ===<br />
The overall research question is how can instruction optimally organize the presentation of complex targeted knowledge, taking into account the learner’s existing knowledge as well as an analysis of the target domain? In examining this general question, the studies focus on the following dimensions of instructional organization, among others: the demands placed on learners of specific knowledge components, the scheduling of practice, the timing and extent of explicit teaching events relative to implicit learning opportunities, and the role of feedback.<br />
<br />
=== Independent variables ===<br />
At a general level, the research varies the organization of instructional events. This organization variable is typically based on alternative analyses of task demands, relevant knowledge components, and learner background.<br />
<br />
=== Dependent variables ===<br />
The dependent variables in these studies assess learner performance during learning events and following learning. Typical measures are percentage correct and number of learning trials or time to reach a given standard of performance. Response times are also measured in some cases.<br />
<br />
=== Hypotheses ===<br />
The overall hypothesis is that instruction that systematically reflects the complex features of targeted knowledge in relation to the learner’s existing knowledge leads to more robust learning than instruction that does not. A corollary of this hypothesis is that learning is increased by instructional activities that require the learner to attend to the relevant knowledge components of a learning task. <br />
<br />
Specific hypotheses about the organization of instruction derive from task analyses of specific domain knowledge and the existing knowledge of the learner. A background assumption for most studies is that fluency is grounded in well-practiced lower level skills. A few examples of specific hypotheses are as follows:<br />
<br />
1. scheduling of practice hypothesis: The optimal scheduling of practice uses principles of memory consolidation to maximize robust learning and achieve mastery.<br />
<br />
2. Resonance hypothesis: The acquisition of knowledge components can be facilitated by evoking associations between divergent coding systems.<br />
<br />
3. explicit instruction hypothesis: Explicit rule-based instruction facilitates the acquisition of specific skills, but only if the rules are simple.<br />
<br />
4. implicit instruction hypothesis: Implicit instruction or exposure serves to foster the development of initial familiarity with larger patterns.<br />
<br />
5. Feedback hypothesis: Instruction that provides immediate, diagnostic feedback will be superior to instruction that does not.<br />
<br />
6. cue validity hypothesis: In both explicit and implicit instruction, cue validity plays a central role in determining ease of learning of knowledge components.<br />
<br />
7. Focusing hypothesis: Instruction that focuses the learner's attention on valid cues will lead to more robust learning than unfocused instruction or instruction that focuses on less valid cues.<br />
<br />
8. learning to learn hypothesis: The acquisition of skills such as analysis, help-seeking, or advance organizers can promote future learning.<br />
<br />
9. Learner knowledge hypothesis: A learner's existing knowledge places strong constraints on new learning, promoting some forms of learning, while blocking others.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Explanation ===<br />
All knowledge involves content and procedures that are specific to a domain. An analysis of the domain reveals the complexities that a learner of a given background will face and the knowledge components that are part of the overall complexity. Accordingly, the organization of instruction is critical in allowing the learner to attend to the critical valid features of knowledge components and to integrated them in authentic performance. Acquiring valid features and strengthening their associations facilitates retrieval during subsequent assessment and instruction, leading to more robust learning. Additionally, robust learning is increased by the scheduling of learning events that promotes the [[long-term retention]] of the associations.<br />
<br />
=== Descendents ===<br />
<br />
Explicit instruction and manipulations of attention & discrimination<br />
* [[Intelligent_Writing_Tutor | First language effects on second language grammar acquisition]] (Mitamura-Wylie)<br />
* [[Learning the role of radicals in reading Chinese]] (Liu et al.)<br />
* [[Basic skills training|French dictation training]] (MacWhinney)<br />
* [[Chinese pinyin dictation]] (Zhang-MacWhinney)<br />
* [[A_Multimodal_%28Handwriting%29_Interface_for_Solving_Equations| A multimodal (handwriting) interface for solving equations]] (Anthony, Yang, & Koedinger) [Was in CL]<br />
*[[Note-Taking_Technologies | Note-taking Project Page (Bauer & Koedinger)]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]] (completed)<br />
**[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]] (planned)<br />
**[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]] (planned)<br />
<br />
Optimal scheduling & fluency pressure<br />
* [[Optimizing the practice schedule]] (Pavlik et al.)<br />
* [[French gender cues | French Grammatical Gender Cue Learning Through Optimized Practice]] (Presson-MacWhinney)<br />
* [[Japanese fluency]] (Yoshimura-MacWhinney)<br />
* [[Providing optimal support for robust learning of syntactic constructions in ESL]] (Levin, Frishkoff, De Jong, Pavlik)<br />
* [[Fostering fluency in second language learning]] (De Jong, Perfetti)<br />
<br />
Knowledge accessibility including background knowledge & knowledge suppression<br />
* [[Using syntactic priming to increase robust learning]] (De Jong, Perfetti, DeKeyser)<br />
<br />
Active processing including learner control<br />
* [[Mental rotations during vocabulary training]] (Tokowicz-Degani)<br />
<br />
Novel knowledge component and cognitive task analysis<br />
* [[The_Help_Tutor__Roll_Aleven_McLaren|Tutoring a meta-cognitive skill: Help-seeking (Roll, Aleven & McLaren)]] [Was in Coordinative Learning and in Interactive Communication]<br />
* [[Composition_Effect__Kao_Roll|What is difficult about composite problems? (Kao, Roll)]]<br />
* [[Arithmetical fluency project]] (Fiez)<br />
<br />
=== Annotated bibliography ===<br />
Forthcoming<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cluster]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Coordinative_Learning&diff=4269Coordinative Learning2007-03-29T23:57:16Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The PSLC Coordinative Learning cluster ==<br />
<br />
=== Abstract ===<br />
The studies in the Coordinative Learning cluster tend to focus on varying ''a)'' the types of information available to learning or ''b)'' the instructional methods that they employ. In particular, the studies focus on the impact of having learners coordinate two or more types. Given that the student has multiple [[sources]]/methods available, two factors that might impact learning are:<br />
<br />
*What is the relationship between the content in the two sources or the content generated by the two methods? Our hypothesis is that the two sources or methods facilitate [[robust learning]] when a [[knowledge component]] is difficult to understand or absent in one and is present or easier to understand in the other.<br />
*When and how does the student coordinate between the two sources or methods? Our hypothesis is that students should be encouraged to compare the two, perhaps by putting them close together in space or time. <br />
<br />
At the micro-level, the overall hypothesis is that robust learning occurs when the [[learning event space]] has target paths whose [[sense making]] difficulties complement each other (as expressed in the first bullet above) and the students make path choices that take advantage of these [[complementary]] paths (as in the second bullet, above). This hypothesis is just a specialization of the [[Root_node|general PSLC hypothesis]] to this cluster.<br />
<br />
=== Glossary ===<br />
[[:Category:Coordinative Learning|Coordinative Learning]] glossary.<br />
<br />
*'''[[Co-training]]'''<br />
*'''[[Complementary]]'''<br />
*'''[[Conceptual tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Contiguity]]'''<br />
*'''[[Coordination]]'''<br />
*'''[[Ecological Control Group]]'''<br />
*'''[[External representations]]'''<br />
*'''[[Input sources ]]'''<br />
*'''[[Instructional method]]'''<br />
*'''[[Multimedia sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Procedural tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Self-explanation]]'''<br />
*'''[[Self-supervised learning]]'''<br />
*'''[[Sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Strategies]]'''<br />
*'''[[Unlabeled examples]]'''<br />
<br />
=== Research question ===<br />
<br />
When and how does coordinating multiple sources of information or lines of reasoning increase robust learning?<br />
<br />
Two sub-groups of coordinative learning studies are exploring these more specific questions:<br />
<br />
1) Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
<br />
When does adding visualizations or other multi-modal input enhance robust learning and how do we best support students in coordinating these sources?<br />
<br />
2) Examples and Explanations<br />
<br />
When and how should example study by combined and coordinated with problem solving to increase robust learning? When and how should explicit explanations be added or requested of students before, during, or after example study and problem solving practice?<br />
<br />
=== Independent variables ===<br />
<br />
*Content of the sources (e.g., pictures, diagrams, written text, audio, animation) or the encouraged lines of reasoning (e.g., example study, self-explanation, conceptual task, procedural task) and combinations<br />
<br />
*Instructional activities designed to engage students in [[coordination]] (e.g., conceptual vs. [[procedural]] exercises, contiguous presentation of sources, [[self-explanation]])<br />
<br />
=== Dependent variables ===<br />
[[Normal post-test]] and measures of [[robust learning]].<br />
<br />
=== Hypotheses ===<br />
When students are given sources/methods whose [[sense making]] difficulties are complementary and they are engaged in coordinating the sources/methods, then their learning will be more robust than it would otherwise be.<br />
<br />
=== Explanation ===<br />
<br />
There are both [[sense making]] and [[foundational skill building]] explanations. From the sense making perspective, if the sources/methods yield complementary content and the student is engaged in coordinating them, then the student is more likely to successfully understand the instruction because if a student fails to understand one of the sources/methods, he can use the second to make sense of the first. From a foundational skill building perspective, attending to both sources/methods simultaneously associates [[features]] from both with the learned knowledge components, thus potentially increasing feature validity and hence robust learning.<br />
<br />
=== Descendents ===<br />
<br />
Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
*[[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project) | Visual-verbal learning in geometry (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
**[[Contiguous Representations for Robust Learning (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
*[[Visual Representations in Science Learning | Visual Representations in Science Learning (Davenport, Klahr & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Co-training of Chinese characters| Co-training of Chinese characters (Liu, Perfetti, Dunlap, Zi, Mitchell)]]<br />
*[[Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head”| Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head” (Liu, Massaro, Dunlap, Wu, Chen,Chan, Perfetti)]] [Was in Fluency]<br />
<br />
Examples and Explanations<br />
*[[Booth | Knowledge component construction vs. recall (Booth, Siegler, Koedinger & Rittle-Johnson)]]<br />
*[[Stoichiometry_Study | Studying the Learning Effect of Personalization and Worked Examples in the Solving of Stoichiometry Problems (McLaren, Koedinger & Yaron)]]<br />
*[[Note-Taking_Technologies | Note-taking Project Page (Bauer & Koedinger)]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
*[[REAP_main | The REAP Project: Implicit and explicit instruction on word meanings (Juffs & Eskenazi)]]<br />
*[[Help_Lite (Aleven, Roll)|Hints during tutored problem solving – the effect of fewer hint levels with greater conceptual content (Aleven & Roll)]]<br />
*[[Effect of adding simple worked examples to problem-solving in algebra learning (Anthony, Yang & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Bridging_Principles_and_Examples_through_Analogy_and_Explanation | Bridging Principles and Examples through Analogy and Explanation (Nokes & Vanlehn)]]<br />
<br />
=== Annotated Bibliography ===<br />
Forthcoming<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cluster]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Coordinative_Learning&diff=4268Coordinative Learning2007-03-29T23:56:54Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The PSLC Coordinative Learning cluster ==<br />
<br />
=== Abstract ===<br />
The studies in the Coordinative Learning cluster tend to focus on varying ''a)'' the types of information available to learning or ''b)'' the instructional methods that they employ. In particular, the studies focus on the impact of having learners coordinate two or more types. Given that the student has multiple [[sources]]/methods available, two factors that might impact learning are:<br />
<br />
*What is the relationship between the content in the two sources or the content generated by the two methods? Our hypothesis is that the two sources or methods facilitate [[robust learning]] when a [[knowledge component]] is difficult to understand or absent in one and is present or easier to understand in the other.<br />
*When and how does the student coordinate between the two sources or methods? Our hypothesis is that students should be encouraged to compare the two, perhaps by putting them close together in space or time. <br />
<br />
At the micro-level, the overall hypothesis is that robust learning occurs when the [[learning event space]] has target paths whose [[sense making]] difficulties complement each other (as expressed in the first bullet above) and the students make path choices that take advantage of these [[complementary]] paths (as in the second bullet, above). This hypothesis is just a specialization of the [[Root_node|general PSLC hypothesis]] to this cluster.<br />
<br />
=== Glossary ===<br />
[[:Category:Coordinative Learning|Coordinative Learning]] glossary.<br />
<br />
*'''[[Co-training]]'''<br />
*'''[[Complementary]]'''<br />
*'''[[Conceptual tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Contiguity]]'''<br />
*'''[[Coordination]]'''<br />
*'''[[Ecological Control Group]]'''<br />
*'''[[External representations]]'''<br />
*'''[[Input sources ]]'''<br />
*'''[[Instructional method]]'''<br />
*'''[[Multimedia sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Procedural tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Self-explanation]]'''<br />
*'''[[Self-supervised learning]]'''<br />
*'''[[Sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Strategies]]'''<br />
*'''[[Unlabeled examples]]'''<br />
<br />
=== Research question ===<br />
<br />
When and how does coordinating multiple sources of information or lines of reasoning increase robust learning?<br />
<br />
Two sub-groups of coordinative learning studies are exploring these more specific questions:<br />
<br />
1) Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
<br />
When does adding visualizations or other multi-modal input enhance robust learning and how do we best support students in coordinating these sources?<br />
<br />
2) Examples and Explanations<br />
<br />
When and how should example study by combined and coordinated with problem solving to increase robust learning? When and how should explicit explanations be added or requested of students before, during, or after example study and problem solving practice?<br />
<br />
=== Independent variables ===<br />
<br />
*Content of the sources (e.g., pictures, diagrams, written text, audio, animation) or the encouraged lines of reasoning (e.g., example study, self-explanation, conceptual task, procedural task) and combinations<br />
<br />
*Instructional activities designed to engage students in [[coordination]] (e.g., conceptual vs. [[procedural]] exercises, contiguous presentation of sources, [[self-explanation]])<br />
<br />
=== Dependent variables ===<br />
[[Normal post-test]] and measures of [[robust learning]].<br />
<br />
=== Hypotheses ===<br />
When students are given sources/methods whose [[sense making]] difficulties are complementary and they are engaged in coordinating the sources/methods, then their learning will be more robust than it would otherwise be.<br />
<br />
=== Explanation ===<br />
<br />
There are both [[sense making]] and [[foundational skill building]] explanations. From the sense making perspective, if the sources/methods yield complementary content and the student is engaged in coordinating them, then the student is more likely to successfully understand the instruction because if a student fails to understand one of the sources/methods, he can use the second to make sense of the first. From a foundational skill building perspective, attending to both sources/methods simultaneously associates [[features]] from both with the learned knowledge components, thus potentially increasing feature validity and hence robust learning.<br />
<br />
=== Descendents ===<br />
<br />
Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
*[[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project) | Visual-verbal learning in geometry (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
**[[Contiguous Representations for Robust Learning (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
*[[Visual Representations in Science Learning | Visual Representations in Science Learning (Davenport, Klahr & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Co-training of Chinese characters| Co-training of Chinese characters (Liu, Perfetti, Dunlap, Zi, Mitchell)]]<br />
*[[Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head”| Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head” (Liu, Massaro, Dunlap, Wu, Chen,Chan, Perfetti)]] [Was in Fluency]<br />
<br />
Examples and Explanations<br />
*[[Booth | Knowledge component construction vs. recall (Booth, Siegler, Koedinger & Rittle-Johnson)]]<br />
*[[Stoichiometry_Study | Studying the Learning Effect of Personalization and Worked Examples in the Solving of Stoichiometry Problems (McLaren, Koedinger & Yaron)]]<br />
*[[Note-Taking_Technologies | Note-taking Project Page (Bauer & Koedinger)]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking:_Coordination]]<br />
*[[REAP_main | The REAP Project: Implicit and explicit instruction on word meanings (Juffs & Eskenazi)]]<br />
*[[Help_Lite (Aleven, Roll)|Hints during tutored problem solving – the effect of fewer hint levels with greater conceptual content (Aleven & Roll)]]<br />
*[[Effect of adding simple worked examples to problem-solving in algebra learning (Anthony, Yang & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Bridging_Principles_and_Examples_through_Analogy_and_Explanation | Bridging Principles and Examples through Analogy and Explanation (Nokes & Vanlehn)]]<br />
<br />
=== Annotated Bibliography ===<br />
Forthcoming<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cluster]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Coordinative_Learning&diff=4267Coordinative Learning2007-03-29T23:56:39Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The PSLC Coordinative Learning cluster ==<br />
<br />
=== Abstract ===<br />
The studies in the Coordinative Learning cluster tend to focus on varying ''a)'' the types of information available to learning or ''b)'' the instructional methods that they employ. In particular, the studies focus on the impact of having learners coordinate two or more types. Given that the student has multiple [[sources]]/methods available, two factors that might impact learning are:<br />
<br />
*What is the relationship between the content in the two sources or the content generated by the two methods? Our hypothesis is that the two sources or methods facilitate [[robust learning]] when a [[knowledge component]] is difficult to understand or absent in one and is present or easier to understand in the other.<br />
*When and how does the student coordinate between the two sources or methods? Our hypothesis is that students should be encouraged to compare the two, perhaps by putting them close together in space or time. <br />
<br />
At the micro-level, the overall hypothesis is that robust learning occurs when the [[learning event space]] has target paths whose [[sense making]] difficulties complement each other (as expressed in the first bullet above) and the students make path choices that take advantage of these [[complementary]] paths (as in the second bullet, above). This hypothesis is just a specialization of the [[Root_node|general PSLC hypothesis]] to this cluster.<br />
<br />
=== Glossary ===<br />
[[:Category:Coordinative Learning|Coordinative Learning]] glossary.<br />
<br />
*'''[[Co-training]]'''<br />
*'''[[Complementary]]'''<br />
*'''[[Conceptual tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Contiguity]]'''<br />
*'''[[Coordination]]'''<br />
*'''[[Ecological Control Group]]'''<br />
*'''[[External representations]]'''<br />
*'''[[Input sources ]]'''<br />
*'''[[Instructional method]]'''<br />
*'''[[Multimedia sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Procedural tasks]]''' <br />
*'''[[Self-explanation]]'''<br />
*'''[[Self-supervised learning]]'''<br />
*'''[[Sources]]'''<br />
*'''[[Strategies]]'''<br />
*'''[[Unlabeled examples]]'''<br />
<br />
=== Research question ===<br />
<br />
When and how does coordinating multiple sources of information or lines of reasoning increase robust learning?<br />
<br />
Two sub-groups of coordinative learning studies are exploring these more specific questions:<br />
<br />
1) Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
<br />
When does adding visualizations or other multi-modal input enhance robust learning and how do we best support students in coordinating these sources?<br />
<br />
2) Examples and Explanations<br />
<br />
When and how should example study by combined and coordinated with problem solving to increase robust learning? When and how should explicit explanations be added or requested of students before, during, or after example study and problem solving practice?<br />
<br />
=== Independent variables ===<br />
<br />
*Content of the sources (e.g., pictures, diagrams, written text, audio, animation) or the encouraged lines of reasoning (e.g., example study, self-explanation, conceptual task, procedural task) and combinations<br />
<br />
*Instructional activities designed to engage students in [[coordination]] (e.g., conceptual vs. [[procedural]] exercises, contiguous presentation of sources, [[self-explanation]])<br />
<br />
=== Dependent variables ===<br />
[[Normal post-test]] and measures of [[robust learning]].<br />
<br />
=== Hypotheses ===<br />
When students are given sources/methods whose [[sense making]] difficulties are complementary and they are engaged in coordinating the sources/methods, then their learning will be more robust than it would otherwise be.<br />
<br />
=== Explanation ===<br />
<br />
There are both [[sense making]] and [[foundational skill building]] explanations. From the sense making perspective, if the sources/methods yield complementary content and the student is engaged in coordinating them, then the student is more likely to successfully understand the instruction because if a student fails to understand one of the sources/methods, he can use the second to make sense of the first. From a foundational skill building perspective, attending to both sources/methods simultaneously associates [[features]] from both with the learned knowledge components, thus potentially increasing feature validity and hence robust learning.<br />
<br />
=== Descendents ===<br />
<br />
Visualizations and Multi-modal sources<br />
*[[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project) | Visual-verbal learning in geometry (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
**[[Contiguous Representations for Robust Learning (Aleven & Butcher)]]<br />
*[[Visual Representations in Science Learning | Visual Representations in Science Learning (Davenport, Klahr & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Co-training of Chinese characters| Co-training of Chinese characters (Liu, Perfetti, Dunlap, Zi, Mitchell)]]<br />
*[[Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head”| Learning Chinese pronunciation from a “talking head” (Liu, Massaro, Dunlap, Wu, Chen,Chan, Perfetti)]] [Was in Fluency]<br />
<br />
Examples and Explanations<br />
*[[Booth | Knowledge component construction vs. recall (Booth, Siegler, Koedinger & Rittle-Johnson)]]<br />
*[[Stoichiometry_Study | Studying the Learning Effect of Personalization and Worked Examples in the Solving of Stoichiometry Problems (McLaren, Koedinger & Yaron)]]<br />
*[[Note-Taking_Technologies | Note-taking Project Page (Bauer & Koedinger)]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking:Restriction_and_Selection]]<br />
**[[Note-Taking:Coordination]]<br />
*[[REAP_main | The REAP Project: Implicit and explicit instruction on word meanings (Juffs & Eskenazi)]]<br />
*[[Help_Lite (Aleven, Roll)|Hints during tutored problem solving – the effect of fewer hint levels with greater conceptual content (Aleven & Roll)]]<br />
*[[Effect of adding simple worked examples to problem-solving in algebra learning (Anthony, Yang & Koedinger)]]<br />
*[[Bridging_Principles_and_Examples_through_Analogy_and_Explanation | Bridging Principles and Examples through Analogy and Explanation (Nokes & Vanlehn)]]<br />
<br />
=== Annotated Bibliography ===<br />
Forthcoming<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cluster]]</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking_Technologies&diff=4266Note-Taking Technologies2007-03-29T23:54:43Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
We are conducting an investigation into the relationship between note-taking and learning in online courses. The literature has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our completed studies indicate that the features included in online note-taking applications can have an effect on these process benefits. Analyses of our results have led us to explore the effect of selection-based note-taking on both behavior and learning. <br />
<br />
Via several completed and proposed experiments, we are exploring two general hypothesis regarding the effect of note-taking on learning. First, we believe that note-taking encourages active processing, and thus long-term retention, when it requires students to attend to the critical elements of the learning material. This results in increased [[feature validity]] of the mental representation of the [[knowledge component]]. This falls within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. Our second hypothesis is that note-taking facilitates [[long-term retention]] when it involves the use of multiple representations of concepts. This falls within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Our studies are designed to evaluate these hypotheses by comparing note-taking tools offering different functionality. <br />
<br />
View the [[#Descendents|'Descendents']] section to view experiments associated with these hypotheses.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Practical question: Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes?<br />
<br />
<br />
Scientific question: What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying learning gains from note-taking?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention (Kobayashi 2005, 2006). Two main processes have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind learning gains. The attention hypothesis is that "note-taking forces the learner to pay more attention to the presented material", while the generation hypothesis states that note-taking causes students to "actively relate the material to existing knowledge" (Peper and Mayer, 1986). There is little behavioral data to support either of these hypothesis. Technology may allows us to investigate these hypothesis in greater detail, as our preliminary studies indicate it provides a level of control over the note-taking process, and thus behavior. <br />
<br />
It is useful to cast the two above hypotheses in PSLC terms. The attention hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[focusing]] aspect of [[Refinement and Fluency]]. Note-taking thus facilitates learning when it requires students to focus on the critical [[knowledge components]] of the learning material. The generation hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Note-taking facilitates learning when it requires students to coordinate multiple versions of the same learning material. <br />
<br />
Our [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|preliminary results]] indicate some support for the focusing hypothesis. We found that when students use copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on items that they recorded in a wordy fashion than they did on items they recorded more efficiently. The wordiness may be an indication of students' [[focusing|focus]], showing a lack of attention to the critical components of the ideas. In addition, copy-paste functionality increased the number of items students recorded when compared to note-taking via typing. This may be an indication of decreased attention to key ideas. <br />
<br />
Technology offers a valuable comparison by which to evaluate the coordination hypothesis. While copy-paste note-taking involves the creation of a secondary notepad, which is available at all times, highlighting does not involve a notepad. Coordinating the information in the notepad with the information in the window may promote learning, much as seen in Wiley's work (Wiley, 2001).<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test. This is a [[robust learning]] measure<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of the various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. ''Attention/Fluency-[[Refinement]]:'' Note-taking benefits students when it requires them to focus on the critical components of the ideas they are recording. Restricting the amount of material students can select in any individual selection behavior will increase the attention paid to critical features of the learning material. This will result in improved retention compared to unrestricted selection. <br />
<br />
2. ''Coordinative Learning/Additional Representation:'' Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously [[coordinate]] two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
* Copy-Paste vs. Typing<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Copy-paste, when combined with Typing functionality, appears to result in reduced long-term retention than Typing alone. ]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Copy-paste, when alone, appears to result in more efficient learning than typing alone. Students learn the same amount in less time.]] <br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Given both copy-paste and typing functionality, students' will tend to paste ideas more often then they type ideas.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|When students record wordy ideas using copy-paste functionality, they perform worse on learning outcomes than when they record ideas using fewer words.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Students have a certain resistance to novel interaction techniques that makes it difficult to create interventions to evaluate note-taking hypothesis. This indicates the need for careful design of interventions.]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|These novel tools produce inferior learning to standard interaction techniques.]]<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
See individual experiment pages listed below in the Descendents section.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Copy Paste]]: compares Paste and Type with Typing-Only and Pencil-and-Paper<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]: compares Typing, Paste-Only, Restricted-Paste, and Selection<br />
'''Planned Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves coordinating the notepad with the learning materials by comparing performance using copy-paste with performance using highlighting.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves attention to what is being recorded by comparing unrestricted copy-paste with a restricted copy-paste.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves focusing on key concepts by comparing a tool that allows students to record as many ideas as they desire with a tool that limits the number of notes students can record.<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'''References'''<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2005). What Limits the Encoding Effect of Note-Taking? A meta-analytic examination., Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined Effects of Note-Taking/-Reviewing on Learning and the Enhancement Through Interventions: A meta-analytic review. (1986). Educational Psychology 26, 3 (2006) 459-477<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
#Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
<br />
The following papers report our earlier studies contrasting handwriting, typing, and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), 5-7 July, Kerkrade, Netherlands.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, in submission</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Quantity&diff=4265Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity2007-03-29T23:53:13Z<p>Abauer: /* Further Information */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking research often limits the amount of notes students can take, believing that too much note-taking will be detrimental to learning. However, this belief has not been fully validated. Our own work has shown that the tools students use to take notes can affect the amount of notes students record. Specifically, students using a selection-based tool, which allows them to select material and paste it into their notes, record far more notes than students who type. This disinhibition of note-taking behavior provides the opportunity to explore the question of note quantity in greater depth. <br />
<br />
The research described here will evaluate how the quantity of notes students can take affects learning. We hypothesize that restricting the number of notes they can record will require students to [[focusing\focus]] on the most critical ideas within the learning material. This will result in a deeper textbase, and increased performance on learning outcomes.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
How does the quantity of notes students record influence what they learn?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
There is a common belief among note-taking researchers that "the amount of underlining must be controlled...otherwise a few subjects underline everything or underline nothing.” (Johnson, 1988). Due to this, most note-taking studies of reading have restricted the amount of notes students take, from 1 line per paragraph (Rickards & August, 1975) to 7 lines per page (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1981). However, there is little rationale behind any specific restriction, and only one study comparing restricted note-taking with unrestricted note-taking (Santa et. al., 1979), which found that restrictions on quantity increased performance on tests where students were not allowed to review. <br />
<br />
My own research has found that selection-based note-taking results in far more note-taking activity than other forms of note-taking such as typing. The research cited above would cite this as a negative behavior, though students using the tool performed equivalently on learning outcomes to students who typed. It may be, however, that they would have shown superior performance if they had limited the amount of notes they had recorded. This experiment evaluates this hypothesis.<br />
<br />
Our previous data also provides us with the ability to create more rational restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take. As described above, previous research has created limitations at both the page level as well as the paragraph level. It may also be appropriate to attach restrictions to an entire module. Additionally, the form of a restriction may vary by page or paragraph. An information rich page may require more notes than a sparse one. This research will evaluate the behavior of effective self-restrictors in our previous experiments to determine the appropriate form of restriction. <br />
<br />
This research will be explored using either a highlighting or copy-paste tool, both of which use a similar selection-based interaction technique. The specific tool will be chosen based on the results of a comparison [[Note-Taking:_Coordination|experiment]] being conducted within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. As in another note-taking [[Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Concepts|experiment]] within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster, restrictions will take two forms. Required restrictions will not allow students to take more than the maximum number of notes, and recommended restrictions will inform students when their note quantity has reached the threshold, and recommend a paring down of notes.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Unrestricted Interface:'' Students can use the note-taking application to record as many notes as they like.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Interface:'' Students can only record a limited amount of notes using the note-taking application.<br />
<br />
''Read-Only:'' In this condition, students do not take notes, they are only allowed to read the material.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. (Central Hypothesis) Restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take will improve performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
2. Restricting note quantity will decrease time on task.<br />
<br />
== Expected Findings ==<br />
We expect restrictions to cause students to increase their focus on critical components of the learning material by forcing them to identify key ideas. This will result in a stronger understanding of the structure of the learning materials, and will thus improve their performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
In addition, restrictions will result in less note-taking activity, which will in turn reduce time on task relative to unrestricted note-taking. This would be a large win, as copy-paste note-taking is already more efficient than other forms of note-taking such as typing. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
''References''<br />
#Bretzing, B.H., Kulhavy, R.W. "Note-taking and Passage Style", Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 2 (1981) 242-250<br />
#Johnson, L.L. Effects of Underlining Textbook Sentences on Passage and Sentence Retention. Reading and Research Instruction 28, 1 (1988), 18-32<br />
#Rickards, J.P., August, G.J. (1975) Generative Underlining Strategies in Prose Recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 860-865<br />
#Santa, C.M., Abrams, L., Santa, J.L (1979) Effects of Notetaking and Studying on the Retention of Prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3) 247-260</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Quantity&diff=4264Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity2007-03-29T23:52:47Z<p>Abauer: /* Independent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking research often limits the amount of notes students can take, believing that too much note-taking will be detrimental to learning. However, this belief has not been fully validated. Our own work has shown that the tools students use to take notes can affect the amount of notes students record. Specifically, students using a selection-based tool, which allows them to select material and paste it into their notes, record far more notes than students who type. This disinhibition of note-taking behavior provides the opportunity to explore the question of note quantity in greater depth. <br />
<br />
The research described here will evaluate how the quantity of notes students can take affects learning. We hypothesize that restricting the number of notes they can record will require students to [[focusing\focus]] on the most critical ideas within the learning material. This will result in a deeper textbase, and increased performance on learning outcomes.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
How does the quantity of notes students record influence what they learn?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
There is a common belief among note-taking researchers that "the amount of underlining must be controlled...otherwise a few subjects underline everything or underline nothing.” (Johnson, 1988). Due to this, most note-taking studies of reading have restricted the amount of notes students take, from 1 line per paragraph (Rickards & August, 1975) to 7 lines per page (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1981). However, there is little rationale behind any specific restriction, and only one study comparing restricted note-taking with unrestricted note-taking (Santa et. al., 1979), which found that restrictions on quantity increased performance on tests where students were not allowed to review. <br />
<br />
My own research has found that selection-based note-taking results in far more note-taking activity than other forms of note-taking such as typing. The research cited above would cite this as a negative behavior, though students using the tool performed equivalently on learning outcomes to students who typed. It may be, however, that they would have shown superior performance if they had limited the amount of notes they had recorded. This experiment evaluates this hypothesis.<br />
<br />
Our previous data also provides us with the ability to create more rational restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take. As described above, previous research has created limitations at both the page level as well as the paragraph level. It may also be appropriate to attach restrictions to an entire module. Additionally, the form of a restriction may vary by page or paragraph. An information rich page may require more notes than a sparse one. This research will evaluate the behavior of effective self-restrictors in our previous experiments to determine the appropriate form of restriction. <br />
<br />
This research will be explored using either a highlighting or copy-paste tool, both of which use a similar selection-based interaction technique. The specific tool will be chosen based on the results of a comparison [[Note-Taking:_Coordination|experiment]] being conducted within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. As in another note-taking [[Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Concepts|experiment]] within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster, restrictions will take two forms. Required restrictions will not allow students to take more than the maximum number of notes, and recommended restrictions will inform students when their note quantity has reached the threshold, and recommend a paring down of notes.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Unrestricted Interface:'' Students can use the note-taking application to record as many notes as they like.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Interface:'' Students can only record a limited amount of notes using the note-taking application.<br />
<br />
''Read-Only:'' In this condition, students do not take notes, they are only allowed to read the material.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. (Central Hypothesis) Restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take will improve performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
2. Restricting note quantity will decrease time on task.<br />
<br />
== Expected Findings ==<br />
We expect restrictions to cause students to increase their focus on critical components of the learning material by forcing them to identify key ideas. This will result in a stronger understanding of the structure of the learning materials, and will thus improve their performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
In addition, restrictions will result in less note-taking activity, which will in turn reduce time on task relative to unrestricted note-taking. This would be a large win, as copy-paste note-taking is already more efficient than other forms of note-taking such as typing. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'References'<br />
*Bretzing, B.H., Kulhavy, R.W. "Note-taking and Passage Style", Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 2 (1981) 242-250<br />
*Johnson, L.L. Effects of Underlining Textbook Sentences on Passage and Sentence Retention. Reading and Research Instruction 28, 1 (1988), 18-32<br />
*Rickards, J.P., August, G.J. (1975) Generative Underlining Strategies in Prose Recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 860-865<br />
*Santa, C.M., Abrams, L., Santa, J.L (1979) Effects of Notetaking and Studying on the Retention of Prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3) 247-260</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Quantity&diff=4263Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity2007-03-29T23:52:30Z<p>Abauer: /* Independent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
Note-taking research often limits the amount of notes students can take, believing that too much note-taking will be detrimental to learning. However, this belief has not been fully validated. Our own work has shown that the tools students use to take notes can affect the amount of notes students record. Specifically, students using a selection-based tool, which allows them to select material and paste it into their notes, record far more notes than students who type. This disinhibition of note-taking behavior provides the opportunity to explore the question of note quantity in greater depth. <br />
<br />
The research described here will evaluate how the quantity of notes students can take affects learning. We hypothesize that restricting the number of notes they can record will require students to [[focusing\focus]] on the most critical ideas within the learning material. This will result in a deeper textbase, and increased performance on learning outcomes.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
How does the quantity of notes students record influence what they learn?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
There is a common belief among note-taking researchers that "the amount of underlining must be controlled...otherwise a few subjects underline everything or underline nothing.” (Johnson, 1988). Due to this, most note-taking studies of reading have restricted the amount of notes students take, from 1 line per paragraph (Rickards & August, 1975) to 7 lines per page (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1981). However, there is little rationale behind any specific restriction, and only one study comparing restricted note-taking with unrestricted note-taking (Santa et. al., 1979), which found that restrictions on quantity increased performance on tests where students were not allowed to review. <br />
<br />
My own research has found that selection-based note-taking results in far more note-taking activity than other forms of note-taking such as typing. The research cited above would cite this as a negative behavior, though students using the tool performed equivalently on learning outcomes to students who typed. It may be, however, that they would have shown superior performance if they had limited the amount of notes they had recorded. This experiment evaluates this hypothesis.<br />
<br />
Our previous data also provides us with the ability to create more rational restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take. As described above, previous research has created limitations at both the page level as well as the paragraph level. It may also be appropriate to attach restrictions to an entire module. Additionally, the form of a restriction may vary by page or paragraph. An information rich page may require more notes than a sparse one. This research will evaluate the behavior of effective self-restrictors in our previous experiments to determine the appropriate form of restriction. <br />
<br />
This research will be explored using either a highlighting or copy-paste tool, both of which use a similar selection-based interaction technique. The specific tool will be chosen based on the results of a comparison [[Note-Taking:_Coordination|experiment]] being conducted within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. As in another note-taking [[Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Concepts|experiment]] within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster, restrictions will take two forms. Required restrictions will not allow students to take more than the maximum number of notes, and recommended restrictions will inform students when their note quantity has reached the threshold, and recommend a paring down of notes.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
''Unrestricted Interface:'' Students can use the note-taking application to record as many notes as they like.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Interface:'' Students can only record a limited amount of notes using the note-taking application.<br />
<br />
''Read-Only:'' In this condition, students do not take notes, they are only allowed to read the material.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. (Central Hypothesis) Restrictions on the quantity of notes students can take will improve performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
2. Restricting note quantity will decrease time on task.<br />
<br />
== Expected Findings ==<br />
We expect restrictions to cause students to increase their focus on critical components of the learning material by forcing them to identify key ideas. This will result in a stronger understanding of the structure of the learning materials, and will thus improve their performance on learning outcomes. <br />
<br />
In addition, restrictions will result in less note-taking activity, which will in turn reduce time on task relative to unrestricted note-taking. This would be a large win, as copy-paste note-taking is already more efficient than other forms of note-taking such as typing. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'References'<br />
*Bretzing, B.H., Kulhavy, R.W. "Note-taking and Passage Style", Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 2 (1981) 242-250<br />
*Johnson, L.L. Effects of Underlining Textbook Sentences on Passage and Sentence Retention. Reading and Research Instruction 28, 1 (1988), 18-32<br />
*Rickards, J.P., August, G.J. (1975) Generative Underlining Strategies in Prose Recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 860-865<br />
*Santa, C.M., Abrams, L., Santa, J.L (1979) Effects of Notetaking and Studying on the Retention of Prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3) 247-260</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Focusing_On_Concepts&diff=4262Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts2007-03-29T23:49:55Z<p>Abauer: /* Independent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
This experiment evaluates the hypothesis that note-taking promotes learning where it requires students to increase their [[focusing|focus]] on the ideas they record in their notes. It does so by increasing both the attention paid to the critical components of the key idea, and the amount of time students spend rehearsing the idea in working memory. Previous research indicates that when students use copy-paste functionality to take notes on text-based material, they learn less when they create wordier notes. We believe these results come from the low cost of such wordy notes. Using copy-paste functionality, students can easily select large amounts of text after a cursory read-through.<br />
<br />
This experiment compares unrestricted copy-paste with restricted copy-paste, in which the amount of text students can select in any one action is limited. Restrictions are aimed at increasing attention paid to what is being recorded, and thus increasing learning. Two types of restrictions will be evaluated: those that are required, and those that are recommended.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Note-taking:'' The act of recording ideas from learning material, either by marking up the learning material directly or creating a separate sheet of “notes.”<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Does note-taking promote learning by increasing focus on the ideas students are recording?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Many researchers believe that the beneficial learning outcomes observed for note-taking are derived from an increased attention to learning materials (see Peper & Mayer, 1986). Most studies that evaluate what students record show that recorded ideas are much more likely to be recalled at testing than ideas that are not recorded (Crawford, 1925 for earliest). The wordiness with which an idea is recorded in notes may also be an attentional component of note-taking . However, the research is somewhat equivocal as to whether wordiness is beneficial or detrimental (fewer words better: Howe, 1970; worse Kiewra, 1987). <br />
<br />
My own research has shown that the benefits of wordiness vary according to how notes are recorded. Specifically, when ideas are recorded using copy-paste functionality, wordiness appears detrimental to learning. This is not the case for handwritten or typed notes. There may be two processes involved here. First, wordy notes have little associated cost when pasted. Using the mouse to select more text takes an insignificant amount of time. Secondly, selecting more text may be an indicator of less focus on the important components of the idea being recorded. As ideas are easier to record than when they are typed or handwritten, students may be less motivated to identify the critical components for recording. <br />
<br />
The hypothesis of this experiment is that increasing the cost of recording notes may motivate students to focus more on what they are recording. By restricting the amount of text students can select in any one copy-paste action, we hope to increase student focus. An earlier interface designed showed both lower learning and reduced usage, perhaps due to student frustration. Due to this inhibited behavior, we were unable to evaluate the stated hypothesis. In this experiment, we aim to design more user-friendly restrictions, and evaluate the difference between required restrictions, where students are not allowed to make inappropriate selections, and recommended restrictions, where students are told when their selections may be suboptimal.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Unrestricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Required Restriction:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. However, students are restricted with regards to how much text they can select in any single pasting action. These restrictions are absolute, so that any restrictions above the given criterion will not be allowed. <br />
<br />
''Recommended Restriction:'' Like "Required Restriction," only now students are told when the criterion is violated, but can still choose to make the selection.<br />
<br />
''Read-Only:'' In this condition, students do not take notes, they are only allowed to read the material.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
<br />
1. (Central Hypothesis) The restricted note-taking tools will show better performance on learning outcomes than the unrestricted tools.<br />
<br />
2. The required will show better learning outcomes than the recommended tool, as the recommended tool will allow students to lapse into negative behaviors.<br />
<br />
3. All note-taking tools will perform better than read-only, as note-taking has been shown to be a positive behavior.<br />
<br />
== Expected Findings ==<br />
<br />
If note-taking involves increasing focus on ideas being recorded in notes, we expect that the restrictions on note-taking will result in superior performance on learning outcomes. Restrictions will require students to identify the critical information to record, whereas using an unrestricted tool students would be more likely to copy-paste large swaths of text without attending to the material. <br />
<br />
Designing required restrictions may be an intractable problem, as students appear to have strong opinions regarding how to take notes. Frustrating tools will result in suboptimal note-taking behavior. This is more likely with the required tool than it is with the recommended tool. We hope that recommendations are enough to influence student behavior in a positive fashion, so that note-taking interfaces can offer user freedom. Therefore both behavioral and learning differences between the recommended and required tool will be important to evaluate. <br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
''References''<br />
*Crawford, C.C. The correlation between college lecture notes and quiz papers. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 4 (1925) 282-291.<br />
*Howe, M.J. Using students' notes to examine the role of the individual learner in acquiring meaningful subject matter. Journal of Educational Research 64, 2 (1970), 61-63<br />
*Kiewra, K.A., Notetaking and Review: The research and its implications. Instructional Science 16, (1987) 233-249<br />
*Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 (1986) 34-38</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection&diff=4261Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection2007-03-29T23:49:23Z<p>Abauer: /* Independent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
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. This study evaluates two hypotheses regarding this effect. 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. 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. <br />
<br />
While students create their own notes through typing or handwriting, they simply copy material verbatim using copy-paste functionality. It may be that rewording of notes is important, or it may be that simply viewing an alternative representation of the learning material in notes is key to learning gains. To tease these apart, we designed a selection tool that, upon a student selecting an idea to record, gave the students three options to place in their notes. One was a reworded version of the idea recorded, and the other two were distractors. If it was only important to view an alternative wording, this tool should show superior performance to copy-paste. If involvement in the rewording was important, the tool should show equivalent performance to copy-paste.<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Learn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' The two novel tools (bottom) showed significantly lower learning on all tests than did the standard tools(top two). The two novel tools (Selection and Restricted) were not significantly different from each other. The two standard tools (Copy-Paste and Typing) were not significantly different from each other). There was a significant overall effect for review (tests 2-3) across all conditions, but no significant effect for forgetting (tests 1 to 2). <br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Efficiency.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Efficiency:'' The Paste condition showed more efficient learning than all other tools on the immediate test (1) and review test (3). Efficiency is defined as learning difference between two subsequent tests divided by the time spend studying the materials.<br />
<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp3-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas Recorded:'' The Paste tool recorded significantly more total ideas than any other condition, and the same amount of key ideas as the typing condition. The Novel tools recorded significantly fewer key ideas than the standard conditions.<br />
*''Wordiness:'' In line with previous experiments, when students recorded wordier ideas using copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on test items associated with the idea than when they recorded less wordy ideas.<br />
*''Desirability:'' Students were significantly more dissatisfied with the selection tool than they were with any other tool. Most who used the restricted tool reported disliking the restrictions.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, accepted for publication</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4260Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-03-29T23:49:04Z<p>Abauer: /* Independent Variables */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported hear was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste. <br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools. Most of these verbatim ideas were recorded using copy-paste functionality. Pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
* The copy-paste tool recorded far wordier ideas than either of the other tools. Ideas pasted using more words were associated with increased forgetting relative to ideas that were pasted using fewer words.<br />
* There was not a significant difference with regards to completion time.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
* The copy-paste tool appears to result in both increased verbatim note-taking and reduced [[long-term retention]]. Copy-paste may thus be a negative behavior, potentially allowing students to record ideas in their notes without paying much attention to them. <br />
* Students will take advantage of copy-paste functionality when available. While students in the copy-paste condition could type, the overwhelming proportion of their notes were pasted. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4259Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-03-29T23:47:57Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported hear was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste. <br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools. Most of these verbatim ideas were recorded using copy-paste functionality. Pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
* The copy-paste tool recorded far wordier ideas than either of the other tools. Ideas pasted using more words were associated with increased forgetting relative to ideas that were pasted using fewer words.<br />
* There was not a significant difference with regards to completion time.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
* The copy-paste tool appears to result in both increased verbatim note-taking and reduced [[long-term retention]]. Copy-paste may thus be a negative behavior, potentially allowing students to record ideas in their notes without paying much attention to them. <br />
* Students will take advantage of copy-paste functionality when available. While students in the copy-paste condition could type, the overwhelming proportion of their notes were pasted. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4258Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-03-29T23:46:55Z<p>Abauer: /* Descendents */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported hear was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste. <br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools. Most of these verbatim ideas were recorded using copy-paste functionality. Pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
* The copy-paste tool recorded far wordier ideas than either of the other tools. Ideas pasted using more words were associated with increased forgetting relative to ideas that were pasted using fewer words.<br />
* There was not a significant difference with regards to completion time.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
* The copy-paste tool appears to result in both increased verbatim note-taking and reduced [[long-term retention]]. Copy-paste may thus be a negative behavior, potentially allowing students to record ideas in their notes without paying much attention to them. <br />
* Students will take advantage of copy-paste functionality when available. While students in the copy-paste condition could type, the overwhelming proportion of their notes were pasted. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4257Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-03-29T23:46:14Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported hear was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste. <br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools. Most of these verbatim ideas were recorded using copy-paste functionality. Pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
* The copy-paste tool recorded far wordier ideas than either of the other tools. Ideas pasted using more words were associated with increased forgetting relative to ideas that were pasted using fewer words.<br />
* There was not a significant difference with regards to completion time.<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
* The copy-paste tool appears to result in both increased verbatim note-taking and reduced [[long-term retention]]. Copy-paste may thus be a negative behavior, potentially allowing students to record ideas in their notes without paying much attention to them. <br />
* Students will take advantage of copy-paste functionality when available. While students in the copy-paste condition could type, the overwhelming proportion of their notes were pasted. <br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking_Technologies&diff=4256Note-Taking Technologies2007-03-29T23:40:46Z<p>Abauer: /* Findings */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
We are conducting an investigation into the relationship between note-taking and learning in online courses. The literature has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention. Our completed studies indicate that the features included in online note-taking applications can have an effect on these process benefits. Analyses of our results have led us to explore the effect of selection-based note-taking on both behavior and learning. <br />
<br />
Via several completed and proposed experiments, we are exploring two general hypothesis regarding the effect of note-taking on learning. First, we believe that note-taking encourages active processing, and thus long-term retention, when it requires students to attend to the critical elements of the learning material. This results in increased [[feature validity]] of the mental representation of the [[knowledge component]]. This falls within the [[Refinement and Fluency]] cluster. Our second hypothesis is that note-taking facilitates [[long-term retention]] when it involves the use of multiple representations of concepts. This falls within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Our studies are designed to evaluate these hypotheses by comparing note-taking tools offering different functionality. <br />
<br />
View the [[#Descendents|'Descendents']] section to view experiments associated with these hypotheses.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Selection:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' The act of creating a lasting distinction between the selected text and the main content. For example, through creating a yellow background or underlining the text.<br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Practical question: Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes?<br />
<br />
<br />
Scientific question: What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying learning gains from note-taking?<br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
Note-taking research has shown that the process of taking notes can have a positive impact on long-term retention (Kobayashi 2005, 2006). Two main processes have been proposed to explain the mechanisms behind learning gains. The attention hypothesis is that "note-taking forces the learner to pay more attention to the presented material", while the generation hypothesis states that note-taking causes students to "actively relate the material to existing knowledge" (Peper and Mayer, 1986). There is little behavioral data to support either of these hypothesis. Technology may allows us to investigate these hypothesis in greater detail, as our preliminary studies indicate it provides a level of control over the note-taking process, and thus behavior. <br />
<br />
It is useful to cast the two above hypotheses in PSLC terms. The attention hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[focusing]] aspect of [[Refinement and Fluency]]. Note-taking thus facilitates learning when it requires students to focus on the critical [[knowledge components]] of the learning material. The generation hypothesis can be restated with regards to the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster. Note-taking facilitates learning when it requires students to coordinate multiple versions of the same learning material. <br />
<br />
Our [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|preliminary results]] indicate some support for the focusing hypothesis. We found that when students use copy-paste functionality, they performed worse on items that they recorded in a wordy fashion than they did on items they recorded more efficiently. The wordiness may be an indication of students' [[focusing|focus]], showing a lack of attention to the critical components of the ideas. In addition, copy-paste functionality increased the number of items students recorded when compared to note-taking via typing. This may be an indication of decreased attention to key ideas. <br />
<br />
Technology offers a valuable comparison by which to evaluate the coordination hypothesis. While copy-paste note-taking involves the creation of a secondary notepad, which is available at all times, highlighting does not involve a notepad. Coordinating the information in the notepad with the information in the window may promote learning, much as seen in Wiley's work (Wiley, 2001).<br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test. This is a [[robust learning]] measure<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
[[image:NT-TextEditor.gif]]<br />
<br />
''This is the basic note-taking text-editor. Built in javascript, the editor occupies the lower third of the screen, while the learning materials occupy the top of the screen. The functionality of the various manipulations is described below. <br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students can select as much material as they like in any single pasting action.<br />
<br />
''Restricted Paste:'' Students can only create notes by copy-pasting material from the learning content to their notepad. Students are restricted to selecting 90% of the words of any single sentence they are selecting.<br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Selection-Tool:'' Students can only create notes by choosing one of the 3 options made available when they select learning material.<br />
<blockquote>'''Image of the Selection Tool'''<br>[[image:Note-SelectTool.gif|200]]</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Highlighting:'' Students can create notes by actively highlighting course material. These highlights are seen with differently colored backgrounds, as would be the case with a physical highlighter. <br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Pretest score:'' Prior to the learning material, students take a pre-test similar to the normal tests described above.<br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
1. ''Attention/Fluency-[[Refinement]]:'' Note-taking benefits students when it requires them to focus on the critical components of the ideas they are recording. Restricting the amount of material students can select in any individual selection behavior will increase the attention paid to critical features of the learning material. This will result in improved retention compared to unrestricted selection. <br />
<br />
2. ''Coordinative Learning/Additional Representation:'' Note-taking benefits students because it allows them to simultaneously [[coordinate]] two representations of the same material, the fixed one created by the content author, and their own set of notes.<br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
* Copy-Paste vs. Typing<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Copy-paste, when combined with Typing functionality, appears to result in reduced long-term retention than Typing alone. ]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Copy-paste, when alone, appears to result in more efficient learning than typing alone. Students learn the same amount in less time.]] <br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste|Given both copy-paste and typing functionality, students' will tend to paste ideas more often then they type ideas.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|When students record wordy ideas using copy-paste functionality, they perform worse on learning outcomes than when they record ideas using fewer words.]]<br />
* [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|Students have a certain resistance to novel interaction techniques that makes it difficult to create interventions to evaluate note-taking hypothesis. This indicates the need for careful design of interventions.]]<br />
** [[Note-Taking:_Restriction_and_Selection|These novel tools produce inferior learning to standard interaction techniques.]]<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
See individual experiment pages listed below in the Descendents section.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
'''Completed Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Restriction and Selection]]: compares Typing, Paste-Only, Restricted-Paste, and Selection<br />
'''Planned Experiments'''<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves coordinating the notepad with the learning materials by comparing performance using copy-paste with performance using highlighting.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Concepts]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves attention to what is being recorded by comparing unrestricted copy-paste with a restricted copy-paste.<br />
*[[Note-Taking: Focusing On Quantity]]: Evaluates the hypothesis that positive note-taking involves focusing on key concepts by comparing a tool that allows students to record as many ideas as they desire with a tool that limits the number of notes students can record.<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
'''References'''<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2005). What Limits the Encoding Effect of Note-Taking? A meta-analytic examination., Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242-262<br />
# Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined Effects of Note-Taking/-Reviewing on Learning and the Enhancement Through Interventions: A meta-analytic review. (1986). Educational Psychology 26, 3 (2006) 459-477<br />
# Peper, R.J., Mayer, R.E., Generative Effects of Note taking During Science Lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78, 1 34-38<br />
#Wiley, J. (2001) Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the Twenty-third annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />
<br />
The following papers report our earlier studies contrasting handwriting, typing, and copy-paste.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger, K. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), 5-7 July, Kerkrade, Netherlands.<br />
<br />
# Bauer, A., Koedinger. K.R., Selection-Based Note-Taking Applications, ACM Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2007, in submission</div>Abauerhttps://learnlab.org/wiki/index.php?title=Note-Taking:_Copy_Paste&diff=4255Note-Taking: Copy Paste2007-03-29T23:38:57Z<p>Abauer: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study, we found that including copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to be used to increase the quantity of notes students take. In this study (reported in Bauer & Koedinger, 2006) we conducted further evaluations of copy-paste functionality by conducting additional testing and comparing a text-editor that allowed copy-paste with two control conditions, a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste and pencil-and-paper. We found that compared with both control conditions, students given the ability to copy-paste created notes of a far more wordy and verbatim form. Students who could only type took fewer notes than students in the other conditions. While there was no performance difference on individual tests, students using the copy-paste tool appeared to show reduced [[long-term retention]], forgetting more between the immediate and delayed test.<br />
<br />
For information on the note-taking project see the [[Note-Taking_Technologies|top-level page.]]<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
''Select/ion:'' This term is used in the context of this study to identify the behavior of using the mouse and cursor to actively highlight a portion of digital text. Selection is first step for several online note-taking techniques, including copy-paste and annotation.<br />
<br />
''Copy-Paste:'' This is the act of selecting material, copying it to the computer clipboard (via a keyboard shortcut or menu), and then pasting it into students’ notes. <br />
<br />
== Research Question ==<br />
<br />
Can we improve learning outcomes in online courses by changing the way students can take notes? <br />
<br />
== Background/Significance ==<br />
<br />
In a previous study (Bauer & Koedinger, 2005), we found that the inclusion of copy-paste functionality in a note-taking application appears to alter behavior when compared with taking handwritten notes. Students took advantage of copy-paste functionality to increase the number of words they recorded. They did not perform differently on an immediate multiple-choice post-test, however.<br />
<br />
The study reported hear was aimed at understanding the effect of copy-paste functionality in greater detail. It included both multiple-choice and free-response problem solving questions, as well as [[robust learning]] measures of [[long-term retention]]. Students were tested immediately, at a one week delay, and at a one week delay after being allowed to review their notes. <br />
<br />
Students were placed in one of three conditions, corresponding to the note-taking tool they were given. Some students took notes using pencil-and-paper. Others took notes using a text-editor that did not allow copy-paste. The final group took notes using a text-editor that allowed both typing and copy-paste. <br />
<br />
== Dependent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Tests'''<br />
<br />
[[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.<br />
<br />
''Normal Learning, immediate:'' Students are given a test immediately after studying the material.<br />
<br />
''Long-Term Retention, Normal Learning:'' Students return a week following the treatment (which lasts between 30 and 90 minutes) to take this test.<br />
<br />
''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.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Behavior'''<br />
<br />
''Note-Quantity:'' The total number of ideas students place in their notes is captured, as well as the number of words used to express those ideas.<br />
<br />
''Note-Wording:'' How students word their notes is recorded. Each ideas is either recorded Verbatim, Abbreviated, or in students Own words. <br />
<br />
''Completion Time:'' The time students take to complete the learning material is recorded.<br />
<br />
'''Motivation/Interest'''<br />
<br />
''Experience:'' After taking the final test, students are given a survey which solicits their reaction to the tool they used. They are asked to identify their most and least favorite features of the tools, and how they believe the tool affected their note-taking behavior.<br />
<br />
== Independent Variables ==<br />
<br />
'''Note-taking Treatment'''<br />
<br />
''Paste:'' Students can create notes by copy-pasting any amount of material from the learning content to their notepad or by typing in the notepad. <br />
<br />
''Typing:'' Students can only create notes by typing directly into their notepad.<br />
<br />
''Pencil-and-Paper:'' Students take notes using either an pencil or pen on either lined or unlined paper.<br />
<br />
'''Context/Mediating Variables on Student Characteristics'''<br />
<br />
''SAT Score:'' All students are asked to provide their SAT scores, as in previous studies SAT-Math was found to be an important covariate. <br />
<br />
''Preferences:'' In the survey, students are asked how they prefer to take notes in their regular student-life.<br />
<br />
== Hypotheses ==<br />
# Students using the copy-paste tool to take notes will take more notes than students typing or using pencil-and-paper. This will be <br />
# Students using copy-paste to take notes will learn less than students typing or using pencil-and-paper, as their notes will be less personal. <br />
<br />
== Findings ==<br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-FRLearn.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Learning:'' No statistically significant difference was found on individual tests. A significant time by condition interaction was found between the immediate and delayed (1 and 2) tests for free response questions. Students using copy-paste functionality forgot more than students using the typing tool or pencil-and-paper. <br />
[[Image:NT-Exp2-Ideas.gif]]<br />
<br />
*''Ideas:'' Students using the typing tool recorded fewer notes than the other tools, which were not significantly different. <br />
**''Wording:''Students using the copy-paste tool recorded significantly more ideas verbatim than the other tools, and pencil-and-paper recorded significantly more ideas in own words.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Explanation ==<br />
*The results of this experiment do not support our hyptheses, as the novel tools performed worse on learning outcomes than did the standard tools. However, this may be due to usability issues. The Selection tool was the most disliked tool, and users reported disliking the restrictions in the restrited-paste tool. In addition, note-taking behavior was suboptimal, as the novel conditions recorded fewer key ideas than did the standard tools. It may be that the design of the novel tools required more attention to the process of note-taking, rather than the product. <br />
**Lesson: More attention must be paid to the design of note-taking interventions, in order to ensure adoption by users. <br />
*When students are only allowed to copy-paste, they appear to learn as much as when they type. Contrary to previous results, they do not forget more over time. In contrast to the previous experiment, students in the copy-paste condition could not type. This may have increased their attention to the process of pasting. In addition, students in the copy-paste condition showed reduced time on task compared to typing.<br />
**Lesson: Copy-Paste may be a more efficient note-taking technique than typing.<br />
<br />
== Descendents ==<br />
[[Note-Taking_Technologies|Note-taking project page]]<br />
<br />
[[Note-Taking: Coordination]]<br />
<br />
== Further Information ==<br />
Bauer, A., and Koedinger, K. “Developing a Note Taking Tool from the Ground Up”. Ed-Media 2005. AACE Press, 4181-4186.<br />
Bauer, A., Koedinger, K.R. Pasting and Encoding: Note-taking in Online Courses. In Proc. IEEE ICALT 2006. 789-793</div>Abauer