grabe

Twitter Chats Now On BlueSky

Ten years ago or so when I was still involved in teaching graduate courses in instructional design, a kludged way of using Twitter popularly referred to as Twitter Chats emerged and became popular within the education community. It is fair to say that I was not a fan, but in keeping with the charge for my course I spent a lot of time in such chats and exposed my students to the experience through class assignments.

I tried without luck over several years to get a student to do a thesis focused on these chats. I proposed creating a system based on research studies from the past analyzing classroom interaction. How much time was devoted to teacher talk and to student talk? Who initiates questions and who responds? Who responds to responses? Does the teacher rephrase requests for participation based on categories the teacher could be asked to provide about learner characteristics – e.g., male/female, advanced/struggling? What proportion of classroom interaction was devoted to maintenance, content, discipline, socialization?

An observation of my own regarding chats was that they were extremely inefficient in comparison to other technology tools – discussion boards, group video interactions. So what was the point? My proposal to students was that a classification system of chat transcripts would be a way to investigate questions related to chat behavior.

I never did get a grad student interested in my proposal and then Twitter Chats seemed to fade away. Until now that is. I have switched from being a Twitter (X) user to BlueSky and see that many other educators have as well. I just saw that the old Twitter Chat procedures are now being promoted on BlueSky. This encouraged me to search for something I wrote years ago about my suggestions for improving these chats even though I thought other tools offered educators better learning and communication experiences. What follows is that content minimally modified to be more timely. I have left the original use of Twitter as the focus, but replacing Twitter with BlueSky would be legitimate as the chat techniques are identical.

***

Many educators have taken to using Twitter as a tool for “discussions”. Among participants, these discussions are more commonly described as chats and may be used as a way for students to share content, but more commonly seem a way for educators and their colleagues to interact.

Twitter chats, often called edchats when used in education, tend to follow a particular format partly to take advantage of characteristics of Twitter and partly because the approach is an efficient way to impose a synchronous approach on a tool not necessarily designed to be used in the way it has come to be used. Twitter was developed to share comments with followers. An edchat does not require that participants follow each other.

The essential feature of a Twitter chat is a common hashtag. All comments during a chat must contain the same hashtag. A Twitter hashtag is the symbol # followed by some series of letters or numbers; e.g., #grabechat. Participants in a chat actually search for the designated hashtag rather than watch their Twitter feed.

Following a series of tweets containing a common hashtag during a chat works best with a tool that automatically updates itself so the user does not have to repeat the search over and over again. My tool of choice is Tweetdeck (see image that follows). This tool allows an on-going search to be established based on a designated phrase (e.g., #ndedchat) and will keep this search current.

The other “rules” for a Twitter chat are conventions, i.e., made up rules. To have a synchronous chat, participants need to be online at the same time – e.g., Wednesday at 9 P.M. A variant called a slow chat, uses many of the same techniques but relies on an asynchronous approach – participants connect when they can over a greater amount of time.

The most common approach for a Twitter chat is a question and answer format based on a theme. A “moderator” may generate the questions for the week or participants may share responsibility for this task. Posting the questions before the chat allows participants to prepare. Some participants may even generate answers and then paste them into the chat tool when the questions are presented. This slows the discussion process down for these participants and allows them to spend the time thinking about what others have to say. This approach is uncommon, but would seem to lead to greater reflection (see my criticism of the typical chat that follows this description).

Another convention is used to deal with other typical challenges of an online discussion. Because real-time chats involving many participants have the potential to become disjointed, questions and answers are often numbered; e.g., Q1, Q2, … and A1, A2, … . The appropriate label is added to each question or answer. This approach allows individuals to make clear how their responses match with a specific question or earlier replies from other individuals. A typical hour-long chat seems to be based on 8-10 questions. Note that the inclusion of a hashtag and the indicator for a given question reduces the length of any given tweet.

Critical analysis and suggestions

I have participated in and viewed many edchats. These experiences have resulted in criticisms both of the technical tool and the way chats tend to unfold (the tactics).

I have fallen into analyzing educational technology experiences in terms of tools and tactics and this approach may be useful here. The idea is to separate the consideration of the potential and actual perceived value of the tool (the specific service or application) and tactics (the strategies of use). My assumption in the comments that follow is that the general goal for an edchat is professional development – the acquisition by professionals of new knowledge and skills. The existing tool is Twitter and the tactic is participant responses to a series of approximately 10 questions within an hour long block of time.

Assumed advantages of tool (Twitter) – free, easy to learn, large installed base of users

Assumed advantages of tactic – educators are familiar with a question and answer format and can participate with little preparation

Issues

A general issue with social media is that once a platform (tool) has attracted a user base, new and better tools fail to gain participants because individuals are reluctant to migrate for fear their social connections will be lost. I think this is the case with Twitter in the education community. I think Twitter has inherent issues because of the brief comments it allows. This limitation and the time to enter comments from a keyboard or screen, in my opinion, leads to rather shallow interactions. It may be a great way to learn about new things via links, but it is not a tool suited to meaningful, synchronous discussion.

The edchat format (the tactic) has taken hold and it seems popular to have such chats. There is a certain momentum here. There is also the issue of doing it like everyone else does. Conformity seems to limit a consideration of both tool and tactic.

I tend to look at this setting as if it were a class I was facilitating. As educators, does the typical edchat generate the type of interaction you would want to see in your class. What would you change?

How to improve edchats – some ideas:

Prepare beyond the generation of a lengthy series of questions. Either come up with 2-3 questions of greater depth or offer a common preparation task (read this post, read this book, etc.). Perhaps the moderator for the week should either find a resource or write a position statement.

I find the questions and topics to be too general. As an academic, I understand that since we are frequently described as being abstract and not getting the level of actual application this would seem a strange concern, but review chats and see what you think. I try to recognize my own possible biases here by looking at the responses the questions generate. The questions seem to generate few specific suggestions or examples.

I see very little interaction. Put more bluntly – the discussions are seldom discussions. Sometimes a response from another participant is praised, but there are few reactions, counter examples, requests for clarification, etc. If this was a FTF classroom, the typical edchat would be similar to choral responding rather than a discussion. I would propose these limitations are the result of both the tool (lack of room for depth) and the tactic (too many questions and responding without preparation).

Blogging before discussing might be helpful. Taking a position on an issue before interacting can be productive. Give some thought to your position before you are tainted by what others have to say. Offer an example. Process your own experiences and externalize a position for others to consider. Post before you participate. A moderator and other participants might then use these comments to request clarification or note differences of opinion.

Some comments on tools.

I admit at this point that it is difficult to isolate tool and tactics. I think moving beyond Twitter would be helpful.

I think it is time to consider other tools. I have always had access to discussion tools and I see greater opportunity for depth in synchronous commenting and responding in using these tools.

I understand that folks enjoy the social experience of Twitter chats, but I think it important to consider whether group socializing is the primary goal.

I am not familiar with all of the tools available to educators. Does the state or school offer a general set of tools (a discussion option, a blogging option)? What about Zoom or Teams?

Twitter chats may be the “in thing” but it may be time to think through the tool and the tactics and either make adjustments or move on to a better tool and improved tactics.

Summary:

1) Reduce the number of questions and give more thought to the type of questions used

2) Have a pre-session expectation for preparation of some type. I think expecting a product is always helpful related to this preparation is always helpful. Somehow, the popularization of “flipping” various education experiences should apply here. Prepare before you participate should be the expectation.

3) The moderator needs to encourage more give and take rather than limiting “discussion” to call and response. As I have already suggested, existing position statements that can be contrasted would be a great place to start. I understand the concern with how stating a different position will be received, but the generic positive reactions add little.

4) Consider other technology tools.

5) Generate a discussion summary (perhaps the moderator or a designated discussant). Did the summarizer learn anything?

Given these observations, I encourage you to form your own opinions. I wish Twitter chats had been analyzed more empirically, but to my knowledge this has not been the case at the time this content was generated. It is easy enough to explore on your own.

The following video summarizes some of these ideas.

36 total views

The Space Between Encountering Information and Application

One way to characterize Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) is to suggest it involves the analysis of actual and potential tactics applied between encountering information and the application of that information. I came to this topic with a background in the development and evaluation of technology tools for academic studying which involves considerable overlap with PKM. I think it fair to say that studying offers an advantage to interested parties because it has a superior theoretical framework and a large volume of theory-driven research. PKM seems to have developed within a framework I could describe as logical rather than research-based, but it is related to methods of considerable longevity (e.g., commonplace books, note-taking within procedural systems such as the Zettelkasten).

This post was prompted by the announcement and availability of a new version of Mem.ai. There are many digital note-taking tools available, but for some time I have concentrated on two – Obsidian and Mem.ai. My rationale has been that I wanted to invest sufficient time in creating and using a personal knowledge management system so that I could offer credible comments on the tools I use and the tactics that are recommended and that I have employed. Part of this involves building a significant collection of notes over an extended period of time. Many recommended practices cannot really be evaluated with a small body of material used for a short period of time.

When I started using Mem it was because I wanted to explore how AI could be applied within a PKM system. With time, Obsidian extensions allowed several different ways to add AI to Obsidian so there was no longer a unique difference, but I have continued to use both nonetheless.

Comparing Obsidian and Mem.AI

When comparing how Obsidian and Mem serve writers between reading and writing, there are distinct approaches each platform takes to facilitate the transition from note-taking to writing.

Obsidian

Obsidian is known for its flexibility and emphasis on linking notes to create a network of ideas. It supports a bottom-up approach to writing, where notes are interconnected through backlinks and tags, allowing users to discover relationships between ideas organically. This method aligns with the slip-box or Zettelkasten approach, which encourages the creation of permanent notes that can stand alone and be easily integrated into future projects. Obsidian’s use of markdown files and its ability to handle large volumes of notes make it a powerful tool for writers who prefer a structured yet flexible environment for developing their ideas.

Mem

Mem, on the other hand, focuses on enhancing the linking capability through AI-driven suggestions. It extends beyond manual tagging and keyword searches by proposing related ideas and documents, which can come from the user’s own mems or those shared by team members. This AI-driven approach aims to improve the retrieval and linking of information, making it easier for writers to access relevant content and insights. Mem’s design is centered around the concept of a “second brain,” where storage, retrieval, and linking are optimized to support the writing process.

Key Differences

Linking and Organization: Obsidian relies on manual linking and tagging, while Mem uses AI to suggest connections.
Flexibility vs. Automation: Obsidian offers more flexibility in how notes are organized and linked, whereas Mem provides automated suggestions to enhance the linking process.
User Experience: Obsidian’s interface is more suited to users who prefer a hands-on approach to organizing their notes, while Mem’s AI features cater to those who appreciate automated assistance in discovering connections.

Both platforms offer unique advantages depending on the writer’s preferences and workflow. Obsidian is ideal for those who enjoy a more manual and customizable approach, while Mem provides a more automated and AI-enhanced experience.

When is the process the product?

Part of the marketing for the original Mem.ai made the argument that the AI capabilities freed users from some of the process requirements of other note-taking tools. The differentiation of notes into folders and the connecting of notes by manual links was not necessary. You could search and chat with your notes to accomplish your goals. Such capabilities were there (@ in Mem to create a link instead of the [[]] in Obsidian), but were claimed to be unnecessary.

The AI can do it for you is what concerns practitioners in some domains for some purposes. Educators may be concerned that students use AI to complete homework assignments. Writing assignments can easily and reasonably be completed by giving an AI tool a prompt. With writing there are two interrelated problems. As a skill writing needs to be learned, so practicing the subskills (procedures) involved in skilled writing are not practiced when the work is done by the AI. A separate concern is that writing is a way to process the content that can be the focus of the assigned writing task and this processing does not happen when the AI provides and assembles the content. There are counters to these concerns as AI can contribute in different ways allowing some subskills that are involved to be ignored so that others can be emphasized, but this possibiity is making my example unnecessarily complicated.

With note-taking, I think of the argument for what I am calling the manual approach is based on the assumed value of generative cognitive processing. I describe a generative activity as an external task that is likely to increase the probability of an internal (cognitive) process. When proposing an example of a generative activity, I use questions. In theory, connecting new concepts with experiences is an important learning process. Individuals may or may not do this on their own. If I request that they provide an example of concept XXX, it is fairly likely they will think and come up with something. Hence, questions function as generative activities

The organization of notes into folders or categories and the searching for connections to be made permanent with links involves thinking and decision-making that is less likely without the commitment to tasks that require such thinking. These actions may also serve generative functions. While educational researchers have proposed and evaluated many manual processing activities associated with note-taking as part of studying, to my knowledge such research does not exist for some of the procedures recommended by recent, digital note-taking gurus (see an earlier post on the lack of such research). So, unlike the abundant research on the benefits of provided and self-generated questions, the specific activities associated with digital (and manual) note-taking skills are largely untested. This is partly the reason I continue to duplicate my collection of notes within both Obsidian and Mem. Personal experience is a weak research tool, but better than nothing.

This is what I mean by questioning whether the processing requirements of the various note-taking tools strongly contributes to the eventual application. The recent development of systems such as Obsidian and Mem seem more likely driven by the long-term use of information in comparison to what might be associated with academic studying, Purpose and length of the exposure to use processes may be important differentiators. What is interesting about Mem is that it has come out with the argument that AI can eliminate many of the activities focused on and debated by Obsidian users.

Summary

This post attempts to identify and differentiate two note-taking and note-using approaches that can be associated with two specific products. While both systems can now be used in the same ways, the proposed differences are interesting. How important are the manual actions AI can eliminate? I will offer one observed advantage to the AI capabilities that can be applied with either system, with the large collection of notes I have now accumulated, I have found that AI prompts surface useful notes I would not have identified based on the manual links I had accumulated. I suppose there might have been benefit in a continuation of exploration by the use of links, tags, and search, but I must deal with the reality I could not necessarily make the effort. Perhaps continuing to use both and adding links to connections identified by AI makes the most sense.

26 total views

Reader’s Notebook, Commonplace Book, and Note-Taking Systems

Many of my posts describe tools and methods for externalizing and encouraging learning by recording some form of written notes. Recent versions of the approaches and tools have emphasized digital tools and concepts such as Smart Notes and a Second Brain. Note-taking has a long history with a large volume of research focused mainly on the use of notes in academic settings. This setting and this research were a major focus of my professional career. Now, with more time, I have broadened my focus beyond the classroom and the format of notes typically recorded in that setting. Other formats have unique practitioners and approaches that often exist in silos and it seems possible greater awareness of these different traditions offers new opportunities.

I am not going to review past posts here that have emphasized taking digital notes, but propose that such approaches can be compared with two other categories commonplace books and readers’ notebooks (used here as a formal term).

Commonplace books have been around forever and the commonplace books kept by famous creative people are sometimes explored for their historical significance (e.g., Da Vinci ). Commonplace books are often divided by topic and thus are different from a diary which is organized sequentially by date. Commonplace books were often collections of quotes copied from books and organized into topics.

A reader’s notebook is a tool used by readers to track their reading, reflect on texts, and engage more deeply with literature. It is often used in classrooms, book clubs, or personal reading routines. While the specific components of a reader’s notebook can vary depending on its purpose, here are the most common components.

A reading log: books that have been read (title, author, date read) and books to be read. What was the personal rating of the book?
Book summaries and notes: Important quotes, key ideas, themes
Reflections and responses: reactions and potential applications. Would book be recommended?
Characters and plot: Appropriate for works of fiction.
Vocabulary: unfamiliar words with definitions encountered while reading
Questions and predictions: Questions related to the text. What is the author trying to say? How do I think this will end? Am I interpreting this correctly?
Connections: Text-to-self. Text-to-other texts. Text-to-life or world experiences
Visuals: charts, diagrams, drawings copies or created.
Related books: other books by author or related relevant works. Author bio.
Discussion notes: class or book club notes from discussions.
Production goals: are there projects that might follow from the content of the book?

These components could be headings entered in a blank notebook (paper or digital) or could be scaffolded in some way. One common technique used in K12 classrooms making use of Google Classroom is to create and share a Google Slide file with slides prepared as templates for different assigned components. The user (student) can then duplicate slides from the templates as needed to create their Notebook. A cottage industry has sprung up among educators preparing and selling the collections of templates on outlets such as “Teachers Pay Teachers”.

For those interested, here is a tutorial outlining how to set up Readers’ Notebooks, a great example of the type of template collection one could find and purchase, and just so you don’t get the impression this learning tool only applies in K12 a higher ed example.

Readers’ Notebooks and Commonplace Books are both tools for recording and organizing thoughts, ideas, and information, often related to reading or personal reflection. While they share some similarities, they also have distinct purposes and methods of use. Here’s a breakdown of what I think are frequent differences in practice.

Basic Comparison of Reader’s Notebook and Commonplace Book

	Reader’s Notebook	Commonplace Book
Primary Purpose	Engage with and process textbooks and personally selected books	Process and store content from a variety of sources
Learning goals	Primary use is typically focused on assigned texts and improvement of reading skill	Used to collect and synthesize knowledge across interests
Typical context	Most commonly used in educational settings or book clubs	Used by scholars, writers, and thinkers to compile knowledge
Format	Can be freeform, but commonly structured using templates in educational settings	Commonly freeform
Intended duration	In academic setting, duration is the length of a course or to tract reading interests and performance through multiple grades	Intended for long-term accumulation of potentially useful information and thoughts.

The Continuum

I wonder if Readers’ Notebooks, Commonplace Books, and Tools for building long-term notetaking systems might be positioned along a continuum with different goals being emphasized within transitions that all are based on the desire to document learning experiences. Transitions might be applied that include level of formal structure, unit of information and means of connecting, expectations of the modification of source units over time, likelihood content will be shared directly with others, and degree to which approach is intended to feed into external products versus documenting and examining personal experiences.

One of my personal interests has always been whether learners are taught and coached on their efforts to externalize learning experiences. As a college prof interested in the hows and whys of taking notes, I observed that so many students just kind of wrote stuff down without previous formal discussions concerning specific tactics and explanations of why specific tactics were being promoted. I wonder if the template-oriented approach of the Reader’s Notebook with the common practice of sharing with classmates and the teacher might represent a way to develop insights and skills related to taking notes.

33 total views

Instagram to Pixelfed

Social media users seem to be living in a period of time when many are questioning their long-time commitments to specific big tech platforms. Perhaps they object to the political leanings of owners and the way they have tweaked the algorithms that generate automatic content feeds in objectionable ways. Perhaps they object to privacy issues that target them both for ads and for other content. For many years, they may have held similar concerns, but felt locked in by the network effect – the accumulation of friends and contacts connected to them and each other.

This has been my personal experience. I became a Twitter member in 2006. That was a long time ago in Internet time. I joined TruthSocial much more recently. I left both platforms a few months ago for a variety of reasons. With Twitter, I was upset with the algorithm that seemed to send me (the “For me” option) more and more content I regarded as misinformation and also lowered the chances I would see posts containing links. Links to interesting content were one of the reasons I had previously found Twitter (not X) to be useful. With TruthSocial, I left because the election of 2024 was over and my interest had been countering the misinformation so common on that platform. There seems little point now.

I am having second thoughts because abandoning those platforms to the infidels seems only a way to change the experience for others. I may change my mind and check in once and a while to explore.

I do think we now have options whether we prefer to commit to individual platforms or maintain a meaningful, active presence on several. The power of the network effect has abated and federated services offer flexibility.

Instagram to Pixelfed

This post describes the expansion of the way I use two photo-heavy or photo-first platforms. Many probably consider Instagram the default in this category. I used Instagram originally to share images with friends and family. Friends and family were also users so it was easy to fall into this commitment. My use expanded beyond sharing images and captions and this transition seemed true of many.

I started using Pixelfed in 2019 which was soon after it was first made available. I take a lot of photos and have had the opportunity to take pictures in many locations. Pixelfed became a way to share some of my best with others interested in photography.

Why change and what will be different?

I was prompted to write this post mostly because Pixelfed just released apps for iOS and Android. The version I had used from my laptop or desktop computer was fine for my focus on sharing my best photos which was my perception of the way others used the platform at that time. Many folks use Instagram on their phones in a broader variety of ways moving seamlessly from collecting images to sharing images to friends and family. It is easy and informal. Pixelfed can be used in the same way and I think the phone-based version will greatly expand the way the platform is used.

You might want to explore an alternative to Instagram because of some of the reasons I have already mentioned. There are other implications that might be less obvious. First, there is the privacy issue. Pixelfed does not host ads and has no need to collect user data to target ads. Second, Pixelfed is a federated service. This means there are multiple hosts referred to as instances some of which may have a unique focus. Hosts with identifiable interests allow users to find and associate with users similar to themselves. Still, users are not limited to a specified topic and you experience content on many different topics. It is a difference in topic density that differentiates such sites from Instagram. For example, Mastodon is a different federated, but related service comparable to Twitter (X). I am a member of two Maston instances which have attracted different types of users. Twit.social is run by a technology podcaster and has mostly folks interested in technology. Mastodon.education as the name implies attracts mostly folks interested in educational issues. Pixelfed works in the same way and multiple hosts are available. I joined the original instance (Pixelfed.social). Here is an interesting difference between Instagram and Twitter and Mastodon and Pixelfed. Users of Mastodon instances can follow my image posts on Pixelfed and most posts will appear in their feeds. So, federation allows this interesting mechanism for both focus and cross-interest sharing.

I use the same user identifier on all federated platforms (grabe – grabe@twit.social, grabe@mastodon.education, and grabe@pixelfed.social). This consistency ends up being helpful as searching for grabe within one of the platforms will find me in all of the instances of all type. I will demonstrate this in detail later in this post.

Pixelfed

For those unfamiliar with PixelFed, it looks and operates very much like Instagram. The following image shows the feed using the iOS app. If you look at the bottom of the one post from the feed that is visible, you should see a + within a red box. This is the button used to bring up the template for submitting your own photo and text.

The following is the empty template for generating a post and the second image a post with a photo and text. The red box in the first image identifies the button used to upload photos from your iOS photos collection.

Following other users from their federated accounts

The easiest way (I think) to follow other users is to conduct a search. The search box should be easy to locate. I may be aware of another user already or identify someone through a discovery feed. In this case, I want to follow my Pixelfed account from one of my Mastodon instances. As I explained earlier, I use “grabe” as my name in all of my instances and the second and third image show the response to searching for “grabe” and the use of the options presented to follow the individual and instance that interests me. Select “Follow” and new content will appear in your feed.

Summary

Hopefully, this post explained several reasons someone might want to use federated social media in place of some of the major platforms or to add social media instances to one’s existing online presence. The specific example proposed that Pixelfed is a reasonable and perhaps desirable alternative to Instagram. Pixelfed is easy to join and use. The opportunity to link across instances of different federated categories was demonstrated and offers some unique experiences not available with the platforms wanting to concentrate users and prevent them from straying.

50 total views

Notetaking in the lab and the wild

Human behavior can be scientifically studied in the laboratory and the wild. This is the case with notetaking and other study behaviors. When politicians use the phrase “the science of learning” it can be misleading to the public because science in laboratory settings and in the wild can seemingly lead to different conclusions and related recommendations. I believe that the controversy of the “science of reading” is related to this issue, but I have greater experience with notetaking and study behavior so I will stick to explaining how this works in this more familiar area.

I have been referencing Daniel Willingham’s work a lot lately, and the following quote offers a good introduction to my point. In commenting on textbook companies building in proven study opportunities within their textbooks as aids to students, Willingham offers the following comment:

… if the readings include learning aids such as chapter outlines, chapter previews and summaries, boldface or italicized terms, or practice test questions, don’t try to use these learning aids as a replacement for reading the text. The funny thing about these features is that there’s very good research evidence that they work. Publishing companies paid to have high-quality research conducted; researchers had people read textbook chapters (with or without the learning aids), and they found that people who used the learning aids understood and remembered more than those who did not.

But the psychologists Regan Gurung and David Daniel pointed out that students “in the wild” will not necessarily use such materials the same way they were used by students in the laboratory. Gurung and Daniel suggested that some students use learning aids not to supplement the reading but to avoid it. They read the summary, look at the boldface terms, and then try to answer the practice test questions to see whether they understand enough to we skip the reading.

Willingham and other researchers (e.g., Gurung) note that educational research conducted under carefully controlled conditions may not predict applied situations. Applied situations often involve interactions as individuals make personal decisions about how learning strategies are applied. They may have different goals, different abilities, or different goals and life situations which cause them to use strategies in ways not intended or maybe not at all. Also tactics intended for the classroom situations may not encourage the development of personal skills that would be most likely used in life situations.

When I was still teaching, I sometimes contrasted attempting to do science with humans in contrast to what are often described as the “hard sciences” by note that the chemicals in a chemical reaction don’t decide if they feel like interacting.

In looking back on my own research which was conducted in applied settings I was continually frustrated by this type of issue. I focused a lot of what I did on trying to create adaptive computer-supported study environments. The idea was that a computer can offer questions related to learning goals and use student accuracy and answer confidence to identify areas of weakness and to provide direct connections to the related textbook material. The idea was to identify heat maps of more difficult material for individual learners, to provide questions related to the areas of difficulty more frequently during a study session, and even to provide access to the question related content on the screen if the student wanted. Built into the online delivery system were ways to record the amount of use, the question performance and awareness of understanding, the use of the online content and the delay following wrong answers. My frustration arose from the findings that the system was really designed to assist less capable students (lower reading ability, poorer metacognitive awareness of strengths and weaknesses) who as it turned out were far less likely to use the system and to use it in ways the research would suggest were helpful (e.g., taking advantage of the feedback following wrong answers and especially wrong answers readers thought they understood). The failed opportunity to use the system to try to recognize the lack of understanding makes a good example of what Willingham, Gurung, and others have described. Even when investing time, these learners answered question after question without taking advantage of the opportunity to process feedback.

Understanding Why Tactics Work

Those situations in which learners invest time, but do so in an inefficient way are what I find most fascinating. Motivation makes a huge difference in learning, but would seem less of an issue with these individuals. Perhaps motivation is reflected in how hard in comparison to how long a learner works. This way of thinking would seem similar to Willingham’s “Outsmart your brain” suggestion that the brain interprets easier as better. It could follow that a possible remedy would be better understanding of how a given tactic works in addition to simply learning how to perform certain tactics. Answering questions is harder than rereading but works better because answering questions requires greater effort in actively engaging memory and thinking. Taking notes is better than highlighting because taking paraphrase notes requires more cognitive thinking. Etc.

I can’t help thinking about the fascination and process-oriented debate those interested in Personal Knowledge Management have with tools and tactics in comparison to most students in formal learning settings. Perhaps this is just an impression on my part, but it seems generally to be the case. If I am correct, I think the difference is in the opportunity self-directed learners have to set personal goals and as a consequence invest time in trying to understand why differences in processes matter. The only alternative I can imagine would involve more direct instruction and how to study instruction is not emphasized or cut when resources are in short supply.

References

Daniel, David B., and Debra A. Poole. “Learning for life: An ecological approach to pedagogical research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 4, no. 1 (2009): 91-96.

Grabe, M., & Flannery, K. (2009/2010). A preliminary exploration of on-line study question performance and response certitude as predictors of future examination performance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(4), 457-472.

Grabe, M., Flannery, K., & Christopherson, K. (2008). Voluntary use of online study questions as a function of previous minimal use requirements and learner aptitude. Internet and Higher Education. 11, 145-151.

Grabe, M. & Holfeld, B. (2014). Estimating the degree of failed understanding: a possible role for online technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Instruction. 30, 173-186.

Gurung, Regan A. R., and David B. Daniel. (2005). Evidence-Based Pedagogy: Do Pedagogical Features Enhance Student Learning? (pps. 41–55). In Best Practices for Teaching Introduction to Psychology, Dana S. Dunn and Stephen L. Chew (eds.), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

35 total views

Notetaking – Your brain is lazy

My favorite writer who focuses on classroom learning is Daniel Willingham. He has a way of explaining and applying research that is both approachable and actionable. My interests and vocational focus overlap with the topics of his books allowing me to be appreciative of his insights and his creative way of communicating the mindset of educators and writers and the behaviors of both highly motivated and more casual students.

Willngham’s most recent book, Outsmart Your Brain, considers notetaking multiple times as he examines several learning challenges (the large lecture, lengthy textbook assignments, labs and other hands-on activities). Taking notes in formal educational settings can differ in important ways from the writing I do about autonomous lifelong learners involved in what is often described as Personal Knowledge Management or Building a Second Brain, but he speculates about important cognitive processes rather than just offering “here is what you should do” tactics. I assume that processes generalize and with so little research focused on learning outside of formal educational settings, the commentary I offer is largely based on using what classroom-focused researchers find that would seem to apply to learning on your own.

The meaning of Willingham’s title, “Outsmart Your Brain”, is that what seems to be an easy to accomplish tactic is often the wrong choice. He differentiates the notetaking choices made when listening to lectures and reading. In contrast to many, it should be noted that Willingham supports the lecture as an important educational strategy. It is efficient as a way to communicate information, and face-to-face efficiency seems to offer better effectiveness than recorded and distributed content. The major challenge with lectures is that we tend to speak much more rapidly than individuals can write and in a large group setting feedback to a presenter is difficult to generate and would varies greatly from listener to listener. The related issue on the part of listeners is that many are unable to sort out what should be retained in notes. Often what is written is what is understood which is understandable, but an example of doing the easier thing. He notes that collaboration or instructor-provided notes offer a solution, but proposes that these resources should be used in addition to taking notes which is a generative cognitive and thus beneficial process.

Willingham supports the researchers arguing that taking notes with pen on paper to be superior to taking notes using a digital device and as proposed in the “desirable difficulty” hypothesis proposes that the insight that more can be recorded on a keyboard provides a false sense of accomplishment. This is another example of the brain making the wrong decision. I disagree on this point and argue that Willingham ignores the opportunity a digital device can provide a written record and link audio to notes in ways that allow missed information to be re-examined. A link references the corresponding location in the audio when a note was taken. Willingham does recognize and discuss recording lectures, but discusses this opportunity as inefficient unaware I assume that the connections some apps store between notes and audio (or video) allow learners great control of how the audio is used.

Willingham discusses note-taking as a useful addition to reading recognizing that with reading the learner does not have to deal with the lack of control present when listening. The flawed option he calls out is highlighting which again offers the learner a false sense of accomplishment. He cites an interesting study in which multiple used textbooks from the same class were examined and the finding that the text selected as important varied greatly. I could not help thinking of the “most common highlighted” option available with Kindle books.

A common issue with both lectures and books is that both tend to be hierarchical, but are experienced as sequential experiences. I interpret this problem to be one that understanding is the construction of a model of how things are interrelated. Lectures and writers tend to have this model and organize what they offer accordingly, but the experience of the learner is sequential and building a hierarchical model in real time is often too demanding. Imagine an outline that is used to develop a lecture or written product and in which the product shared moves through each part of the outline from higher to lower elements as a sequence and you can imagine the issue of reconstructing the outline. Learners can rework the content they have stored in search of this structure and presents can help by offering an overview and referring back to this overview as the presentation unfolds. Willingham speculates that learners possibly read textbooks based on their experience with fiction.

Willingham proposes two additional strategies making use of notes often ignored by students. The first is the sharing and discussion of notes within small groups. Again, this is not to replace the task of taking notes, but a way to identify ideas that have been missed or misunderstood. The second is a cross-examination of notes taken from lectures and from assigned readings. Too many seem to assume that the elimination of one source is a possible opportunity, but he argues that cross-referencing sources like cross-referencing with peers allows for additional active processing.

Summary

This was intended as more than a book review, but it is a recommendation that both educators and learners read this book. Many reviewers have noted that it should be assigned reading for new college students faced with the challenge of taking more responsibility for their own learning. The notion that the brain leads us to do things in the moment that are not necessarily the best for the future is important to recognize and the assumption that taking notes or reading a book could benefit from the consideration of nonobvious strategies deserves careful consideration. When are important study skills taught and which educators are responsible for helping learners develop these skills?

58 total views , 1 views today

Take digital notes for best lecture performance

I know that many argue the research demonstrates handwriting is superior to keyboarding when it comes to taking lecture notes. I have always taken the opposite position based on my personal experience. Here is a new take in support of my personal perspective.

Danial Willingham is one of the best cognitive researchers translating research findings for educators and the general public. He has a new 2023 book (Outsmart Your Brain) that offers very interesting analyses of learning challenges and solutions. Note-taking is one of the topics he addresses at length. What he has to say about the challenges of taking notes allows me to state my case. The topic also helps explain the book’s title.

Willingham cites research indicating that people speak six times faster than most can take notes. This reality in combination with the multiple cognitive processing tasks involved in taking notes places a learner in a difficult situation. By multiple processes, Willingham indicates that when taking notes, you must switch back and forth between what the lecturer is saying and showing and your notes. You must evaluate what you are hearing and seeing and decide what you should record. You must both attempt to understand what is being said and make the effort to record what you can. There are probably more skills, but this should be enough. The point is that there is not enough attention to go around and each student must make choices. Translating/paraphrasing is ideal, but when we are pressured our brain drifts toward writing as much as possible and that is easiest to do by writing exactly what was presented. It is as if the learner decides perhaps he or she can figure things out later.

Some who have supported taking notes by hand suggest that despite the reality that handwriting can record less than heyboarding to start with, this is actually a good thing because it requires learners to focus on the important content. This is sometimes described as desirable difficulty. The term sounds cool and it would fit with Willingham’s notion that our brain leads us to take the easy way rather than the most productive way. So the argument is when pressured those taking notes by hand take the more difficult path and as a consequence come out understanding more.

Just to be accurate. Willingham suggests students should take handwritten notes and refers to the existing research. Willingham is especially concerned that students can’t resist the temptation to open a second window and explore unrelated online content. The following explains why I disagree. Should you make things more difficult and make use of a notebook and pen?

Apps that record audio and synch with your notes

My personal experience has led me to read, annotate, and take presentation notes digitally. I have suggested doing this because it fits a long-term view of writing based on what I read and watch. My insight involved finding an efficient way to isolate useful information from many books and research articles for storage, organization, and retrieval months or years later. This is not the situation Willingham was describing.

For students, some digital note-taking tools are better suited to dealing with the multiple processing demands Willingham identifies than the traditional paper and pen. Willingham suggests students should decide before a lecture whether they want to understand more or write more. The tools I recommend allow the same decision but are far more forgiving when it comes to the consequences of this decision. The apps I have in mind simultaneously record audio while the user takes notes from a keyboard and with some tools a stylus. The notes and drawings are linked through time stamps to the audio. This connection and the related storage capabilities free the student from having to get as much down as possible. The audio provides a backup for information that is missed or is confusing at the pace of the presentation. It is not a necessity that the learning get as much as possible down on paper or screen in real-time. If the student wants to paraphrase, the audio is a backup. If the presentation results in so little understanding that nothing meaningful can be entered to be studied, just enter some ???? as a note and listen to the audio later when you have time to think.

What I am describing are not some recent innovations and I have never understood why students would take notes on a laptop or tablet and not use this type of software. BTW – I understand several of these apps now can generate transcription, but I am not proposing that transcription be used as a substitute for taking your own notes. The logic here is the same as taking notes even if the instructor provides access to notes or copies of any slides used in presentations. The process of generating your own representation of a presentation is helpful.

The following are some options I have used (other software with similar capabilities may exist). The tool you choose could depend on whether you want a free app or pro options such as online storage, whether you want to combine text and drawings in your notes, and whether additional features are useful to you for tasks other than taking class notes.

Soundnote

Audionote

Notability

The following image is the interface for Soundnote.