grabe

Linear narrative chains

I have become fascinated with what I now call linear narrative chains (Hays and colleagues, 2008). The phrase is appropriately descriptive in how we experience life including reading and listening to lectures and explains why reprocessing such inputs is important to understanding and learning. What the phrase indicates is that inputs come at us as a sequence of events and ideas. This is obvious when you consider reading a book or listening to a lecture, but it also applies to the events of daily life. One thing follows another.

An important insight related to learning is that what is stored when imagined by cognitive psychologists and to some extent supported by neuroscientists is best understood as a network with links among nodes differing in strength. It follows that some sort of processing and organization is necessary to get from the form of the input to the form of the storage.

When I first encountered this notion of changing information formats, I was reminded of something I used to present to my educational psychology classes. There appear to be different types of memory stores. What might be described as knowledge is stored as a web of concepts connected by links — semantic memory. We also store inputs using other formats, with the most relevant one for this description being episodic memories. I liked to describe episodic memories as stories as this was a convenient way to explain an approximation of this concept. We like stories, and the value of stories can be noted in the way we interact with others. Often, one person tells a story, and then the other individuals respond with a story of their own both to indicate they understand and to further the interaction. We often include stories in writing and teaching as a way to provide examples of ideas. Episodes are stored with our cognitive web linked with the abstract nodes of semantic memory.

Episodic memories (stories) have a time course or sequence. What I speculated about for my class was that stories are often processed into semantic memory and one of the issues with learning from experiences including class lectures was whether the lecture as story was processed into semantic memory. I asked about how students studied their notes and whether they repeatedly went through them and could even imagine where specific items, perhaps a graph, appeared in a location within their notebook. I suggested that this capability indicated at least some aspects of an episodic representation was being retained. The content stored in that fashion may not have been processed for understanding.

When are academic episodic representations converted? I suggested for some this may happen at the time of an exam. A question might refer to an example from class and ask for an application. If the class example had not been processed during the lecture or during study as related to a concept or principle, the student would have to go through this process of abstraction and organization in trying to answer the question.

External activities to encourage processing

I often write about generative activities — external tasks that change the probability of desirable cognitive behaviors involved in understanding and learning. The idea here is that we can understand and learn by self-imposed and self-guided thinking, but this may not happen for a variety of reasons. External tasks can be provided to increase probabilities. Questions are an easy example. Questions encourage different types of processing depending on the type of question. Some encourage recall, and others encourage application.

Some generative activities might have value in converting a linear input. Creating an outline requires a hierarchical organization of ideas. Something closer to the desired output as a web would be mind mapping or concept mapping. If you are unfamiliar, I would recommend Davies ( 2011) as a resource that would explain more than you probably want to know about mind mapping, concept mapping, and argument mapping. Among other things, I learned from this source was that there are differences among these tactics and many subtleties or variants of each. Some researchers and educators who apply concept maps go deep into fine details.

One differentiation among those who conduct concept mapping research (the general term I have always preferred) is whether maps are constructed by learners or constructed and provided by teachers/authors. Concept mapping assignments would be a type of generative activity and encourage the translation of a linear input into a representational web. The provision of a mind map in support of a linear narrative is different and is an attempt to show the structure that the presenter imagines as a way to encourage the learner to consider relationships among ideas that might expand whatever organization of ideas the learner had already established.

Smart notes and the creation of web structures

I am making a transition here that the uninitiated may have trouble following. Some of these who have made the study of note taking a serious focus have developed approaches that are quite different from the continuous paraphrasing and summarization that most learners use in recording notes in a notebook or on a laptop. I think of a smart note (a formal term as used here) as a concise note focused on a specific idea with enough context that it will still convey the original meaning at a future date to the note taker or others with a reasonable background. Think of a smart note as a building block that can then be combined with other smart notes in a cumulative way. The idea of specificity is that a given block can be combined with other such representations in a variety of ways. You can build different structures from different combinations of ideas. Notes are connected in several ways. Some of the possible connections can be attached as metadata — tags and links among notes.

Hopefully, the similarity between such notes and links and concept maps might now become apparent.

A web of notes within Obsidian

Obsidian is my personal note-taking tool, and it fits well with the idea of isolating specific ideas or concepts and then identifying connections between these specific notes over time. Rather than focus on using this tool as a learner, which has been the focus of multiple posts in the past, my intent here is more on the potential of sharing the structure of personal notes with others. So, in keeping with the theme of converting linear narrative chains, how might an instructor or author share the structure behind what they might present as a lecture or written product?

I briefly mentioned how a colleague who teaches history shares his background content with students in a previous post. Here, I want to describe the use of a mapping tool, Canvas, available as an extension to Obsidian. Obsidian includes its own tool for creating a map of notes and connections, but Canvas is more typical of what I have already described as a tool for concept mapping.

The following image shows a Canvas concept map I quickly created to show I might share the web of ideas that might be the basis for a couple of presentations I might offer describing the behavioral and cognitive models of learning. I had to find a workaround for the way Canvas was designed to work. The intention is that a Canvas web would show the entirety of notes. So, if you imagine a note consisting of a paragraph of content, you might have Canvas nodes representing concepts (as is the case in my example) linked with visible nodes containing entire paragraphs. This works fine if you are in control of a device as you can shrink and expand the content that appears on the screen very easily and expand a portion of the display if you need to make the paragraph larger so you can read it. I used a different approach, repurposing a typical text note as a node descriptor and then a link. The link would reveal the linked note layered on the basic map (second image).

To make this work in practice, you would have to pay for an Obsidian service ($8 a month) called Publish. Obsidian is a device-based tool, but Publish offers a web-based interface and storage option that allows others to view your Obsidian vault (a collection of notes).

There are likely multiple ways in which an individual could generate a shareable web experience for students. I have been focused on how I might do such a thing based on the note tool (Obsidian) I use. As another example example, in a previous post, I explored how Padlet could be used by a middle school or high school teacher to share a web of concepts and notes.

Summary

Students experience information as linear narrative chains even though the information within is likely based on a web of concepts and ideas. Since human memory is more web-like, the learner must transform a sequence of ideas to fit within his or her personal webs. Concept maps have been used to encourage the building of a personal web and can also be used for the author/teacher to share his/her web to assist in the construction of a personal representation. Note-taking tools based on the identification and linking of core ideas (Smart Notes) offer a related experience on the part of learners and possibly with some adaptations provide a way to share the structure the author/teacher used to generate their presentations.

Resources:

Ahrens, S. (2022). How to take smart notes: One simple technique to boost writing, learning and thinking.

Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Higher education, 62, 279-301.

Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311.

Considering AI in Writing and Reading

This is a personal exploration of what I think about the role of AI in writing and reading. Once you begin exploring these topics I think you discover how nuanced they are. I do understand outlets for written content are being pressured or have decided on their own to take positions on what is allowed. I will offer a suggestion at a later point.

Writing

We all make observations based on personal experience. I am a writer and as an academic wrote research papers and a couple of textbooks. This writing was before AI and there were strict rules of personal accountability that applied that were severe enough that your career would be at stake if these expectations were violated.

As an educational psychologist I followed the literature on learning to write and the benefits of writing to learn. Writing is a procedural skill and as such requires the use of the skill to develop proficiency. I believe that this proficiency transfers to speech so there is no way I can imagine of developing important communication skills without spending time using the skill. In academic situations writing is a more efficient group activity than individual presentations so time must be invested. Writing to learn seems an efficient way to develop writing skills and has unique benefits as a way to process all experiences. Many of my posts focus on generative activities – external tasks that encourage productive cognitive skills – and writing makes a great example. Organization, integration, personalization all are required in writing and in understanding and application. Again, writing assignments are an efficient way of encouraging personal cognitive activity within a group setting.

These personal benefits aside how important is it that I write without assistance. “Without assistance” is key here as I can simply provide a prompt to an AI tool to create a product based on fairly basic expectations. This is one extreme of the AI in writing continuum. At the other end are spelling checking and the types of structural improvements I can apply with the assistance of Grammarly. In the middle are various strategies I might use to request AI to offer suggestions for topics and broad organizational ideas I might then implement myself. Closer to the “write it for me end” are requests for a product I might then paraphrase. My guess is that the line of acceptability is drawn somewhere within this continuum and will likely shift over time.

Reading

The basic question I am asking here is does it matter that the content I read was written unaided by a person? First, I should acknowledge that while I read a lot, I seldom read fiction. I seldom read content that depends on the creativity of the writer. I understand that is reasonable to recognize the beauty or creativity in much the same way different musicians can express the same underlying composition. I seldom focus on such skill in the authors I read. I want to understand why things are as they are whether it be history, science, economics, or politics. If facts are available, I want to know the facts. If opinion and logic are all we have, I want to understand the logic behind the valued opinions. Good writing is important in my ability to understand and process this content, but I am not certain that the human touch is required for a quality product.

Clearly, what AI is doing is summarizing massive amounts of content that was generated by humans and I do think that this source material is essential, but I am not certain that the translation process requires a human writer. Human writers will continue to be necessary to make the observations and run the experiments and explain what they have observed, but this type of communication is several steps down the food chain from my consumptions.

Why post this here?

I think outlets are making decisions about what role AI will be allowed to play. I think some outlets will opt for human writing only and I think this is fine if the goal is to focus on human unaided creativity.

I think there is a middle ground that has just recently occurred to me. I write based on a tradition that requires careful source citation. I still do that in some of posts here when what I write had its origin in a book or journal article. Why not indicate when a segment of what is posted was written by AI?

Out of curiosity I asked Perplexity if there were conventions for citing AI as a source. It turns out there are formal ways to cite AI content. I think there are ways to make AI content more obvious. One might indicate it as quotations that appears in an obvious way such as the italicized and indented style used in WordPress. Or, one could do something like the following. This is what Perplexity had to say about AI sourcing.

————————————————————————————————

To attribute AI-generated text in your writing, follow these guidelines:

1. **Explicit Mention**: Clearly state that AI assistance was used. For example, “This section was generated with the help of OpenAI’s ChatGPT” or “Drafted in collaboration with ChatGPT”[2].

2. **Citation Styles**:

– **MLA**: Format as: *”Description of chat” prompt. Name of AI tool, version, company, date, URL*. Example: “Explain how to bake a cake” prompt. *ChatGPT, Mar. 2025 version, OpenAI, 2 Mar. 2025, chat.openai.com/chat*[1][2].

– **APA**: Include the tool name, date, and URL. Example: *OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (Mar 2025 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat*[2].

– **Chicago**: Example: *Text generated by ChatGPT, OpenAI, March 2025, https://chat.openai.com/chat*[2].

3. **Placement**: Place attribution prominently in an introduction, acknowledgment personal section, or footnote to ensure transparency[2].

4. **Accurate Language**: Use terms like “assisted by,” “enhanced with,” or “generated using” to describe the AI’s role without overstating its contribution[2].

This approach ensures ethical transparency while crediting AI appropriately.

Sources

[1] Citation and Attribution – Generative Artificial Intelligence https://libguides.brown.edu/c.php?g=1338928&p=9868287

[2] Demystifying Attribution: Giving AI Credit – LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demystifying-attribution-giving-ai-credit-donna

[3] Used a AI-Detector on my own text that I have writen … – Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/14cls37/used_a_aidetector_on_my_own_text_that_i_have/

[4] Using the AI Autofill Feature for Text Attributes – Help Center https://help.plytix.com/en/ai-autofill

[5] A Comparison of Several AI Techniques for Authorship Attribution on … https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/23/4589

[6] Is there any tool which can detect AI writing. Because ChatGPT itself … https://www.reddit.com/r/SEO/comments/13s5zb0/is_there_any_tool_which_can_detect_ai_writing/

[7] How To Identify AI-Generated Text? – Originality.ai https://originality.ai/blog/identify-ai-generated-text

[8] Measuring Attribution in Natural Language Generation Models https://direct.mit.edu/coli/article/49/4/777/116438/Measuring-Attribution-in-Natural-Language

——————————————————————————————-

Summary

These are my personal thoughts about AI in writing and reading. I don’t see AI going away so I believe it is important to work out what is appropriate and what not. These are nuanced decisions, but a rationale for individual decisions should be stated. I propose that attribution is important when using AI to be read by others and provide and example of how this might be handled.

Notes and the Translation Process

I recently read a research article (Cohen and colleagues, 2013) about students notetaking in college lectures that included interesting observations about the challenges students face. First, information comes at students quickly and to decide what to record and then manually recording what is selected is very demanding preventing little more than getting something down on paper or screen. The second challenge was what I found most interesting. The researchers proposed that students experience a linear flow of information that does not contain much of the structure of what the instructor is trying to communicate. The article proposed that students must try to create a structure after they leave the lecture hall and proposed one approach for doing so.

This comment got me thinking about a more general model of learning from textbooks and presentations. Lecturers and authors must generate a product that is experienced linearly – i.e., presentations and books. With the exception of headings and subheadings in written material, content creators have a structure in mind that guides the creation of what they produce, but is difficult to share. I read elsewhere a suggestion that a presentation should flow from an outline and the presenter should refer back to the outline from time to time to try to communicate this structure.

Thinking about the process perhaps at an even deeper level, I came up with the following representation. By increasing the complexity a bit, it might be possible to identify points of intervention.

So, this graphic is intended to suggest that the knowledge of a content creator is present is a cognitive network. To create a practical product for communication, the content creator has to transform aspects of this knowledge network into a hierarchically focused structure. I think an outline (physical or conceptual) is a good way to understand this transition step. This structured representation is then transformed into a linear representation that is shared in one way or another with an audience. As I suggested, a physical form of this outline may also be shared in some cases (the outline itself, or headings and subheadings). The learner then processes this input and from this processing, perhaps consisting of several steps, attempts to generate their own network of personal understanding.

The initial notetaking or perhaps highlighting would be a basic process and perhaps many students decide this will be sufficient. However, those who propose study skill or personal knowledge management strategies focus on what other activities might be added to improve retention and understanding.

What other activities can be added to recreate the structure intended by the content creator or formed in a more personalized way by the learner? Some of these “post-processing” activities may be familiar. For example, creating concept maps, sketchnoting, the left-hand column and summary of Cornell notes, and the proposal that students take class notes on the left-hand page or their notebook and save the right-hand page for follow-up recollections and additions would fit. All of these tactics involve at least basic connections if not hierarchical relationships.

For those interested in translating the processing of information from the perspective of personal knowledge management. You can substitute a “smart note” for a node in the concept map strategy and consider the similarity of links created among notes by tags and forward and backward links. The sharing of this structure as Obsidian makes possible with Obsidian Publish offers a way to share both information and more complex structure as externalized by a content creator.

I have a book club colleague, History Professor Dan Alosso, who is building something like this for his U.S. History class. The idea is not to replace lectures but to offer related content as organized by the lecturer. Dan writes and offers videos through Substack.

So, what are the points of intervention I mentioned? Certainly, study strategy advocates have many ideas about what processing stage of the model I suggest. The sharing of a structure during or after the exposure of students to content is less frequently explored.

Reference

Cohen, D., Kim, E., Tan, J., & Winkelmes, M. A. (2013). A Note-Restructuring Intervention Increases Students’ Exam Scores. College Teaching, 61(3), 95-99.

AI in Readwise

How do most Readwise users use the service? Is it the central location in which you suck in the notes and highlights from the multiple tools you use to read the multiple categories of content you consume to review and work with that content or is it a relay station between these sources and the tools you use to store, organize, expand on, and apply this content? I can’t really remember what I was thinking when I first paid the subscription price, but over the majority of the time I have used Readwise, it was mainly as a relay station.

For those who have never tried Readwise, it may be unclear why you would want to pay the price of a subscription. The first paragraph of this post may have meant little to you even though I think it represents a reasonable description of the ways Readwise is used. Consider this example. I have made use of Kindle for years and have a collection of more than 300 books. I highlight a lot while I read and add occasional annotations. Most of this content is nonfiction and the source for what I write about. All of these highlights and annotations are out there somewhere, but how do I locate what might be helpful when it is scattered across so many sources many of which I might have read years ago? Readwise accepts the highlights from each of these books that is automatically output from Kindle and this entire body of material ends up in Readwise and can then be searched.

Now, somewhere along the way, Readwise added Readwise Reader and this addition became a major tool. With Reader I found a “read it later tool” I used mainly to collect web content I could highlight and annotate and then send the content I added or identified through the relay system to Readwise or export it depending on my whim of the moment.

Without describing other content sources, I hope you get the idea. Readwise allows the collection of highlights and notes from many different content sources.

AI Chat within Readwise

Now, like many other digital tools, Readwise has added AI. This makes sense as the AI can be used to chat with all of the content or if you choose certain designated content that has been accumulated. The AI is easy to use, similar to other AI chats, and is powered by OpenAI’s GPT-4o model. If you are a Readwise user you may not have noticed this recent addition (see the red square enclosing the small word chat at the top of the following image). I have also used a red box to call your attention to import. I will get to an important import issue at another point, but wanted to make certain you see how to get to the import options.

Selecting chat will bring you to the following page. Here you find the typical request for a prompt and some suggestions. The suggestions will change as you make use of this feature.

As an example, I entered a prompt related to a recent topic I have been exploring. I don’t generate my posts using AI, but I sometimes ask for something written in a format I might use as a model. Within the content the AI generated, you will see link (blue color). Selecting a link will show the highlight or note within Readwise that was used to encourage a that part of what the AI wrote (the second of the two images appearing below). You can get the full set of content stored on Readwise from the displayed snippet of text by selecting the snippet.

If you are a Readwise user, I assume you can easily explore the AI chat just following the simple process I have outlined. This is not intended to be a full Readwise tutorial, but many can be found by searching online.

One additional comment

Most of what I write is not based on books, but rather on journal articles. I am an academic and this is typical of how we work. We read articles from many journals and for the last 10+ years I have read nearly entirely from pdfs of journal articles. This is what I can access through my university library and more suited to my work that even getting up from my desk and walking across my office to pull a journal off a shelf. I don’t want to highlight on paper because I want highlights and notes in a digital format.

I could have included the highlights from the hundreds of journal articles I had read in Readwise to create a massive collection of content I could explore via chat. However, I have not used a pdf reader that generates highlights in Readwise if I try to import the pdfs. This appears to be a common problem as I have explored this issue online. I will first note that you can highlight pdfs within the Readwise/Reader environment, but this has not been part of my workflow. I have found a way to fix the problem which I will describe here, but it is unlikely I will now import one by one my large collection of highlighted and annotated pdfs to Readwise. I will explain the hack I have discovered for others who may want to do so.

You should recall at the beginning of this post I showed the import link for Readwise. This link will bring up the many import options. I automatically import from Reader and Kindle. There is an option to import from pdfs. It is a one pdf at a time approach and requires that the pdfs with the highlights have been stored in the correct format. The import options are shown below.

I have multiple tools to highlight and annotate pdfs. Most recently, I have used Bookends and Highlights. Both are software for the Apple environment and work great on an iPad with an Apple Pencil. Unfortunately, the storage format is not acceptable to Readwise.

However, I found that I can open my highlighted and annotated pdfs in Preview which is the universal Mac tool for opening many different data files. It turns out you can export from Preview in multiple PDF formats and the first one I tried created a file that would be read by Readwise.

So, there is a way for those frustrated with the specific demands of Readwise.

Summary

Readwise if a powerful tool that stores the highlights and notes that have been added to a wide variety of content sources (e.g., web pages, Kindle books, Apple books. pdfs). Recently, an AI chat capability has been added to Readwise and can be used to interact with the content stored by Readwise. Because the quantity of this content is immense and represents what a user has found interesting or useful, being able to ask questions of this content offers very interesting possibilities. The AI chat capability is easy to explore and may even represent a selling point for those considering paying the subscription to use Readwise and Readwise Reader.

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.

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.

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.