AI & Education – Learning Aloud

A comparison of AI chats with and without the inclusion of curated content

My recent focus on losing an author’s perspective when consuming AI-generated content, particularly the AI response now preceding the typical hits generated by a search query, has encouraged a personal exploration of what might be a middle ground. I frequently use AI tools to chat with the notes and highlights I have generated in reading hundreds of journal articles and books. This body of content has a perspective of sorts because the notes I generate and the content I identify through highlighting reflect my personal way of viewing my field and represent ideas that both support and oppose scientific concepts and theories important to these topics. Any researcher who has relied on the accumulation of relevant articles over the years and makes use of PDFs rather than paper could do a similar thing to make extended use the content they have accumulated over the years. This accumulated body of content seems a great example of what the personal knowledge management advocates describe as a second brain.

Here, then, is what I believe to be an interesting question. Do AI chats with personally curated content provide different insights than a similar AI chat without this curated focus? Perhaps a more concrete example would be a better way to communicate my issue. So, I have the highlights and notes I have accumulated from years of reading in a designated area (e.g., educational applications of cognitive psychology), and I can chat with this content using identifiable services (e.g., NotebookLM). Would the reply to a prompt applied under these circumstances yield different insights than the same prompt applied using an AI tool not focused on a designated body of content (e.g., Perplexity)?

At first, this might seem a silly comparison. Certainly, one could find a biased assortment of resources taking a common flawed view on a topic, and then show that AI limited to consolidating this content would yield different prompt replies than similar prompts asked of an unfocused AI tool. But this does not seem to be what those building a second brain think they are doing. They would likely be offended by the suggestion that their efforts were for naught, and AI queries would yield more accurate information. They would probably suggest they are doing exactly the opposite. They are using their expertise to identify high-quality sources, and their notes would address both the strengths and weaknesses of the sources they curate. I am not certain the outcome of my proposed comparison is obvious.

My Test Case

I write a lot about study behavior and have found the controversy involving whether learners are better off reading and taking notes using paper or digital content of some interest. While many researchers suggest paper is superior, my personal experiences and focus on the benefits of previous learning experiences over time, see a unique value in digital processing. Simply put, highlights and annotations saved and organized offer advantages over a year or 50 years later that most would find difficult to replicate with paper. Even over short periods, studying is more than simple review, and digital tools offer unique opportunities for “post processing”.

The specifics here are important only if the type of information generated in pursuit of the information I encounter would change as a function of how I might use AI. I provide the background material because the topic could interact with the different uses of AI I identify in ways I cannot anticipate. Part of what I propose is that others with different collections of digital content might replicate the test I am applying to their own material and share their observations. There are so many uncontrolled variables I assume that while this is an interesting issue, personal preference will always be the deciding factor. Variations in topic, tool, and prompt could result in different conclusions.

The Prompt I used follows. The variation of the prompt I used when engaging a non-focused use of AI simply eliminated the phrase “Using my notes and highlights”.

Prompt: Using my notes and highlights, write a 400 word blog post comparing the advantages and disadvantages of reading and taking notes from paper and digital devices.

I used the directed prompt with Mem.AI, NotebookLM, and Smart Connections (Obsidian plugin). Perplexity was used as the nondirected AI tool. I will offer my observations first and provide the full prompt responses at the end as Appendices.

Sources – Perplexity is unique in comparison to other chat tools in that it provides specific sources for comments it generates. These tend to be what I would call secondary sources (see list following the Perplexity example). In contrast, see the sources in the Mem.AI responses. The names that appear are a crude version of the citation method academics use to reference journal articles and books (which were the sources I highlighted and annotated). One way to think about this may be that Perplexity is accessing the summaries generated by various individuals who have read primary sources, while Mem is accessing my personal summaries of similar sources. If identifying primary sources is important, it is easier to do this when you can show what these sources were.

Identification of unique insights – It would seem that an AI analysis based on specific notes, highlighting, and source selection would generate an output more useful for tasks you want to pursue. While obvious if the content of interest was selected with a task in mind and based on a small amount of material, this is not the way a “second brain” is built. The hundreds of sources I have collected represent a wide range of topics in my field. Specific topics of interest emerge within this process of more general learning, and part of the assumption in using a second brain is that the broader background will reveal connections that may not have been anticipated. The hope is that the application of AI, rather than basic searching, will help surface such connections.

With the exception of the sources cited, much of the information in the two types of searches was similar. Perhaps asking for a 400-word blog post as an outlet was not the best way to reveal subtle differences. I will direct your attention to sections I have highlighted in the NotebookLM and Perplexity prompt responses. Both NotebookLM and Perplexity provide citations that do not appear when copying the text. Because I was looking for comments related to the use of content over time, I was paying attention to any mention of searching or other mentions of delayed activity. The Perplexity response did not offer a citation. The NotebookLM output mentioned export, organization, and search. In addition, there were multiple citations, and the linked citations identified notes and highlights in the digital form.

Summary

AI tools with various capabilities are now available. For those of us who read digitally, we have the opportunity to export highlights and annotations that can be stored over time. AI can be used to chat with this stored content. My interest here was an attempt to determine if there was a unique value in applying AI to such content in comparison to asking questions of AI without this targeting of curated information.

I doubt the effort I describe here would convince anyone to change their existing strategy, but my hope is that I have offered an approach they might try to explore the options that are available.

************

Appendices

Mem.ai

The debate between reading and taking notes on paper versus digital devices is a nuanced one, with research highlighting various advantages and disadvantages for each medium. While digital tools offer convenience and speed, traditional paper methods often promote deeper cognitive engagement.

Advantages of Digital Reading and Notetaking

Digital devices offer several benefits. For instance, digital note-takers tend to record more content, including more verbatim lecture strings, due to faster typing speeds compared to handwriting Luo et al 2018. This increased volume of notes can be beneficial for later review, especially when notes are not immediately studied Luo et al 2018. Digital platforms also facilitate collaborative note-taking, allowing students to share the cognitive load and potentially create more complete notes Courtneyetal2022. Furthermore, digital tools can offer features like multimedia integration and online research capabilities, enriching the learning experience Yamac et al 2020. For example, digital writing instruction with tablets has been shown to improve writing performance and knowledge in primary school students, partly due to features like class blogs and multimedia components Yamac et al 2020.

Disadvantages of Digital Reading and Notetaking

Despite the advantages, digital reading and note-taking come with notable drawbacks. A significant concern is the potential for distraction. Studies suggest that the perceived advantage of longhand note-taking in some research may be attributed to the distractions inherent in digital devices, such as web surfing and social media Voyer 2022 summary. This can lead to shallower processing of information SingerAlexander2017b. Research indicates a “screen inferiority” effect, where reading comprehension can be lower on digital devices, particularly for informational texts and under time pressure Delgado2018. This effect has even been observed to increase over time Delgado et al 2018. The lack of physical cues, like the feel of pages, in digital reading can also hinder the formation of a mental map of the text, impacting comprehension of chronology and temporality Mangen et al 2019.

Advantages of Paper Reading and Notetaking

Paper-based methods often foster deeper engagement and better retention. Handwriting, being slower than typing, forces individuals to process and summarize information, leading to a more generative encoding of knowledge MuellerOppenheimer2014. This deeper processing can result in better performance on conceptual questions

MuellerOppenheimer2014. The physical act of writing and the tactile feedback from paper contribute to a stronger mental representation of the material Mangen et al 2019. For instance, studies have shown that paper readers are better at recalling “other relevant information” and performing better on questions related to key points SingerAlexander2017b.

Disadvantages of Paper Reading and Notetaking

While beneficial for deep processing, paper note-taking can be less efficient in terms of speed and volume compared to digital methods Luo et al 2018. It also lacks the inherent searchability and organizational capabilities of digital notes, which can make retrieval and restructuring of information more challenging SmartWisdom. Converting highlights from paper to more elaborate notes can also be a more cumbersome process Highlighting&fleeting.

In conclusion, the optimal choice between paper and digital depends on the specific learning goal and context. For tasks requiring deep comprehension and conceptual understanding, paper often holds an advantage. However, for efficiency, volume, and collaborative efforts, digital tools offer compelling benefits, provided distractions are managed effectively.

************

NotebookLM

Here’s a look at the advantages and disadvantages of reading and taking notes using paper versus digital devices, drawing from the sources provided:

The rise of digital devices has shifted how many people read and take notes. However, research comparing reading from paper and screens reveals a complex picture, with nuances depending on the text type, reader’s age, and even the specific device used. Several meta-analyses indicate a general advantage for reading comprehension when reading from paper compared to screens, particularly for informational texts. This paper advantage has even been found to increase over time. However, this difference is often not seen with narrative texts, and studies comparing reading on tablets specifically have sometimes found smaller or no significant differences compared to print.

When it comes to note-taking, there’s also ongoing debate about the best method. Some studies comparing handwriting and typing notes have found a benefit for handwriting notes, particularly for understanding concepts. This has been attributed to the slower speed of handwriting, which may encourage more summarization and paraphrasing rather than simply transcribing verbatim, leading to deeper cognitive processing. However, other research and meta-analyses have found inconsistent results or no significant overall difference between handwritten and typed notes. Some studies suggest that typing can lead to more complete notes, and note completeness can be related to better performance.

Digital tools offer powerful affordances for reading and note-taking, such as the ease of highlighting and adding annotations directly to the text. Digital notes and highlights can be easily exported, organized, and searched later. Digital environments also facilitate collaborative annotation and note-taking. However, digital environments can also present challenges. They may be more prone to distractions, and frequent use of digital media, particularly for quick interactions with short texts (like social media), may contribute to the development of shallow reading habits like scanning and skimming. Some online content may also have lower linguistic quality.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of reading and note-taking, whether on paper or digitally, depends significantly on the strategies and cognitive processes employed by the reader. While paper might offer some advantages for deep comprehension of informational texts and handwriting for conceptual processing, digital tools provide powerful functionalities for capturing, organizing, and retrieving information, as well as facilitating collaboration. Focusing on how one engages with the material and utilizes the tools, rather than just the tool itself, is likely key to effective learning.

The following is a screen capture of the original view of the highlighted section described above.

****************************

Prompt: Write a 400 word blog post comparing the advantages and disadvantages of reading and taking notes from paper and digital devices.

From: Perplexity

Comparing Reading and Note-Taking: Paper vs. Digital Devices

Choosing between paper and digital devices for reading and note-taking is a personal decision shaped by convenience, effectiveness, and lifestyle. Both formats offer distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of Paper

Better Comprehension and Retention: Studies show reading from paper leads to higher comprehension and test scores. Students who read print books outperform those who read digitally, and handwritten notes often result in better memory retention compared to typing[1][6].
Fewer Distractions: Paper books and notes keep things simple—no pop-ups, notifications, or temptations to multitask, which helps maintain focus[1][6].
Emotional Connection: Many readers find a deeper emotional bond with physical books, appreciating the tactile experience and the satisfaction of seeing their progress[1].
No Power Needed: Paper never runs out of battery and is always ready to use[1][6].

Disadvantages of Paper

Storage and Portability: Physical books and notes take up space, can be heavy, and are cumbersome to transport, especially when traveling or moving[5].
Accessibility: Finding a specific book or note can be time-consuming, and you must visit libraries or bookstores for new material[5].
Environmental Impact: Paper production contributes to deforestation and environmental harm[5].
Vulnerability: Paper can be easily lost, damaged by water or fire, and is harder to back up[5][6].

Advantages of Digital Devices

Convenience and Accessibility: Digital libraries offer instant access to thousands of titles and notes, all stored on a single device. Searching for information is quick and efficient[3][4].
Eco-Friendly: Digital reading and note-taking reduce paper usage and environmental impact[3][4].
Interactivity and Multimedia: eBooks and digital notes can include videos, images, and interactive elements, making learning more engaging[3][4].
Collaboration and Organization: Digital notes are easy to organize, search, and share. Real-time collaboration and version control are possible, which is ideal for group work[4].
Accessibility Features: Text-to-speech and adjustable font sizes make digital content more accessible to people with different needs[3].

Disadvantages of Digital Devices

Distractions: Devices can tempt users with games, notifications, and other apps, reducing focus[6].
Lower Retention: Typing notes can lead to lower retention compared to handwriting, as it often encourages verbatim transcription without deeper processing[6].
Dependence on Power: Devices need batteries and charging, which can be limiting in certain situations[6].
Cost: Digital devices are more expensive upfront than basic paper and pen[6].

Conclusion

Paper excels in comprehension, retention, and simplicity, while digital devices shine in convenience, organization, and collaboration. The best choice depends on your priorities—whether you value focus and memory or accessibility and efficiency. Many find a hybrid approach, using both formats as needed, offers the best of both worlds.

Sources

[1] The benefits of printed books – Junior Library Guild https://www.juniorlibraryguild.com/blog/post/the-benefits-of-printed-books

[2] Benefits of Notetaking? | Student Skills Workshops https://sites.austincc.edu/student-skills-workshops/taking-effective-notes/benefits-of-notetaking/

[3] Top 7 Benefits of Digital Reading in 2025 – Kitaboo https://kitaboo.com/what-is-digital-reading/

[4] 6 advantages of digital note-taking: unleash your productivity https://beingpaperless.com/unleash-your-productivity-6-advantages-of-digital-note-taking/

[5] Paper Books Vs. Ebooks https://www.doradolist.com/blog/paper-book-vs-ebook/

[6] Typing vs. Writing: The Pros and Cons of Both Note-Taking Methods https://titantimes.live/2025/02/19/typing-vs-writing-the-pros-and-cons-of-both-note-taking-methods/

[7] Digital reading: Pros and cons of reading on devices – tablets & e … https://teachinginhighered.com/2017/09/11/digital-reading/

[8] Taking Digital Notes: The Pros, Cons, and Best Practices – Ask.com https://www.ask.com/news/taking-digital-notes-pros-cons-best-practices

[9] Evidence increases for reading on paper instead of screens https://hechingerreport.org/evidence-increases-for-reading-on-paper-instead-of-screens/

[10] Benefit of Handwritten vs. Digital Note Taking https://www.mrsblackwell.com/journal/note-taking

[11] Will you learn better from reading on screen or on paper? https://www.snexplores.org/article/learn-comprehension-reading-digital-screen-paper

[12] Unlocking the Brain: the Cognitive Benefits of Digital Note-Taking for … https://www.marshmallowchallenge.com/blog/unlocking-the-brain-the-cognitive-benefits-of-digital-note-taking-for-students-sounds-great/

[13] Advantages And Drawbacks Of Both Paper And Pixel Books https://tracycooperposey.com/paper-and-pixel-books/

[14] Digital Notes vs. Paper Notes: The Pros and Cons – SchoolHabits https://schoolhabits.com/digital-notes-vs-paper-notes-the-pros-and-cons/

[15] What are Top Pros and Cons of Online Reading in 2025? – Kitaboo https://kitaboo.com/pros-and-cons-of-online-reading/

[16] Digital vs. Handwritten Notes: Pros and Cons for Professionals https://leadavid.com/digital-vs-handwritten-notes-pros-cons/

[17] Reading On Screens vs Paper: Which Is Better? – Unplugged https://unplugged.rest/blog/reading-on-screen-or-print-which-is-better

[18] Paper vs. Screen: Note-taking at Dartmouth https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2023/10/paper-vs-screen-note-taking-at-dartmouth

[19] The Advantages of Using a Digital Note Taking App – Box Blog https://blog.box.com/advantages-of-using-a-digital-note-taking-app

[20] Do Students Learn More by Reading From Paper or Screens? – EWU https://online.ewu.edu/degrees/education/med/reading-literacy/reading-from-paper-or-screens/

[21] Pros and Cons of Typed, Digitally Handwritten, and Paper Notes https://guts.wisc.edu/2020/11/19/pros-and-cons-of-typed-digitally-handwritten-and-paper-notes/

[22] Pros and Cons of eBooks: Is Digital Reading Right for You? https://www.wrightbookassociates.co.uk/blog/pros-and-cons-of-ebooks/

[23] Truth about Digital Note Taking vs Paper Notes (PROS/CONS) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nw4Z2cwm30

[24] PROOF POINTS: Paper books linked to stronger readers in an … https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-paper-books-linked-to-stronger-readers-in-an-international-study/

[25] [PDF] Reading on paper and screens: advantages, disadvantages, and … https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f5d3/be4309ea16cede980900c13e65ac48aad6d3.pdf

[26] Pros and Cons of Digital vs. Traditional College Textbooks https://www.honorsociety.org/articles/pros-and-cons-digital-vs-traditional-college-textbooks

[27] Reading on Screens Worsens Comprehension for Younger … https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/reading-on-screens-worsens-comprehension-for-younger-students-what-can-teachers-do/2024/01

[28] 7 Scientific Benefits of Reading Printed Books for Better Brain Health … https://www.howlifeunfolds.com/learning-education/7-scientific-benefits-reading-printed-books

[29] Evidence increases for reading on paper instead of screens: Most … https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/n3uc66/evidence_increases_for_reading_on_paper_instead/

[30] 10 Benefits of Reading Print Books, According to Science https://www.realsimple.com/health/preventative-health/benefits-of-reading-real-books

[31] The important thing is to read. Advantages of digital reading https://richmondsolution.com/en/ventajas-lectura-digital/

[32] Digital reading: benefit or risk for child literacy? https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/news/digital-reading-benefit-risk

[33] Turning the Page: What Research Indicates About Print vs. Digital … https://oej.scholasticahq.com/article/125437-turning-the-page-what-research-indicates-about-print-vs-digital-reading

[34] E-books vs Printed Books: The Disadvantages of E-books https://web.4hatteras.com/hatteras-news/e-books-vs-printed-books-the-disadvantages-of-e-books

[35] The benefits and drawbacks of reading digitally https://webbcanyonchronicle.com/9378/scienceandtechnology/the-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-reading-digitally/

*****

7 total views

What does AI search lack? It is the shared perspective.

In a recent post, I lamented the feeling that what I write becomes part of some anonymous glob that feeds “search AI” [Will anyone read my words?]. I admit that when I do a Google search I first read the AI response and that may provide just what I was looking for. So, ignoring the feeling of personal invisibility that comes with this reality, I began to think about what, in my comments, offers something of value to others. What in following bloggers using RSS did I lose in this transition from following a writer on topics of personal interest did I really lose in being able to apply AI search to address personal interests?

As I considered this question, my mind flashed on an argument I made several years ago in an attempt to justify textbooks and other long-form informative texts. [Why a textbook?]. Ignoring the cost issue and whether or not college students actually study assigned textbook material, I recognized that, mostly to save students money, profs often felt it helpful to create a course syllabus/outline with the reading assignments linked from elements in the outline to free online content. My counter argument was that learning is about each student building a personal model of understanding and there was unique value in a single integrated source as this source was a model of how an experienced learner (the author) had tried to export his or her model of how the many ideas in a course fit together. If I had to argue with myself, I would probably suggest that the job of the professor in creating the outline and presenting on his/her model of the course repeatedly was trying to do a similar thing. I have since decided that, now that I must function as a self-directed learner, I benefit from exposure to a book that provides a more complete and integrated model of some topic. For example, Ahrens’ book – How to take smart notes – offers a better integrated model of the whys and hows of notetaking than the many individual comments I might find searching online.

How do I explain this opinion and why I think it has value? I have decided that what I want is a perspective, and this is what you get from a single source sharing long-form content (perhaps in the form of multiple posts). Elements of information can be combined in multiple ways, and perhaps this is the difference between how we use the concepts of information and knowledge. Knowledge is the way a given individual has organized selected elements of information to provide meaning or usefulness.

Perhaps you can anticipate then how I see the difference between the output of AI search and the more idiosyncratic perspective of a single writer. Both provide information, and on most topics, when there is something specific I want to know, the homogenized summary of many inputs offered by AI may be accurate and possibly superior. However, in building my own personal knowledge of a complex topic, I think it is useful to follow how one knowledgeable individual selects and organizes information. Could a diligent individual create personal understanding from either source? Definitely. I still think there is something unique and useful in following how one individual I trust puts ideas together.

11 total views

Smart Connections finds note connections

Smart Connections discovers and reveals related notes in Obsidian. I started using the Obsidian plugin Smart Connections because I wanted a way to apply AI interrogation of my own notes. I wanted to request cross-note summarizations and generate a variety of sample written products (e.g., blog posts) based on my personal notes and highlights. I ignored an important capability that is claimed based on the product’s name — the identification of note connections.

Without an AI-based method for identifying possible connections among notes, Obsidian relies on the user to establish connections via links and tags. I was aware that other services (e.g., Mem.ai) suggested that a note retention system could do better and offered tags and links, but also made the claim that AI would help surface connections. Some would argue that exploring your Obsidian content repeatedly and finding connections are important parts of the process of personal knowledge management. Constantly working with your notes is an active cognitive activity that encourages connections between what is internally retrievable at a point in time and what you are accessing in Obsidian. New connections first brain to second brain and within Obsidian may emerge. This constant interactive process is suggested by what I would describe as the Zettelkasten practitioners. I don’t think this advice must be rejected for users who want to use AI to surface new connections.

Smart Connections makes use of AI, and the AI creates a numerical representation of the content of each note and stores these as what are called embeddings. You must subscribe to an AI provider via an API, which is far less expensive than a subscription to such a service. You have the option of basing such representations on blocks within notes rather than entire notes. I make use of this option because I store lengthy notes containing book and pdf highlights, such that a representation of an entire note does not represent a level of detail that is very useful for finding something useful in such lengthy notes. In the content that follows, I will show where to turn on block embedding.

Smart Connections works by requesting connections for a note that you have selected. The following image shows Obsidian with Smart Connections active. The green rectangle in the menu bar is used to activate the Connections as opposed to the Chat capability of Smart Connections. The up/down symbol allows you to scroll through the associated notes/blocks from most related to less related. The gear symbol is used to access settings for Smart Connections. The middle panel is the active note, and the right-hand column represents a hierarchy of related notes/blocks.

Getting back to how I think AI may supplement the more hands-on use of Obsidian, I would recommend that in examining connections to a given note that you then use tags or links if you want to create permanent connections.

The extension of Smart Connects from note to note to note to block is worth doing if you do not keep atomic notes. Start with the Gear icon (see image above). This will reveal multiple setting options. What you are searching for are the environment settings. Open these settings with the button shown below.

Once more settings have been revealed, you are looking for Smart Blocks (see below). You turn this option on and specify a minimal length. I did not keep a careful record of the source for advice I followed and I apologize to the author, but I entered 300 characters, and that seems to work well. There are many other settings and I have mostly stayed with the defaults.

Summary:

Smart Connections is an Obsidian plugin (free) that allows AI capabilities to be applied to the notes stored in Obsidian. Chats allows a user to generate AI prompts that are applied to the contents of Obsidian. Connections generates a list of notes (note blocks in the setup I have described) associated with a selected note and is helpful in the identification of such relationships in a large collections of notes.

25 total views

Sharing Notes

I have been retired for several years and miss the social experience of sharing the research process with graduate students and faculty colleagues. Many of my interests are still very similar, but after moving to a different city, I no longer have day-to-day acquaintances with those kinds of interests. This has resulted in an interest in tools that offer note-sharing capabilities.

There is still the challenge of finding others with similar enough interests that sharing is attractive. This post will describe Glasp as a solution. At present this app is free. It offers several ways to share public notes without first having to go through a familiarization process to identify others with related interests, and the type of interaction that follows is up to you. Finally, Glasp has a built-in AI tool that offers an effective way to explore both someone else’s and your own notes.

The following shows Glasp. From left to right, the first column contains personal information and basic controls, the second column lists thumbnails of the pages I have annotated (these are web pages, and other sources such as Kindle books are accessed from an icon on the heading). The final column contains the highlights and notes from a selected source. The drop-down menu is what I wanted readers to understand as it includes a link for locating “like-minded users” (second image). Glasp analyzes the content you have stored and recommends other users with similar interests. I should make clear that you store content as public or private and when you use social capabilities it is only the public content that is visible.

When you select another user, you are provided access to their site (read only) and you select to follow if you are interested.

If you identify other Glasp user by other means, you can simply search for that individual and then access their site to follow that individual.

The AI feature

On your own site or the site of someone you have followed, a button located near the image icon of the site owner, allows access to the AI tool (following image). This is where you submit a prompt to chat with the content on that site (second image).

AI is a good way to explore a collection of content that is unfamiliar to you. With Glasp, you can use the output from a prompt to identify the source notes and move from there to the sources.

Connecting

I am interested in connecting with anyone who finds this tool interesting. You do need to create a Glasp account (free) to follow through. Without adding content to generate recommended matches, you can view my content by entering Mark Grabe in the search box to follow me. Glasp also offers a link that takes you directly to the AI prompt page for a designated user (link to my prompt page). This only connects if you have a Glasp account, but I guess it is provided so you do not have to identify yourself as a follower if an existing user wants to share content in this way.

I like Glasp and would have likely invested more time in the site for my professional reading (mostly journal article PDFs) if I had not already invested many hours highlighting and annotating with a different tool that does not transfer the highlighted content to Glasp. Glasp does include the highlights and notes I have generated from web pages and from Kindle books.

24 total views

NotebookLM Mindmaps

I investigate AI developments from two perspectives. First, what tools and applications will be personally beneficial? Second, what tools and applications can I write about that would be of value to those who read my posts? The following description fits both categories at the present time, but I expect it would end up more in the second category should Google move it out of beta into a paid category expected to be $20 a month. If it becomes part of the Google for Education suite, I can imagine it having great value to those with access to these services.

My present personal AI interest is in focusing AI on the resource material I have accumulated. What I mean by this is that I take notes and highlight while I read and have done so for 50 years. For the period of that time that I could read journal articles and books in digital form, I typically could export my notes and highlights and accumulate this personalized material. I have collected this content, but now I can use AI to target this content with retrieval augmented generation (RAG). I can “chat with this content” which offers me control over AI that I think is important and different from just interacting with the general knowledge base on which AI was trained. I want to generate insights and produce written products based on content and specific ideas within that content I have personally vetted. The broader application I see for what I am describing here involves an educator offering students access to content the educator has collected. An even broader application might focus on content collected by a team with a common interest.

This post described the use of Google’s NotebookLM as a tool suited to the implementation of this idea. I have described in a previous post how I get the content I want NotebookLM to focus on into that AI service in a previous post. Here I want to explain how “Mind Mapping”, a new capability of NotebookLM, can be used to explore a body of content.

So mind mapping is a way to identify the structure of ideas within content. I would have preferred Google called their implementation concept mapping, but this is not what they did. Concept maps can be a way for some to convey the structure of ideas to someone else or it can be a task in which someone creates a mind map to demonstrate how they see ideas to be related. The reason I would have preferred concept mapping is that the Google NotebookLM capability identifies concepts and then generates a simple structure of how these concepts are related. Think of it this way. I can feed in a large collection of information I have collected and then had NotebookLM show me how this content could be organized. In addition, it will provide summaries of the nodes that it has identified and allowed me then to explore the content I fed in that were judged to justify parts of the summary.

The following image shows NotebookLM already loaded with hundreds of notes and highlights (left hand column) and the button (red box) that will generate this first level of the mind map. To break one of the initial notes into subnodes, you click on the caret associated with a note.

Selecting one of the nodes will reveal a summary of the content making up that higher-level category. In the following image, the summary is based on the category Generative Aspect (red box).

Within the summary, you should be able to identify numbers that represent the source from the content referenced by that section of the summary. Selecting a number will display that note or section of original content.

One final feature is also quite useful. NotebookLM suggests questions related to the content displayed you might want to ask. It also provides a text box you can use to enter a prompt suggesting a question of your own.

Summary

NotebookLM now includes a mind mapping tool that identifies and organizes concepts from the content it has been fed. The nodes identified can be used to provide summaries of that content and to interact with that summary and the content on which the summary was based. To fully appreciate what this allows it may be useful to imagine that hundreds or thousands of notes could be submitted by a user and processed in this manner.

53 total views

Technology and the Writing Process

This post assumes you understand the basics of what is referred to as the “writing process” and perhaps have read my previous post explaining what the writing process is and why it is valuable to educators and researchers. One additional role I proposed in that post was that the components of the writing process would be helpful in identifying technology tools that would support the various components of the Writing Process. This post identifies these tools and explains how they might be applied.

Before I get to my effort to associate specific technology tools with specific writing processes, I thought it useful just to make a case for writing using a word processor. The benefits are too easy to overlook, and opportunities may be ignored.

I assume you complete many of the writing tasks you take on using a word processing application. Do you do this because you assume this approach makes you more efficient or do you assume this approach makes you a better writer? Maybe you have never even thought about these questions. However, when functioning as a teacher and asking your students to engage in activities in a particular way, it may be helpful to consider why the approach you expect students to use will be productive. Often, to realize the full potential of an activity, the details matter and some insight into why an approach is supposed to be productive may be helpful in understanding which details to track and emphasize. The following comments summarize some ideas about the value of word processing and of learning to write using word processing applications.

In learning, as in other areas of life, you seldom get something for nothing. Still, a logical case has been proposed for how simply working with word processing for an extended period may improve writing skills and performance. One interesting proposal by Perkins (1985) is called the “opportunities get taken” hypothesis. The proposal works like this. Writing by hand on paper has a number of built-in limitations. Generating text this way is slower, and modifying what has been written comes at a substantial price. To produce a second or third draft requires the writer to spend a good deal of time reproducing text that was fine the first time, just to change a few things that might sound better if modified. Word processing, on the other hand, allows writers to revise at minimal cost. You can pursue an idea to see where it takes you and worry about fixing syntax and spelling later. Reworking documents from the level of fixing misspelled words to reordering the arguments in the entire presentation can be accomplished without crumpling up what has just been painstakingly written and starting over.

What Perkins proposed was that writers can take risks and push their skills without worrying that they may be wasting their time. The capacity to save and load text from some form of storage makes it possible to revise earlier drafts with minimal effort. Writers can set aside what they have written to gain new perspectives, show friends a draft and ask for advice, or discuss an idea with the teacher after class, and use these experiences to improve what they wrote yesterday or last week. What we have described here are opportunities—opportunities to produce a better paper for tomorrow’s class and, over time, opportunities to learn to communicate more effectively. The same is true for writing outside of an academic setting. Is not a bad idea to set a written product aside and then return to read it once more before sending it off. Often, errors become apparent and new ideas surface.

Do writers take the opportunities provided by word processing programs and produce better products? The research evaluating the benefits of word processing (Bangert-Drowns, 1993) is not easy to interpret. Much seems to depend on the experience of the writer as a writer and technology user and on what is meant by a “better” product. If the questions refer to younger students, it also seems to depend on the instructional strategies to which the students have been exposed. It does appear that access to word processing is more beneficial for older learners. General summaries of the research literature (Bangert-Drowns, 1993) seem to indicate that students make more revisions, write longer documents, and produce documents containing fewer errors when word processing. However, the spelling, syntactical, and grammatical errors that students tend to address and the revision activities necessary to correct them are considered less important by many interested in effective writing than changes improving document content or document organization. The natural tendency of most writers appears to be to address surface level features. This is especially true with less capable writers.

Writers appear to bring their writing goals and habits to writing with the support of technology. Beginning writers and perhaps writers at many stages of maturity may not have the orientation or capabilities to use the full potential of word processing, and their classroom instruction may also emphasize the correction of more obvious surface errors. Thus, there are typically improvements in the products generated when working with word processing tools, but the areas in which younger writers seem to improve are not necessarily the most important ones

Tools specific to writing components

Here are the types of tools we see as supporting individual writing processes. We list tools using general terms as specific examples of a given category come and go. Our online resources include more detailed information about specific tools you might try.

Planning – Research

Authors write based on what they know and what they can discover. What they discover could come from books, conversations with others, data collection and analysis, or Internet searches. Internet searches are a common practice, and some writing environments embed search access within the writing environment and even suggest topics and links based on the content being written. Of course, opening a browser or a second tab when writing in a browser in order to conduct a search is a simple matter. For those of us writing in specialized areas and needing source material such as scientific sources more powerful fused search tools are available and it seems new ones emerge daily. Google Scholar provides access to the resources I cite. I can search for research publications on a specific topic and use a hit on a useful resource to locate even more recent sources that cite the initial find. There no restrictions or subscriptions that apply to Google Scholar so there is no reason to not give it a try. Research Rabbit, LitMaps, Semantic Scholar, and several similar tools compete for the attention of researchers.

Locating information to be used in a future project or to improve an existing project also typically involves temporary storage of content and the information necessary for the attribution of useful sources. There are certainly nondigital ways to accomplish these tasks. Information could be entered in a notebook. There are now many digital tools that can be generalized to store notes or are specialized in some way. Writing systems may have built-in note taking, storage, and organization tools. Perhaps you have taken notes on cards. There is a digital equivalent. Scrivener is a writing environment and like writing tools, you would be more likely to have used is really a combination of tools. These “cards” can be organized and reorganized and offer the advantage of being searchable and other opportunities not available in the paper equivalent; e.g., copy and paste from source content, search, audio or image storage, duplication and off-site storage of resources so the work completed is not lost. The idea is that you can accumulate these “notes” and then organize them for use as you write.

Perhaps you just use a notebook to accumulate notes as you prepare for a writing task. There are many tech tools that serve a similar function and offer some enhancements not available with paper resources. Apple Notes comes with the Apple OS and iOS so that you can access your notes across Apple devices. Apple has taken to describing this tool as a way to store “forever notes”. With what could be unlimited storage, why discard notes after the project the notes were intended to support is finished? Perhaps the notes might be useful in the future. To make this practical, the tool must be capable of more than storage. You need to be able to find what you stored when useful and this involves powerful search, tags, and collections. There are many tools based on a similar concept (e.g., Evernote, OneNote, Notion, Google Keep).

Ideas as building blocks

One subcategory of note taking tools encourages the isolation of individual ideas or concepts. Think of note cards. I prefer to imagine Lego Blocks as ideas proposing that anyone familiar with these blocks appreciate how the blocks can be reused to build many different things. For those who are already familiar with what has become a popular self-improvement genre, the ideas as building blocks might alternately be described as smart notes, permanent notes, or atomic notes. For those really into this perspective on taking notes, there are differences among these terms, but all are similar enough I am not going to get into nuances. The atomic note is perhaps the most basic of these ideas and proposes that the note taker should create exactly one note for each idea, and write it as if you’re writing so you or someone else would understand this idea in the future. Use full sentences, include references. What you get from this process over time is an accumulation of ideas (lego blocks) that you can organize in different ways to accomplish different tasks. Connections among these ideas are to be explored repeatedly over time and potential meaningful associations are to be stored with links or tags. There are two important ideas here – a) identify and store useful ideas and b) revisit your collection repeatedly overtime to identify interesting connections among these ideas.

My favorite tool for this style of notetaking is Obsidian. I might have also described Obsidian under a later heading (organization) because of the process of idea organization via links and tags, but the notion of saving isolated, but connectable concepts is so unique I decided to focus on it at this point. There are other ways to keep individual ideas both without technology (note cards), but the search and interconnection possibilities among other technology facilitated writing tools offer unique benefits over long periods of time and with a large amount of content..

Referencing

A bibliography generator is also helpful when creating a large project. Citation information from sources can be stored as the sources are being read and this makes the eventual compilation of a reference list far more efficient than attempting to assemble such a list when the project is nearing completion.

Planning – organization

Most students are familiar with outlining. Incorporating an outlining tool in a writing environment allows the writer to plan the structure of the document. Often the outline entries become headings within the document, and the writer can move back and forth between the outline view and the extended text as an aid to organizing a major project. This capability helps the writer to escape the detail level and regain a sense of the overall purpose and structure of a document which research on the writing process argues is a unique challenge. It helps the writer answer questions such as “Do I want to discuss this issue at this point or would it be better to address it at a later point?” It is also possible to reverse this process – write first and outline later. This is a way to examine the structure of what has been written with the potential outcome of moving content around to provide a more logical structure. Again, I note at this point that Google docs and Microsoft 365 will generate an outline based on the structure of headings that have been used in a document. This outline is quite useful when working with a long document to quickly locate segments you want to edit or adding some new content you have just discovered, but examining the structure of the outline is also helpful.

A tool often serving a similar function allows the writer to create what are called either concept or mind maps. A map consists of nodes representing ideas and links joining the nodes. As a college student, you may have encountered textbooks in which the author or authors incorporated concept maps to represent the organization of core ideas within each chapter. The idea was to help you understand the big picture by isolating the core ideas and to show how the core ideas are related. In this case, the map was intended to help you see the structure around which much additional information was probably organized. A concept mapping tool can provide a related benefit to an individual or group attempting to organize ideas for a project. The reader and writer both benefit from a well articulated structure; the reader in interpreting the product and the writer in creating the product.

The map including concepts (nodes) and a system of organization (links) need not be completed simultaneously. In a technique such as brainstorming, an individual or small group might first quickly throw out ideas that are represented as key terms or nodes. The concepts represented by the nodes might then be discussed, prioritized (some might be deleted), and structured (linked). Much in the way an outline identifies topics and subtopics, additional nodes might then be added and linked to specify details.

Translation and Editing – tools supporting content generation and simultaneous correction of writing errors.

Applications used in translation often incorporate tools to ease and correct the process. Such tools can check spelling, suggest appropriate words (dictionary, thesaurus), and identify faulty grammar. The editorial tools may signal suggestions automatically (e.g., misspelled words are underlined) or offer suggestions when assistance is requested. Grammarly is a great tool for identifying surface level errors. This may be the perfect example of a productivity tactic that simply could not be implemented when writing without technology. Even the free version of Grammarly will alert a writer to spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors and the paid version will both identify and make improvements. Grammarly implements these capabilities using AI and as with any AI use, it is important to consider whether AI limits the practice or development of an important skill. More on this topic at a later point

Tools that allow voice input would also fall within the translation category. While most of us have probably used voice input when engaged in tasks we would probably not define as writing (asking a question through the Amazon Echo or Apple Siri, requesting a search through Google, sending a text that serves as a note while driving), text input is available as a way to generate the initial input when engaged in more traditional writing activities. It is a different experience and messy, but it is worth exploring.

Reviewing

My comments when describing the components of the writing process model differentiated editing and revision with the primary distinction being what I would describe as depth – surface (e.g., spelling, grammar) and deep (e.g, organization and logic) and the time of changes made either delayed or immediately. Often the delay allows input from other individuals with perhaps the input from others more likely to encourage structural or logical improvements.

Reviewing – sharing

Sharing a draft allows the generation of feedback from someone other than the author. While this can be accomplished in many ways, the opportunities we want to identify here allow multiple individuals to access an online file. Depending on the service, the “editor” might then download the file for commenting or interact with the file online. Sharing printed copies has long been a possibility, but digital products allow greater convenience and a higher level of interactivity.

Reviewing – commenting

Some digital writing environments allow the author to specify constraints (permissions) that control the extent to which a reviewer can interact with the shared document. For example, the author might allow read only access, commenting (comments are not actual modifications of the existing text), or modification of the text (sometimes as suggestions that be accepted or rejected). Read only access would require that the editor provide feedback separated from the original document; e.g., comments in an email. Comments might be added as text or sometimes audio that is linked to specific locations in the original document, but are available to the author in a sidebar. Finally, actual modification of the text may be possible. Such modifications might involve the embedding of suggestions in the text. When I do this for my students, I usually change font color so the author can easily identify my recommendations. The most advanced systems even combine comments and suggestions. An editor can change the original document and offer a comment to explain the modification. The author can then review these comments and decide either to accept or reject each suggested change. Accepting a suggested change modifies the document. Rejecting a change returns the document to the state that existed before editing. Reviewing a suggested change even when rejected may encourage the author to generate a change more to the author’s liking. Note that the options we describe here are not available in all writing environments, but are also not hypothetical possibilities

Educators must consider how best to support the writer. For example, the educator may prefer to rely on comments rather than suggested revisions if it becomes obvious that the author is simply accepting everything the teacher proposes as an improvement rather than using the suggestions to guide rewriting.

AI facilitated writing

While I have already hinted at ways in which AI can be applied, this mentions have involved tools integrating AI in a limited way. You can turn this relationship around and allow the writer to control general AI services to perform a wide range of writing tasks and subtasks. What many educators most fear is that learners who need to develop writing skills or demonstrate their understanding of a topic through a writing assignment will simply turn over the task to AI with the engagement the teacher intended.

Such concerns are warranted. Early on (meaning a couple of years ago), I wanted to test how far I could push a general AI tool by seeing if I could get the tool to write an Introduction to Psychology textbook. I would describe the approach I took as AI first in which I worked through a process of steps I would take, but asked the AI tool to perform a step and then I evaluated and modified the effort produced. So, what are the topics or chapters that should appear in this type of textbook? Create an outline for the chapter on learning. Using the topics identified as behavioral theories of learning, expand these topics to explain each topic to the length of a typical college textbook and at that level off complexity. No one would be fooled by what was produced, but this was some time ago and with some work a product could be produced.

I am not advocating anything like this, but I do think I gained some insight from the process. To some extent, there were hints of the Writing Process components in what I was doing. Asking for an outline of topics I could consider was an alternative to my planning a structure on my own. My personal expertise does not extend to all of the topics covered by a survey course so asking for an outline for each chapter would likely identify topics I had not considered and would need to spend time investigating to guide what I might write in these areas. I did not ask for a review and edit of what I had AI generate for the samples I had AI create, but I have since explored how AI might be applied to perform such functions.

Perhaps my present position on AI would be to explore the role AI could play in performing or facilitating the performance of specific components of the writing process. I think it reasonable to investigate how I might work collaboratively with AI in performing these different processes. This seems different from recommending that AI should substitute for learning to perform these processes or maybe it could be imagined as a way to use AI to perform certain processes when a learner focuses on performing other processes.

Reference
Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63 (1), 69–93.

33 total views

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.

30 total views