Digital notes – Page 2 – Learning Aloud

Notetaking – Your brain is lazy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Take digital notes for best lecture performance

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

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

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

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

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

Apps that record audio and synch with your notes

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

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

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

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

Soundnote

Audionote

Notability

The following image is the interface for Soundnote.

The following video offers a description of using Soundnote.

Source

Willingham, D. T. (2023). Outsmart your brain: Why learning is hard and how you can make it easy. Simon and Schuster.

Weava

In the last few years, I have explored, used, and written about a large number of highlighting/annotation tools. At some point, one tool and service begins to seem very much like every other. Still, developers continue to create new, but similar products. I do not think most individuals need to explore each new product. I have settled on a small set of tools I use, but I continue to explore other tools mostly to make suggestions for others to consider.

I believe that most tools would work for most people, but small differences might allow some tools to match to varying degrees with different priorities. Among these priorities are the following activities:

Creation of a personal resource collection – A user wants to accumulate ideas, concepts, strategies, or examples from what has been read or watched. The tool used may have built-in capabilities to accumulate this information or be designed to export the content the tool has excerpted to another tool better suited to long-term organization, manipulation, and retrieval.
Social annotation – A user may want a tool suited to the implementation of a collaborative reading and annotation process. Value is found in the identification of useful content that has not been read or the comparison of significant elements several individuals have identified in the same source.
Scaffolded reading – An educator or expert adds elements to a document or video to assist learners or less knowledgeable individuals in processing a source of interest. In other posts, I have described this as layering in that an expert adds elements on top of topics of existing content (highlights, comments, links, questions) to encourage others to process the base content more effectively.

Weava is a Chrome extension for highlighting, annotating, and sharing comments made to web pages and PDFs. I was excited to discover it because Weava has made an effort to promote its capabilities to educators. There just seems to be more education-focused layering tools for video content and I can add Weava to the tools available for web pages. There is a free and a premium ($4 a month) version with a discount for educators. I have not used Weava with students so my experience is limited to personal web annotation.

To get started with Weava, you need to download and install the Weava extension into your Chrome browser and create an account. Weava is used in two ways. It is used while viewing a web page or PDF and it is used later to organize and work with your highlights and annotations in what is called the Dashboard. You have access to a sidebar while using Weava with a web page and you use the Dashboard when working with the content you accumulate. The Dashboard is available from https://weava.com/.

In the image below you can see the icon for Weava which has been selected while viewing the web page in the left-hand part of the image and the sidebar which displays highlights taken in the right-hand portion.

To highlight text, drag text from the document and a small palette opens showing color options. Some users use different colors to indicate different types of information. Select a color. To add a note, click the now highlighted content and another palette opens with an area for entering text.

This is the dashboard view available when you login to Weava. The dashboard allows access to the documents you have accumulated. In this case, the document described above (large window) and related highlights and annotations (middle window). The document to be displayed selected in the very left-hand window (in this case stored in the folder blog research).

Selecting a stored document to display provides one additional opportunity. The Cite button generates a citation for the source document and provides a way to copy (export) this citation. One recommended educational use of Weava is to collect of resources and to use this collection to generate some type of educational project. The citation associated with each source can be used to provide a list of resources that can accompany a completed project.

One final suggestion. Frequently, users return to their notes and highlights and find the selected information does not make as much sense as it probably did when it was selected. Clicking on the note will take a user to the location in the document associated with that note so that the full context can be reviewed.

Summary Comments

Import and export capabilities can be important to users. My personal workflow is focused on long-term storage, organization, and retrieval using Obsidian. Weava does not export to Obsidian so it is not the highlighting and annotation tool I rely on. It does export to other Personal Knowledge Management tools (e.g., Glasp). It makes the most sense to me to think of Weava as developed for specific projects a student or knowledge worker would focus on. The concept seems to be optimized for a targeted project and the search for documents (web pages and PDFs) is useful for that project. Students projects would be ideally suited to this focus as would knowledge workers who know what the goal of a specific task they have taken on would be. Second Brain or Personal Knowledge Management goals are broader and less specifically defined so other tools are probably more appropriate for those wanting a long-term less targeted accumulation of content.

Disciplinary Perspectives on Taking and Using Notes

I have found myself exploring and writing about the interrelated topics of personal knowledge management, second brains, and note-taking for the past several years. As I have spent time on these interests, it became obvious that there were multiple disciplinary perspectives on these topics. In addition, the different disciplines seem mostly oblivious to each other as indicated by the lack of cross-referencing evident in their written materials. There are sometimes references to historical connections which I will identify, but for anyone interested in these topics I would suggest there are benefits for exploring more than a single point of view.

The Perspectives

Here are the descriptive labels I have decided to use for what I claim to be different perspectives. Hopefully, the labels offer some insights into the categories I have in mind.

Academic studying – this perspective provided my personal background for this general topic. The focus of this perspective is learning in formal academic environments with the goals of the acquisition, understanding, and application of information to examinations and projects. While the general goal of education is focused on the long term and preparation for life, note-taking has a more immediate focus. I am of the opinion that the great majority of what I would describe as research is focused on topics within this category. Most of this research is based on a cognitive perspective on learning and application.
Organizational Knowledge Management – Organizations have a need to develop, preserve, and apply knowledge. For multiple practical reasons (e.g., changeover in personnel), this knowledge should be externalized for the benefit of the organization. The generation and use of this shared knowledge originate with individuals. Personal knowledge management (PKM) can be individualized or integrated with the more general needs of a given organization. Procedures for accomplishing these goals are the subject of scholarship and training in the formal programs preparing individuals for careers in organizations (e.g., business schools), but it is my impression that scholarship is less empirical than that applied by those with an academic studying perspective and more anecdotal and based in logical argumentation.
Knowledge Management Entrepreneurs – I struggled with a way to describe this perspective. It seems to me that there has been a recent and identifiable group of individuals offering self-help books and consulting expertise to those interested in Personal Knowledge Management. This category resembles the organizational knowledge management perspective but does not share the same group focus. The perspective emphasizes the collection, organization, exploration, and application of information over an extended period of time to accomplish personal goals. Of the three groups I have identified, those individuals promoting techniques and processes are the least likely engaged in what I would describe as formal scholarship.

Historical Antecedents

While not absolutely consistent, there are frequent references to similar individuals, practices, and models that can often be identified among these perspectives. Here is my own list of such sources.

Vannevar Bush’s article “As we may think” describing the manner in which individuals and organizations might use a yet-to-be-developed technology (the Memex) to take on information overload and how a knowledge worker might explore, retain, organize, and apply information.
Commonplace books are journals, diaries, or notebooks maintained by individuals. A famous historical example would be the Leonardo Di Vinci notebooks still available in different formats (Amazon source).
Luhmann’s Zettelkasten. A zettelkasten is a card-based note-taking and note-linking system now often adapted to digitization and computer applications. It did not originate with Nikolas Luhmann, but I have connected the approach with his name because his prodigious use of the system as a scholar seems the example so many use.
The encoding and external model of note-taking (e.g., Rickards & Friedman, 1978) is the basis for much of the empirical research from the academic studying perspective. It proposes that learners could possibly benefit from both the thinking required in taking notes (the encoding process) and/or by having an external record available for review (external storage). This basic differentiation has been applied to such topics as whether taking notes by hand is more or less effective than taking notes using a keyboard (encoding), the best ways to work with the external notes (e.g., retrieval practice), and individual differences in both what is stored and how what is stored is used. For example, the Cornell note-taking method is an example of a system for both taking and using notes.

Examples from the different perspectives

I have written extensively about a couple of these perspectives in previous posts so rather than repeat myself and increase the length of this post I will link to some of these earlier posts.

Academic Studying – History of Note-Taking Research, Note-taking as a Generative Activity, Cornell Notes and Beyond
Organizational Knowledge Management – this perspective is a little more challenging as I have not written about it before. Here is a source you can explore without having journal access – Towards a Co-evolution of Organizational and Personal Knowledge Management Systems. Also see Pauleen (2009) – this is the introduction to a special issue on personal knowledge management.
Knowledge Management Entrepreneurs – Creating, Storing, and Using Smart Notes, Evaluating Tech Tools for Adults

Why consideration of the different perspectives might be useful?

Having asked you to recognize the multiple perspectives that I have identified, I owe you some explanation for why I think anyone interested in taking notes should expand their awareness of the background content available on this topic. I have found a couple of personal opportunities. First, the work from the perspective of academic studying has been far more carefully evaluated and useful in answering questions of why and if specific activities work. The knowledge management entrepreneurs offer specific “how to do it” suggestions and have strongly promoted the use of technology tools in PKM. The organizational knowledge management perspective extends the note-taking and PKM for life-long learning expanding core ideas beyond the academic classroom setting.

The links I provide here should open to many other resources on the perspectives I have identified.

References not linked

Pauleen, David (2009), “Personal knowledge management: putting the ‘person’ back into the knowledge equation”, Online Information Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 221–224, doi:10.1108/14684520910951177.

Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3(2), 136-143.

Could AI Replace Many of the Recommended PKM Processes?

How much of the “building” part of building a second brain is necessary? With the opportunity to direct AI at accumulated resources, how much of the linking, tagging, reviewing, and re-expressing notes is productive? Some version of this question has long bothered me. I studied classroom note-taking as an academic and became familiar with the massive research base associated with different ways to take and use notes, the cognitive and metacognitive processes associated with activities in different note-taking approaches, and individual differences in the capacity and motivation to execute specific processes effectively. While there is a great deal of speculation, multiple books, and the sharing of numerous personal processes in online posts, where is the research on PKM and Second Brains? The research on learners taking and using notes in academic settings may offer a general structure, however there would seem important differences in the use of self-directed note-taking outside of an environment that involves processes that must accomplish goals set by others to produce products or perform tasks after short time intervals (the time between exams or writing assignments).

The terminology is different. You do not find classroom-oriented research considering fleeting versus permanent notes or the ideal types of tags and links to organize notes and prepare the user for future goals and tasks that often do not exist when the notes are taken. I try to translate the proposed strategies outlined in popular books for the audience that takes notes to benefit them under these circumstances (Ahrens, Doto, and Forte). Can the research on generative cognitive processes, metacognitive comprehension monitoring, and retrieval practice serve to determine if the recommendations made by these writers are reasonable? Perhaps the strategies for creating different types of notes (fleeting vs. permanent), strategies for linking and tagging, and reviewing to find new associations are just busy work.

Does AI provide an alternative?

MEM.AI was the first note-taking and storage tool I used that came with an embedded AI tool. The promotional material I read before investing time and money into MEM proposed that the availability of the embedded AI offered an alternative to the tags and links in a tool such as Obsidian. MEM.AI allows the manual assignment of something similar to tags and bi-directional links. The embedded AI did a couple of interesting things. As you built up a collection of notes, the AI offered suggestions based on the material you have accumulated. Similar notes were identified based on common elements of a new note and existing notes (see red box in the following image). You could link to suggested notes if you found the suggestions of value. Tags for a new note were proposed beyond any rags that were manually added (see red box in the following image) and any of these suggestions can be accepted. I have recently written about multiple ways note-taking systems can be augmented with AI, but MEM.AI is built with some of these processes assumed rather than potentially available through the creation of clever prompts. MEM.AI proposes that it creates a self-organizing workspace which seems a reasonable description.

MEM.AI has one more unique feature that seems a powerful use of the self-organizing workspace concept. There is a built-in word-processing capability called Smart Write. When you enter a forward slash / within any existing note or within an empty note, you can then enter a chat prompt. You can ask a question or make a request. With an existing note, the AI extends what already exists in what are often interesting and creative ways relying on what appears in the note you are working on and the corpus of notes you have saved. The output appears within that note and can be copied and pasted elsewhere or left as part of that note. It can be argued that this is a way to discover connections to other material more directly than what might have been manually indicated by creating a link to another specific note.

Here is an example.

The following (Permanentnotes) is a note I created with two tags. What you can no longer see is the / and prompt that was originally inserted after the second tag. The prompt entered after the / was “Does my idea that permanent notes move more of the thinking involved in transforming notes into a final written product earlier in that writing process make sense?” Smart Write added three paragraphs based on other stored notes.These paragraphs now appear in the original note (shown below). Not all of this content seems relevant, but connections were discovered and much of what was said could be used in writing about this concept. These additions were all based on previous content I added, but I did not have to manually find these connections.

Permanentnotes

This is a key insight. Permanent notes should be able to stand alone without reference to the original content for context. Perhaps it could be described as moving part of the writing process earlier in the transition from note-taking to a final written product.

#notetaking

#slipbox

Your thought about moving part of the writing process earlier in the transition from note-taking to a final writing product indeed makes sense and aligns with the ideas presented in the writing process model by Flower and Hayes (1981). The model emphasizes the importance of planning as a foundational step in effective writing, which involves setting goals, gathering information, and organizing ideas. By integrating permanent notes into this early stage, you essentially create a structured framework that facilitates the translation and reviewing phases of writing.

The approach of using permanent notes, akin to the slip-box system described by Ahrens, enhances this framework by allowing writers to develop a rich, interconnected repository of ideas and insights. This repository acts as an external structure that compensates for the cognitive limitations of the human brain, making it easier to retrieve and connect ideas when composing a draft. The slip-box method encourages a shift from merely capturing fleeting thoughts to actively engaging with and refining those ideas into coherent, stand-alone pieces of information.

Furthermore, this method aligns with the iterative nature of the writing process. As notes are continually reviewed and expanded, they can reveal gaps in understanding or suggest new lines of inquiry, prompting further research and reflection. This iterative engagement not only aids in the development of writing skills but also fosters deeper learning and insight generation, as noted by Ahrens. Thus, your suggestion to reposition part of the writing process earlier, in the context of note-taking and idea organization, is a strategic move that can significantly enhance both the efficiency and quality of writing.

Summary

I would argue that AI capabilities can substitute for or at least augment manual processes advocated by those arguing tags and links are an essential part of the Personal Knowledge Management process. To some extent, I have found the capabilities of the MEM self-organizing workspace to be more thorough in proposing connections than I would typically be on my own.

This brings me to an issue I consider in many applications of AI. This issue is whether the AI approach allows the user to avoid important activities that are important in and of themselves. Perhaps both the manual and AI approaches here allow a note-taker to produce comparable final written products if that was the goal. Whether the activities of exploring notes to make appropriate links and adding tags that identify key ideas encourage deeper thinking about the content seems a different issue. Again, this is difficult to know. One might make the opposite argument claiming that reviewing the text generated by the AI offers a different way to explore and find relationships within existing content and the process of considering what within this new material is relevant to the intended purpose of the prompt is a unique evaluative activity performed by the user. As I have already suggested, MEM.AI does not require that you take one approach or the other. So, explore. AI capabilities are being added to many note-taking tools and the potential is worth a look.

Desirable Difficulty

Despite a heavy focus on cognitive psychology in the way I researched and explained classroom study tactics, I had not encountered the phrase desirable difficulty until I became interested in the handwritten vs. keyboard notetaking research. I discovered the idea when reviewing studies by Luo and colleagues and Mueller and Oppenheimer. Several studies have claimed students are better off taking notes by hand in comparison to on a laptop despite being able to record information significantly faster when using a keyboard.

Since having a more complete set of notes would seem an advantage. The combination of more notes associated with poorer performance is counterintuitive. Researchers speculated that learners who understood they had to make decisions about what they had time to record selected information more carefully and possibly summarized rather than recorded verbatim what they heard. This focus on what could be described as deeper processing seemed like an example of desirable difficulty. The researchers also proposed that the faster keyboard recording involved shallow cognitive processing.

Note: I am still a fan of more complete notes and the methodology used when demonstrating better performance from recording notes by hand needs to be carefully considered. I will comment on my argument more at the end of this post.

Desirable difficulty an idea attributed to Robert Bjork has been used to explain a wider variety of retention phenomena. Bjork suggested that retrieval strength and storage strength are distinct phenomena and learners can be misled when an approach to learning is evaluated based on retrieval strength. I find these phrases to a bit confusing as applied, but I understand the logic. Students cramming for an exam make a reasonable example. Cramming results in what may seem to be successful learning (retrieval strength), but results in poorer retention over an extended period of time (storage storage strength). Students may understand and accept the disadvantages of cramming so it is not necessary that the distinction be unrecognized by learners. In a more recent book on learning for the general public, Daniel Willingham suggests that the brain is really designed to avoid rather than embrace thinking because thinking is effortful. The human tendency is to rely on memory rather than thinking. Desirable difficulty may be a way to explain why some situations that require thinking prevent something more rote.

Increasing difficulty to improve retention

There are multiple tactics for productively increasing difficulty that I tend to group under the heading of generative learning. I describe generative activities as external tasks intended to increase the probability of productive cognitive (mental) behaviors. I suppose desirable difficulty is even more specific differentiating external tasks along a difficulty dimension. So in the following list of tasks, it is useful to imagine more and less difficult tasks. Often the less difficult task is the option learners choose to apply. In connecting these tactics with personal experience, I would recommend you consider the use of flashcards to conceptualize what would be the easier and the more challenging application. Then, move beyond flashcards to other study tactics and consider if you can identify similar contrasts.

Retrieval Practice: Testing oneself on the material rather than passively reviewing notes is considered retrieval practice. The classic empirical demonstration of the retrieval practice or the testing effect compared reviewing content versus responding to questions. Even when controlling for study time, spending some time on questions was superior. With the flashcard applications I recommended you consider, answering multiple-choice questions would be less challenging than answering short-answer questions (recognition vs recall).

Spacing (Distributed Practice): Instead of cramming, spreading out study sessions over time is more productive. This method helps improve long-term retention and understanding. Spacing allows some retrieval challenges to develop and the learner must work harder to locate the desired information in memory. See my earlier description of Bjork’s distinction between retrieval strength and storage strength.

Interleaving: Mixing different types of problems or subjects in one study session. For example, alternating between math problems and reading passages rather than focusing on one at a time. A simple flashcard version of this recommendation might be shuffling the deck between cycles through the deck. Breaking up the pattern of the review task increases the difficulty and requires greater cognitive effort.

Other thoughts

First, the concept of committing to more challenging tasks is broader than the well researched examples I provide here. Writing and teaching could be considered examples in that both tasks require an externalization of knowledge that is both generative and evaluative. It is too easy to fake it and make assumptions when the actual creation of a product is not required.

Second, desirable difficulty seems to me to be a guiding principle that does not explain all of the actual cognitive mechanisms that are involved. The specific mechanisms may vary with activity – some might be motivational, some evaluative (metacomprehension), and some at the level of basic cognitive activities. For example, creating retrieval challenges probably creates an attempt to find alternate or new connections among stored elements of information. For example, in trying to put a name with a face one might attempt to remember the circumstances in which you may have met or worked with this person and this may activate a connection you do not typically use and is not automatic. For example, after being retired for 10 years and trying to remember the names of coworkers, I sometimes remember the arrangement of our offices working my way down the appropriate hallway and this sometimes helps me recall names.

I did say I was going to return to the use of desirable difficulty as a justification for the advantage of taking notes by hand. If keyboarding allows faster data entry than handwriting, in theory keyboarding would allow more time for thinking, paraphrasing, and whatever advantage one would have when the recording method requires more time. Awareness and commitment would seem to be the issues here. However, I would think complete notes would have greater long-term value than sparse notes. One always has the opportunity to think while studying and a more complete set of notes would seem to provide the opportunity to have more external content to work with.

References:

Bjork, R.A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science, 46(6), 947-971.

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 25(6), 1159-1168.

Willingham, D. T. (2021). Why don’t students like school?: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.

YouTube Annotation with Glasp

I take a lot of notes and have done so for years. I have tried many different tools over this time period. Social Annotation is a subcategory of these tools that allows users to share their highlights and notes. The idea is that the sharing of notes allows individuals to find resources they have not personally explored and offer their own discoveries to others. Glasp serves these purposes.

I have written about Glasp on several previous occasions. A unique capability allows built-in AI capabilities to “chat” not only with your own notes, but also the annotations stored by others.

Glasp is a combination of a Profile page that is the online location allowing access to the content you have collected (see above) and a browser extension that provides the means to highlight and annotate the content viewed within your browser. Kindle content is imported automatically. Glasp could provide the storage location for all of your notes, but I export notes to Obsidian to take advantage of more advanced features.

I don’t spend a lot of time collecting information from Youtube because most of writing is based on books and journal articles. There are exceptions when I review tutorials for software tools and want to keep track of specific tactics. I understand that others use YouTube extensively and I wanted to explore the capabilities of Glasp with this information source. The following video is my effort to describe how notes and highlights are generated from YouTube content.