Category: Digital notes

There seems to be a great deal of interest in note-taking. I say this from the perspective of an academic who has been interested in note-taking since the 1970s. The present interest seems to come from two distinct directions. Technology has played a role in both areas of interest. First, there is the focus on personal knowledge management (PKM). This focus recognizes the role knowledge plays in many occupations and proposes that technology can be used to store and organize ideas one encounters so that these ideas can contribute in the future. Associated with this perspective is the idea that technology can be used to build a second brain offloading the less-than-ideal efforts of memory to a technology-enabled environment that can be consulted when ideas and insights generated earlier might be useful. 

The second perspective comes from the educational perspective more familiar to me and questions whether notes and annotations related to learning experiences (listening to presentations and reading educational materials) are best processed via paper or screen. As a college learner, you likely took notes in class and highlighted and annotated your textbooks. Now that we carry laptops and tablets to class and read ebooks as an option to traditional textbooks, does it matter if we annotate and take notes on paper or screen?

Those seeking to guide note-taking given these options frequently reference existing research to offer advice. As someone who has reviewed the research in this general area for decades, I sometimes disagree with how the research findings are interpreted. By interpreted I mean that the results of studies are based on the data collected, but more importantly constrained by the methodologies that were used to generate the data and the topics that methodologies best address. Simple conclusions such as “notes taken in a notebook by hand are best” may accurately describe the result of a specific study but may be misleading if generalized to an applied setting that offers a different set of expectations and different options for behavior.

I have been trying to imagine how best to explain the complexities that are involved in translating the note research to applied settings. I have decided I can offer several questions that can be asked of the research and explain why the answers are likely to strongly influence how the results of research should be applied. 

 Will I be allowed to review my notes?

This may seem a silly question, but I include it because researchers may conduct research not allowing that the notes taken be reviewed because of the question the researchers are asking. Most of us take notes because we want to have something to review before we take an exam or before we take some other action requiring an assist to memory (e.g., what was I going to get at the store). Research on taking notes tends to be based on a theoretical model proposing two hypothetical benefits to taking notes. First, notes offer an external storage mechanism. We can review notes. This use is obvious. Second, taking notes may help us process information when the information is first encountered (while we listen or while we first read). Often called a generative function, the idea is that taking notes is an active way to pay attention or think about ideas as they are encountered and this focus or interpretation may not happen if note-taking was not involved. 

In most of the applied settings in which we take notes both generative and external storage benefits are probably involved, but researchers find value in using a methodology that isolates the potential benefits of each benefit. Often, the focus is on differences in how notes might be taken to maximize the generative effect. For example, because most of us can type faster than we can write by hand, notes taken using a keyboard tend to be more complete. This capability to record more complete notes using a keyboard leads to a surprising consequence. If a study compares what is remembered/understood after taking notes using laptops versus paper notebooks and no review is allowed, many results show that retention is better when taking notes by hand. The logic used to explain these results suggests that learners must think more carefully when they can record less information (handwritten notes) and this selectivity results in a more active type of processing generating better understanding/retention. 

Some use such results to conclude we should continue taking notes with pen and paper. Educators might not allow students to take notes using a laptop. However, does this really make sense? Most actual applications of note-taking involve the intent to have a quality set of notes to review/study. How often would we take notes and then discard the notes on the way out of the classroom assuming the benefit of the notes has been achieved? 

So, when research is offered arguing taking notes on paper is superior to taking notes using a computer, review the methodology to see if participants were allowed to study the notes they took. 

Who am I taking notes for?

There may be a better way to phrase this question, but my intent is to draw a distinction that involves who has decided what is important to know and retain. With PKM, notes are intended to serve a future purpose typically determined by the note taker. I take notes because I think the information may be useful in a future writing project. Others might take different notes on the same material because they foresee the notes serving a different purpose. 

The research focused on student study behavior involves a different situation. In such situations, the instructor will create some assessment approach and the learner is preparing as best they can for this assessment. They may try to predict what should be emphasized, but they are in a situation in which complete representation of the ideas in the content presented is the best strategy.  Hence research that demonstrates a given approach (keyboarding) allows a more complete record, might be the type of research that is of greatest value.

Can I control the pace of the input?

Taking notes from an audio or video presentation and from a static source such as a book or web page have several obvious differences. One that is particularly important is the pace of the input. A static source can be studied at whatever pace the reader applies. A source that changes requires that the viewer/listener keep up.

Human cognition has a built-in bottleneck that is important to recognize. Cognitive researchers refer to this bottleneck as short-term memory or working memory. Working memory has both capacity and duration limits. Translated this means each of us has the capacity to be aware of only so much at one time and what we are aware of will slip from awareness unless we concentrate our attention on this information. Both limitations come into play when the source for information is constantly changing. Activities such as thinking and note-taking both take time and require that we hold what we are thinking about and consume awareness in holding this information. Meanwhile, the input continues to roll along offering new information that is either ignored or substituted for the information that is presently being considered. Perhaps it is fair to conclude that taking notes from a static page and an ongoing lecture exert different demands and require different decisions. When you decide to record a note from a lecture you are risking missing something and this is not the case when you can return to a printed page when you want. 

The difference between taking notes from a dynamic and a static source interact with other variables I have already mentioned. For example, if recording notes from a keyboard is easier than with pen and paper, the decision to use a keyboard probably has greater consequences when listening/watching a dynamic input. 

Here is one related advantage of tech for note taking many do not realize exists. There are several apps that allow an input to be recorded while notes are being taken (see my review of SoundNote). Such apps link the notes to locations in the recorded sound. When reviewing such notes and encountering something that seems confusing, the linked audio can be replayed offering the note-taker a second chance. Other useful strategies can also be applied. For example, if you know while taking notes you do not understand or missed something you can simply enter a cue in your notes – perhaps ???? – and use this prompt to review the confusing audio at a later time. 

Is annotation of the source allowed?

This question applies to text inputs and typically to K12 settings. Often learners in this setting are not allowed to annotate/highlight the content they are asked to read. You are not allowed to mark up your textbook. Magically when you get to college and purchase your textbooks, study tactics are allowed you did not practice in high school. 

Again, technology changes this situation at all levels of education. eBooks can be annotated and highlighted because the ebook itself is not passed on from class to class. The eBook environment also allows a form of note-taking that is more flexible than that which can be added in the margins of a page. The amount of information that can be included in a note is greater and the note itself may contain elements such as web links that are not realistic additions in the margins.

Is there an activity assumed to happen between recording and application?

One final distinction between the types of note-taking that happen in experiments and the way notes can be used in applied situations concerns when and how frequently notes are reviewed after creation. Study skill experts sometimes recommend both multiple reviews of the notes taken and reviews designed to accomplish specific goals. For example, if a student reviews the notes taken soon after the initial exposure to the information that was presented, the student typically still has a memory for the context of the presentation and content not necessarily recorded in notes taken during class. Reviewing notes at this point in time allows an upgrade to the notes and the review itself positively impacts achievement when understanding must be demonstrated. 

There are related opportunities when note use is understood to allow more than simple review. For example, there has been great interest in collaborative notes or expert notes as a way to enhance the notes taken by individuals. Efforts by those developing technology-enhanced approaches to PKM are even exploring the use of artificial intelligence to identify notes on similar concepts generated by others. 

Conclusion

My goal in identifying the issues that appear above is to help readers understand that the note-taking and external knowledge representation field is more complicated and interesting than one might assume. It is easy to be misled if one seizes on the conclusions of single experiments if one does not carefully analyze the methodology that was used to generate the data leading to the conclusions of the researchers. 

I have been reading content focused on the role technology can play in enhancing human productivity. Among the works I have reviewed is a 2012 book by Marc Prensky titled “Brain Gain”. Prensky is clearly a technology optimist and argues the need to counter all of the negativity one encounters from authors encouraging readers to focus on the negative (e.g., The Dumbest Generation; The Shallows; Alone Together). Prensky suggests that the negativity must be interpreted within a broader context (breadth of perspective) and with the understanding that it takes some time to learn how best to apply any new technology.

In an effort to apply these ideas myself and to update the application of these suggestions to a more recent controversy, I find myself thinking about the concerns of those who investigate the difference between reading from paper and the screen and the recommendation of these researchers for classroom practice. While there are a few researchers who push back and the mechanisms differentiating the two means of text processing have yet to be consistently identified, I think it fair to summarize the present position of “most” is that reading from a screen is inferior. I can generate all kinds of limitations I see in the existing research and assumptions associated with the findings, but such an analysis is not the focus of this post. I find Prensky’s recommendation that the breadth of perspective be considered useful and an interesting way to explain my general argument in support of digital reading.

My argument – A) Adults learn from reading from a device so educators should be preparing learners for this future and B) the type of learning adults do works better when reading with the benefit of technology. 

Most of the research I have reviewed compares screen and paper reading experiences within a very limited time frame and with a specific immediate dependent variable. In other words, learners read the same text either from paper or screen (or both in a within participants methodology) and then complete some assessment of understanding. Ignoring all uncontrolled variables that may be relevant, let’s just say that there is a benefit for reading from paper. 

Even in a school context past the early grade emphasis on learning to read, this is not really how reading text is applied. Learning to read morphs into reading to learn and learning implies the use of understanding at a later point in time. Various ways of describing this transition may be useful. One that is pretty straightforward is exposure versus study. Expanding the perspective on the use of newly acquired information really recognizes that exposure is not assumed to be the end of the process and students perhaps in interaction with the teacher and classmates will continue to process newly acquired information to assure understanding, retention, and application. A simple flow of processes might suggest – exposure, understanding, storage, retrieval, and processing for application. 

Paper vs. screen is not applied in evaluating which approach is better for this flow. Most adults engage while in the stage of exposure with additional processes such as highlighting and note-taking. Notes may be added in the margins or separately. Most K12 students are not allowed to highlight and generate marginalia even though adults commonly do this while reading from paper. If you have read other posts I have written, you probably realize where this is now going. Technology offers opportunities for storage, search, and exploration of ideas that cannot easily be duplicated with paper (even notebooks). Once you add in the life skills needed to accumulate personal content across long periods of time and to combine inputs from multiple sources sometimes needing to resolve inconsistencies, I hope you can see that the skills we are focusing on, certainly in k12 and perhaps even in higher education, ignore the power of the digital representation of what has been identified during exposure, the continued personalization of what has been identified as meaningful summarizes, the opportunity to store such personalizations and link them to personalized insights from other sources identified at other times, and the retrieval of individual insights and connections of insights when what has been learned can be useful. 

We may have yet to meet Prensky’s second goal (i.e., understand how best to apply new technological tools), but even our existing strategies (storage of information summaries and insights as notes) can easily be improved by taking digital notes while reading/listening and reviewing these notes (e.g., SoundNote for notes for listening). Refinements in how these digital tools will be used in education will require experience that will follow introduction to students and extended student use. My point – it is time to start exploring in classroom settings. 

My previous posts on digital notes.

Prensky, M. (2012). _Brain gain: Technology and the quest for digital wisdom_. St. Martin’s Press.

Internet tools frequently allow social features such as resource sharing. This post focuses on Memex 2.0 (computer) and Memex Go (phone/tablet). These tools offer an environment for social note-taking and resource sharing. At this time, you can sign up for a free account with the expectation that when fully developed the service will be subscription based. When you explore the resource, you will be asked if you want to commit $150 to the project. This investment which I decided to make is to be applied to extend coverage once the subscription model applies. The explanation for this approach is described as avoiding the need to rely on venture capital which I assume is supposed to give the company greater flexibility in the long run.

Memex works great as a personal social bookmarking and annotation tool, but also allows control of social sharing allowing groups/teams to share resources. The tool also allows sharing publicly. After explaining how this tool works, I will share several collections of resources I have created. You don’t need to add Memex as an extension to view these resources. The capability to create collections (called Spaces in Memes) that can be viewed using any browser represents a convenience educators can apply to sharing with students. For students to collaborate, everyone would have to first add the extension before contributing to a group resource collection project. 

Using Memes 2.0

On a computer, Memex 2.0 is an extension you add to a browser. The icon to activate it appears in the icon bar at the top of your browser (see red box). When you select this icon, the drop-down shown below appears. “Search Memex” opens the view shown in the next image and allows access to the resources you have stored and the opportunity to find specific resources through search. If you are trying to add a new bookmark, you activate Memex when you have reached the page you want to bookmark on your browser. You then activate Memex with the Memex icon from the menubar and then select “Bookmark this page”.

With Memex activated, selecting a text within the content being viewed within a browser brings up the options for highlighting the selected text or adding a note.

The following page appears in your browser when you use the “Search Memex” option. At the top of this display, any text entered in the green box will display those stored resources containing the search term. The rest of the display consists of three columns. The column on the left contains general controls and the list of “spaces” you have created. Spaces are collections and any given resource can be assigned to multiple spaces. The collection of bookmarks associated with a Space is retrieved when selecting a Space listed in the left column.

The central column contains the stored bookmarks. A given bookmark allows access to the original page with any embedded highlights or annotations. Each bookmark indicates the Spaces to which a bookmark has been assigned.

The column on the right displays the highlights and annotations that are associated with a selected bookmark. The small speech bubble appearing within a given bookmark (see red box in the third bookmark) controls access to the display of the isolated highlights and annotations.

At the top of the third column is an icon that determines whether the isolated content is public or private and an icon that allows the isolated content to be exported.

Individual entries among those isolated can be exported in multiple formats (below). As an example, I sometimes enter a note in Memex that I know I want to add to Obsidian. I select the Markdown options so that the content will be exported with the format to incorporate a link that preserves the context for the note or highlight, the title. and the highlight or annotation. This content is copied when one of the markdown options is selected and then pasted into the desired location. In my case, I open a note in Obsidian and then paste this content. See what this looks like in the following image.

This is a note in Obsidian showing content pasted from Memex. Obsidian expects information added to make use of markdown.

Memex 2.0 is a social service. So content entered by one individual can be provided to others. Memex content can be shared directly to the Memex installed by someone else or in a format for public viewing within any browser. As I mentioned earlier, the approach intended for general viewing would be the approach I would expect an educator to use to share a collection of resources to colleagues or students. As a demonstration, I included the links to some of my own spaces.

Shared resource Spaces

Book Notes

Coding 

Mastery 

Note-taking 

School gardens 

I promised I would offer some examples of ways to teach annotation and note-taking. Here is an example of an experience that Cohen called “sideways” reading. Within the literature focused on dealing with online misinformation, I have heard it more commonly called lateral reading. I propose an activity that focuses on two skills: identification of key ideas and cross-resource investigation of these ideas. These two skills are implemented through highlighting, online search, annotation, and linking. The learning experience requires that students are assigned a reading and are then asked to highlight the key ideas from this resource and then engage in online search to extend their understanding of these ideas. If the focus is on resource evaluation, the online search would focus on determining if key claims are verified in other resources focused on the same issue.

The tool I recommend for this activity is the free version of Evernote. Evernote is a versatile tool that allows the clipping of online content, the annotation of saved content, and the sharing of any annotated material. I am using Evernote in this example as a browser extension.

Web content is “clipped” to Evernote by activating Evernote from the iconbar while viewing the desired web page in the browser. For this activity, I find the “simplified” version option most useful. The intent is to concentrate on the text and this option eliminates other parts of the browser display that are not part of the core article.

When you open the clipped content in Evernote, you have access to tools for acting on the original material. I have used the highlighter to highlight in three colors – red for what I decided was the key idea from the document, yellow for other important information, and pink to identify links I have added based on my lateral reading. Evernote allows me to add text which I have enclosed in brackets and then I have linked this text to the articles I found in my search for information I thought might improve my understanding of the content. For this example, I selected an article on the teacher shortage because I thought educators might find this to be an interesting topic.

Finally, the share button (see image above) allows me to send the composite of the original and my annotations to others. I would have students submit their work in an email, but I am sharing the link below so you can see what a composite document would look like.

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s2/sh/9b1da985-8e52-459b-acf3-572da920608b/179f6e93d405755d0f8365ae4fec1e7d

Cohn, J. (2021). Skim, dive, surface: Teaching digital reading. West Virginia University Press.

One could easily get the idea that recent proposals for “a second brain” or “smart notetaking” and related implementation tools such as Obsidian or Roam represent radical innovations for using technology to extend human cognition. This is not the case and after thinking about the recent interest in such concepts and tools I am left wondering why there has been such a lull in the development and implementation of such ideas.

I trace my own interest in similar ideas to reading Vannevar Bush’s Atlantic article As we may think and his proposal for a device for augmenting cognition he called a memex (if you search for memex you may find that others are not trying to implement some of his ideas). Steve Jobs proposed that the personal computer could serve as a “bicycle for the mind” noting that when using the technology of a bicycle a human could drastically increase their speed of movement.

I good source for some of these early ideas can be found in Howard Rheingold’s Tools for Thought (1985). Rheingold sat for a recent interview talking about Tools for thought and even noting links to more recent tools for augmented cognition. If you unfamiliar with this history and interested in the topic, I encourage your attention to Rheingold’s comments.