Digital notes – Page 7 – Learning Aloud

AI augmented thinking

I have become quite interested in the history of attempts to use technology to support personal productivity. Rather than begin at the stage of visionary speculation (e.g., Vannevar Bush’s Memex), I will use my own history of using digital technology to generate written products. A point to consider from the beginning of this description – what follows depends on my own recollection of the features of the digital tools I have used which may be incomplete or flawed. I am more certain of the chronology of tools.

Most of my academic work involved reading what others had already written and using my understanding of these inputs to guide my own research and writing. In a career that covered 40+ years, this involved reviewing hundreds of books and thousands of journal articles in order to produce a number of research articles, a couple of books, and more recently thousands of blog posts. Technology played a role of even my early writing if you count learning a markup language that was used to generate a dissertation initially stored on 80 column computer cards. Let’s ignore the next decade or so and skip ahead to time associated with the availability of the personal computer.

I would like to focus on what has come to be described as a second brain. My early research interest in classroom note taking has always caused me to use the description of “external storage” which was accurate at the time, but now seems too narrow. I now see the use of digital tools as striving for more than just storage. I don’t like term second brain because the phrase is too ambiguous. I think in terms of a verb – externalization. Digital tools may result in an internal record, but getting to what is stored externally is also important and understanding the value of the process or work flow enabled by digital tools is very important. This work flow is also external.

Looking back and looking forward

In preparing my comments on this topic, I have considered several ways to explain both my personal experiences and how I see progress in using technology to facilitate knowledge accumulation and the creative process. Looking back and looking forward popped into my head as a way to explain an important aspect of how the use of technology has evolved within this domain.

In my own career, my early work typically began with general reading of books and academic journals. There were certain topics I emphasized, but I knew it was wise to at least broaden what I read to topics I might cover in the classes I taught. In this exploration, I took notes on what I decided was useful and/or important information. Once in a while, I encountered an idea that really intrigued me and I wanted to make certain I would add to the topics I talked about with students or perhaps I wanted to incorporate into my research and writing activities.

These more unique discoveries often motivated me to look back. The author typically offered an idea I thought was important, but also tied it back in some way to ideas recorded in other documents. To be cited, these earlier documents were older. I used the reference section of the document I was reading to identify these sources and could then locate and read the documents published at an earlier date. This process might continue through several iterations until I either ran out of time or the historical content seemed less useful.

Looking back enabled a certain kind of linking. It helped me see how ideas built on other ideas and often how ideas diverged as new information was discovered. The literature itself has built in linkages and by following these connections I could built my own understanding and sometimes generate an external representation of this understanding.

The limitation of looking back while helpful was that it did allow an easy way to look forward. I could make crude efforts such as trying to find newer work the authors I read had generated, but this was not an easy process. If you are familiar with Google Scholar, you are familiar with a technological innovation that allows a form of looking forward. Google Scholar accumulates the citations from published work and provides a list of articles that cite an article you target with a search. This collection of citations offers a way to consider how work that follows the searched article used the information in the article you identified. What applications were attempted and how did they work? What limitations were considered and were these limitations proven to be valid. Have some of the core ideas been extended in useful ways? Now, I had to do the work of reading the new material I thought might be informative and often draw my own connections and conclusions, but at least the web of citations Google Scholar makes available is a way to start.

A twist on my way of thinking might be understand this as a social system. It is not a purposeful system as might be involved when a group of individuals works with each other to contribute to a summary valued by all. There are now digital tools for such efforts. It is simply a way to cross reference connections others have observed.

Technology-enabled discovery functions involving methods beyond the example of looking forward I have just described are the area in which I see most innovation occurring.

Technology supported thinking

Supported is the key word here. We still do the thinking, but technology can allow supports that compensate for some important limitations of the cognitive system. Retrieval makes a good example. We often know things were are unable to recall when information would be useful. The search features of technology tools often can substitute for our own efforts at retrieval.

The developments I want to describe can be understood as the evolution of reference managers. By evolution, I mean tools originally designed to store, organize, search, and export the citations stored as references have become much more and now have become external environments within which the user can think by discovering new information to expand how existing ideas are understood and gain understanding by summarizing and speculating about what others have proposed.

A technological reference manager was originally a way to store references either by the entry or importing of citations. Once entered, references could be augmented by tags, annotations, and perhaps the abstract of the original document and connections to the full document as a pdf. Having this content in a digital format allows retrieval by search and the surfacing of other stored documents containing the same search phrase or tag. Aside from the value of just having such information in a form allowing easy retrieval, reference managers saved users a lot of work by allowing citations to be output in a format that could be used as a reference section for written outputs. As an example, I used EndNote for many years. I don’t mean to imply that EndNote is a primitive reference manager as tools of this type have become more powerful over time.

I would argue that an important extension of such reference managers occurred when the tools encouraged users to write earlier. If you consider the role of tools in the process of moving beyond storage and retrieval more toward personal application, writing earlier means that a tool is used closer in time to the original exposure (reading, listening) to record personal insights, interpretations and possible applications. So, I might collect references over many years in anticipation of eventually using the sources in writing something original. Rather that wait until I want to write something to review and then trying to find ideas in my digital database of resources, I now create summaries of my ideas upon initial reading which may make later application of the content still embedded in multiple documents (perhaps highlighted) much more efficient. When I am initially reading something, the context is right there making it easier to personalize ideas I might have. I cannot necessarily anticipate how ideas will eventually be used but I can avoid much of the time and effort required to reread what might or might not be useful to get to the point of reactivating an understanding of a primary source. There is also cognitive value in generating personal summaries for understanding and transfer and while such summaries could be stored external to the type of tools I am describing here, connecting such summaries with the citation and pdfs offers some advantages for retrieval and contextualization.

I use the following tools to add annotations, notes, and highlighting to pdfs (both are Apple tools). There are many similar tools.

Bookends

Highlights

I extract some of my summarizations and organize them in Obsidian.

Discovery seems to be moving to AI

I would recommend any of the tools I have mentioned to anyone wanting to keep track of useful sources they have discovered. I am now going to describe some opportunities that are attempts to extend the cognitive benefits of what I have described using artificial intelligence (AI).

When I described Google Scholar as forward looking, I was describing a service that identifies other sources that are related in some unstated way to an earlier source. What if the discovery of associated content could be identified in other ways? Our own memory often works through association. One idea makes us think of something else and sometimes noticing this connection turns out to be very useful. Perhaps it is a connection we have not considered before. The AI applications I am describing here attempt to do something similar. As I understand the process, the AI creates summaries that are stored and then attempts to locate similarities across other generated summaries. In some of these cases I have explored, the units of association are smaller than an entire document. You can read a summary of one approach and determine if my interpretation is at least close. Such possible connections may exist unnoticed in summaries you have already stored yourself or perhaps in summaries generated by others working on the same issue. Once discovered, you can consider the possible connection and determine if you think there is something valuable in the relationships you explore.

Here are some of the efforts using AI I have been exploring. It is too early for me to offer personal comments about the usefulness of these tools as effective use would seem to require I create a significant amount of stored content the systems can use to identify connections.

DevonThink

Mem X

Semantic scholar/reader

These examples are available for exploration. Mem X strikes me as something I might pay to use ($10 a month) after an exploration phase. The Mem X note-taking app has an advanced feature called smart search that allows what the developers call serendipity. The purpose of this feature which seems the main differentiator from the free Mem is this capability of knowledge discovery (among teams) and rediscovery for each individual. Semantic Scholar (wikipedia description) is available now and Semantic Reader is under development with some examples available for exploration.

One final comment. The final tools I list and the more general common on AI refer to tools that support the work of thinking. The distinction between support and thinking itself is important. I doubt that traditional sresearch will surface evaluating the value of such support. Unlike the work I studied years ago that evaluated the value of taking notes (the generative function) and external storage (the value of consulting these notes at a later time), the value of suggested relationships among ideas would be difficult to investigate in a controlled fashion. This is likely to be a topic that will rely on anecdotal reports from those trying something out and if the reported experience is positive the investment of time to see if the tool is helpful to you. I don’t think we are really to the point yet that even the anecdotal recommendations are really available. My purpose is proposing that such tools and the related explorations by individuals are underway. You can join the exploration if you are so inclined.

124 total views

Key ideas and lateral reading

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.

79 total views

Tools for thought

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.

65 total views

Annotating Newsela articles to develop deep reading skills

Many of my recent posts have focused on note-taking and annotation. These activities have long been a personal interest. New opportunities to use these strategies in a digital environment have rekindled my interest and I have been trying to find ways I can share recommendations that bring these skills into middle school and secondary school settings.

One important observation I have found in several of the sources I have read is that learners are seldom taught to take notes or annotate. There are now many researchers and educators writing about taking better notes for the implementation of a PKM (personal knowledge management) system or a second brain. The emphasis here is a little different than the emphasis that might apply in classrooms. With PKM, you are creating notes for your use that fit your personal goals. Perhaps you want to build up resources you can use in writing blog posts or perhaps you want to store specific methods for solving a coding challenge. With classroom applications of annotation, you are usually trying to process and store important ideas provided by someone else. Perhaps you are preparing for an examination or to complete some other assignment that will follow a reading task. Students may take notes from presentations, but often take few notes or add few annotations when reading. Whether experiences exist or not, the opportunities to learn to apply such learning strategies are few.

I have located several sources that propose how annotation and note-taking skills can be taught to younger learners. These primarily are focused on adding highlights and margin notes to content on paper and typically these approaches suggest that educators make copies of content from sources that students can mark up without concern for damaging resources not intended for annotation. I provide several of these sources at the conclusion of this post and encourage interested educators to take the time to read one or more of these sources. The sources provide step-by-step approaches to teach the skills of note taking and annotation.

My interest here is in proposing a digital source and opportunity for annotating and highlighting that is readily available and efficient to use. You don’t have the problem of marking up what are intended to be reusable commercial materials with digital content. Most teachers are probably familiar with Newsela. This service provides reading material for most content areas (e.g., science, current events) with the unique opportunity to assign a variation of a given article at different reading levels. This allows a teacher to individualize a reading task within a class and have all students read about the same topic. The content comes with comprehension questions and other learning activities.

The capability of the Newsela environment that I am promoting here allows the teacher and individual students to annotate (highlight, take notes). I have written about this capability some time ago and I remembered this capability when I was trying to think of something I could suggest for educators interested in teaching annotation skills in a digital environment. Newsela provides its own explanation of how to annotate text.

The annotation process in Newsela is very simple and I think that is what you want. When you drag content, you are provided an opportunity to select different colors for highlighting. When you highlight something, you are provided the opportunity to add a note to what has been selected.

Newsela also provides a way to share annotated content. Sharing is available for both educator to students and student to educator. The opportunity to assign an annotation task (e.g., highlight the main ideas in this article) and then submit the completed task for review works through sharing.

Highlighting and note-taking in Newsela are easy to figure out. I encourage educators to take a look and imagine how this capability might be applied. I provide several sources for instructional strategies below and I will try to summarize some of these ideas in a future post.

Sources:

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

Lloyd, Z. T., Kim, D., Cox, J. T., Doepker, G. M., & Downey, S. E. (2022). Using the annotating strategy to improve students’ academic achievement in social studies. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning. (early version)

Zywica, J., & Gomez, K. (2008). Annotating to support learning in the content areas: Teaching and learning science. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 155-165.

180 total views

Commonplace book

We are on a road trip so I have not really had the opportunity to generate a blog post. I was looking through my old posts and came across a connection to something I have been writing about recently. Recent comments on note taking to create a long-term, external record has involved a review of books written by Sonke Aherns (Smart Notes) and Tiago Forte (Second Brain) explained the origins of their work. Ahrens started with his study of the zettlekasten which was a box for keeping and linking notes taken on what might resemble traditional note cards. Forte started with the commonplace book which was a notebook writers would often use to copy comments from other books and record their own thoughts.

I found that I written about “commonplacing” in 2009 and decided to offer these comments again.

I have been reading Robert Darnton’s “The case for books” on Cindy’s Kindle (there is something quite ironic here, but now is not the time to explore). Tech types may immediately shy away, but Darnton has a very interesting history including working on the Google book digitization project and the commitment of Harvard to offer faculty publications in the public domain.

Anyway, The case for books is a wide ranging exploration of books, writing, authors, and reading. The historical perspective is cool. One concept I picked up is that of a Commonplace book. As I understand the concept, readers attempting to educate themselves would copy passages from various things they read into a notebook and would organize this material into categories and would include personal insights, comments and interpretations. These commonplace books sometimes ended up being published or a least saved as historical artifacts. The commonplace books of Milton, Bacon, etc. are historical treasures.

To me, this sounded very much like blogging – a few personal insights, a few embellished posts focused on the works of others, etc., copied and rearranged (with tags). These activities representing a personal commitment to exploration and always the hope that the process will result in learning or a creative insight. I thought this association was likely new for educational bloggers and it may be, but the connection between blogging and commonplacing is far from original if one searches the web ( e.g, commonplacing on the WWW).

Ahrens, S. (2017). How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking–for Students, Academics and Nonfiction Book Writers. Sönke Ahrens

Forte, T. (2022). Building a second brain: A proven method to organize your digital life and unlock your creative potential. Atria Books.

74 total views

Smart notes and useful highlighting in K12

I have been trying to decide how to bring together a couple of strands I have been exploring for several months. I tend to write for educators in the world of K12, but explore ideas and research from elsewhere. I have spent a lot of time lately examining the focus on professional or life-long learning involving personal knowledge management (PKM) / second brain uses of technology tools. You can review the posts by selecting the category for digital notes you should find in the margin of this post. Somewhat independently of this strand, I have been reviewing the content on the advantages and disadvantages of reading from paper compared with reading from a screen. Many of these posts appear within the category I have labeled digital literacy. Finally, there is the issue I have long been interested in which I might describe as who teaches what? Who teaches learners to study? Who teaches learners to highlight and annotate? Does anyone? At some point, I should make an effort to offer the K12 audience actionable recommendations. So, here is one idea.

This recommendation combines strategies recommended by Porter-O’Donnell (see reference at end) and the use of Scrible a digital note-taking and highlighting environment I described in a recent post. There are probably many options to Scrible, but it is free, useful in a group setting, and available for educators and learners.

Let me begin with Porter-O’Donnell. She teaches what I think most would be described as literature. For those reading her article, her focus is important to keep in mind as I believe her strategies generalize, but the specifics of the strategies would vary with other content areas. For example, what one might be guided to highlight and annotate when reading a classic poem or story would be different from what one would annotate or highlight when reading a chapter in a biology or history textbook. The author beings by reflecting on her own experiences. She notes that in high school she was not allowed to highlight or annotate and then was lost when entering college without such restrictions. She claims she initially highlighted far too much and without much in the way of goals. She said it took her several years to develop strategic approaches. I can identify and would add from the personal perspective of teaching a couple of very book-based, large lecture, introductory courses (Introduction to Psychology and Developmental Psychology) that effective reading skills are most deficient at a time when there is limited support for application. Students begin college taking many courses in a large lecture setting and have limited interaction with the instructor.

Porter-O’Donnell accepted the responsibility for changing this typical set of learning experiences and developed strategies to embed as part of her traditional instructional goals. She began by asking students to work with her in identifying types of information they might expect to glean from a reading assignment projected using pages on an overhead (note the date of the author’s activities as I describe them). What would be highlighted and what notes might be written in the margins. For example, one might highlight characters, setting (where and when), vocabulary, and important information. One might write in the margins – predictions, questions, summarizations, connections, and literary techniques. She then proposed making copies of pages from a story and having students apply these categories (she used symbols to differentiate) making use of highlighters, margin annotations, and sticky notes. She also created a system for after-reading follow-ups. Reread annotations and review highlights. Were predictions verified? Was the title a good summary? What would be a good summary? These are just a few of her suggestions and what I am asking would be the equivalent categories during reading and post-reading in content areas you teach. Students were asked to compare notes (my effort at a pun) as a way to gain insight into how their interpretation and emphases contrasted with those of other students.

I cannot help but think of reciprocal teaching when I review the Porter-O’Donnell approach – teacher modeling and think-aloud, group-guided effort and sharing, etc.

Now, consider how a digital annotation and highlight environment would be applied in a similar way. Scrible does make a great example with its features for sharing. Demo, specify specific goals to identify and annotate, share and discuss, etc.

The basic transfer of strategies seems easy to grasp and once applied other strategies could also be explored. For example, how about progressive summarization. What about smart notes and the question what about this chapter do you think you might want to have at your disposal a year or decade from now.

Porter-O’Donnell, C. (2004). Beyond the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. English Journal, 82-89.

63 total views

Progressive summarization

I promised I would explain Forte’s notion of progressive summarization which I mentioned in a recent post. The idea concerns how to transform typical annotations and highlights taken while reading into what Ahren’s would call Smart notes – stand-alone notes that capture the essence of what was read.

The process works like this. Read and annotate as usual using an app that allows the isolation of the highlights and annotations. My example is based on using Highlights while reading journal article pdfs on my iPad. In the following image you can see a little bit of the article pdf to the left of the image and the extracted highlights and annotations to the right. This extracted content can then be shared with another app. Ideally, the extracted content would allow linkages back to the original content and this works when moving content to Apple Notes. This works only when the content resides on the same device is not very practical long term. I simply cut and paste the content into a Google doc for the additional processing I describe next. The page references provide a way to connect to the original content.

Forte suggests the following sequence with the extracted content. First,, bold the most important ideas. Then, in a second pass, highlight the essential ideas from this bolded content (the reason I like Google files in drive is the opportunity to both bold, highlight, and add text). Finally, write a summary of the highlighted material. He suggests bullet points. I prefer the Ahren stand-alone notes as a way to record the key ideas I may want to use later.

If you are interested in an example of the finished product, I have embedded a pdf of progressive summarization I created in this format.

demo-Download

The goals of this approach are to find the most essential information to retain a context that maintains the context from which the key items extracted. Ideally these documents would be retained in a meaningful way. Making certain the full citation is included and searchable would be one way to do this. To tell the truth, I store the stand-alone notes and go back to the annotation original if necessary.

113 total views