notes – Learning Aloud

Processing video for Personal Knowledge Management

John’s “The Science of Reading” explores the historical and scientific journey of reading as a science and a practice. Much of my professional life as a researcher focused on reading and reading skills and as a consequence, I was aware of some of the history of the research and theory. What I found my perspective lacked was the broader perspective on what was expected of reading as a determinant of culture and as the basis for citizenship and commercial and scientific advancement. The political perspective associated with assumptions about what specific skills were necessary for the general advancement of nations was an angle I had not considered.

The closest I can come to explaining some of the insights I encountered might be compared to present assumptions concerning political arguments over why “educated” citizens can believe the things they believe and even what should be excluded from classroom consideration to prevent what some see as undesirable outcomes. Those of us involved in the nitty-gritty of the learning and improvement of the skills of reading are often oblivious to broader questions of what the general population may expect the skill to accomplish or the problems the acquisition of a skill may create.

A historical perspective provides both a way to see transitions in a skill and how that skill is developed, but also how in this case to consider that a skill exists in a reciprocal relationship with that knowledge and culture. For example, political values, arguably a part of culture, have varied in demanding that a specific form of communication be prioritized and thus justifies support as a means for accomplishing prioritized goals. Who needs to develop a specific communication skill, what information should this skill target, and how will the use of this skill be controlled? More to the point of this post, are we in an era in which reading is coming to the end of its reign in this broader capacity and are we seeing the early stages of a transition to a different means for recording and transmitting knowledge and culture? Are we in the midst of this transition without acknowledging it and perhaps more importantly supporting and shaping the direction of this transition?

Perhaps asking whether we are moving on from reading seems radical, but these thoughts came to me as I have watched my grandchildren and truthfully most of my relatives spend hours exploring videos on their phones. The time children and adolescents spend on YouTube and other video content exceeds by a considerable margin the time they spend reading. It seems this reality has to be acknowledged. I tried to locate some specific data and found that the results of a recent Gallup poll indicate adolescents report spending an average of 1.9 hours daily on YouTube alone. Adults may be different, but I would wager when they encounter a skill they must execute they are far more likely to see if YouTube has something to offer rather than search for and read the manual that provides related information. I understand that what may seem a similar reaction has been associated with television viewing because everyone spent and spends so much time watching television, but how we make use of televised content seems different and less responsive to transitory personal interests than online video.

A modest proposal

OK. I have not abandoned reading and I rely on reading professionally. I must read journal articles and books to perform my occupational role. Scientific research demands the sharing and reading of text documents in a specific format and with a required approach to citing related sources so that any arguments made can be evaluated based on existing research findings and theory. At this point, I am bound by this approach. However, the process by which the findings of this formal research process reaches potential practitioners is not so rigid. Classroom educators can read articles and blog posts in which proposed instructional activities based on the findings of the research community are offered, but they can also listen to and watch podcasts and YouTube presentations. They can take courses (e.g., Coursera) and interactive classes (e.g., Zoom) that rely on video. We all have been taught to read (and write), but what about the development of skills that optimize learning from video.

For several years now, I have been interested in the role of Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) in self-directed learning. Part of this interest has involved the exploration of specific digital tools that support the processing of information within the context of PKM. The PKM perspective can be applied to traditional educational settings, but it also encourages a long-term perspective which is the environment all of us face once no longer involved in courses that require us to learn to pass examinations and produce projects that demonstrate our learning. Our challenge is remembering specifics earlier exposure to information sources have provided when potentially useful and finding personally useful connections within this great volume of information.

PKM is about tools and tactics. What processes (tactics) allow us to store (internally and externally) a residue from our reflection on the information we have experienced? What external activities (tools) can facilitate storage and processing?

There are plenty of tools and plenty of related suggestions for tactics proposed by the PKM community. My focus here is on the less extensive focus on video and the even more limited focus on digital tools that are used during the initial video experience. How does a video viewer capture ideas for later use? How can skills unique to this approach be learned?

Why an integrated digital note-taking tool?

While watching an informative video, why not just take notes in a notebook next to your laptop or tablet? Why not just open a second window and simple word-processing app in a second window on your laptop? My answer would be you use an integrated digital tool to link the context between the original video and individual notes in ways that recognize future issues and uses. Note-taking is a far from perfect process and being able to recover a missing piece of information necessary to fix a confusing note requires being able to reexamine a specific segment of the original video. I first wrote about the importance of the preservation of context when describing apps that allowed the sound from lectures to be recorded within note-taking apps. These apps automatically establish a link between any note taken with a time-stamp connecting the note to a specific point in the audio recording. I even suggested that when a note-taker realizes she has missed something she knows she should have written down as a note, they simply enter something like ??? in their notes as a signal to later check the recorded audio for something not mentioned in the notes that may have been important.

I have a different reason for proposing the importance of digital notes. I use digital note-taking systems that allow me to quickly search and find notes I may have taken years ago. Students are not in this situation, but the delays say in a course with only a midterm and final exam involve delays that are long enough to be related to a sizable amount of content to review and a time frame likely to increase memory retrieval challenges. Digital notes make searching simple and allow integration and cross-referencing of content over time to be relatively easy. For those of us now functioning to manage large amounts of information outside of a formal and short-term academic setting, such challenges are now often described and addressed as Personal Knowledge Management (PKM).

Reclipped

There are several tools available to annotate videos. My favorite is ReClipped. This tool is an extension that is added to the Chrome browser and is activated when a video source the tool can be used with appears in the browser. When the extension has been added, an icon will appear in the icon bar at the top of your browser and the appearance of this icon will change when it has been activated by the presence of video content within the browser. When active with YouTube, additional icons will appear in YouTube below and to the right of the window displaying the video (see the following image with ReClipped icons identified by a red box). (Note: the video used in this example was created by Dr. Dan Alosso and associated with an online book club he runs.)

I have written about ReClipped before in my series about layering tools. I define a layering tool as a tool that allows additions overlayed on existing online content without actually modifying that content as sent from the host server. I wrote previously about ReClipped as a way an instructor could add content (questions, comments) to a video so that the composite of the original video and the additions could be presented to students and supplement their learning. The difference here is that a learner is adding the additions for personal use.

To keep this as simple as possible, I will focus on one tool — the pencil. The pencil represents the note tool (see the icons with the pencil tool enclosed in a red box below the video window). Clicking on the pencil creates a time stamp in the panel to the right of the video window allowing the user to enter a note associated with that time stamp (see examples in the image). I tend to click the pencil, pause the video, and then enter my notes. Pausing the presentation is obviously an option not available when listening to a live lecture and solves all kinds of issues that learners face in the live lecture setting.

The save and export buttons are also important. ReClipped will archive your annotations for you when you save, but I am more interested in exporting my annotations so I can use them within my broader Personal Knowledge Management strategy. I use a tool called Obsidian to collect all of my notes and to work with this large collection in other ways (reworking, linking, tagging). I also make use of an AI tool ( Smart Connections) to “chat” with my collection of notes.

ReClipped allows the notes associated with a given video to be exported in several formats (e.g., pdf). I export notes in markdown because this is the format Obsidian likes for import. Markdown is a formatting style something like html if you are familiar with the formatting style used in creating web pages. Such additions allow the incorporation of other information with text (e.g., links). For example one of the entries included in the example I have displayed is exported as the text string that appears below.

– [08:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukJtbtb8Tb4&t=523s) levels of notes — fleeting, literature, permanent — literature vs permanent is a matter of connecting to what you already know vs summarization. Permanent note has been “filtered by our interest”

When stored in Obsidian it appears as the following image (this is an image and not active).

Within Obsidian, the link is active and will cause the browser to return to the video stored in YouTube at the location identified by the time stamp. So, if necessary, I can review the video I saw when first creating the note at the point associated with that note. This link will simulate that experience. One issue with time stamps — the creation of a time stamp follows the content the stamp references. You listen and then decide to create a note. To reestablish the context for a note it thus requires that you use the link to a time stamp to activate the video and then scrub backward a bit to view the relevant material.

ReClipped allows other content (e.g., screen captures) from a video to be collected while viewing. Taking and exporting notes is straightforward and easy for me to explain in a reasonable amount of time.

There is a free version of ReClipped and the paid unlimited version is $2 a month. Note that ReClipped is presently free to teachers and students.

Research

I try to ground my speculation concerning the application of digital tools and techniques in unique learning situations with links to relevant research. In this case, my preference would be for studies comparing traditional note-taking from video with taking notes using integrated digital note-taking tools similar to ReClipped. I have been unable to locate the type of studies I had hoped to find. I did locate some studies evaluating the effectiveness of scratch-built tools typically incorporating some type of guided study tactic (see Fang and colleagues reference as an example). Though important work, learner application of more flexible and accessible tools seems a different matter and need to be evaluated separately.

Putting this all together

If you agree with the argument that we will increasingly rely on video content for the skills and information we want to learn, my basic suggestion is that we think more carefully about how to optimize learning from such content and teach/learn skills appropriate to this content and context. Digital tools such as Reclipped allow notes to be taken while viewing videos. These notes can be exported and stored within a Personal Knowledge Management system for reflection and connection with information from other sources. This post suggests that experience with such tools under educator supervision would provide learners the skills needed to take a more active approach to learning from videos they encounter.

References:

Fang, J., Wang, Y., Yang, C. L., Liu, C., & Wang, H. C. (2022). Understanding the effects of structured note-taking systems for video-based learners in individual and social learning contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(GROUP), 1–21.

Johns, A. (2023). The Science of Reading: Information, Media, and Mind in Modern America. University of Chicago Press.

When less is more and when it isn’t

I am interested in the process of writing. Originally, I was interested in my own writing and how I might write more productively and efficiently. Gradually., I became interested in student writing. My first interest was in what I would describe as writing to learn and this focus came about because I was convinced what was called Web 2.0 (I called it the participatory web) provided a practical way for individuals to express themselves for an actual audience. In doing so, it made sense that the process of visible expression required deeper thought and a better understanding of what you wanted to share. An interest in the role of technology in learning to write and in collaborative writing followed. I hope this makes sense. There are multiple components here and I am trying to outline how these components are interconnected and came to be as much for myself as for anyone who reads this description.

As I have spent time learning about writing and how the process might be conceptualized and developed, my way of thinking about what writing involves has expanded. This expansion has been useful because it allowed me to include a long-time interest in student and personal note-taking in how I came to think about writing. Recently, I have been reading a book entitled “How to take smart notes”. The full title which is much longer explains that the book is really about writing as a broad process that begins in reading/listening, moves to note-taking, and then explains how learning and creativity are involved in the progression to generating a text for others. I have found that the full model offered me a lot to consider and to write about. Eventually, some of the writing will likely appear on this site. For now, just accept my recommendation for this book.

Anyway, the topic of note-taking plays a crucial role in this book and especially a type of note-taking that I would describe as an investment in the future of personal understanding and knowledge building. By investment, I mean that the process described involves the immediate accumulation of interesting ideas and important concepts in what the text describes as a slip box. This was a descriptive term used by the originator of the process outlined in the book to describe a physical box in which short, but well-written statements were saved. These “notes” were then linked to other notes in the box through a notation system. Eventually, an author could use these linked statements to create an informative document. Of course, many of us can immediately imagine how to use technology to apply this system and this is part of the message of the book’s author, but there are some basic ideas that are of greater general value. For example, the “slips” amount to more than the highlights or edge of page annotations created while reading, but rather well-formed and personalized statements created from primary sources. Such brief summarizations or insights are closer to a core product of writing than a physical copy of a snippet of the original.

One of the comments from the book and a great example of the cognitive behavior that is at the core of why the writing process is productive was provided in a “side observation” offered by the author. This observation was that while the author kept offering suggestions for how technology might be a great way to implement the ideas from the original “slip box” process, the author suggested that the process of writing notes by hand might be more beneficial than the digital equivalent. I have been having a kind of “meta” experience as I write about my reading and relating of this idea. The author is writing about how to find productive associations among ideas and I see such an association in what I already knew about the logic of taking notes on paper (I have taken notes by hand in a decade) and why I still advocate for digital processing of the entire process of idea storage to final written products.

The author cites a study (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014) in support of his position. I have read this study and have existing notes on the pdf of the article I store in my collection. There were three studies in this article comparing performance (comprehension and application) following exposure to an audio lecture and note-taking. All three studies involved one group that took notes by hand and another that took notes on a computer. There are other multiple studies on this issue and because I have a bias toward the value of technology I look for several things in the methodology of studies arguing for the benefit of taking notes by hand. Is the performance test immediate or delayed? If the test is delayed, are learners allowed to review their notes before taking the exam. In comparison to just listening or reading, note-taking offers two potential benefits – external storage and a task that may involve more productive processing of the input. Taking notes on a computer typically results in more content being recorded as most of us can take notes faster on a computer than by hand. If I am reviewing my class notes weeks later, I want a more detailed account. Mueller and Oppenheimer found greater detail in keyboard note-taking, but in their third study with a delayed exam found a benefit for taking notes by hand. They argue that when faced with the reality that you cannot possibly keep up, handwriting requires you to summarize and record key ideas producing the best long-term value. This ends up being the argument used in advocating handwritten notes for the slip box. Summary and key idea notes are what is valuable in writing. It is kind of a less is more argument.

I am still not a believer although I buy the notion that at some point you need to process the original input for personal meaning. The proposal that an approach that is slower (handwriting) and as a consequence encourages deeper processing (also slower) seems to argue for some approach that is must address these two limitations. Both slow and slower strain the limits of working memory. The issue with deeper processing is when this more productive processing should happen – during the presentation (as saved to summary notes) or when studying more complete notes. Here is my criticism of the Mueller study in making the suggestion for practice that appears to be made and is picked up by Ahren’s book. . Allowing a few minutes to review notes before taking an exam is not my idea of studying for an exam. Certainly, if this is all of the time allowed good summaries would be most helpful. However, if I had a day or so and at least the night before to study a large body of lecture notes I would prefer access to notes that are more complete. When doing this, I would prefer more complete notes I could think about (process for meaning and application).

I think there are tools appropriate to the task of taking digital notes and providing a better delayed experience. The two recommendations that follow record the audio of a presentation (this is the input Mueller uses) and allows for the taking of notes. The apps link the notes to locations in the audio. If on reexamining the notes to see if they make sense (hopefully initially close in time to when the notes are taken) something does not make sense. Small portions of the audio can be replayed for additional processing.

Pearnote

Soundnote

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

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.

Social annotation with Hypothes.is

Hypothes.is was the first online service I explored when learning about what I came to describe as a “layering” technology. The descriptive term, layering, I decided to apply was based on the fact that the original content (a web page in the case of Hypothes.is) was not modified when a layering service was used to review and extend that content. However, the composite as experienced by the student is a combination of the content created by the author and the additions contributed by others (e.g., students, teacher). My interest in the benefits of generating and continuing to use these contextualized contributions. By contextualized, I mean that the original and added content is related in space unlike say notes taken in a notebook while viewing the same web content.

Educators and researchers interested in the application of Hypothes.is offer various suggestions for those considering use of the service. Some of these efforts have resulted in a series of videos. The one I am focused on here considers social annotation. Most of us have long annotated as a personal study tool. We highlight and if we read digital content such as ebooks from Amazon we annotate as part of studying or preparing to use notes for writing. In contrast, social annotation involves sharing annotations with other students and possibly with a teacher. The author of the video talks about “making thinking visible” which I like. More traditionally, I would describe the likely benefits of social annotation as generative processing.

The layering options in Hypothes.is include highlighting and note-taking. In a social situation, these additions can be used in many different ways. An educator can highlight for emphasis, add comments to extend the information provided by the original author, and ask questions. Students can answer such questions, ask questions of peers or the teacher, and make personal observations. The annotated material can make thinking visible as a source of modeling or as a type of “show your work” others can use to evaluate your understanding.

Look for these ideas and suggestions for application in this video.

Here is a video I created some time ago to describe the basics of using hypothes.is.

On the way to Mendeley?

I obviously pick post titles based on what pops into my head.

This post likely has a limited audience. However, for those of us who do a certain kind of work, there is a constant quest to find a more efficient approach and I thought my experiences may be of interest to this limited audience.

Some of the work I do, researching and writing, depends to some extent on my ability to build on the work of others. The quality of my writing cannot be based solely on my own experiences. Writing textbooks requires that I do a good job of covering a lot of ground and to do this well it is important that I review and integrate what topic-specific experts can offer. Sometimes I do not think this is understood. The preparation time can far greater than the writing time. Research requires a similar approach. The method used builds on or is designed to evaluate a method used by others.

Over the years, I have attacked this problem in different ways. Often, the approach was based on the technology available at the time. When I started, it was a combination of highlighting paper copies of journal articles and creating note cards. I would organize note cards by topics and when it was time to write, I would identify useful resources using these cards and then review the related original resource to get the specifics. At some point, the notecards were transitioned to some digital equivalent. Digital offers several advantages – there is no need to place one physical card in one location under one heading and digital content can be moved from program to another with less work when an upgrade was necessary. When you do this for 30 or so years you begin to understand that you must move on to newer systems even when the transitions take time to implement.

The most recent development has really been on the content delivery side. I still get a few journals, but as I sometimes explain to those who visit my office, the journals are just a decoration. I don’t get up from my desk to go search my shelves. I download pdfs of journal articles from the library. The library has far more diverse holdings (at least for journals) and the pdfs are digital. I also must admit I do not visit the library – they cannot purchase the books I need and the pdfs I can get online. The library to me is mostly the university commitment to purchase access to digital versions of the journals. I use tools to annotate and highlight the pdfs – my present tool of choice is Skim. The unique feature of Skim I like is the opportunity to export the notes I insert and the text I highlight (when the pdf is not locked). My process might be described as a multi-stage effort to boil down and integrate ideas. The thing about Skim I do not like is that the highlighting and annotating disappear if I should up the saved document in a different pdf reader. Evidently, there is no standard way to add personal information (highlighting and notes). This limitation exists even if I open the same pdf on a different computer using the same program (unless the pdf and highlights are saved as a pdf bundle). I am not certain how the personal information I add is stored when I do not create a pdf bundle.

I have been saving and tagging hundreds of pdfs on my office desktop machine using a program called Yep. I must admit I prefer older versions of Yep. The files in the older version of Yep were moved to a location I could identify. As I understand the new version, it finds pdfs where ever they happen to be. I suppose this is somehow more useful, but I get stuck in one way of doing things and resist change when what I do makes sense to me. Combining journal articles I am saving as pdfs with all pdfs on my computer creates a mess that I must then create a tag system to address (unless I read the manual and learn the other options available).

The problem with Yep is that I work from at least 4 differences devices – my office and home desktops, a laptop and a iPad. What I really want is a way to keep content in the cloud in a way that offers more than the accumulation of hundreds of files in a giant folder. I am presently exploring a service called Mendeley. Mendeley is primarily a social way to store citations and notes, but it also provides a way to store and access the pdfs associated with the citations across devices.

Screen capture of Mendeley markup window

Here is how I think about the disadvantages of Mendeley. The free version of Mendeley provides 1 gig of storage (500 mb of personal space). You should not be allowed to complain about the benefits of free. What I do not like is the cost for the lowest cost paid version. The first paid level offers 3.5 GB of personal space for $60 a year. A total commitment to this program on my part may require even more space. In defense of Mendeley, the various price points offer features beyond storage space. The citation lookup feature is nice when it works. However, if I am reading the article, the citation information is typically listed on the first page of the article and not a terrible problem to enter in the system. The system is designed for groups of users and some of these features would be of great benefit to research teams. Large graduate programs with many graduate students would be well served by such features. The free version of the program allows some sharing and this level if sufficient for my needs. When Box.net offers 50 gigs of storage at no cost (at least when I opened my account), $60 a year for 3.5 GB seems a lot. I also prefer Skim to the note taking and highlighting tools built in to Mendeley. I kind of have the same reaction to a paid account in DropBox. Here the first paid version is $100 a year. A combination of Skim and DropBox would be a great solution at $30-40.

I would like to think I am not cheap. I invest several hundred dollars each year in online services, but I still tend to think of these services as a luxury rather than a necessity. For me, it is really a matter of price point in relationship to how I see myself using the service. More features, mean higher price even if only a few of the features interest me. This is why I keep looking around and probably why companies offer different options of what seem similar services.

For a second opinion, here is a review from the Chronicle of Higher Education.