taking notes together: augmenting note taking

8/14/2019 Taking Notes Together: Augmenting Note Taking

1/9

Taking Notes Together: Augmenting Note TakingLaurian C. Vega, Margaret Dickey-Kurdziolek, Lauren Shupp, Manuel A. Prez-Quiones, John Booker,

Ben CongletonCenter for Human Computer Interaction and Department of Computer Science

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech){lhobby, mdickey, lshupp, perez, jobooker, bc}@cs.vt.edu

ABSTRACTSufficient tools for students with Learning Disabilitiesand Attention Deficit Disorder have not yet beenestablished. We believe that the current tools thesestudents can use call for a drastic change in traditionallearning paradigms by either the instructor or the pupil.To fill this gap, we propose our tool, Taking NotesTogether (TNT), as a collaborative note taking tool that will help in equalizing the classroom for students withdisabilities. This tool allows students to collaborativelytag classroom lecture/discussion in real time throughsynchronized transcription and audio recording. TNT

provides a visualization that highlights the important classroom points and we argue facilitates better recalland a deeper understanding of the classroom material.Through our evaluation we were able to prove that allstudents can benefit from this tool. We also present acase study of one student with ADD and how theybenefited. The tool makes the learning experience,

particularly for students with special needs like LD and ADD, less stressful while still being active in the note-taking.

KEYWORDS: Collaborative Learning, CollaborativeNote Taking, Attention Deficit Disorder, LearningDisorders, Tagging

1. INTRODUCTION

Supporting students with Learning Disabilities (LD) andwith Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity(ADD/ADHD) can be difficult. Proper teachingtechniques should be used to support these specializedneeds in order to minimize the time spent in the

classroom and for later recall. In this paper, we discussthe need for a tool that facilitates the collaborativetagging of transcribed audio one that will promoteequity in the classroom. We argue that our proposedmulti-media tool, Taking Notes Together (TNT),overcomes the shortcomings of traditional paper-basednotes, stand-alone audio recordings, and transcriptions.We make the case that TNT supports a natural learningmethod that LD/ADD students will be able to usecoherently with their lectures and class-based education.

Also, by allowing students to take advantage of thegrowing use of technology within the classroom TNT cansupport students in a collaborative, faster, and moreautomated process.

Current research has explored many technologies toenhance traditional paper-based note-taking either bytranscription or digital ink [8, 16, 19]. Yet, much of theresearch community is reluctant to step outside of thepaper-based paradigm of taking notes. Paper or ink notes

alone are insufficient because users often miss importantinformation and participate less in discussion [10]. Someresearch has examined audio as data, either alone or inconjunction with digital ink notes [8, 16, 18, 19].Nevertheless, the focus is usually on a single note-taker.Davis et. al. recognized the need for collaborative note-taking, where different notes can be merged [8]. TheirNotePals tool seemed to do it all by integrating ink noteswith audio across multiple users. However, theirobservations revealed the desire to tag importantinformation: "There was also unanticipated usage. Severalresearchers independently used the device as an audioeditor to isolate key verbatim quotes" [10]. This is where

TNT combines the advantages of audio as data,collaborative efforts, and transcription. TNT hopes toalleviate users of the need to manually record audio datavia transcription and audio recording. The tool alsopromises quick access to the chronologically orderedinformation by collaborative tagging.

In the rest of this paper we address a significant amountof background work done with LD/ADD students and ingeneral on note taking collaboration. We then talk abouta tool we propose will help all students, in particularLD/ADD student, and discuss our experiment withresults.

2. RELATED WORK2.1 Background on LD/ADD

ADD/ADHD and LD have been and are still a growingconcern for educational institutions. This is becausebetween three to five percent of the student populationhas ADD. Of these students, ADD is linked to anadditional learning disorder by thirty-three percent [1, 2].


2/9

Thus, tailoring an educational program to the specialneeds of this significant minority while still maintaining astructured educational method for the rest of the studentpopulation is important [15].

For memory we look at the Encoding Specificity principleto help with the in class recall: specific encodingoperations performed on what is perceived determinewhat is stored and what is stored determines whatretrieval cues are effective in providing access to what isstored [7]. This means that a student is going to developvarious cues when learning to be able to recall thisinformation at a later time. Thus, technology could helpby having a way for students to work with thesepredefined cues.

However, technology should not be simply thrown at theproblem [17]. Instead, careful consideration of what theclassroom needs are and how to support them should beevaluated. Specifically, Bramer found after evaluating

seven college students that self perception of his or herdisorder had a large effect on the overall success of thestudent [6]. Also, in a lecture based classroom ADD/LDstudents find that they cannot keep up with the incominginformation due to a range of possible disabilities andthus miss the mental and physical encoding of the classmaterial. Later, when the student goes back to review thelecture notes, the student is unable to comprehend thedisorganized annotations due to recall problems [9].

An article by Joseph Boyle and Mary Weishaar showedthat LD students were able to effectively recall andcomprehend lecture information by having students takenotes with a structured note taking system [5]. As a

result, the students test grades increased. The authorswent on to argue that the two current ways for LDstudents to take notes in the classroom (using note takersand having the teacher change methodology) wereineffective. However, the structured note taking systemhas had limited results. While disappointing, this result isencouraging for trying a new method for teachingstudents with special needs.

In summary, during a traditional lecture-based classLD/ADD students can have serious educationaldifficulties. Past methods have had limited success andcan cause passive learning. Using a tool that engages thestudents and allows the student to learn in a more naturalway will be successful for helping LD/ADD students.

2.2 Note Taking

We looked at memory-aids tools [4, 12, 13], tools forpeople with disabilities [20], memory tools [4, 12, 13,20], and transcription tools [11], to help design TNT. Inone article by Wu, Baecker, et al., they describe the co-development of a tool to help those suffering with chronic

amnesia called OrientingTool. The developers chosethe participatory design paradigm because they felt, itcan be extremely difficult for designers to imagine theexperience of coping with a cognitive impairment,resulting in a gulf of understanding. When evaluated, theOrientingTool proved to be very useful for amnesiacs and

their caretakers. For TNT, we collaborated with theAssistive Technologies Lab to facilitate a betterunderstanding of how to design for LD/ADD.

In other related work, tools have been designed tofacilitate audio recording and indexing. As one example,Kubala, Colbath, et al. designed Rough and Ready, atool to record, transcribe, and catalog CNN newscasts[11]. The authors felt that, speech is not valued today asan archival informations source because it is impossibleto efficiently locate information in large audio archives.Their tool, called Rough N Ready, used currenttranscription tools to produce text from newscasts andthen pick out names, places, and other key words. Theyfound that their participants could understand thecontents of a news broadcast from a small set of highlydescriptive labels. Building on this work, we alsowanted to include a transcription and index. Currenttranscription technologies, however, do not producetranscriptions with enough reliability. We hope astranscription technologies improve, that they could beused with assistive tools like TNT.

In a similar effort [3], the Classroom 2000 projectexplored the use of different classroom technologies tostudy whether ubiquitous tools enhanced teaching andlearning. The project broke the experience into threephases: pre-production (e.g. teacher preparation), liverecording (e.g. taking notes, group exercises), and post-production (accessing notes). In the pre-production phase,teaching styles were categorized into presentation, publicnotes, private notes, and discussion; learning styles werecategorized into verbatim recording, highlighting, andnone. The project then evaluated three courses withdifferent teaching styles. In the evaluation they observeda strong liking for their tool and the Web access torecorded class materials.

In an article by Leggett, he said, the design of a systemwill need to accommodate the needs of the memoryworker, whether as an individual or part of a closed or

open working group. [12] Students certainly fit thedefinition of memory workers, and class lectures arerich with information that could be lost to students that donot have effective note-taking abilities. This is why wehave chosen the classroom setting to be the launchingpoint for our tool design. Dr. Bell, in his paper describingthe CyberAll tool, predicted, in ten years, systemsshould be able to recall every personal lifetimeconversation. [4] The development of tools for class


3/9

lecture recording and indexing seems like a good firststep to designing systems to record and index informationin any audio form leveraging collaboration.

3. Taking Notes Together (TNT)3.1 Motivation

Our goal is to create a multi-media tool that supports amore active and natural education for all students. Weplan on doing this by creating a system that is non-interruptive to the lecture session. To do this we havecreated our tool, TNT. We found that people withLD/ADD can feel stressed because of differing abilities todo combined activities such as write and listen. Therefore,we incorporated collaborative tagging, so that studentscan actively listen and participate without manuallytranscribing information. It is very easy to imagine how astudent could take ineffective notes: missing information,recording less important information, not recording more

important information. By supporting a way for studentsto collaboratively determine what lecture parts areimportant, a student will not only be able to compare andcontrast what others found important, but train themselvesto pick up verbal weight themselves. TNT enables studentto record information in such a way that students feelcapable and not rushed.

3.2 Usage

TNT starts by taking an audio recording of a classroomlecture with palm pilots. At the start of each lecture thestudents will use their palm pilots to log into our onlinetagging system. TNT then shows buttons that correspondto the categories of class lecture material (e.g. see Figure1). As the lecture progresses, students tag material that isimportant by selecting one of these buttons. These time-stamped tags are then uploaded to a server where they canbe collected.

During the class, students could also take notes; however,normal cognitive stress that is caused by taking notes isreduced because the student will be able to use TNT as analternative. When the student needs to review the lecture,the audio file, the transcription, and tags are integratedtogether for easy review. At this point, students can see

an aggregation of all class tags. In the future, studentsmay benefit from seeing which tags were their own.

TNT was developed using Flash with tagged XML. Thetranscript is tagged by discussion breaks, which arevisually shown as paragraphs. These are about a minuteor two in length. You can see a working version of TNTin Figure 2. When the audio is playing you can see thecurrent position of the transcription highlighted in blueand indicated on the timeline with the gray horizontal bar.

This facilitates easy use of TNT. Students are able to seethe collaborative tagging along the top of the recording.

Figure 1. The Online Tagging System

Hypothetically, the higher the bar the more studentstagged at that time, indicating importance. We arecurrently considering aggregation formulas for studentswho are misbehaving in class and are tagging to causeconfusion with the visualization. Also, supported in TNTis a searching tool. Here students can enter a word orphrase that they remember from class, and the audio andtranscription will skip to that point. Lastly, the audio andtranscription are tightly coupled. The student can click onany section of text in the transcription and the audio

jumps to that portion of the recording. Likewise, the

student can either click on the visualization or drag-and-drop the audio marker to the desired section and thetranscription jumps to that part as well. This supportsstudents jumping around in TNT to the tagged sections.

Eventually, the interface will be developed to support anote taking schemas such as the Cornel Note-takingsystem [14]. This is where the left hand, one-third of theinterface is open for notes that the student might want totake, while the transcription is placed on the right two-thirds of the page. This way the students can takesubsequent notes using TNT, and this information wouldbe logged for later viewing.

4. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY

This study was designed to generate both qualitative andquantitative results about the usefulness and usability of this multi-media tool. In designing our study we realizedthat it would be very difficult to find and recruit asignificant number of students with LD/ADD that wereall within one class. Because of this, our study consistedof two phases: a controlled study using an in-classroom


4/9

setting, a case-study with a participating with ADD fromsaid classroom, and an expert cognitive walk-through of TNT. The user evaluation consisted of recruiting anumber of participants from a Virginia Tech class toevaluate our tool with a variety of metrics. One of theparticipants had ADD, and we describe his/her experience

with TNT in greater detail as a case-study. We then askedexperts from the VTAssist lab to do perform a cognitivewalk-through of our tool. This study had IRB approval atVirginia Tech.

4.1 Materials

Each participant in the user evaluation used a WindowsXP desktop machine to fill out the online questionnairesand class quiz. Participants in two experimentalconditions were allowed to use any notes they had takento complete the class quiz. Participants in one othercondition were only allowed to refer to TNT to complete

the class quiz.

4.2 Procedure

One lecture from a Virginia Tech Business InformationTechnology 2406 Quantitative Methods class was audio-recorded. The following is the class description:

Study of quantitative techniques used in managerialdecision-making. BIT 2405: Data collection, descriptivestatistics, probability theory, and statistical inferential

procedures. BIT 2406: Linear regression and correlationanalysis, forecasting, mathematical modeling, and network models.

This is a lecture based class taught using chalkboard,transparencies, handouts, quizzes, tests, and onlinematerial. The recorded class was on sensitivity analysis,which determines how much of a product you need togenerate a margin of profit. Students were not informedof the purpose of the recording so that note taking wouldbe normal. In addition, a handout was provided to the

students based off of the projector transparencies used.

Figure 2: A screen shot of TNT. The audio timeline with a histogram of tags is at the top. Users can click on the timeline ortranscripit on to activate audio playback. The timeline is tagged by students as either Example, Important, Test/Homework, andSoftware. The transcript is divided into sections of about one to two minutes.


5/9

The material from the lecture was transcribed and taggedby the experimenters. Experiments were scheduled fortwo weeks after the recorded lecture and during this timethe students had not had any tests. Each study participantwas given approximately an hour to complete theexperiment. Before beginning the experiment,

participants were asked to complete a consent form and ademographic questionnaire. Participants then had theremainder of the time to answer the online class quiz. Atthe end, participants completed a summative evaluationbased on their experience with TNT.

4.3 Experimental Design

The independent three-level variable tested is note aid(see Table 1). We did not run a No Notes conditionbecause sufficient research proves that notes enhanceperformance. We also did not test student performancewith only the transcript because we wanted to evaluate

the existing indexing method (student notes) againstTNT.

In the Notes Only condition students were only allowedto have access to their notes and handouts. In the TNTOnly condition, students were allowed access to TNT. Inthe third condition, students were allowed access to theirnotes, handouts, and TNT.

The dependant variables measured were time andaccuracy. The accuracy was measured by the quiz scores.The quiz questions were designed to test the studentsunderstanding and memory of the lecture material. Sevenof the nine questions were recall questions based on the

lecture in the recording. The remaining two questionswere prepared by the Professor based off of material fromthat lecture. All questions had exactly one correct answer.The order of the questions was the same for eachparticipant, following the traditional test design inacademia. Participants were given the quiz in its entirety,giving them the freedom to answer questions in anycomfortable order.

Our hypothesis for this study was that students with TNTsupport would perform better. To set up this study forlater statistical testing we set our null hypothesis to bethat there would be no difference between the threegroups.

4.4 DemographicsFor each condition we used nine participants (total=27).This was approximately half of the people enrolled withinthe class. There were six 19-year-old students, sixteen20-year-old students, four 21-year-old students, and one22-year-old student. There were eighteen sophomores,seven juniors, and two seniors. We had one ADD student,one student with color blindness, and one student with a

hearing impairment. (These were self reported.) Therewere eleven student note reorganizers and sixteen saidthat they never reorganized. When asked what methodsthey used to recover class information, one responded that(s)he asks for clarification in class, two responded thatthey use the book, and the remaining responded that they

borrow notes.Table 1: The factor and its levels tested in this

experiment.

Factor Level

Notes Only

TNT OnlyNote aid { TNT +Notes

5. USER EVALUATION RESULTS5.1 Quantitative

5.1.1 Quiz ResultsAccuracy and time to completion were measured. Foraccuracy a 2-way ANOVA was performed on own notesand use of TNT. Analysis of variance showed a maineffect for note aid (F(2,16)=64.14, p


6/9

overlapping error bars show statistical significance(sig. different conditions also linked by arrows).

Time to Completion

0

10

2030

40

Notes TNT TNT+Notes

Condition

M i n u

t e s

Figure 4. Average time to completion for the classquiz

For time to completion, we performed a 1-way ANOVAfinding no effect for note aid. Although not significant,we observed students in No Aid group skipping orguessing the questions they knew they could not answer.This is reflected in the accuracy results (see Figure 3).

5.1.2 Summative Evaluation

We asked students to complete a short questionnaire toevaluate TNT. The questionnaire consisted of elevengeneral usability questions using a Likert-scale: eight toolnavigation strategies questions, and three questionsgauging student interest in collaborative tagging.

We found very few differences between students usingonly TNT and students using TNT and their own notes.Not surprisingly, students who only used TNT were morelikely to find the audio useful (3.75/5) when completingthe quiz than students who used TNT and their notes(2.44/5) (p = 0.006). Additionally, students who onlyused TNT (4.28/5) were more likely to desire the abilityto tag content from the lecture during class than studentsusing TNT and their notes (3.77/5) (p = 0.092).

Both groups of students primarily used the find box(11/16), but almost equally choose the tagged graph(6/16) and transcripts (7/16) as their secondary navigationtechnique. This was not a surprise; however, future work should make use of less reliable computer generatedtranscripts to more accurately evaluate the usefulness of

our tool as an automated memory aid. In general, studentsfound TNT to be useful, interesting, stimulating, and easyto use. They felt the navigation and data organizationwas intuitive, and felt that they would use TNT to study if it was available for their classes.

5.2 QualitativeIn addition, we also asked our participants to list the threemost important lecture topics discussed. Three out of the

nine students in the Notes Only condition elected to notanswer. Six of the nine students from the TNT Onlycondition described sensitivity analysis, its use. Seven of the nine students from the TNT + Notes conditiondescribed the outcomes of sensitivity analysis and howthey appreciated the professor given example.

During the experiments, we also observed and recordedhow participants made use of their materials (e.g. notes &handouts, scrap paper, TNT). In the two conditions wherestudents had their notes & handouts available to them, werecorded how they referred to them as well as any otherinteresting comments students made. In the twoconditions where students had TNT available to them, werecorded which functionalities of TNT the participantswere using and whether we observed any patterns in howthe quiz.

Almost all of the participants in the Notes Only andTNT + Notes conditions had trouble locating the notesfrom this particular lecture. Many had saved the handoutand had annotations. Only one of the Notes Onlyparticipants had notes they had taken from the book.

The participants in the TNT Only and TNT + Notesconditions usually spent some initial time exploring thesoftware. Some participants would use the histogram of tags at the top of the screen to locate important pieces of the lecture while several other participants used the FindNext tool to seek to specific words. Ten of the eighteenparticipants in both TNT conditions seemed to preferreading the text in the transcript without listening to theaudio. On the other hand, three of the participants seemedto prefer the other extreme of just listening to the audio.One participant in particular let the audio play while theylooked through the entire class quiz, filling in answers asthey heard them. Five of the eighteen participants seemedto prefer reading the transcript while listening to thecorresponding audio. One participant even used her fingerto trace the words on the screen while the audio for thatsection of the lecture was being played. Six of the nineparticipants in the TNT + Notes condition referred totheir notes at some point in answering the class quiz,while the remaining three did not refer to their notes atall.

5.3 Participant Case-Study

One of our participants had ADD, and was randomlyassigned to the TNT Only condition. This participantwas of senior standing and twenty-two years old. Whenasked what types of things the participant took notes on,the student said that (s)he tried to note what was not inthe book. The participant also liked to organize theirnotes in outline form. If the participant ever had to miss aclass, he/she would often ask to borrow the notes of another classmate.


7/9

To complete the class quiz, the participant decided tolisten and read the entire lecture. While listening to thelecture, the participant would take notes on paper.Occasionally the participant would back-track and listento a section again. Once (s)he had finished reviewing thelecture, the participant started the quiz. During the quiz

the participant referred only to taken notes and did notuse TNT. The score was perfect.

On the summative evaluation, the participant said that thetranscript of the lecture was the most useful feature of TNT and that the audio of the lecture was the secondmost useful feature. (S)He also expressed the desire tocreate tags to use in TNT such as test question or notin text book. This is a very interesting request. Generictags, like keywords, help for finding generic materials.However, as with any collaborative technology, the needto personalize within the context of action is alsoimportant. This might be particularly crucial for studentswith special needs and different learning schemas.

Therefore, personalized tagging of audio material is a keyneed for TNT. When asked for any additional commentsabout TNT the participant said, I really liked how it hadboth audio and visual notes for the class. It was very easyto take notes and to organize them as well.

5.4 Expert Cognitive-Walkthrough

In order to validate our tool with an expert, we conducteda cognitive walkthrough with two administrators of theAssistive Technology Lab. The qualitative measures wewere looking for were intuitiveness and overall usersatisfaction. We found that our tool was a good start on

adding collaborative aspects to note taking tools. Thereare tools like OneNote, NoteTaker, and NoteShare whichhelp with taking notes. However, as was pointed outearlier, simple note taking as supported by thesetechnologies can be an overly stressful process thatdisconnects the student from active learning. Therefore, atool that allows the student to go back and click throughthe audio recording with tagged information would beextremely useful.

There were three main improvements our experts thoughtshould be handled by our tool: highlight words orsentences instead whole paragraphs, show interval times,and have the importance bars be textured to help studentswho may be colorblind. There were also manysuggestions for future work including but not limited tothe following: a summary of what the individual studenttagged at the bottom of the screen, downloadable notesfor offline use, a synthesized voice option with variablespeeds, an option to resize the transcript, and a text padon the left of the transcript to take notes in. Lastly, ourexperts brainstormed a list of generic categories for thetagging and came up with the following: vocabulary,

critical keywords, important points made by theinstructor, points to come back to, critical dates, and aclassroom specific tag (i.e. in Computer Science courses:syntax, in Math courses: theorem). Overall thiswalkthrough showed that we have made significantprogress in developing this tool, but that there are many

other aspects we could add to make it better.

6. CONCLUSION

These results show us that the null hypothesis, TNTconditions will perform equally as well as the NotesOnly condition, can be discarded. We have shown thatstudents will perform more accurately on a class quizderived from lecture material using TNT than thosestudents using only their own notes. The statisticaldifference between the Notes Only and both TNTconditions shows that multi-media, note-taking andretrieval tools such as ours can be a more effective way of

retrieving lecture material than traditional note takingpractices. However, we realize that with such a smallsample size future studies will have to repeat thisexperiment to confirm our findings. Potentially, studentswill no longer have to rely on incomplete, tedious notetaking; rather, one can tag important events and re-accessing any of the indexed information with greaterease.

We feel that this has implications on the way educationaltools should be developed in the future, specifically webbased tools. Currently, many teachers in all ranges of education post some sort of lecture material to the Webfor their students. Imagine if teachers could post the audio

from the lecture with the class materials to the Web, andhave it dynamically indexed in such a way that it waseasy for students to located specific information andreview the content.

Although we only had one ADD student participate in ourstudy, we were able to see that TNT was effective for thisstudent. We saw some students strictly use the audiocomponent of TNT, while others strictly used the text,and the rest of the students were some where in between.Students with ADD/LD need varying modes to accessclass information, we feel that multi-media tools such asTNT will serve as a first step to developing futureeducational technologies for students with specialeducational needs.

7. FUTURE WORK

Whether using a tool like TNT or some other method,finding a way to make the classroom an equal learningplace for all students should be and is an important focusfor many education systems. However, many secondaryschools and universities employ a broad range of


8/9

educational software packages with few aimed towardsstudents with learning disabilities or collaborative studentinvolvement. Research should continue to investigateassistive note-taking tools to improve upon our designand evaluation of multi-media tools like TNT.

Specifically, we hope to see what implications a

collaborative tool like TNT will have on the classroomand what visualizations and features are best suited foraudio data. For instance, how do you provide avisualization that highlights what you found important butalso one that highlights what other students foundimportant? Would filtering the tags improve informationretrieval? Also, what are the social implications of collaborative note taking? Would a tool like TNTfacilitate social loafing? How could we discourage thisbehavior? Furthermore, we see this as a tool for studentsto potentially become more closely linked with theprofessor. How could professors use this tool tounderstand what topics their students are struggling with?

The development of tools such as TNT opens up a host of new questions and research areas to be discovered andexplained.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the Virginia Tech AssistiveTechnology Lab who helped us with the development of this project.

REFERENCES[1]. NIMH research on treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: The Multimodal Treatment Study-

Questions and answers . 2000, National Institute of MentalHealth.[2]. Identifying and treating attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder: A resource for school and home . 2003, U.S.Department of Education.[3]. Gregory D. Abowd, Christoper G. Atkeson, Cindy Hmelo,Ami Feinstein, Rob Kooper, Sue Long, Nitin "Nick" Swahneyand Mikiya Tani. Teaching and Learning as MultimediaAuthoring: The Classroom 2000 Project, in Multimedia '96 .1996, ACM: Boston, Massachusetts. p. 187-198.[4]. Gordon Bell, A Personal Digital Store. Commun. ACM,2001. 44(1): p. 86-91.[5]. Joseph R. Boyle and Mary Weishaar, The Effect of Strategic Notetaking on the Recall and Comprehension of

Lecture Information for High School Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 2001.16(3): p. 133-141.[6]. Jennifer Bramer, Succeeding in College With Attention

Deficit Disorders: Issues and Strategies for Students,Counselors and Educators . 1996. Plantation, FL: SpecialtyPress.[7]. Stuart K. Card, Thomas P. Moran and Allan Newell,Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction . 1983. Hillsdale,New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.

[8]. Richard C. Davis, James A. Landay, Victor Chen,Jonathan Huang, Rebecca B. Lee, Frances C. Li, James Lin,Charles B. Morrey, III, Ben Schleimer, Morgan N. Price andBill N. Schilit. NotePals: lightweight note sharing by the group,

for the group , in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit . 1999,ACM Press: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.

[9]. C. A. Z. Dendy and A. Zeigler, Teaching Teens with ADDand ADHD: A Quick Reference Guide for Teachers and Parents . 2003. Bethesda: Woodbine House.[10]. Daniel P.W. Ellis and Keansub Lee. Minimal-impactaudio-based personal archives, in International MultimediaConference: Continuous archival and retrieval of personalexperiences . 2004, ACM Press: New York, New York, USA. p.39-47.[11]. Francis Kubala, Sean Colbath, Daben Liu, AmitSrivastava and John Makhoul, Integrated Technologies for

Indexing Spoken Language. Communications of the ACM,2000. 43(2).[12]. Mike Leggett. Losers and Finders: Indexing Audio-VisualDigital Media, in C&C . 2005, ACM Press: London, UnitedKingdom. p. 210-217.[13]. Thomas P. Moran, Leysia Palen, Steve Harrison, Patrick Chiu, Don Kimber, Scott Minneman, William van Melle andPolle Zellweger. "I'll Get That Off the Audio": A Case Study of Salvaging Multimedia Meeting Records, in CHI . 1997, ACMPress: Atlanta, GA.[14]. Francis P. Robinson, Effective Study . 1961. New York:Harper & Row, Publishers.[15]. Edward J. Sabornie, Douglas Cullinan, Susan S. Osborneand Lynne B. Brock, Intellectual, Academic, and BehavioralFunctioning of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities: ACross-Categorical Meta-Analysis. Council for ExceptionalChildren, 2005. 72(1): p. 47-63.[16]. Lisa J. Stifelman. Augmenting real-world objects: a

paper-based audio notebook , in Conference companion on

Human factors in computing systems: common ground . 1996,ACM Press: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.[17]. Nigel Ward and Hajime Tatsukawa. Software for TakingNotes in Class, in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference .2003, ASEE/IEEE: Boulder, CO.[18]. Steve Whittaker, Patrick Hyland and Myrtle Wiley.FILOCHAT: handwritten notes provide access to recorded conversations , in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on

Human factors in computing systems: celebratinginterdependence . 1994, ACM Press: Boston, Massachusetts,United States.[19]. Lynn D. Wilcox, Bill N. Schilit and Nitin Sawhney.

Dynomite: a dynamically organized ink and audio notebook , inProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors incomputing systems . 1997, ACM Press: Atlanta, Georgia, UnitedStates.[20]. Mike Wu, Ron Baecker and Brian Richards.Participatory design of an orientation aid for amnesics , inProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors incomputing systems . 2005, ACM Press: Portland, Oregon, USA.


9/9

taking notes together: augmenting note taking

Documents