4 ms·

> I’ve always thought these studies were stupid Why? I can't see any reason why studies that try to determine which method of note-taking leads to the most kno

by fouric 6y ago

> I’ve always thought these studies were stupid Why? I can't see any reason why studies that try to determine which method of note-taking leads to the most knowledge comprehension is "stupid" - in fact, this is one of the most interesting kinds of studies to me, and it's objectively useful given the massive shift towards knowledge-work in the past few decades. > lauded mainly by professors who can’t stand that their student’s attention can’t be held captive by their awful soapboxing. And what does this have to do with the quality of the studies themselves? Ad-hominem. > Adults can make their own decisions about knowledge processing. This is an emotionally-manipulative and irrelevant statement. "Irrelevant" because the given studies made no prescriptive claims about which method to use - they just tried to measure which methods were the most effective.

ukj 6y ago
Well, for starters you have to figure out how you measure "comprehension". Seeming as different brains make different space-time trade-offs when representing/retaining knowledge.
- fouric 6y ago
  ...which is an entirely valid criticism of existing studies - unlike GP's post.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jdgoesmarching 6y ago
You conveniently skipped the crux of my argument: instruction styles vary so widely that focusing on note-taking tools in a lecture environment is pointless. It’s like asking “which utensil is the best” without establishing the food you’re eating. The premise is ridiculous and clearly driven by a desire to make high-minded statements about analog versus digital methods. I’ve read several of these studies for grad school, and you don’t have to get much further than the abstracts to see how badly academics want to prove this point. Throughout my academic career I’ve seen professors point to these awful studies to justify their class policies. My comment was clearly not just discussing these studies in a vacuum, so I’m not sure why you’re treating it like a peer review.

by fouric 6y ago

ukj 6y ago

Well, for starters you have to figure out how you measure "comprehension". Seeming as different brains make different space-time trade-offs when representing/retaining knowledge.

fouric 6y ago
...which is an entirely valid criticism of existing studies - unlike GP's post.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jdgoesmarching 6y ago

You conveniently skipped the crux of my argument: instruction styles vary so widely that focusing on note-taking tools in a lecture environment is pointless. It’s like asking “which utensil is the best” without establishing the food you’re eating. The premise is ridiculous and clearly driven by a desire to make high-minded statements about analog versus digital methods. I’ve read several of these studies for grad school, and you don’t have to get much further than the abstracts to see how badly academics want to prove this point. Throughout my academic career I’ve seen professors point to these awful studies to justify their class policies. My comment was clearly not just discussing these studies in a vacuum, so I’m not sure why you’re treating it like a peer review.