Month: May 2022

Posted on

Paper vs Digital

Unit 4 – Activity 1: Reading and taking notes in class: Paper vs Digital

As part of our course for the MALAT program at Royal Roads, our group, Ed Logan, Patrick Guichon, and I have looked at the effectiveness of note taking and reading with paper with digital media. The following charts summarise the impacts of digital learning on reading and note taking. 

Taking notes

Advantages of each medium:

PaperDigital
Easier to Annotate [1]Better searching [1]
Easy to navigate [1]Easier to modify [1]
Help you master learning linguistic correctness [17]Easy to duplicate [1]
Easier to include drawings and diagrams [14, 20]Easy to proofread (spell checking) [1]
Encoding especially factual [15]Faster typing speed 33wpm (than handwriting 22wpm)/detailed notes [14,15, 17]
Intuitive (no tech to learn) [8,18]Write longer/accurate [17] 
Often preferred for note taking [8,19]Speech to text [17]
Sensory-motor integration benefits brain development and learning  (larger involvement of senses along with precise hand movements) [20].Built in grammar and supports [17]
Can quickly animate a process or record a visualisation [21, 22, 23]
Remote collaboration [24, 27]
Portable, easy to carry tools, share, publish or convert notes and drawings  [25]
Digital pens or stylus can integrate handwriting and drawing teaching and  learning strategies  [28]   

Which is better for comprehension, i.e. does note taking differ with the different media? According to [14,19], yes. Due to the increased speed of taking notes on a laptop, it was observed that more notes could be taken at the same time. This led laptop note takers to paraphrase less and synthesise less than paper note takers. This longhand paper note taking was better for recall during review sessions than laptop note taking. 

In contrast, Askvik at al., (2020) [20] found handwriting and drawing is vital in a learning environment to optimise learning because they strengthen cognitive development and learning effectiveness.Osugi st al. (2019) [29] suggested that writing with a digital pen may improve learning relative to the use of an ink pen. 


Reading

Advantages of each medium:

PaperDigital
People prefer paper for reading (no eye strain) [2,4,9]View animations, movies, or sound [2,5,9]
Easier to carry [2,6]Can be interactive [4,9]
No need for electricity [3]Searchable [5,10]
Less expensive [3,6]Errata can be automatically updated [5]
Easier to make notes, highlight [4,10]Can include hyperlinks within book or to external content [5,6,9,10,11]
Faster page turning/efficient/ [5, 7]Text-to-speech ability [5]
Intuitive (no tech to learn) [6,10,11]Less physical storage space required [10]
Deep reading (single book or article) [7, 10] Metacognition Shallow reading (switching across books, articles) [6,10, 16]
They like the feel of paper [6]Enables the use of computer-assisted test analysis (CATA) software to analyse readings [24]
No screen flicker, better viewing angle [6]


Does the media, paper vs digital affect comprehension and reading speed?

No, comprehension and reading speed seem generally unaffected by media (paper vs digital) [6, 7(speed), 12,13]. Many educational environments currently use digital or electronic (paperless) media instead of books. Different reading and annotation strategies need to be considered to facilitate the shift from paper to digital media. For example students may benefit from using computer-assisted text analysis [24].

Adaptations to make digital better and closer to paper:

  1. Digital touch screens with styluses for drawing and annotations [1].
  2. E-book readers to make reading screens easier, lighter and more like books [3]. Monochrome screens reduce battery consumption, decrease eye strain, and increase readability [5]. 
  3. Pressure sensitive digital pens can make the digital writing and drawing experiences similar to paper [28].

References:

  1. Guimbretière, F. (2003). Paper augmented digital documents. 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, Vancouver, Canada. 
  2. Grudin, J. (Ed.). (2001). Integrating paper and digital information on EnhancedDesk: a method for realtime finger tracking on an augmented desk system. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 8(4), 307-322. 
  3. Wilson, R. (2003). Ebook readers in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 6(4), 8-17. 
  4. Merga, M. K. (2014). Are teenagers really keen digital readers?: adolescent engagement in ebook reading and the relevance of paper books today. English in Australia, 49(1), 27-37. 
  5. Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., & Groner, R. (2010). Improving the usability of e-book readers. Journal of usability studies, 6(1), 25-38. 
  6. Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.
  7. Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288-325.
  8. Steimle, J., Brdiczka, O., & Muhlhauser, M. (2009). CoScribe: integrating paper and digital documents for collaborative knowledge work. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3), 174-188. 
  9. Cesário, V., Freitas, P., Pimentel, D., & Nisi, V. (2016). Children’s Books: Paper VS Digital, What Do They Prefer? Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Manchester, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2936004
  10. Larhmaid, M. (2018). The Impact of Print vs. Digital Resources on Moroccan University Students’ Reading Habits, Uses, and Preferences. https://doi.org/10.1051/SHSCONF/20185202001
  11. Rodriguez, F. S., Saleem, K., Spilski, J., & Lachmann, T. (2021). Performance differences between instructions on paper vs digital glasses for a simple assembly task. Applied ergonomics, 94, 103423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103423
  12. Çınar, M., Doğan, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2021). The effects of reading on pixel vs. paper: a comparative study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1685594 
  13. Inie, N., Barkhuus, L., & Brabrand, C. How Interaction Influences Academic Reading—a Comparison of Paper and Laptop. Available at SSRN 3864769. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3864769 
  14. Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science, 46(6), 947-971. 
  15. Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2019). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014). Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 753-780.
  16. Uther, M., Ross, K., Randell, J., & Pye, R. (2019, July). Digital vs. hard copy? A preliminary study of reading style in children using touch screens and paper books. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 495-502). Springer, Cham.
  17. Dahlström, D., & Boström, B. (2017). Pros and Cons: Handwriting versus digital writing. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 12(4), 143-161.
  18. Mosleh, M. A. A., Baba, M. S. B., Malek, S., & Alhussein, M. A. (2016). Challenges of Digital Note Taking. In Advanced computer and communication engineering technology (pp. 211-231). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24584-3_19 
  19. Artz, B., Johnson, M., Robson, D., & Taengnoi, S. (2020). Taking notes in the digital age: Evidence from classroom random control trials. The Journal of Economic Education, 51(2), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1731386 
  20. Ose Askvik, E., van der Weel, F. R., & van der Meer, A. L. (2020). The importance of cursive handwriting over typewriting for learning in the classroom: A high-density EEG study of 12-year-old children and young adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01810 
  21. Roehr, A. (2020, November 8).Online Teaching Increases Enthusiasm to Draw. Off Screen Studio [Blog]. https://blogs.ubc.ca/drawingsdanielroehr/author/daniel-roehr/page/2/ 
  22. Mills, K. & Unsworth, L. (2018). iPad animations: Powerful multimodal practices for adolescent literacy and emotional language. Journal of Adolescence and Adult Literacy. 61(6), pp. 609-620. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.717
  23. Gregorus, R. (2010). Good Animation: Pedagogy and Learning Theory in the Design and Use of Multimedia.Enhancing Learning with Online Resources, Social Networking, and Digital Libraries (pp. 167-190). DOI: 10.1021/bk-2010-1060.ch010 
  24. Landay, J. (1999). Using note-taking appliances for student-to-student collaboration FIE’99. Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings ( pp. 12C4/15-12C4/20 vol 2). DOI: 10.1109/FIE.1999.841640 
  25. Wang, V. and Wang, D. (2021) The Impact of the Increasing Popularity of Digital Art on the Current Job Market for Artists. Art and Design Review, 9, 242-253. doi: 10.4236/adr.2021.93019
  26. Klobucar, A. & O’Neil, M. (2021). Reading and Collaboration: Developing Digital Reading Practices With Computer-Assisted Text Analysis Tools. IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-5849-2.ch008
  27. Lee, B. (2017). Analysis of Digital Art Content Created through Collaboration. Archives of Design Research, 30(4), 17-25.
  28. Osugi, K., Ihara, A., Nakajima, K., Kake, A., Ishimaru, K., Yokota, Y. & Naruse, Y. (2019). Differences in Brain Activity After Learning With the Use of a Digital Pen vs. an Ink Pen—An Electroencephalography Study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13:275. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00275  
Posted on

Unit 3 Readings: Reflection

Teaching Crowds, 2022

Unit 3 readings identify the structures and critical elements of successful digital learning environments (DLE). Dron and Anderson (2014) created a social learning model to explain DLE structures and the learning potential of connecting. Groups are hierarchically structured learning environments such as a school class, sets are part of a group with a shared interest or purpose, and nets are the connections. Together, groups and sets form communities or collectives. As well, (Garrison et al., 2000) presented the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework recognizing vital features of successful higher education experiences; cognitive, social, and teaching presence.

Two notions from these social learning models of particular interest to me are teaching presence and transactional distance because both influence my role and identity as a teacher. Teaching presence recognises that learning can come from any interaction within the DLE (Veletsianos, 2016). Transactional distance refers to the gap between the learner and teaching presence (Dron & Anderson, 2014).

My teaching practice is based on my industry work experience and higher education practices. This means I am accustomed to hierarchically structured communications within small groups. The readings influenced me to think about my teaching identity more abstractly. I will consider the DLE context and teaching presence more deeply as I continue to develop my digital identity and presence.

References

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2014). Teaching Crowds: Learning and Social Media. In Teaching Crowds: Learning and Social Media. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781927356807.01

Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in text based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

Teaching Crowds. (2022). Transactional distance in groups, nets and sets [Blog]. https://teachingcrowds.ca/transactional-distance-in-groups-nets-and-sets

Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital Learning Environments. In The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology (pp. 242–260). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118736494.ch14

Posted on

Visual Network Mapping

How am I connected with others?

In the course Unit 3 readings, Dron and Anderson (2014) introduced an informal and formal social learning model. The model shows three elements of collective intelligence: sets, groups and nets. Groups are the most common form—for example, a school class in a learning group. My network map shows the hub of my school group connection is a learning management system (LMS). The LMS links to open educational resources and social media. Sets are part of groups with a shared purpose or interest (Dron & Anderson, 2014). My map shows involvement in sets, such as a student team member, within a class group. My teams mainly connect with Google Docs, Padlet, Instagram and Twitter. As Veletsianos (2016) suggested, hashtags are a way to build networks and share information. In addition, hashtags can provide learners support and opportunities to collaborate on a common topic. For example, I use hashtags to connect, or form sets of people interested in environmental education, conservation, and restoration. 

As part of describing a digital model for social learning, Dron and Anderson (2014) related E.O. Wilson’s studies. Wilson was a Harvard biologist who researched the communications and behaviour of ants. The reference leads me to draw on a natural system as an image for my network.

Tree-mycorrhizal fungus interaction networks (Beiler et al., 2015).

The image above depicts the interaction network of Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir trees) and Rhizopogon spp. (mycorrhizal fungus). The symbiotic association improves the survival of trees. The fungal hyphae extend beyond tree roots to connect entire forests underground. The mycorrhizal fungi provide trees with increased access to water and nutrients and protection from root pathogens in exchange for carbon and energy from the trees (Beiler et al., 2015). “Trees share water and nutrients through the networks and also use them to communicate. They send distress signals about drought and disease, for example, or insect attacks, and other trees alter their behavior when they receive these messages” (Magazine, 2018).

Veletsianos (2016) suggested instructional designers can provide learners with opportunities to engage beyond the learning management system and course activities. As modelled by Douglas Fir trees and mycorrhizal fungus, I aspire to build symbiotic learning relationships and comprehensive connections to extend my instructional design into far-reaching networks.

References

Beiler, K. J., Simard, S. W., & Durall, D. M. (2015). Topology of tree-mycorrhizal fungus interaction networks in xeric and mesic Douglas-fir forests. Journal of Ecology, 103(3), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12387

Dron, J, & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching Crowds. Athabasca University Press.

Magazine, S. (2018, March 1). Do trees talk to each other? Smithsonian.com. Retrieved May 8, 2022, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/

Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital learning environments. In N. Rushby & D. Surry (Eds), Handbook of Learning Technologies (pp. 242-260). UK: John Wiley & Sons.