Overcoming learning barriers through knowledge management

DYSLEXIAPublished online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/dys.419

&

Overcoming Learning BarriersThrough KnowledgeManagementItiel E. Dror1,�, Tamas Makany2 and Jonathan Kemp3

1Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK2School of Education, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA3Smart Wisdom Ltd, London, UK

The ability to learn highly depends on how knowledge is managed.Specifically, different techniques for note-taking utilize differentcognitive processes and strategies. In this paper, we compareddyslexic and control participants when using linear and non-linearnote-taking. All our participants were professionals working in thebanking and financial sector. We examined comprehension, accuracy,mental imagery & complexity, metacognition, and memory. We foundthat participants with dyslexia, when using a non-linear note-takingtechnique outperformed the control group using linear note-takingand matched the performance of the control group using non-linearnote-taking. These findings emphasize how different knowledgemanagement techniques can avoid some of the barriers to learners.Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: cognition; learning; learning disability; technology

Note-taking represents one of the most important and most commonlyused learning strategies to improve both academic and professionalperformance (Kiewra, 1985; Titsworth, 2004; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).

Note-taking is one of the first cognitive technologies that enabled us to extendour abilities by offloading information from our mind to external devices, such aspaper, canvas, musical score or digital content (Dror & Harnad, 2008). Theefficiency of learning strategies is determined by how well managed this processof offloading is. Further support for the creation, transfer, and application ofinformation can obtain from various knowledge management systems that are

*Correspondence to: Itiel E. Dror, Department of Psychology, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience,University College London, London, UK. E-mail: [email protected], www.cci-hq.com

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)

increasingly studied both on the personal (Wright, 2005) and organizational level(Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Note-taking is a fundamental knowledge managementsystem of the individual and its efficiency depends on an underlying set ofcognitive skills and technologies. Issues, such as comprehension, metacognition,cognitive load, or accuracy, need to be carefully assessed and empiricallymeasured to quantify performance. In a previous study, we examined theseissues with regards to different methods of note-taking and found that variationsin performance and efficiency depended on different cognitive abilities (Makany,Kemp, & Dror, 2009). This suggests that certain note-taking techniques may bemore suitable to people with learning difficulties and that those may helpovercome learning barriers for people with dyslexia or other types of difficulties.

Generally, note-taking can be divided into two principally different categoriesaccording to how knowledge is managed:

1. Linear: the traditional practice of writing pieces of information linearly in aminimally structured manner. This involves writing line-by-line, wheresentences follow a fixed continuous sequence (see Figure 1, left panel)

2. Non-linear: note-taking techniques that allow the recording of informationgraphically with an organized, semi-structured format (see Figure 1, rightpanel). Several non-linear note-taking approaches exist. For the purpose of thisresearch, we selected a non-linear note-taking technique called SmartWisdom(Smart Wisdom Ltd, London, UK). We chose SmartWisdom because it ishighly developed and it shares the main characteristic features with most non-linear techniques by mapping knowledge graphically. Finally, on a morepragmatic level, we had access to experienced SmartWisdom users, includingusers who had dyslexia.

In this study, we compared the dyslexic and control participants using the twodifferent note-taking techniques (i.e. traditional linear and non-linear). FollowingBryant and Impey (1986) we used a number of cognitive measures that examined:comprehension, accuracy, mental imagery and complexity, metacognition, andmemory. We also examined note-taking during a lecture and during a multi-participant discussion meeting. The basic question of this research was to assessand empirically test potential cognitive improvements of non-linear note-takingtechniques for people with dyslexia.

Figure 1. Example of linear note-taking (left panel) and of non-linear note-taking (right panel).

Overcoming Learning Barriers 39


PARTICIPANTS

In total, this study used 33 participants’ data to test note-taking skills andhow non-linear note-taking may affect performance for people with dyslexia.There were 18 males and 15 females with the average age of 39.03 years(SD 5 8.48 years). The youngest participant was 24 and the eldest 59 years old.

The sampling population was randomly selected from a pool of activeprofessionals in the City of London working mainly in the financial sector.The participants were mainly mid- to high-level managers, partners andassociates of leading international accountancy, banking and consultancy firms.Fourteen of them had post-graduate (Masters or above) qualifications and theother half had university degrees. They were all experienced professionals intheir field with an average of 7.55 years (SD 5 5.99 years) spent at their currentjob with a range between 1 to 22 years.

The participants’ data were coded, anonymized, and collapsed with otherparticipants’ data, and subjected to statistical analysis. All participants took partvoluntarily in the study without any means of compensation. Before beginningthe study, every participant read an information sheet about the research projectand signed a written informed consent form.

Two important factors in this study were the participants’ dyslexia and non-linear note-taking technique. Since we wanted to assess the possible advantage fordyslexics to use non-linear note-taking, we compared their performance to non-dyslexics who were using linear note-taking, and then to non- dyslexics who alsoused non-linear note-taking. The participants’ dyslexia was determined based onprevious medical records, psychological diagnoses or other verbal assessments.The participants were all having mild developmental dyslexia. According to acommonly used dyslexia categorization, the seven participants were all havingsurface (visuo-spatial) dyslexia and two of them reported further phonological(speech-sound) or double-deficit (mixed) difficulties. Four participants had well-documented diagnosis with detailed psychological test results, while the otherparticipants did not bring their medical records at the time of the testing. It was notthe aim of this report to give a detailed assessment or psychological diagnosis ofthe participants’ dyslexia or other learning disabilities.

Those participants who have been formally trained to use non-linear note-taking were considered experts in non-linear note-taking. Their level of expertisewas estimated based on the time they have been actively using the technique.In average, this was over 2 years of experience with the range varying between2 months and 6 years and up to the 75th percentile of the Expert non-linear samplewho were using the technique for over 3.75 years. Based on these two factors, wecreated three groups of participants to compare note-taking performances.As noted, we wanted to assess the possible advantage for dyslexics to use non-linear note-taking, thus comparing them to non-dyslexics who were using linearnote-taking, and to non- dyslexics who also used non-linear note-taking.

Group 1: Seven participants with dyslexia (based on the above criteria) weretested in this group. All participants were also experienced users of non-linearnote-taking. Their average age was 42.43 years (SD 5 12.48). The youngest was24 and the eldest was 59 years old. There were six male and one femaleparticipant in this group. Group 2: Seventeen participants were in this group withover 2 years of non-liner note-taking experience but without dyslexia. Their

I.E. Dror et al.40


average age 39.79 years (SD 5 6.66 years) with nine males and eight females.Group 3: Nine control participants without dyslexia or experience with non-linear note-taking techniques. There were three male and six female in this groupwith an average age of 35.22 years (SD 5 6.67 years).

TEST MATERIALS AND APPARATUS

Lecture Video (‘cryptozoology’)

The first video (Lecture Video, LV) was a public science presentation by a singleperson, who was talking about cryptozoology (the study of hidden animals). Thiswas an unfamiliar topic to all our participants. The presenter talked relativelyfast, making the recording of the information difficult enough to simulate a real-world scenario, where a single presenter discusses ideas and novel concepts witha speed that does not allow word-by-word verbatim recordings.

Discussion Meeting Video (‘financial trends’)

The second video clip (Meeting Video, MV), however, was a very formalmeeting discussing the expected financial trends in the US for the year 2007.It included five people, one of whom chaired the meeting. The participantsexpressed and discussed their views on the market. MV was familiar both inits content and technical terminology to the participants, who worked in thefinancial domain.

The video clips were played on a 13-inch laptop computer in full screen mode.The audio output of the laptop played a clearly audible voice throughout thevideos. Participants were provided with an evaluation booklet that includednon-linear note-taking sheets and consent forms. The booklet contained fourtasks for each video plus an extra memory task for MV. These tasks were: Task1—Comprehension: Give a detailed summary of the presented video clip usingtheir notes. Task 2—Accuracy: Answer accurately four specific questions relatedto the video with notes. Task 3—Mental Imagery and Complexity: Draw adiagram that visually encapsulates the topic using the notes. The ratio of thelinks (lines) and the drawn nodes (topics) is a complexity measure. Task4—Metacognition: Give self-ratings of how they viewed their own note-taking efficiencies. Task 5—Memory: After completing previous four tasks forboth videos, participants were asked again about the first video (LV) withouttheir notes.

PROCEDURE

The participants were individually tested during a 45- to 50-min-long one-to-onesession. Each session took place at the participants’ workplace in quiet meetingrooms. Initially, the participants were introduced to the aims and the procedureof the study and then the informed consent forms were signed. Then they viewedthe LV taking notes while the lecture was taking place, followed by the cognitivetasks (comprehension, accuracy, mental imagery & complexity, and metacogni-tion), then they viewed the discussion meeting videos, taking notes while it was



going on, followed by the cognitive tasks (same as above), and then, finally theyhad a memory test on the first LV (without their notes). The materials used forcollecting the data included 5-min video stimuli and test apparatus. We used thesame tools as in our previous study (Makany, Kemp, & Dror, 2009), and used thedata collected from the non-dyslexic groups, and now used the same tools tocollect the data from people with dyslexia.

Two independent research assistants who were blind to the aims of the studyscored the raw data. This method was employed to avoid expectation bias.

RESULTS

Cognitive processes were analysed separately for the LV and the MVpresentations. The data were analyzed with non-parametric statistics. Thesetests are suitable to detect statistically significant differences between or withingroups with relatively small sample sizes or in data that may deviate fromnormal distributions. The statistical analysis of the data focused on thecomparison of the dyslexic group to the other groups.

Task 1: Comprehension

Task 1 aimed to assess the participants’ ability to extract key points and tocomprehend the presentation, and also to measure how much of this informationthey can recollect and coherently reproduce. The scores here reflect on the depthof information processing that shows how much the participant could engagewith the non-linearly recorded material.

As illustrated in Figure 2, in Task 1 (Comprehension) for the Lecture, thedyslexic group outperformed the control linear group by 25%, which is astatistically significant difference, U 5 1.00, W 5 46.00, Z 5�3.27, po0.001.Hence, the participants with dyslexia were able to perform better in theLecture condition than those without dyslexia. In addition, the dyslexic groupscored similarly to the control non-linear group (the difference was notstatistically significant).In the MV, the dyslexic group outperformed the controllinear by 21%, U 5 10.50, W 5 55.50, Z 5�2.24, po0.05 and there was nodifference compared with the control non-linear group. Hence, the participantswith dyslexia were able to perform better than those without dyslexia also in the

Figure 2. Dyslexic non-linear note-takers (DSW-E) outperforming controls using linearnote-taking, and doing as good as other non-linear note-takers (SW-E) without dyslexia

in both presentation types.

I.E. Dror et al.42


Meeting condition. This is apparent in Figure 2, where both the left and rightpanels show that the dyslexic participants performed better than the control non-dyslexic participants who used linear note-taking. This reflects that experiencednon-linear note-taking users with dyslexia are able to record and comprehendinformation on average 23% better than the control participants without dyslexia,who used linear note-taking.

Task 2: Accuracy

As illlustated in Figure 3, in Task 2 (Accuracy), the dyslexic group was 24% moreaccurate in answering specific questions from the materials of the LV than thecontrol linear group. This was again statistically significant, U 5 11.00, W 5 56.00,Z 5�2.19, po0.05. The results further indicated that the dyslexic group performedequally to the control non-lineargroup, even though a non-signifcant (p 5 0.09)trend shows a slight advantage of dyslexic scores over the control non-lineargroup.In the MV, dyslexic particpants were similarly accurate as control linear group withno dyslexia and only slightly (non significantly, p 5 0.07) worse than control non-linear group. Hence, the dyslexic participants were better than the controls non-dyslexic participants, but only in the Lecture condition (see Figure 3, left panel).

This suggests that experienced non-linear note-taker users with dyslexia are ableto accurately record and recall information 24% better from an individual lecture thanthe control participants without dyslexia, who used linear note-taking. In a multiple-participant discussion meeting situation, people with dyslexia were able to maintainan accuracy performance similar to control participants without dyslexia. This is animportant finding, since people with dyslexia often lack the ability to accuratelyrecord information. Non-linear note-taking helped overcome this difficulty.

Task 3: Mental Imagery & Complexity

In Task 3, participants were asked to draw a diagram for each presentation withthe help of their notes. These diagrams aimed to map the structure of theparticipants’ mental representations. This was to assess how well the newinformation integrated into the existing knowledge system.

As illustrated in Figure 4, in Task 3 (Mental Imagery & Complexity) for bothvideos, participants of the dyslexic group used the same number of nodes and edgesas the other two control groups. Although Figure 4 suggests that the three groups

Figure 3. Dyslexic non-linear note-takers (DSW-E) were more accurate than linear note-taking controls in lectures, and they were as accurate as other non-linear note-takers

(SW-E) without dyslexia and the controls in meetings.



have seemingly unequal complexity scores, these differences are not statisticallysignificant. Hence, the dyslexic participants had comparable performance to thenon-dyslexic participants.

Task 4: Metacognition

Task 4 (Metacognition) measured what participants in each group thought abouttheir own note-taking skills. These self-ratings were then compared with realperformances (based on the respective Task 1 scores). Metacognitive measuresare particularly useful for engaging advanced learners and understanding theintrinsic motivation of the participants.

As illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, for the LV, participants of all three groupswere accurately estimating their performances, as there were no differencesbetween metacognitive scores and actual scores. Although the tendency tounderestimate occurs in most cases, after the MV, interestingly the dyslexic groupshowed more accurate self-ratings than the other groups. Although both controlgroups had significantly higher actual performance scores (Z 5�2.41, po0.05and Z 5�2.67, po0.05, respectively), there was no significant difference

Figure 4. Dyslexic non-linear note-takers (DSW-E) had similarly complex visual/mentalrepresentations as controls and non-linear note-takers (SW-E) without dyslexia.

Figure 5. Similar metacogitive abilities (self-rating vs. actual performance) for the threegroups in the Lecture Video (LV) presentation.

Figure 6. Metacognitive abilities (self-rating versus actual performance) for the dyslexicnon-linear note-takers group were statistically more accurate than for non-linear note-

takers and control groups.

I.E. Dror et al.44


(p 5 0.06). This suggests that experienced non-linear users with dyslexia may bebetter at estimating their own performance than others in the MeetingPresentation.

Task 5: Memory

Finally, the Memory task measured how participants remembered factualinformation without their notes after at least 30-min from the presentation.As illustrated in Figure 7, the dyslexic group did not differ significantly from theothers in their memory recall abilities, despite the slightly higher score. Hence,although the dyslexic participants scored higher, this was not statisticallysignificant, and their performance was comparable to the other groups ofparticipants. This result suggests that even dyslexic non-linear note-takers canoptimize their information resources so that the method does not require morecognitive load compared with non-dyslexic note-takers.

DISCUSSION

The study showed that in most tasks the dyslexic group performed comparably,and in some cases, even better than the control non-dyslexic group of participantsthat used linear note-taking. The overall findings suggest that non-linear note-taking benefited people with dyslexia so that they could perform as good as orbetter than the controls who did not use non-linear note-taking. In measurescovering the recording and comprehension of information non-linear note-takingusers with Dyslexia were on average 23% better than the control participantsusing linear note-taking. In an individual lecture, the non-linear note-taking userswith dyslexia were able to accurately record and recall information 24% betterthan the control participants without dyslexia who were using linear note-taking.

Dyslexia, especially surface dyslexia, often manifests in missing the context ofthe information (i.e. word, letter), which leads to confusion and poor reading orunderstanding performance. Non-linear note-taking increases comprehensionand enhances the encoding of contextual semantics of the recorded knowledge.This is most likely achieved through characteristics of the note-taking system (fordetails, see Makany et al., 2009), such as the better visual accessibility (1-pageoverview), the interrelatedness of the information nodes (stems, connectors, etc.),

Figure 7. Long-term memory recall scores for factual information from the Lecture Video(LV). The slightly higher score for the dyslexic non-linear note-takers group was not

statistically significant.



and the semantic hierarchy (concentric circles). These features help the newlylearnt material to integrate better into the existing relational memory system.

Linear participants were found to be less acurate than non-linear note-takers,regardless of whether they were dyslexic or not. This suggests that traditionallinear note-taking sacrifices accuracy when aiming to record information insentences. The shorter forms of recording information in non-linear notesalleviates cognitive demands from the working memory system and reinforcesthat sometimes ‘less is more’, whereby accuracy can increase significantly. Thosesingle units of detailed information that have been recorded on the non-linearnotes serve as semantically stronger and more precise anchoring points for laterrecall than long and confusing sentences. For dyslexic people, who may struggleconstantly with selecting the most relevant information, the non-linear techniqueoffers an easier and less memory demanding way to remember the materialcorrectly. This effect was most prominent in the LV situation. However, even inthe MV, whereby a higher volume of complex information where frequentlychanging sources alternated, the dyslexic group managed to keep up with thecontrols. This is an encouraging result because it also suggests that dyslexicscould maintain their average level of attentional focus to a similar standard asnon-dyslexics.

People with dyslexia often experience distress arising from their owncondition, they require a special knowledge management method to reversethis tendency. Such a method, like non-linear note-taking, would make themmore confident and can become effective enough to result in actual performanceincreases. This is one of the most important finding of this study, as it sheds lighton opportunities to overcome barriers of learning by providing knowledgemanagement that is most appropriate for the indiviuals involved.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge management plays a keyrole in learning and human performance.These techniques allow to offload cognition and hence improve abilities (Dror &Harnad, 2008). It is critical to find the most efficient ways to manage knowledge,and it seems that non-linear, more graphical, organizational technques may bemore suitable for people with dyslexia.

References

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledgemanagement systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1),107–136.

Bryant, P., & Impey, L. (1986). The similarity between normal readers and developmentaland acquired dyslexics. Cognition, 24, 121–137.

Dror, I. E., & Harnad, S. (2008). Offloading cognition onto cognitive technology. In I. Dror& S. Harnad (Eds.), Cognition distributed: How cognitive technology extends our minds(pp. 1–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating note-taking and review: A depth of processingalternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.

I.E. Dror et al.46


Makany, T., Kemp, J., & Dror, I. E. (2009). Optimising the use of note-taking as an externalcognitive aid for increasing learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 619–635.

Titsworth, B. S. (2004). Students’ notetaking: the effects of teacher immediacy and clarity.Communication Education, 53, 305–320.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

Wright, K. (2005). Personal knowledge management: Supporting individual knowledgeworker performance. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 3, 156–165.



Documents

Overcoming learning barriers through knowledge management