Taking Notes Together: Augmenting Note Taking
Laurian C. Vega, Margaret Dickey-Kurdziolek, Lauren Shupp, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones, John Booker,
Ben Congleton
Center 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
ABSTRACT
Sufficient tools for students with Learning Disabilities
and Attention Deficit Disorder have not yet been
established. We believe that the current tools these
students can use call for a drastic change in traditional
learning paradigms by either the instructor or the pupil.
To fill this gap, we propose our tool, Taking Notes
Together (TNT), as a collaborative note taking tool that
will help in equalizing the classroom for students with
disabilities. This tool allows students to collaboratively
tag classroom lecture/discussion in real time through
synchronized transcription and audio recording. TNT
provides a visualization that highlights the important
classroom points and we argue facilitates better recall
and a deeper understanding of the classroom material.
Through our evaluation we were able to prove that all
students can benefit from this tool. We also present a
case study of one student with ADD and how they
benefited. 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, Collaborative
Note Taking, Attention Deficit Disorder, Learning
Disorders, Tagging
1. INTRODUCTION
Supporting students with Learning Disabilities (LD) and
with Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity
(ADD/ADHD) can be difficult. Proper teaching
techniques should be used to support these specialized
needs in order to minimize the time spent in the
classroom and for later recall. In this paper, we discuss
the need for a tool that facilitates the collaborative
tagging of transcribed audio – one that will promote
equity in the classroom. We argue that our proposed
multi-media tool, Taking Notes Together (TNT),
overcomes the shortcomings of traditional paper-based
notes, stand-alone audio recordings, and transcriptions.
We make the case that TNT supports a natural learning
method that LD/ADD students will be able to use
coherently with their lectures and class-based education.
Also, by allowing students to take advantage of the
growing use of technology within the classroom TNT can
support students in a collaborative, faster, and more
automated process.
Current research has explored many technologies to
enhance traditional paper-based note-taking either by
transcription or digital ink [8, 16, 19]. Yet, much of the
research community is reluctant to step outside of the
paper-based paradigm of taking notes. Paper or ink notes
alone are insufficient because users often miss important
information and participate less in discussion [10]. Some
research has examined audio as data, either alone or in
conjunction 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]. Their
NotePals tool seemed to do it all by integrating ink notes
with audio across multiple users. However, their
observations revealed the desire to tag important
information: "There was also unanticipated usage. Several
researchers independently used the device as an audio
editor to isolate key verbatim quotes" [10]. This is where
TNT combines the advantages of audio as data,
collaborative efforts, and transcription. TNT hopes to
alleviate users of the need to manually record audio data
via transcription and audio recording. The tool also
promises quick access to the chronologically ordered
information by collaborative tagging.
In the rest of this paper we address a significant amount
of background work done with LD/ADD students and in
general on note taking collaboration. We then talk about
a tool we propose will help all students, in particular
LD/ADD student, and discuss our experiment with
results.
2. RELATED WORK
2.1 Background on LD/ADD
ADD/ADHD and LD have been and are still a growing
concern for educational institutions. This is because
between three to five percent of the student population
has ADD. Of these students, ADD is linked to an
additional learning disorder by thirty-three percent [1, 2].
Thus, tailoring an educational program to the special amnesia called “OrientingTool”. The developers chose
needs of this significant minority while still maintaining a the participatory design paradigm because they felt, “it
structured educational method for the rest of the student can be extremely difficult for designers to imagine the
population is important [15]. experience of coping with a cognitive impairment,
resulting in a gulf of understanding.” When evaluated, the
For memory we look at the Encoding Specificity principle
OrientingTool proved to be very useful for amnesiacs and
to help with the in class recall: “specific encoding
their caretakers. For TNT, we collaborated with the
operations performed on what is perceived determine
Assistive Technologies Lab to facilitate a better
what is stored and what is stored determines what
understanding of how to design for LD/ADD.
retrieval cues are effective in providing access to what is
stored“ [7]. This means that a student is going to develop In other related work, tools have been designed to
various cues when learning to be able to recall this facilitate audio recording and indexing. As one example,
information at a later time. Thus, technology could help Kubala, Colbath, et al. designed “Rough and Ready”, a
by having a way for students to work with these tool to record, transcribe, and catalog CNN newscasts
predefined cues. [11]. The authors felt that, “speech is not valued today as
an archival information’s source because it is impossible
However, technology should not be simply thrown at the
to efficiently locate information in large audio archives.”
problem [17]. Instead, careful consideration of what the
Their tool, called “Rough ‘N’ Ready,” used current
classroom needs are and how to support them should be
transcription tools to produce text from newscasts and
evaluated. Specifically, Bramer found after evaluating
then pick out names, places, and other key words. They
seven college students that self perception of his or her
found that their participants could “understand the
disorder had a large effect on the overall success of the
contents of a news broadcast from a small set of highly
student [6]. Also, in a lecture based classroom ADD/LD
descriptive labels.” Building on this work, we also
students find that they cannot keep up with the incoming
wanted to include a transcription and index. Current
information – due to a range of possible disabilities – and
transcription technologies, however, do not produce
thus miss the mental and physical encoding of the class
transcriptions with enough reliability. We hope as
material. Later, when the student goes back to review the
transcription technologies improve, that they could be
lecture notes, the student is unable to comprehend the
used with assistive tools like TNT.
disorganized annotations due to recall problems [9].
In a similar effort [3], the Classroom 2000 project
An article by Joseph Boyle and Mary Weishaar showed
explored the use of different classroom technologies to
that LD students were able to effectively recall and
study whether ubiquitous tools enhanced teaching and
comprehend lecture information by having students take
learning. The project broke the experience into three
notes with a structured note taking system [5]. As a
phases: pre-production (e.g. teacher preparation), live
result, the students’ test grades increased. The authors
recording (e.g. taking notes, group exercises), and post-
went on to argue that the two current ways for LD
production (accessing notes). In the pre-production phase,
students to take notes in the classroom (using note takers
teaching styles were categorized into presentation, public
and having the teacher change methodology) were
notes, private notes, and discussion; learning styles were
ineffective. However, the structured note taking system
categorized into verbatim recording, highlighting, and
has had limited results. While disappointing, this result is
none. The project then evaluated three courses with
encouraging for trying a new method for teaching
different teaching styles. In the evaluation they observed
students with special needs.
a strong liking for their tool and the Web access to
In summary, during a traditional lecture-based class recorded class materials.
LD/ADD students can have serious educational
In an article by Leggett, he said, “the design of a system
difficulties. Past methods have had limited success and
will need to accommodate the needs of the ‘memory
can cause passive learning. Using a tool that engages the
worker’, whether as an individual or part of a closed or
students and allows the student to learn in a more natural
open working group.” [12] Students certainly fit the
way will be successful for helping LD/ADD students.
definition of “memory workers”, and class lectures are
rich with information that could be lost to students that do
2.2 Note Taking not have effective note-taking abilities. This is why we
have chosen the classroom setting to be the launching
We looked at memory-aids tools [4, 12, 13], tools for point for our tool design. Dr. Bell, in his paper describing
people with disabilities [20], memory tools [4, 12, 13, the CyberAll tool, predicted, “in ten years, systems
20], and transcription tools [11], to help design TNT. In should be able to recall every personal lifetime
one article by Wu, Baecker, et al., they describe the co- conversation.” [4] The development of tools for class
development of a tool to help those suffering with chronic
lecture recording and indexing seems like a good first
step to designing systems to record and index information
in any audio form leveraging collaboration.
3. Taking Notes Together (TNT)
3.1 Motivation
Our goal is to create a multi-media tool that supports a
more active and natural education for all students. We
plan on doing this by creating a system that is non-
interruptive to the lecture session. To do this we have
created our tool, TNT. We found that people with
LD/ADD can feel stressed because of differing abilities to
do combined activities such as write and listen. Therefore,
we incorporated collaborative tagging, so that students
can actively listen and participate without manually
transcribing information. It is very easy to imagine how a
student could take ineffective notes: missing information,
recording less important information, not recording more
important information. By supporting a way for students
to collaboratively determine what lecture parts are
important, a student will not only be able to compare and
contrast what others found important, but train themselves
to pick up verbal weight themselves. TNT enables student
to record information in such a way that students feel
capable and not rushed.
3.2 Usage
TNT starts by taking an audio recording of a classroom
lecture with palm pilots. At the start of each lecture the
students will use their palm pilots to log into our online
tagging system. TNT then shows buttons that correspond
to the categories of class lecture material (e.g. see Figure
1). As the lecture progresses, students tag material that is
important by selecting one of these buttons. These time-
stamped tags are then uploaded to a server where they can
be collected.
During the class, students could also take notes; however,
normal cognitive stress that is caused by taking notes is
reduced because the student will be able to use TNT as an
alternative. When the student needs to review the lecture,
the audio file, the transcription, and tags are integrated
together for easy review. At this point, students can see
an aggregation of all class tags. In the future, students
may benefit from seeing which tags were their own.
TNT was developed using Flash with tagged XML. The
transcript is tagged by discussion breaks, which are
visually shown as paragraphs. These are about a minute
or two in length. You can see a working version of TNT
in Figure 2. When the audio is playing you can see the
current position of the transcription highlighted in blue
and indicated on the timeline with the gray horizontal bar.
This facilitates easy use of TNT. Students are able to see
the collaborative tagging along the top of the recording.
Figure 1. The Online Tagging System
Hypothetically, the higher the bar the more students
tagged at that time, indicating importance. We are
currently considering aggregation formulas for students
who are misbehaving in class and are tagging to cause
confusion with the visualization. Also, supported in TNT
is a searching tool. Here students can enter a word or
phrase that they remember from class, and the audio and
transcription will skip to that point. Lastly, the audio and
transcription are tightly coupled. The student can click on
any 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 the
transcription jumps to that part as well. This supports
students jumping around in TNT to the tagged sections.
Eventually, the interface will be developed to support a
note taking schemas such as the Cornel Note-taking
system [14]. This is where the left hand, one-third of the
interface is open for notes that the student might want to
take, while the transcription is placed on the right two-
thirds of the page. This way the students can take
subsequent notes using TNT, and this information would
be logged for later viewing.
4. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to generate both qualitative and
quantitative results about the usefulness and usability of
this multi-media tool. In designing our study we realized
that it would be very difficult to find and recruit a
significant number of students with LD/ADD that were
all within one class. Because of this, our study consisted
of two phases: a controlled study using an in-classroom
setting, a case-study with a participating with ADD from
said classroom, and an expert cognitive walk-through of
TNT. The user evaluation consisted of recruiting a
number of participants from a Virginia Tech class to
evaluate our tool with a variety of metrics. One of the
participants had ADD, and we describe his/her experience
with TNT in greater detail as a case-study. We then asked
experts from the VTAssist lab to do perform a cognitive
walk-through of our tool. This study had IRB approval at
Virginia Tech.
4.1 Materials
Each participant in the user evaluation used a Windows
XP desktop machine to fill out the online questionnaires
and class quiz. Participants in two experimental
conditions were allowed to use any notes they had taken
to complete the class quiz. Participants in one other
condition were only allowed to refer to TNT to complete
4.2 Procedure
One lecture from a Virginia Tech Business Information
Technology 2406 Quantitative Methods class was audio-
recorded. The following is the class description:
“Study of quantitative techniques used in managerial
decision-making. BIT 2405: Data collection, descriptive
statistics, probability theory, and statistical inferential
procedures. BIT 2406: Linear regression and correlation
analysis, forecasting, mathematical modeling, and
network models.”
This is a lecture based class taught using chalkboard,
transparencies, handouts, quizzes, tests, and online
material. The recorded class was on sensitivity analysis,
which determines how much of a product you need to
generate a margin of profit. Students were not informed
of the purpose of the recording so that note taking would
be normal. In addition, a handout was provided to the

the class quiz. 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 or
transcripit on to activate audio playback. The timeline is tagged by students as either Example, Important, Test/Homework, and
Software. The transcript is divided into sections of about one to two minutes.
The material from the lecture was transcribed and tagged
by the experimenters. Experiments were scheduled for
two weeks after the recorded lecture and during this time
the students had not had any tests. Each study participant
was given approximately an hour to complete the
experiment. Before beginning the experiment,
participants were asked to complete a consent form and a
demographic questionnaire. Participants then had the
remainder of the time to answer the online class quiz. At
the end, participants completed a summative evaluation
based on their experience with TNT.
hearing impairment. (These were self reported.) There
were eleven student note reorganizers and sixteen said
that they never reorganized. When asked what methods
they used to recover class information, one responded that
(s)he asks for clarification in class, two responded that
they use the book, and the remaining responded that they
borrow notes.
Table 1: The factor and its levels tested in this
experiment.
Factor Level

4.3 Experimental Design Notes Only

The independent three-level variable tested is note aid

(see Table 1). We did not run a “No Notes” condition
because sufficient research proves that notes enhance
performance. We also did not test student performance
with only the transcript because we wanted to evaluate
the existing indexing method (student notes) against
TNT.
In the “Notes Only” condition students were only allowed
to have access to their notes and handouts. In the “TNT
Only” condition, students were allowed access to TNT. In
the third condition, students were allowed access to their
notes, handouts, and TNT.
The dependant variables measured were time and
accuracy. The accuracy was measured by the quiz scores.
The quiz questions were designed to test the student’s
understanding and memory of the lecture material. Seven
of the nine questions were recall questions based on the
lecture in the recording. The remaining two questions
were prepared by the Professor based off of material from
that lecture. All questions had exactly one correct answer.
The order of the questions was the same for each
participant, following the traditional test design in
academia. Participants were given the quiz in its entirety,
giving them the freedom to answer questions in any
comfortable order.
Our hypothesis for this study was that students with TNT
support would perform better. To set up this study for
Note aid
{ TNT Only
TNT +
Notes
5. USER EVALUATION RESULTS
5.1 Quantitative
5.1.1 Quiz Results
Accuracy and time to completion were measured. For
accuracy a 2-way ANOVA was performed on own notes
and use of TNT. Analysis of variance showed a main
effect for note aid (F(2,16)=64.14, p<.001) proving that
the note aid affects accuracy. Tukey’s HSD post-hoc
analysis shows the “Notes Only” condition was
significantly less accurate than the others (p<.001). “TNT
Only” and “TNT + Notes” were not statistically different
(see Figure 1). This clearly shows that having a multi-
media tool helps students re-access and re-find
information. We believe “TNT + Notes” performed less
accurately than “TNT Only,” although not significant,
because students rely on their personal notes to answer
questions.
Accuracy
100
Correct Answers (%)

later statistical testing we set our null hypothesis to be 80

that there would be no difference between the three
60
groups.
40
4.4 Demographics 20
For each condition we used nine participants (total=27).
This was approximately half of the people enrolled within 0
the class. There were six 19-year-old students, sixteen Notes TNT TNT+Notes
20-year-old students, four 21-year-old students, and one Condition
22-year-old student. There were eighteen sophomores,
seven juniors, and two seniors. We had one ADD student, Figure 3. Average accuracy for class quiz. Non-
one student with color blindness, and one student with a
 overlapping error bars show statistical significance
(sig. different conditions also linked by arrows).
Time to Completion
40
30
Minutes
20
10
0 students had their notes & handouts available to them, we
Notes TNT TNT+Notes
Condition
Figure 4. Average time to completion for the class
quiz
For time to completion, we performed a 1-way ANOVA
finding no effect for note aid. Although not significant,
we observed students in “No Aid” group skipping or
guessing 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 to
evaluate TNT. The questionnaire consisted of eleven
general usability questions using a Likert-scale: eight tool
navigation strategies questions, and three questions
gauging student interest in collaborative tagging.
We found very few differences between students using
only TNT and students using TNT and their own notes.
Not surprisingly, students who only used TNT were more
likely to find the audio useful (3.75/5) when completing
the quiz than students who used TNT and their notes
(2.44/5) (p = 0.006). Additionally, students who only
used TNT (4.28/5) were more likely to desire the ability
to tag content from the lecture during class than students
using 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 navigation
technique. This was not a surprise; however, future work
should make use of less reliable computer generated
transcripts to more accurately evaluate the usefulness of
our tool as an automated memory aid. In general, students
found TNT to be useful, interesting, stimulating, and easy
to use. They felt the navigation and data organization
was intuitive, and felt that they would use TNT to study if
it was available for their classes.
5.2 Qualitative
In addition, we also asked our participants to list the three
most important lecture topics discussed. Three out of the
nine students in the “Notes Only” condition elected to not
answer. Six of the nine students from the “TNT Only”
condition described sensitivity analysis, its use. Seven of
the nine students from the “TNT + Notes” condition
described the outcomes of sensitivity analysis and how
they appreciated the professor given example.
During the experiments, we also observed and recorded
how participants made use of their materials (e.g. notes &
handouts, scrap paper, TNT). In the two conditions where
recorded how they referred to them as well as any other
interesting comments students made. In the two
conditions where students had TNT available to them, we
recorded which functionalities of TNT the participants
were using and whether we observed any patterns in how
the quiz.
Almost all of the participants in the “Notes Only” and
“TNT + Notes” conditions had trouble locating the notes
from this particular lecture. Many had saved the handout
and had annotations. Only one of the “Notes Only”
participants had notes they had taken from the book.
The participants in the “TNT Only” and “TNT + Notes”
conditions usually spent some initial time exploring the
software. 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 “Find
Next” tool to seek to specific words. Ten of the eighteen
participants in both TNT conditions seemed to prefer
reading the text in the transcript without listening to the
audio. On the other hand, three of the participants seemed
to prefer the other extreme of just listening to the audio.
One participant in particular let the audio play while they
looked through the entire class quiz, filling in answers as
they heard them. Five of the eighteen participants seemed
to prefer reading the transcript while listening to the
corresponding audio. One participant even used her finger
to trace the words on the screen while the audio for that
section of the lecture was being played. Six of the nine
participants in the “TNT + Notes” condition referred to
their notes at some point in answering the class quiz,
while the remaining three did not refer to their notes at
all.
5.3 Participant Case-Study
One of our participants had ADD, and was randomly
assigned to the “TNT Only” condition. This participant
was of senior standing and twenty-two years old. When
asked what types of things the participant took notes on,
the student said that (s)he tried to note what was not in
the book. The participant also liked to organize their
notes in outline form. If the participant ever had to miss a
class, he/she would often ask to borrow the notes of
another classmate.
To complete the class quiz, the participant decided to
listen and read the entire lecture. While listening to the
lecture, the participant would take notes on paper.
Occasionally the participant would back-track and listen
to a section again. Once (s)he had finished reviewing the
lecture, the participant started the quiz. During the quiz
the participant referred only to taken notes and did not
use TNT. The score was perfect.
On the summative evaluation, the participant said that the
transcript of the lecture was the most useful feature of
TNT and that the audio of the lecture was the second
most useful feature. (S)He also expressed the desire to
create tags to use in TNT such as “test question” or “not
in text book.” This is a very interesting request. Generic
tags, like keywords, help for finding generic materials.
However, as with any collaborative technology, the need
to personalize within the context of action is also
important. This might be particularly crucial for students
with special needs and different learning schemas.
Therefore, personalized tagging of audio material is a key
need for TNT. When asked for any additional comments
about TNT the participant said, “I really liked how it had
both audio and visual notes for the class. It was very easy
to take notes and to organize them as well.”
5.4 Expert Cognitive-Walkthrough
In order to validate our tool with an expert, we conducted
a cognitive walkthrough with two administrators of the
Assistive Technology Lab. The qualitative measures we
were looking for were intuitiveness and overall user
satisfaction. We found that our tool was a good start on
adding collaborative aspects to note taking tools. There
are tools like OneNote, NoteTaker, and NoteShare which
help with taking notes. However, as was pointed out
earlier, simple note taking as supported by these
technologies can be an overly stressful process that
disconnects the student from active learning. Therefore, a
tool that allows the student to go back and click through
the audio recording with tagged information would be
extremely useful.
There were three main improvements our experts thought
should be handled by our tool: highlight words or
sentences instead whole paragraphs, show interval times,
and have the importance bars be textured to help students
who may be colorblind. There were also many
suggestions for future work including but not limited to
the following: a summary of what the individual student
tagged at the bottom of the screen, downloadable notes
for offline use, a synthesized voice option with variable
speeds, an option to resize the transcript, and a text pad
on the left of the transcript to take notes in. Lastly, our
experts brainstormed a list of generic categories for the
tagging and came up with the following: vocabulary,
critical keywords, important points made by the
instructor, points to come back to, critical dates, and a
classroom specific tag (i.e. in Computer Science courses:
syntax, in Math courses: theorem). Overall this
walkthrough showed that we have made significant
progress 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, TNT
conditions will perform equally as well as the “Notes
Only” condition, can be discarded. We have shown that
students will perform more accurately on a class quiz
derived from lecture material using TNT than those
students using only their own notes. The statistical
difference between the “Notes Only” and both TNT
conditions shows that multi-media, note-taking and
retrieval tools such as ours can be a more effective way of
retrieving lecture material than traditional note taking
practices. However, we realize that with such a small
sample size future studies will have to repeat this
experiment to confirm our findings. Potentially, students
will no longer have to rely on incomplete, tedious note
taking; rather, one can tag important events and re-
accessing any of the indexed information with greater
ease.
We feel that this has implications on the way educational
tools should be developed in the future, specifically web
based tools. Currently, many teachers in all ranges of
education post some sort of lecture material to the Web
for their students. Imagine if teachers could post the audio
from the lecture with the class materials to the Web, and
have it dynamically indexed in such a way that it was
easy for students to located specific information and
review the content.
Although we only had one ADD student participate in our
study, we were able to see that TNT was effective for this
student. We saw some students strictly use the audio
component 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 access
class information, we feel that multi-media tools such as
TNT will serve as a “first step” to developing future
educational technologies for students with special
educational needs.
7. FUTURE WORK
Whether using a tool like TNT or some other method,
finding a way to make the classroom an equal learning
place for all students should be and is an important focus
for many education systems. However, many secondary
schools and universities employ a broad range of
educational software packages with few aimed towards
students with learning disabilities or collaborative student
involvement. Research should continue to investigate
assistive note-taking tools to improve upon our design
and evaluation of multi-media tools like TNT.
Specifically, we hope to see what implications a
collaborative tool like TNT will have on the classroom
and what visualizations and features are best suited for
audio data. For instance, how do you provide a
visualization that highlights what you found important but
also one that highlights what other students found
important? Would filtering the tags improve information
retrieval? Also, what are the social implications of
collaborative note taking? Would a tool like TNT
facilitate social loafing? How could we discourage this
behavior? Furthermore, we see this as a tool for students
to potentially become more closely linked with the
professor. How could professors use this tool to
understand 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 and
explained.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the Virginia Tech Assistive
Technology 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 Mental
Health.
[2]. Identifying and treating attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder: 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" Swahney
and Mikiya Tani. Teaching and Learning as Multimedia
Authoring: 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: Specialty
Press.
[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 and
Bill 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 ADD
and ADHD: A Quick Reference Guide for Teachers and
Parents. 2003. Bethesda: Woodbine House.
[10]. Daniel P.W. Ellis and Keansub Lee. Minimal-impact
audio-based personal archives, in International Multimedia
Conference: Continuous archival and retrieval of personal
experiences. 2004, ACM Press: New York, New York, USA. p.
39-47.
[11]. Francis Kubala, Sean Colbath, Daben Liu, Amit
Srivastava and John Makhoul, Integrated Technologies for
Indexing Spoken Language. Communications of the ACM,
2000. 43(2).
[12]. Mike Leggett. Losers and Finders: Indexing Audio-Visual
Digital Media, in C&C. 2005, ACM Press: London, United
Kingdom. p. 210-217.
[13]. Thomas P. Moran, Leysia Palen, Steve Harrison, Patrick
Chiu, Don Kimber, Scott Minneman, William van Melle and
Polle Zellweger. "I'll Get That Off the Audio": A Case Study of
Salvaging Multimedia Meeting Records, in CHI. 1997, ACM
Press: Atlanta, GA.
[14]. Francis P. Robinson, Effective Study. 1961. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers.
[15]. Edward J. Sabornie, Douglas Cullinan, Susan S. Osborne
and Lynne B. Brock, Intellectual, Academic, and Behavioral
Functioning of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities: A
Cross-Categorical Meta-Analysis. Council for Exceptional
Children, 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 Taking
Notes 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: celebrating
interdependence. 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, in
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems. 1997, ACM Press: Atlanta, Georgia, United
States.
[20]. Mike Wu, Ron Baecker and Brian Richards.
Participatory design of an orientation aid for amnesics, in
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems. 2005, ACM Press: Portland, Oregon, USA.