See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/46428776

Overcoming Learning Barriers Through Knowledge Management

Article  in  Dyslexia · February 2011

DOI: 10.1002/dys.419 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

4 82

3 authors, including:

Itiel E Dror Tamas Makany

University College London 23 PUBLICATIONS   431 CITATIONS   
98 PUBLICATIONS   4,835 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improving forensic decision making, see: http://www.cci-hq.com/forensic-identification.html View project

Bias in Forensic Evaluation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Itiel E Dror on 19 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

&

Overcoming Learning Barriers

Through Knowledge
Management
Itiel E. Dror1,, Tamas Makany2 and Jonathan Kemp3
1
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK
2
School of Education, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
3
Smart Wisdom Ltd, London, UK

The ability to learn highly depends on how knowledge is managed.

Specifically, different techniques for note-taking utilize different
cognitive processes and strategies. In this paper, we compared
dyslexic and control participants when using linear and non-linear
note-taking. All our participants were professionals working in the
banking and financial sector. We examined comprehension, accuracy,
mental imagery & complexity, metacognition, and memory. We found
that participants with dyslexia, when using a non-linear note-taking
technique outperformed the control group using linear note-taking
and matched the performance of the control group using non-linear
note-taking. These findings emphasize how different knowledge
management techniques can avoid some of the barriers to learners.
Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: cognition; learning; learning disability; technology

N
ote-taking represents one of the most important and most commonly
used learning strategies to improve both academic and professional
performance (Kiewra, 1985; Titsworth, 2004; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).
Note-taking is one of the first cognitive technologies that enabled us to extend
our abilities by offloading information from our mind to external devices, such as
paper, canvas, musical score or digital content (Dror & Harnad, 2008). The
efficiency of learning strategies is determined by how well managed this process
of offloading is. Further support for the creation, transfer, and application of
information 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: i.dror@ucl.ac.uk, www.cci-hq.com

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
Overcoming Learning Barriers 39

increasingly studied both on the personal (Wright, 2005) and organizational level
(Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Note-taking is a fundamental knowledge management
system of the individual and its efficiency depends on an underlying set of
cognitive skills and technologies. Issues, such as comprehension, metacognition,
cognitive load, or accuracy, need to be carefully assessed and empirically
measured to quantify performance. In a previous study, we examined these
issues with regards to different methods of note-taking and found that variations
in performance and efficiency depended on different cognitive abilities (Makany,
Kemp, & Dror, 2009). This suggests that certain note-taking techniques may be
more suitable to people with learning difficulties and that those may help
overcome learning barriers for people with dyslexia or other types of difficulties.
Generally, note-taking can be divided into two principally different categories
according to how knowledge is managed:

1. Linear: the traditional practice of writing pieces of information linearly in a

minimally structured manner. This involves writing line-by-line, where
sentences follow a fixed continuous sequence (see Figure 1, left panel)
2. Non-linear: note-taking techniques that allow the recording of information
graphically with an organized, semi-structured format (see Figure 1, right
panel). Several non-linear note-taking approaches exist. For the purpose of this
research, we selected a non-linear note-taking technique called SmartWisdom
(Smart Wisdom Ltd, London, UK). We chose SmartWisdom because it is
highly developed and it shares the main characteristic features with most non-
linear techniques by mapping knowledge graphically. Finally, on a more
pragmatic level, we had access to experienced SmartWisdom users, including
users who had dyslexia.

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

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

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
40 I.E. Dror et al.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, this study used 33 participants’ data to test note-taking skills and
how 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 active
professionals in the City of London working mainly in the financial sector.
The participants were mainly mid- to high-level managers, partners and
associates of leading international accountancy, banking and consultancy firms.
Fourteen of them had post-graduate (Masters or above) qualifications and the
other half had university degrees. They were all experienced professionals in
their field with an average of 7.55 years (SD 5 5.99 years) spent at their current
job with a range between 1 to 22 years.
The participants’ data were coded, anonymized, and collapsed with other
participants’ data, and subjected to statistical analysis. All participants took part
voluntarily in the study without any means of compensation. Before beginning
the study, every participant read an information sheet about the research project
and 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 for
dyslexics 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 also
used non-linear note-taking. The participants’ dyslexia was determined based on
previous medical records, psychological diagnoses or other verbal assessments.
The participants were all having mild developmental dyslexia. According to a
commonly used dyslexia categorization, the seven participants were all having
surface (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 other
participants did not bring their medical records at the time of the testing. It was not
the aim of this report to give a detailed assessment or psychological diagnosis of
the 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 expertise
was 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 between
2 months and 6 years and up to the 75th percentile of the Expert non-linear sample
who were using the technique for over 3.75 years. Based on these two factors, we
created 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 linear
note-taking, and to non- dyslexics who also used non-linear note-taking.
Group 1: Seven participants with dyslexia (based on the above criteria) were
tested in this group. All participants were also experienced users of non-linear
note-taking. Their average age was 42.43 years (SD 5 12.48). The youngest was
24 and the eldest was 59 years old. There were six male and one female
participant in this group. Group 2: Seventeen participants were in this group with
over 2 years of non-liner note-taking experience but without dyslexia. Their

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
Overcoming Learning Barriers 41

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 group
with 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 single
person, who was talking about cryptozoology (the study of hidden animals). This
was an unfamiliar topic to all our participants. The presenter talked relatively
fast, making the recording of the information difficult enough to simulate a real-
world scenario, where a single presenter discusses ideas and novel concepts with
a 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 formal
meeting discussing the expected financial trends in the US for the year 2007.
It included five people, one of whom chaired the meeting. The participants
expressed and discussed their views on the market. MV was familiar both in
its content and technical terminology to the participants, who worked in the
financial 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 the
videos. Participants were provided with an evaluation booklet that included
non-linear note-taking sheets and consent forms. The booklet contained four
tasks for each video plus an extra memory task for MV. These tasks were: Task
1—Comprehension: Give a detailed summary of the presented video clip using
their notes. Task 2—Accuracy: Answer accurately four specific questions related
to the video with notes. Task 3—Mental Imagery and Complexity: Draw a
diagram that visually encapsulates the topic using the notes. The ratio of the
links (lines) and the drawn nodes (topics) is a complexity measure. Task
4—Metacognition: Give self-ratings of how they viewed their own note-
taking efficiencies. Task 5—Memory: After completing previous four tasks for
both videos, participants were asked again about the first video (LV) without
their notes.

PROCEDURE

The participants were individually tested during a 45- to 50-min-long one-to-one

session. Each session took place at the participants’ workplace in quiet meeting
rooms. Initially, the participants were introduced to the aims and the procedure
of the study and then the informed consent forms were signed. Then they viewed
the LV taking notes while the lecture was taking place, followed by the cognitive
tasks (comprehension, accuracy, mental imagery & complexity, and metacogni-
tion), then they viewed the discussion meeting videos, taking notes while it was

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
42 I.E. Dror et al.

going on, followed by the cognitive tasks (same as above), and then, finally they
had a memory test on the first LV (without their notes). The materials used for
collecting the data included 5-min video stimuli and test apparatus. We used the
same tools as in our previous study (Makany, Kemp, & Dror, 2009), and used the
data collected from the non-dyslexic groups, and now used the same tools to
collect the data from people with dyslexia.
Two independent research assistants who were blind to the aims of the study
scored the raw data. This method was employed to avoid expectation bias.

RESULTS

Cognitive processes were analysed separately for the LV and the MV

presentations. The data were analyzed with non-parametric statistics. These
tests are suitable to detect statistically significant differences between or within
groups with relatively small sample sizes or in data that may deviate from
normal distributions. The statistical analysis of the data focused on the
comparison of the dyslexic group to the other groups.

Task 1: Comprehension
Task 1 aimed to assess the participants’ ability to extract key points and to
comprehend the presentation, and also to measure how much of this information
they can recollect and coherently reproduce. The scores here reflect on the depth
of information processing that shows how much the participant could engage
with the non-linearly recorded material.
As illustrated in Figure 2, in Task 1 (Comprehension) for the Lecture, the
dyslexic group outperformed the control linear group by 25%, which is a
statistically 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 the
Lecture condition than those without dyslexia. In addition, the dyslexic group
scored similarly to the control non-linear group (the difference was not
statistically significant).In the MV, the dyslexic group outperformed the control
linear by 21%, U 5 10.50, W 5 55.50, Z 5 2.24, po0.05 and there was no
difference compared with the control non-linear group. Hence, the participants
with 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 linear

note-taking, and doing as good as other non-linear note-takers (SW-E) without dyslexia
in both presentation types.

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
Overcoming Learning Barriers 43

Meeting condition. This is apparent in Figure 2, where both the left and right
panels show that the dyslexic participants performed better than the control non-
dyslexic participants who used linear note-taking. This reflects that experienced
non-linear note-taking users with dyslexia are able to record and comprehend
information 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% more
accurate in answering specific questions from the materials of the LV than the
control 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 performed
equally 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 with
no 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 able
to accurately record and recall information 24% better from an individual lecture than
the control participants without dyslexia, who used linear note-taking. In a multiple-
participant discussion meeting situation, people with dyslexia were able to maintain
an accuracy performance similar to control participants without dyslexia. This is an
important finding, since people with dyslexia often lack the ability to accurately
record 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 with
the help of their notes. These diagrams aimed to map the structure of the
participants’ mental representations. This was to assess how well the new
information integrated into the existing knowledge system.
As illustrated in Figure 4, in Task 3 (Mental Imagery & Complexity) for both
videos, participants of the dyslexic group used the same number of nodes and edges
as 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.

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
44 I.E. Dror et al.

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

Task 4: Metacognition
Task 4 (Metacognition) measured what participants in each group thought about
their own note-taking skills. These self-ratings were then compared with real
performances (based on the respective Task 1 scores). Metacognitive measures
are particularly useful for engaging advanced learners and understanding the
intrinsic motivation of the participants.
As illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, for the LV, participants of all three groups
were accurately estimating their performances, as there were no differences
between metacognitive scores and actual scores. Although the tendency to
underestimate occurs in most cases, after the MV, interestingly the dyslexic group
showed more accurate self-ratings than the other groups. Although both control
groups had significantly higher actual performance scores (Z 5 2.41, po0.05
and 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/mental

representations as controls and non-linear note-takers (SW-E) without dyslexia.

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

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

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
Overcoming Learning Barriers 45

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.

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

Task 5: Memory
Finally, the Memory task measured how participants remembered factual
information without their notes after at least 30-min from the presentation.
As illustrated in Figure 7, the dyslexic group did not differ significantly from the
others in their memory recall abilities, despite the slightly higher score. Hence,
although the dyslexic participants scored higher, this was not statistically
significant, and their performance was comparable to the other groups of
participants. This result suggests that even dyslexic non-linear note-takers can
optimize their information resources so that the method does not require more
cognitive 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 participants
that 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 or
better than the controls who did not use non-linear note-taking. In measures
covering the recording and comprehension of information non-linear note-taking
users with Dyslexia were on average 23% better than the control participants
using linear note-taking. In an individual lecture, the non-linear note-taking users
with dyslexia were able to accurately record and recall information 24% better
than the control participants without dyslexia who were using linear note-taking.
Dyslexia, especially surface dyslexia, often manifests in missing the context of
the information (i.e. word, letter), which leads to confusion and poor reading or
understanding performance. Non-linear note-taking increases comprehension
and enhances the encoding of contextual semantics of the recorded knowledge.
This is most likely achieved through characteristics of the note-taking system (for
details, see Makany et al., 2009), such as the better visual accessibility (1-page
overview), the interrelatedness of the information nodes (stems, connectors, etc.),

Copyright r 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 17: 38–47 (2011)
46 I.E. Dror et al.

and the semantic hierarchy (concentric circles). These features help the newly
learnt 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 traditional
linear note-taking sacrifices accuracy when aiming to record information in
sentences. The shorter forms of recording information in non-linear notes
alleviates cognitive demands from the working memory system and reinforces
that sometimes ‘less is more’, whereby accuracy can increase significantly. Those
single units of detailed information that have been recorded on the non-linear
notes serve as semantically stronger and more precise anchoring points for later
recall than long and confusing sentences. For dyslexic people, who may struggle
constantly with selecting the most relevant information, the non-linear technique
offers an easier and less memory demanding way to remember the material
correctly. This effect was most prominent in the LV situation. However, even in
the MV, whereby a higher volume of complex information where frequently
changing sources alternated, the dyslexic group managed to keep up with the
controls. This is an encouraging result because it also suggests that dyslexics
could maintain their average level of attentional focus to a similar standard as
non-dyslexics.
People with dyslexia often experience distress arising from their own
condition, they require a special knowledge management method to reverse
this tendency. Such a method, like non-linear note-taking, would make them
more confident and can become effective enough to result in actual performance
increases. This is one of the most important finding of this study, as it sheds light
on opportunities to overcome barriers of learning by providing knowledge
management 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 be
more suitable for people with dyslexia.

References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1),
107–136.
Bryant, P., & Impey, L. (1986). The similarity between normal readers and developmental
and 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 processing
alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.

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

Makany, T., Kemp, J., & Dror, I. E. (2009). Optimising the use of note-taking as an external
cognitive 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 knowledge
worker performance. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 3, 156–165.

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

View publication stats