4 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2022
    1. e called on his fellow rabbis to submitnotecards with details from their readings. He proposed that a central office gathermaterial into a ‘system’ of information about Jewish history, and he suggested theypublish the notes in the CCAR’s Yearbook.

      This sounds similar to the variety of calls to do collaborative card indexes for scientific efforts, particularly those found in the fall of 1899 in the journal Science.

      This is also very similar to Mortimer J. Adler et al's group collaboration to produce The Syntopicon as well as his work on Propædia and Encyclopædia Britannica.

      link to: https://hypothes.is/a/nvWZnuApEeuKR--5AeBv8w

  2. Aug 2022
  3. May 2016
    1. Students who were part of the experimental group (35.41%, N = 7) performed worse than their peers (38.54%, N = 43) onthe pre-test. On the post-test students who participated in collaborative note-taking did significantly better (72.49%) than their peers (64.17%). Presumably this means that the students who participated in the study had lower levels of baseline knowledge at the outset, but they had a more robust level of knowledge by the end of the class and the experiment than did their peers who had taken notes individually. The difference of 8.28% is strikingly similar to the difference in grades. As the results indicate, these are difficult tests for students. The experimental group did not just perform almost a letter grade better in grades; they also performed almost a letter grade better on the pre/post tests

      Pre-post tests showed better gains (again by about 8%) for collaborative note-takers than for students who did not take notes collaboratively.

    2. Table 2 shows that the average grade across all classes and groups (experimental and control) was 72.02%. Students in the experimental group had an average grade of 79.66%, while the control group average was a 71.87% (a difference of 7.79%). Students who participated in collaborative notes performed nearly a single letter grade better than did their peers in the same classes. The ANOVA result found significance at the .01 level (F = 5.47, p < 0.01). Further, Bartlett’s test for equal variance returned a non-significant value, indicating a reliable ANOVA model. It is possible to say there was a statistically significant difference between the control group and the experimental group.

      Students who took notes collaborative scored nearly 8% higher on their course grades than students who did not.