Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1830 sci.math:5325 sci.physics:5494
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!tank!uxc!iuvax!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!dykimber
From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Student preparedness
Message-ID: <5314@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 89 19:47:57 GMT
References: <4893@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <6435@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <8125@aw.sei.cmu.edu> <2334@hou2d.UUCP>
Reply-To: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 16

In article <2334@hou2d.UUCP> del@hou2d.UUCP (D.LEASURE) writes:
>Dr. J. McNaughton of Expert Knowledge Systems does an exercise in
>his knowledge acquisition class to show the ineffectiveness of note
>taking.  He has the students take notes from a tape of an actual
>interview with an expert.  His experience is that only 20% of the
>topics listed by the expert are accurately identified and that only
>30% of the details recorded for each topic are correct, giving an
>overall correctness rating of 6% for notetaking.

I don't get the point of this.  Were they supposed to be recording the
information?  Or taking notes?  It would seem to me that 6% is a reasonable
amount of a lecture to have faithfully recorded, depending on the lecture
(or interview, whatever), and depending on the student's interest.  Maybe
it's a little high.

                                      -Dan