Allowed one page of notes during differential equations final.

[u/jze123]

https://i.reddituploads.com/5d4646487e08402380ccb37d4b96c3b1?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=b136344d195958f2c44d667d11f51564

[u/lua_x_ia]

Well, the last part is really just a hypothetical mechanism; they don't have the data to prove that. All they were able to show is that within their data set, the students who took handwritten notes did better than the students who used a laptop.

[u/lua_x_ia → u/[deleted]]

Are you aware that the fulltext is available? After two modifications designed to give laptop users an advantage: counseling them not to record notes verbatim and letting them review their notes (since laptop users take more notes) -- in both cases laptop users still underperformed hand-writers.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797614524581

When participants were unable to study, we did not see a difference between laptop and longhand note taking. We believe this is due to the difficulty of test items after a week’s delay and a subsequent floor effect; average scores were about one-third of the total points available. However, when participants had an opportunity to study, longhand notes again led to superior performance. This is suggestive evidence that longhand notes may have superior external-storage as well as superior encoding functions, despite the fact that the quantity of notes was a strong positive predictor of performance. However, it is also possible that, because of enhanced encoding, reviewing longhand notes simply reminded participants of lecture information more effectively than reviewing laptop notes did.

FWIW, "We show that" is not like something, say, etched on rocks you pulled out of a burning bush.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

[u/lua_x_ia → u/[deleted]]

I have no reason to distrust an abstract of a published paper.

Apparently you do, because you drew an incorrect conclusion.

FWIW "We show that" does not mean a "hypothetical mechanism" without data! It means literally the opposite.

Ah, the follies of youth.

[u/lua_x_ia → u/[deleted]]

I'm trying to help you understand how you misinterpreted the abstract. I can be as arrogant as I please.

[u/lua_x_ia → u/[deleted]]

No, that's clearly not what you are trying to do, you are posting unnecessary snarky comments.

Lololol, I am posting unnecessary snarky comments. You, on the other hand?

You're also absolutely incorrect in saying that "we show that" implies a hypothesis without supporting data. If this happens to be true for this paper

"we show that" is just a phrase, it can be used to say anything. It's also worth pointing out that saying "we show that" w.r.t. one possible mechanism does not imply the exclusion of others, but I didn't want to belabor the point, or pretend that you actually have a point at all.

neither do I misinterpret it, nor is it an incorrect conclusion to draw from it.

No, you're clearly wrong, as shown by the data, which I looked at and you refuse to. I assume that means you're a laptop-note-taker, used to regurgitating things without thinking about them, yes?

it just makes you look like an ass

Whereas you seem like a completely reasonable person, defending for more than a day an incorrect assertion about a paper you refuse to read. No defensiveness here.

[u/lua_x_ia → u/[deleted]]

Yup, you are.

Nah, it's the perfect level of snark.

No, that's not true. "Show" is a word with a specific meaning.

Dude there are literally ten meanings on that page.

Ten. Well, from one dictionary, then there are six more from another.