Note-making in Biology: How the School Experience Influences Note-making Practice and Approach at University

Abstract

In South Africa there is mounting concern surrounding the throughput of undergraduates. The preparation of school-learners for the challenges presented in the academic environment at university has come into question. First-years are expected to construct notes in biology; these notes act as an interface between the lecturer and students when the latter prepare for assessments. The literature highlights that the quality of notes that students make is related to their grades. This study investigates the influence of the students’ note-making practice at school on the quality of notes that first-years construct during an Introductory Biology course at university. Sixty first-year students who registered for the course, over a three-year period, participated in this study. Data collection entailed the completion of a questionnaire, participation in individual face-to-face interviews at the beginning of each semester in the first year and the beginning of the second year, and the analysis of the students’ notes. The findings show that students’ school experience in note-making influences the quality of their notes when they enter university. This finding is significant since biology is content heavy, and with limited guidance at university the students rely on the school experience to guide them in compiling their notes. A model for improving note-making practice is presented in this paper, and shows how the students’ construction of their notes may act as a means to improve their learning.

Keywords:

• First-year transition
• note-making
• writing to learn
• biology
• school

Introduction

There is concern about the throughput of science undergraduates (Blackie, le Roux & McKenna, 2016). Part of the problem of dropout relates to transition from school to first year (Scott, 2009). Most universities have built in a ‘First-year Experience’ programme which focuses on the development of academic skills such as the ability to make notes. Globally, studies have shown that the quality of notes that students make is related to the grades that they achieve (Sampson, Enderle, Grooms & Witte, 2013; Trevors, Duffy & Azevedo, 2014). This study focuses on the relationship between the students’ note-making practices at school and university.

When taking notes during a lecture (note-taking), students simultaneously listen and note content or shift between listening and noting content (Kiewra, 2002). Ideally, students should revise and expand their notes afterwards (note-making) according to their understanding of the lecture and using resources, e.g. textbooks. In note-making undergraduates are expected to paraphrase notes while constructing meaning. Thus, while note-taking is mechanistic, during the process of note-making students could engage more readily in deepening their understanding of content (Makany, Kemp, & Dror, 2009). Since this study focuses on student practice in constructing their notes for the purpose of studying towards assessments, note-making rather than note-taking is considered.

Research on compiling notes in science emphasises the role of multi-representation (e.g. formulae; textual explanations; diagrams) and explores the opportunities for concept mapping and sketches (Buntting, Coll, & Campbell, 2006). The context of this study includes note-making strategies that students use when composing their study notes, and is based on the multiple representations which the lecturer presents during class. Many large-group undergraduate science courses are still conducted with the lecturers’ use of PowerPoint slides that contain text and diagrams as a primary way to provide a visual reference for students during the lecture (Wanner, 2016). Even if electronic copies are made available (Hill, Arford, Lubitow, & Smolin, 2012), student notes are still based mostly on outlines presented as lecture slides. This study explores the influence of school practice with note-making on the first-year students’ practice in compiling their study notes. It specifically focuses on note-making in biology. While some studies (Dye & Stanton, 2017) have shown that note-making correlates with learning in chemistry, in biology notes differ in that they are more content heavy. The practice of note-making is a key opportunity for students to reflect on their depth of understanding.

Students who perform poorly in high school can improve on their grades if their note-taking practice is guided by instruction since training enables students to produce more detailed notes, remember more content over an extended period and have improved comprehension (Boyle, 2010). Yet students are not usually trained to construct their notes. No known study has yet investigated the link between students’ practice in note-making at school and in first-year university. It is crucial to investigate this link because the students’ pool of resources for academic studies in first year stems from the foundation that they receive at school. Specifically, this study addresses the following research question: what relationship exists between the students’ note-making practice at school and university?

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Biology is content heavy, and requires considerable cognitive effort because there are three instances of meaning-making that need to occur in this context. Students need to firstly translate concepts in biology into a language that they understand; secondly, they need to make sense of the concepts within their language, and they then need to translate their understanding back into the rhetoric that is relevant to the science context, particularly when learners answer assessments (Gunel, Hand & McDermott, 2009). Thus, undergraduates need to navigate between their everyday language and that required within the science academic context.

Note-taking and note-making are stages that include the use of working memory and generative learning, but to different extents. ‘Working memory’ is used when listening to the lecturer and then writing notes accordingly within a short space of time, while ‘generative learning’ refers to the meaning that students are able to construct, and refers to connections between new and prior knowledge (Peper & Mayer, 1978). However, when students use their working memory to listen, determine what should be noted and record this, and engage in the mechanics of writing, e.g. spelling, they do not have the capacity to engage generatively (Makany et al., 2009). Therefore, it is unlikely that a student would engage in much generative learning during a lecture. However, during the process of note-making students do not have to engage in as many tasks simultaneously, and would then have the capacity to engage generatively. Generative learning may be reflected in notes that contain more than what the lecturer has said or illustrated visually (Stefanou, Hoffman, & Vielee, 2008). Since meaning is deepened during the process of note-making, the quality of notes that students produce at this stage is likely to be dependent on their level of generative engagement.

Some students take ownership of their learning, i.e. they self-regulate their learning, whereas other students believe that the teachers are responsible for their learning. The students’ cognitive development, and their choice of learning approach, is influenced by their ability to self-regulate (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001) their learning. Self-regulated students are more likely to take charge of constructing, finding in-depth meaning of content and personalising their notes during note-making. Underprepared or less-self regulated students usually believe that learning is the responsibility of the teachers, and therefore the majority of their learning occurs within the classroom. Therefore underprepared students might consider that the lecturers’ slides contain all the content that they are required to ‘know’. Since self-regulated students are more likely to use strategies that are more closely aligned to the university’s expectation of the independent and self-directed role of undergraduates, they have a better chance of being successful academically. In this study self-regulation theory (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001) is used as the conceptual framework because the way in which students capture material, revise and expand on their class notes depends on their level of self-regulation.

Notes can be viewed in terms of Vygotsky’s conceptions of ‘tools and signs’. A ‘psychological tool’ assists a person to achieve a particular aim at a cognitive level, and this process is meant to change the external world in some way (Vygotsky, 1987). A ‘sign’ differs from a ‘psychological tool’ in that the change, which can be seen in the form of a ‘sign’, is at an individual level only, and does not change the external world (Vygotsky, 1987). In this study Vygotsky’s definition of ‘signs’ is used to describe the transformed and personalised notes that students make in relation to the change in their level of learning. Students usually struggle to identify gaps in their understanding, and to develop a depth of understanding that is required within the university academic setting: the model which I propose acts as a tool which they could use to meet these requirements. The use of the model as a tool for learning is explained under the section ‘Description of the model’.

Methods

This study was conducted in a year-long, first-year biology course taught at a South African university, and extended from 2009 to 2011. Approximately 250 students per year enrolled for the course. Lectures were 45 minutes each.

Two lectures per semester per year were selected for this study. Each of the lectures was provided by different lecturers, i.e. one lecture per lecturer per year was included in this dataset. Lectures were video-taped, transcribed and coded for analysis. Even though data was collected only in semester 2 for 2009, students were still able to reflect on their practice in note-making at school. Their reflections and the notes were considered valuable to this study and were included in the dataset. Thus there were two datasets for semester 1 (i.e. 2010 and 2011) and for semester 2 (i.e. 2009 and 2010).

All students were provided with a questionnaire yielding data on the school and university experiences of their note-making and learning practices. This information was used to refine the interview questions posed to students later in the study. The questionnaire and interview questions were adapted from a study conducted by Bonner and Holliday (2006) and piloted locally.

The questionnaire consisted of 11 open-ended questions and four questions which required the student to tick an option. An example of a question related to school experience of note-making is ‘What style of notes did you have at school?’ This question was followed by a table consisting of a choice of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for the following statements: ‘Handouts were provided by the teacher’, ‘Notes were copied from the board’, ‘Notes were written by yourself while the teacher taught’, ‘Notes were written by yourself, use was made of the prescribed textbook’, and a space was provided for ‘Other’. This table was followed by the question ‘How did you use these notes in preparation for assessments?’

Participation was voluntary; 159 respondents completed the survey in 2009, in 2010 there were 148 respondents and in 2011, 97 students answered the survey. Two categories of students emerged when analysing the questionnaires i.e. self-regulated and underprepared, as elaborated in the Results and Discussion. Based on the formation of these two categories, 10 students per category (20 students per year, i.e. 60 students for the overall study) were randomly selected to be interviewed to probe their practices on note-making. Each student participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted at the beginning of each semester, and were used to probe any changes to the views expressed in the questionnaires as students gained experience at university. Interviews were also used to examine learning and note-making strategies applied within the school and university environment.

Study notes were collected, i.e. the notes students used when learning for assessments. These notes included the class notes and any additions which the students included after class. Each student provided two sets of notes per semester for analysis.

Data Analysis

The students’ responses to the questionnaire were analysed according to each of the following factors which were phrased in the form of open-ended questions:

• schooling and university practice in note-making;

• how notes were used for assessment preparation at school and university;

• how students used the slides provided at university;

• how first-years recorded notes during the lecture at university.

The interview data was transcribed and coded. Themes emerged during coding, thus theme frequencies were identified. Data analysis followed the inductive approach.

Student notes were analysed by looking for ‘information units’, which are defined as a sentence or a clause or stand-alone phrase (Hughes & Suritsky, 1994). The information units are referred to as facts in the current study. A rubric was developed as an analysis tool and was used as a starting point for the qualitative analysis of the students’ notes. In the present study, the qualitative results from the analysis using the rubric are referred to as the ‘notes score’. The transcribed video data was compared with the notes which students made. The types of notes the two categories of students made were analysed and compared. Two peers in the education field independently evaluated 10% of the students’ notes in the current study and there was over 95% agreement with each of the reviewers.

Ethics clearance was granted by the University’s Research Ethics Committee (HREC Non-Medical Protocol number 2009ECE114).

Results and Discussion

Note-making: The Practice at School Influences Preparedness for University

When analysing the questionnaires on the basis of students’ note-making practices at school, two categories of students emerged, i.e. self-regulated and underprepared students. The self-regulated students were defined as those who generally were self-reliant in their note-making at school. The underprepared students referred to those who usually learnt only the comprehensive notes from the teachers at school. Of the 404 questionnaires that were analysed over the duration of the study, 237 students (58%) exhibited practices that were considered self-regulated, while 162 students (41%) reported practices that were considered underprepared for the first year (Table 1).

Table 1. Percentages of students’ practice of making notes at school (n = 404)

Student category	Note-making practice	Percentage
Self-regulated	Construct own notes	16
	Construct own notes and copy text from teacher’s slides/chalkboard	11
	Construct own notes and copy text from teacher’s explanation	1
	Construct own notes and copy text from textbook	3
	Construct own notes and copy text from teacher’s explanation and textbook	2
	Construct own notes and copy text from teacher’s slides/chalkboard, and textbook	12
	Construct own notes and use teacher’s slides/chalkboard and teacher’s explanation	2
	Construct own notes and use teacher’s slides/chalkboard, teacher’s explanation and textbook	11
Underprepared	Copy text from teacher’s slides/chalkboard	37
	Copy text from textbook	1
	Copy text from teacher’s slides/chalkboard and copy text from teacher’s explanation	2
	Copy text from teacher’s slides/chalkboard and from the teacher’s explanation, and read textbook	1
Total		100

Table 2 shows the frequencies of practices interviewed students (n = 60) showed for the use of lecture slides in the first year. At university more of the underprepared compared with the self-regulated students either studied the lecture slides as they were or made summaries of the slides when studying for assessments. The underprepared students were accustomed to receiving complete sets of notes from the teacher at school (Table 1), and this corresponded with their view of using only the lecturers’ slides to study for assessments at university (Table 2). Similarly, for the self-regulated students the practice of being responsible for their own notes at school (Table 1) was reflected in their views that they needed to take the responsibility of making their own study notes in first year (Table 2). The current study thus shows that, based on their experience at school, some students considered that the lecturer would provide their learning material, while other students believed that note-making was their responsibility in the first year. As noted by Dye and Stanton (2017), when students move from school into university, their learning is mostly their responsibility; however, the students’ schooling background does not always provide them with the necessary foundation to take on this self-directed approach.

Table 2. Students’ reported use of the slides provided by their lecturers (%, n = 60)

	Made own notes using slides as a guide (%)	Studied slides with own notes (%)	Added to slides using textbook (%)	Inserted teacher’s explanation onto slides (%)	Studied slides (%)	Made summaries of slides (%)
Self-regulated students (n = 30)	37	10	37	10	3	3
Underprepared students (n = 30)	17	3	20	3	37	20

The data for the first-year cohorts in this present study shows a slight majority of the sampled students involved in some form of active note-making (Table 2). Reddy (2017) reported that a large majority of high school students did not consider note-making to be ‘active’. Data in the present study suggests that a higher proportion of the self-regulated students is represented in the first-year sample than in the general high school student population, supporting the notion that self-regulation and high achievement are linked.

Boyle (2010) indicates that active learning can be promoted amongst secondary school students when they are guided in the construction of their notes. However, within the context of the current study, it is possible that, since at school the majority of underprepared students used the teachers’ notes as study material (Table 1), they had not yet developed the skill of personalising their study notes when they entered the first year.

Since at school learners from both categories did not often note additional material from the teachers’ explanations during the class lesson (Table 1), it is not surprising that only a few students (between 3 and 16%) said that they added information from the lecturers’ explanations onto their notes in the first year (Table 2), as indicated by a comment from a self-regulated student:

in school biology was just a lot of droning, you had the teacher’s work so why bother listen, but at university you have to listen to what you have to write down, it might not be in the slides or in the textbook.

Students’ and Lecturers’ Use of Lecture Slides in the First Year

It is concerning that many students rely heavily on only content that is provided on lecture slides, and do not pay much attention to capturing content provided in the lecturers’ explanations since at university several lecturers usually provide only skeletal material on their lecture slides (Table 3). While one lecturer provided 29% additional information in explanations compared with the amount of detail they had on their slides, others provided as much as 80% new information verbally (Table 3). Thus, students whose school practice entailed limited revision and personalisation of their class notes were at a disadvantage when they were expected to make their notes at university. Crucially, the guidance offered during the orientation programme was generic for all science courses, yet as Dye and Stanton (2017) points out, chemistry and biology for instance are distinctly different in terms of the type and amount of content that would need noting. Therefore, within the content-heavy context of biology, first-year students would require support for their engagement with their notes.

Table 3. The lecturers' use of slides in the classroom

	Lecturer 1	Lecturer 2	Lecturer 3	Lecturer 4
Average number of facts provided during class	112	216	188	174
Average number of facts on slides	50	124	133	34
Average number of facts only in verbal elaboration	62	92	55	140
Percentage of facts only in verbal elaboration	55%	43%	29%	80%

Lecturers in biology usually use multiple representations when explaining content in class; these representations are meant to support learning (Buntting, Coll, & Campbell, 2006). Findings showed that lecturers’ slides varied in the quantity and type of detail that was presented during lectures; slides provided by some lecturers comprised wordy content whilst slides presented by other lecturers contained mostly key points or key words (Table 3).

Note-making Strategies

During interviews generally the self-regulated students commented that the process of note-making helped them to develop their understanding of content. Thus, when these students were questioned about their strategy when revising their notes, many of them said that they placed emphasis on selectively writing down content from the lecture that was relevant to their understanding (53%) and noting relevant material from the textbook (44%) (Table 4). The group of underprepared students focused on the same strategies to virtually the same extent (51 and 37% respectively). Students who did this understood that, if they personalised their notes, these transformed notes would benefit them in deepening their understanding, to them these notes act as a ‘sign’ in relation to their depth of learning, and represent a means to engage with their learning. Table 4 shows that the underprepared students focused to a larger extent on the strategy of highlighting examinable content in their note-making, whereas the self-regulated students focused more on capturing the lecturer’s explanations. Trends show that, while the self-regulated students saw the lecturers’ slides as a means which they could use to shape their understanding, the underprepared students generally viewed the lecturers’ slides as the product that they needed to learn.

Table 4. Percentage of students’ strategies when note-making in first-year biology (not mutually exclusive)

	Linking to other content (%)	Importance to my understanding (%)	Difficulty of concepts (%)	Write logically (%)	Linking class notes and textbook (%)	Highlighting examinable material (%)	Highlighting new content (%)	Keeping focused and attentive (%)	Selecting all visual lecture content (%)	Selecting all lecturer explanations (%)	Selecting all content from lecture (%)
Self-regulated students (n = 30)	10	53	10	17	44	25	10	10	10	37	23
Underprepared students (n = 30)	0	51	5	3	37	48	10	0	13	20	10

The Nature of Student Notes

In this study, the students’ notes were examined in two ways: (a) the quantity of notes reflected by the number of facts that were present (Tables 5 and 6); and (b) the quality of their notes (Table 7). The quality of notes is termed the ‘notes score’ and provides a reflection of the structure, overall coherency and development of ideas in the students’ notes. Students who had paraphrased notes and added more information than that presented on the lecturers’ slides and in the lecturers’ explanations during the lecture, and set out their notes with clear sub-ordinate and super-ordinate contents which showed flow and logic scored more highly than students who did not fulfil these criteria (Table 7). The maximum note score is 24 points.

Table 5. Average number of facts in students’ notes

	Average number of facts
	Lecturer 1	Lecturer 2	Lecturer 3	Lecturer 4	First year
Self-regulated	57	57	129	51	74
Underprepared	56	69	109	41	69

Table 6. Average additional content present in notes from resources other than the lecture

	Average additional content
	Lecturer 1	Lecturer 2	Lecturer 3	Lecturer 4	First year
Self-regulated	13	2	5	2	6
Underprepared	12	5	2	1	5

Table 7. Average ‘notes score’ representing quality of notes

	Average note score
	Lecturer 1	Lecturer 2	Lecturer 3	Lecturer 4	First year
Self-regulated	20	21	15	15	18
Underprepared	15	16	11	11	13

The data in Tables 5 and 6 reflects that the average number of facts in students’ first-year notes differed little for the self-regulated and the underprepared groups. Equally, the amount of information these groups added to their notes from sources other than the lecture slides was very similar too. However, as indicated in Table 7, the quality of the notes differs considerably in favour of the self-regulated group of students.

Synthesising Discussion

In response to the research question ‘What relationship exists between the students’ note-making practice at school and university?’, this study provides evidence to show that the students’ school experience influences their adaptation to their first year. The difference between first-year note-making of self-regulated students and underprepared students is apparent in the quality of their notes, not the quantity of them.

The self-regulated students reported that, because noting material kept them focused in class, they had developed an understanding of the content before they revised their notes. As a result of the lack of experience the underprepared students had at school in taking charge of their notes and in their self-directed learning, they took a longer time to realise and adapt to university expectations through their experience in first year. When students engage with their notes by more than simply rewriting them, they become more metacognitively aware.

The findings indicate that there is the need to explicitly train students in note-making, with academic staff needing to be equally made aware of their responsibility to assist students in this regard.

Description of the Model

As a result of this study a model (Table 8) is proposed which students can use to determine the quality of their notes, i.e. the cognitive level reflected in their notes, and to improve on the quality of their notes. The usefulness of the model as a tool for students to engage with their learning emerged from the analysis of students’ notes in this study. When the model is used to restructure class notes during the note-making phase, meaning-making can be encouraged since connections between new knowledge and prior knowledge will be facilitated. Thus the model can support students to achieve higher mental function. If however the notes that students learn from for assessments are a close replica of the lecturers’ slides, then this is likely to mean that students have not given critical thought to the content provided. These students generally memorise the content without finding the meaning of the content. While revised notes could be a ‘sign’ of the internal expression of the students’ understanding, underprepared students are usually more reliant on receiving assistance from the lecturer, and are less likely to modify the notes taken in class. If students use the model as a ‘tool’ to paraphrase notes, this process can stimulate critical thought. This is because the words that students choose to use in their notes carry a personal meaning of their understanding of the content based on the level of relevant prior knowledge that they have on the topic.

Table 8. Model for analysis of students’ notes

	Cognitive level
Analysis of notes	1. Surface note-making approach	2. Emergent note-making approach	3. Developing note-making approach	4. Experienced note-making approach
Development of ideas	Replica of lecturer’s visuals	1 + verbatim copy of verbal lecture	Paraphrased notes from lecture content	3 + Own thoughts added into notes, shows connections to prior knowledge/other concepts
Accuracy and structure	Direct copy of slides	Lecturer explanation is noted as a continuous ‘story’	Shows clear sequence of topics, includes examples provided by lecturer	3 + links to examples or elaborations that lecturer did not mention in class
Flow of writing	Only keywords/ideas from lecturer’s slides	Includes some short sentences or quotes from the lecturer’s explanations	Examples the lecturer mentioned are provided	3 + evidence of information added in from other sources. Clear connections and narrative
Writing conventions	Fills the entire page with only writing (as a direct copy of the slides)	Adds in supplementary notes from the lecturer’s explanations only	Adds in supplementary notes and or pictures from lecture content	Adds in information and diagrams from other sources. Creates summaries or mind-maps for purposes of overview
Add ons	None	Distinguish between how much is highlighted (the more are highlighted, the fewer distinctions are made of key concepts), summaries (concept maps, bulleted points), references to figures/tables made by the lecturer
Handouts from lecturer	No additional notes on handouts	Additional information added onto handouts		3+ integrated information on notes and handout, reflection of the use of the handout in relation to written set of notes

There are two dimensions to the model (Table 8). One dimension represents the levels of the students’ cognitive ability that are considered necessary at the university level. The other dimension represents the knowledge and skills that students build. The model can be used by students to evaluate the quality of their notes in terms of structure, coherency, accuracy of content and the development of ideas. The construction of the model is based on SOLO taxonomy. SOLO taxonomy is used to evaluate a student’s cognitive ability on tasks, and defines different cognitive levels and knowledge dimensions (Biggs & Collis, 1982). Cognitive abilities are defined at the structural, conceptual and procedural level, and show an increase in mental abilities as one moves up each of these cognitive levels. The application of the different cognitive levels can be gauged by students analysing their notes. The more links to prior knowledge, the level of accuracy and greater incorporation of their opinion, the higher the cognitive level of the student in that piece of work is. In terms of the current study, students whose notes contained more than that provided by the lecturer in class, and whose notes were paraphrased or personalised in some form, had engaged generatively with the content.

One of the main struggles of students is that they find difficulty in identifying their knowledge gaps, particularly in biology. This is because the lecturer provides much content in a fast-paced fashion during lectures, and covers more content in a shorter period of time compared with the experience students had at school. Finding knowledge gaps is key to students developing their understanding further. By using this model to self-train in the construction of notes, the model explicitly sets out the importance of students determining gaps in their knowledge; in turn, this allows the student to focus on specific problematic components of the content, and build on their understanding by using resources such as the textbook. If students are not actively engaged during the lecture and during note revision, then they are not usually fully aware of their level of understanding (Kiewra, 2002). The model can serve as a tool to scaffold the process of note-making and cognitive development of students, particularly for courses such as biology, which are content heavy.

Use of Model to Improve Note-making Practice

In using this model to analyse their notes, students may work through each factor in the column to identify where they fit on the continuum associated with each row. They would be able to identify the level of notes which they took as they proceeded to determine where they fall in terms of the quality of notes they had made. For instance, in this study the notes made by underprepared students were usually a replica of the lecturers’ slides; this is consistent with cognitive level 1 reflected on the model (Table 8). In contrast, the notes made by the self-regulated students were more detailed than the information provided on the lecturers’ slides, and were personalised in that they usually contained mind-maps, flow charts or hierarchical maps, and examples other than those provided by the lecturer. The model presented in this paper provides students with a guide for their note-making process, and sets out to stimulate generative learning. This model could be particularly useful to second-language learners, since during the class lesson working memory is in demand whilst after class there is more opportunity to learn generatively.

Conclusion

This study set out to establish the impact of the students’ schooling background on their construction of notes in a first-year biology course. The practice and ownership that the self-regulated students had of note-making and learning at school, in contrast to the underprepared students, meant that the self-regulated students adapted to university pressures earlier.

The literature clearly shows the advantages that having a complete set of lecture notes has for student learning, but the current study shows that, within the South African situation, where most students are accustomed to rote-learning at school, do not usually deeply engage with content and rely heavily on guidance from the teacher, the ownership that students take in constructing and personalising their notes at university is vital to their learning.

Owing to the self-regulated students being accountable for their construction of notes at school, they also viewed the start of their learning process within the lecture, unlike the underprepared students, who believed that their learning started when studying content after class. Students need to be made aware of the importance of note-making as an internal process that is independent and individual, and therefore needs to be aligned to their understanding. The model described in this paper provides a tool that enables students to take more responsibility for their knowledge construction.

ORCID

Shalini Dukhan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2139-3232