Electronic Notes Via Jupyter Notebooks

Irene Urcelay-Olabarria

and Josu M. Igartua

Fisika Aplikatua I Saila, Bilboko Ingenieritza Eskola, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU),

Urkixo Zumarkalea z/g., Bilbo, Spain

Applied Physics II Department, Science and Technology Faculty, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU),

B. Sarriena s/n, Leioa (Bizkaia), Spain

Keywords:

Jupyter Notebook, Electronic Notes, Narrative Linear Thread.

Abstract:

Nowadays there are many tools to teach, both analogical and electronic. In our classes we use either tools:

slides (and their xerox copies), computer driven presentations, videos, exercise bundles, calendar of the sub-

ject, syllabus, blackboard, detailed program of the subject... In the teaching/studying process there are to

reference systems: the teacher’s and the students’. In the former, it is the teacher who knows the subject

and has designed it, whereas in the latter the students should acquire the competences relative to the module,

grade... To that end, the students should follow the teacher’s indications and use the materials we give them

directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, the students, in their reference system, and due to the way teachers do our

job, do not have any linear narrative threat facilitating the acquisition of the knowledge and competences. In

this communication we present a tool, the electronic notes via Jupyter notebooks, which provides the students

with a linear narrative threat based on a static initial schema but adaptable to each student, and modiﬁable and

extensible by each student, being executable as well.

1 INTRODUCTION

As far as we know, in the current Grades offered in the

Science and Technology Faculty of the Basque Coun-

try University (UPV/EHU), the syllabus are quite

rigid; That is, it is speciﬁed very precisely what is

to be taught. Of course, the same thing happens with

competences. The ﬁrst reason for classroom teaching

sessions of the subjects as it is actually done has to do

with how the syllabus, programs, have been designed.

One of the authors (JM Igartua) knows from his own

experience how those syllabus have been designed: it

has always been taken into account, at least in the de-

gree commissions in which he participated, what are

the learning outcomes to be achieved and with what

level is expected to address the students a speciﬁc sub-

ject, which will determine number of ECTS assigned

to the subject and its relative position with respect to

the rest of the subjects in the Degree. All of which

also determines what is the essential part of the sub-

ject, in what order it should be taught, both, relative

order in the subject and absolute with respect to the

rest of the contents of other subjects of the degree.

We do not know how curricula and, more speciﬁcally,

subject syllabus, are regulated in other university edu-

cation systems, in Europe, for example. But it is actu-

ally a known fact that Subjects, despite being called in

the same way, for example, and being ”surrounded”

of the same type of subjects in the same courses of

equal Physics Degrees (with the same name), are not

equal; In many cases it is almost impossible to ﬁnd

even a single equal or moderately similar theme be-

tween programs, and we do not know how to solve

”the problem” generated by this dispersion of pro-

grams either. If we know how it should be resolved

in our environment in most cases.

This fact of prioritizing some aspects, some con-

cepts, against others or certain orders in which to de-

liver the subjects, causes, among many other conse-

quences, that there is not a priori a text related to that

subject that completely covers any of the programs

proposed. Unless, of course, the program has been

proposed on the basis of an existing text. This last

case also occurs in our environment, but it is not very

common. The most common case is the general sit-

uation in which for most subjects their contents are

scattered in a small series, at best, good textbooks.

This implies that the preparation of the subject by the

teaching team requires the use of those good books,

which is not bad, in itself. The bad point is that it is

all the parts used of those books that have to be rec-

ommended to the students. Unless an ad hoc text is

created for that speciﬁc subject. This has its advan-

tages and disadvantages. The essential advantage of

464

Urcelay-Olabarria, I. and Igartua, J.

Electronic Notes Via Jupyter Notebook s.

DOI: 10.5220/0006352204640469

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 464-469

ISBN: 978-989-758-239-4

that approach is that the entire program of the subject

is self-contained in a single text, which will have to

be prepared with greater or less success. However, it

does not seem an easy task to prepare a patch-work

text, with elements from good reference textbooks

and get, as a result, a good reference book; In spite

of the possible great experience of who prepares the

patch-work. With which the ﬁrst drawback has arisen.

Another drawback is that using a single text, ad-

hering to an existing one or creating an ad hoc one,

causes the diversity of criteria to be lost and diversity

of ways of explaining, showing results, posing and

resolving exercises etc. Books are written thinking to

whom they are addressed. In the case in hand, they

will be students of Physics, for example, or under-

graduate or master or doctoral students or junior or

senior researchers. This fact establishes the approach

of the book, the means that are used to publish it, the

level etc. In fact, we must take into account that di-

versity is not only important to ﬁnd that part of that

book that best describes or explains something, ac-

cording to the criteria of teaching team: we do not

all understand in the same way, and it may require

a broad range of ”ways of explaining” (type of exer-

cises, basic examples, etc.), extension and precision

in explanations, . . . , so it is important for those who

must understand, students, to have the opportunity to

do it as close as possible to the actual way they do it;

And this will be more likely to be achieved the larger

the spectrum of explaining modes, for instance. Thus,

this (scattering) inconvenience, in fact, could have its

possible advantages: diversity is good.

All this makes the students ”have to” face a se-

ries of texts scattered, almost always, in the aspects

to which we referred above and also, in most cases,

are not correctly referenced, in the sense that they are

simply listed in the syllabus, without indicating which

part of which book is used as the basis for this or

that part of this topic or this other topic of the pro-

gram. (In our experience, from the critical observa-

tion of teaching guides, it follows that whoever does

not provide his/her students with a bibliography with

three lists full of books, basic bibliography, recom-

mended, deepening . . . is not a good teacher: every-

one tries to make those lists as complete as possi-

ble, pointing to be the good teacher, but, as a result

making them actually intractable.) Another aspect

that is usual when making the recommended bibli-

ographies, is the impossibility to have access to all

the books: because it would be impossible to physi-

cally read them (nor study them) and because it would

be difﬁcult to buy them, even if we want to, due to

their usual high price. All these reasons, and some

others, make the students, in most cases, ignore the

bibliography (in our experience this is what happens)

and study directly only from their own notes, that in

some cases can be modiﬁcations of the notes created

by the teaching team. The same, and almost in the

same terms, could be said about supplementary ma-

terials, for which there are different sources, formats

etc: video channels, web pages etc. Or even, regard-

ing programming languages in which someone feels

confortable. (This sentence makes sense when dis-

cussing one of the characteristics of some subjects,

below.)

We would like to mention, as well, the source of

the information that the students are given: written

notes, physical copies of the slides used in the class,

copies of the electronic ﬁles of the used presenta-

tions, links to web pages where additional informa-

tion can be found, copies of speciﬁc ﬁgures, refer-

ences to chapters of books written on the blackboard,

photocopies of some pages of a book, a journal, some

research article . . . an endless means, which in many

cases are transmitted to students on the ﬂy. A disper-

sion impossible to maintain under control by students,

so that it can be used in an efﬁcient way.

Finally, there are the students’ hand-taken-notes,

in the event students take them at all. In recent years,

the observed trend is to see students attending a class

as if they where watching the Discovery Channel:

30% of the students in our respective classes sit twid-

dling their thumbs, there are those who drink a cof-

fee waiting to understand and to study the subject just

by pretending to attend the lesson curiously. Those

notes, in the best of cases, are taken in a notebook by

subject, but normally they are taken in single sheets

that put together make the base camp to study the

subject. A base camp that is normally an empty lot,

which students try to ﬁll, successfully in some cases,

but in the majority of cases unsuccessfully.

2 HOW IS THE FACE-TO-FACE

CLASS OF A TYPICAL

SUBJECT OF THE PHYSICS

DEGREE TAUGHT: A CASE

STUDY

We will use as a guideline of this section the subject

Termodinamika eta Fisika Estatistikoa, full academic

year, with 12 ECTS, taught in the third year of the

Degree in Physics. We have chosen it since it is a sub-

ject we know very well, on the one hand; And on the

other hand, because it is a subject that brings together,

from our point of view, all the characteristics suit-

able to associate it the electronic notes we are propos-

Electronic Notes Via Jupyter Notebooks

465

ing. Among others, these are the characteristics we

would like to stress: It is a ”long” course, extend-

ing to the whole academic year (2 semesters, actually

of 4 months instead of 6, 15 weeks per ”semester”)

and 4 hours a week of classroom teaching (including

all teaching modalities: lectures, classroom practices,

seminars ...); With a great amount of new contents

for the students, both in the ﬁrst and in the second

semester; With a lot of technical aspects (advanced

mathematics), in which appear functions that depend

on many parameters, multivariate, that are used to

represent complex behaviors of systems. These which

can be understood much more easily by adequate

graphs (adequate in the sense that in addition to be-

ing those that should, the values of the parameters on

which they depend could be modiﬁed to see how they

are altered and understand better the behaviors they

represent), and functions that have a great applicabil-

ity and use in all parts of physics and science; To solve

any problem in this subject there are many ways and

there are many ways that same point come to the same

point, or not . . . What matters to us in this paper is

that it is the result of the fusion of two fundamental

and classic subjects in the plans of Physics: Thermo-

dynamics and Statistical Physics. Thermodynamics is

a fundamental subject, introduces concepts and pro-

vides techniques, tools, which are used in many other

subjects. It is a classic subject, present in all grades

of science, for its wide applicability, except eventu-

ally in the Mathematics Degree, even if there is a lot

of mathematical effort in it. Thus, Thermodynamics

is placed in the initial courses of the degrees (not the

current case of the Physics Degree, we will analyze

the reason for that). Statistical Physics is also a fun-

damental subject in the degrees in Physics, but it is

very specialized and very technical: It requires much

more specialized knowledge and, hence, traditionally,

has been located in the high courses of the curricula.

The current subject comes from those two undergrad-

uate subjects of the previous Physics plan (started in

2011) in which Thermodynamics was in second year

and Statistical Physics in fourth year: one has risen to

the ﬁrst semester of third year and the other has fallen

to the second semester of the third year. In addition,

in the ﬁrst case, credits have been lost, a weekly hour

of class, which has lightened the content. In the sec-

ond case, lowering course, but not number of credits,

has lightened the level. Finally, another important as-

pect to keep in mind is that both subjects are devoted

to the study and solve the same fundamental prob-

lem. Very succinctly: the initial equilibrium state of a

system is known, we induce a process and we want

to know in what ﬁnal state of equilibrium the sys-

tem will be found. However, each of them addresses

the problem using different criteria: Thermodynam-

ics uses a macroscopic criterion, on the contrary, Sta-

tistical Physics uses a microscopic criterion. That is,

for the former the system has no structure but, for the

latter, it has. This seemingly simple fact, causes the

approach of the fundamental problem to be radically

different and the tools, the techniques and the math-

ematical machinery, as well. In short, two subjects,

basic and fundamental, that study the same in a radi-

cally different way and with a different mathematical

machinery, in essence and in complexity, merged in

one. The main consequence: absolute dispersion of

textbooks and non-adaptation to the program/syllabus

of the subject. In fact, most books are devoted to one

or to the other.

So far, in our case, two basic books are used for

the ﬁrst part of the subject, each of which in turn

uses a radically opposite approach: the ﬁrst (Zeman-

sky and Dittman, 1991), is inductive, so to speak, it

goes to the laboratory, performs experiments, takes

data, draws conclusions, deduces general behaviors

and, ﬁnally, raises several principles. The second

book (Callen, 1987), on the other hand, uses a de-

ductive method: it accepts some principles and it de-

duces from those the behaviors in the systems. The

ﬁrst is an experimental approach; The second is an

axiomatic, more technical approach, although in both

cases the concepts are the same and the approach is

macroscopic. For the second part, in which the ap-

proximation is microscopic, three books are used: the

ﬁrst (Pathria, 1996) is the one that provides the out-

line of the themes to be developed. The second (Kit-

tel and Kroemer, 1996) is used because it brings a lot

of concepts and examples that are treated differently

than they are done in the ﬁrst: in a very qualitative and

much less technical, more intuitive (if possible) way.

In almost all the chapters of the latter the ﬁgures are

very good and show very appropriately the theoretical

concepts, something that does not happen in the ﬁrst,

which is used as a base since its content is precisely

the one that is in the program of the curriculum. In

addition, in this second text the macroscopic and mi-

croscopic criterion are intercalated, and in this way,

it serves to remember things of the ﬁrst semester. Fi-

nally, the third book (Blundell and Blundell, 2006) is

used because it brings a lot of technical aspects that

are overlooked in the other two. Of course, not all the

subject of the three books are developed.

3 PROPOSAL

Before stating the proposal, we would like to clarify

what we mean by electronic notes, in the hope the it is

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

466

not yet too late in the actual text. The reader needs a

clue: electronic handout-notes, should it be, perhaps.

In our environment, notes refers to written material

teachers provide to students, not to the actual hand-

taken notes by students. The handout-notes, thus,

points to the material provided by the teacher. We

would like to leave out the very interesting (more clas-

sical (Bretzing, 1979; Bretzing and Kulhavy, 1981;

Brown, 1988) and more modern (Hembrooke and

Gay, 2003; Bohay et al., 2011; Mueller and Oppen-

heimer, 2014)) discussions related to the pulse be-

tween the hand-taken or typed notes. We think, as

many of the performed studies have shown(Stacy and

Cain, 2015; Bui et al., 2013), that the blind verbatim

typed notes give less comprehension of concepts than

the hand-taken notes, for which a selective process for

the written sentences facilitates the medium and long

term comprehension of concepts and recalling of data.

In fact, we encourage or students to type their notes in

the hand-taken fashion, selecting, as if they were writ-

ing, to ensure the mentioned beneﬁts, but, at the same

time, to acquire an electronic personally enriched ver-

sion, so personally suited, of the standard teacher’s

linear threat notes. This is the innovation aspect of our

proposal, in our view: With these notes, the disadvan-

tage of the sole verbatim typing is discarded and the

advantage of the selective writing is retained, so that

the positive of the two worlds meet. The linear stan-

dard threat of the subject is personally decorated by

the student in-situ, where she/he decides it is worth,

so that there is no break of the threat; in-vivo, while

attending the class, or ex-vivo, while studying, prepar-

ing the exercises etc. The NB sharing capability gives

the possibility for further enrichments, so that grupal

contributions from students in a one step or in succes-

sive reﬁning steps, can be added.

The tool we are proposing is not a mere document

management tool Moodle, as we understand it. In

a sense, it could be thought also as that, but, then,

the concept of document should be considered in a

broader sense, because in the linear threat of the sub-

ject, both the standard provided by the teacher or the

personalized by the students, nearly any kind of object

can be included, as mentioned before: videos, links,

executable programs, text, ﬁgures, visualizations, in-

teractive visualizations etc.

We would like to mention that the proposal is

in its initial stage: we do not have yet results of

the improvements generated by the use; for the

moment, we have restricted ourselves to the pro-

posal/implementation stage. The aim of the present

paper is to share with the community the idea and

its implementation via the Jupyter Notebooks, so that

the remarks, observations and criticisms shape both

the concept and its actual implementation, so a better

tool arises. We are convinced of the beneﬁts of the

proposal, but, of course, it needs a deep evaluation

of the achieved results, which we postpone for a next

stage.

In the classroom teaching sessions (which in-

cludes all teaching modalities), and in our reference-

system, the teaching reference-system, a lot of re-

sources are used: slides (handmade, on the computer,

with links to web pages. ..); Blackboard, for plot-

ting reasons, for instance: Schemes of devices, sys-

tems etc, graphical representations of functions (qual-

itative, of course), conceptual schemes, reminder

tables; Demonstrations, developments. . . ; Complete

exercises, exercises approaches; Distributed photo-

copies, with concepts to deepen, with exercises; Ex-

aminations, ﬁve for each part (statement sheets and

answer sheets); Computer, to show complicated be-

havior of some functions; etc. All these resources

constitute a set of ordered elements (in the order we

have decided, as said), but which of course do not

have a common support. Our proposal is to place the

complete list of elements on the same medium, an

electronic medium: The http://jupyter.org/Jupyter

notebook version of the Notes, which we have de-

veloped and given to the students at the beginning

of the subject, let’s say. There could be a lot of ap-

proximations, since the electronic resource could be

made public, when the previous topic has ﬁnished, so

that the students have the possibility to start down-

loading it and have a look at it before starting with the

topic. All them could be published at the beginning

of the academic year; Could be published by mod-

ules, taking into account the examinations that will be

proposed during the semester, so that it is structured

in a natural way in its sub-blocks.

This electronic medium in which a block of the

subject is made public, has an essential advantage: it

is dynamic, it is editable. It is not a mere list of el-

ements, of pedagogical resources offered, but a list

of pedagogical resources that can be altered both in-

situ and in-vivo, by ourselves, the teachers, and by

the students themselves. The point that the students

can edit it, is as remarkable as that we can edit it on

the ﬂy, while we are explaining. Mind the point: As

important as the above is that it can be saved and, in

addition, versions also can be saved.

The fact that it is an editable electronic notes

makes it dynamic. We alter it, while giving class,

in-vivo, at the point where we need to do it, in-situ:

because we really have to do at that moment or, be-

cause it has been prepared it to do it that way. But in

the same way students can do: while we explain, we

show the ﬁgures, we connect to the internet, we show

Electronic Notes Via Jupyter Notebooks

467

a video ... students can be taking their own notes on

the same medium, just where it is needed, notes that

we have proposed as a basis, and turning them into

students’ own notes.

The next advantage of these electronic notes is

that they constitute a study element, a work element,

that provides a linear argument thread: It is not a lin-

ear list of resources (Moodle, for example, or any

other platform of this type), in which to work you

need to jump from one element of the list to the next,

you go and return, or you go and from there you go to

another element and you go and go, and you return...it

is a linear sequence (we have proposed the order of

the elements), but that can also be traversed in any or-

der, since the real electronic support is a window that

opens in any browser.

One possible disadvantage is that anyone who

wants to use these notes in the way they have been

thought of, should always have the computer with

them (or a tablet, of course, it can also be done on the

mobile). It could happen that someone did not have

access to a laptop or that carrying it every day would

entail excessive loading; But it would also mean that

you would not have to carry daily the physical notes

(paper), nor the books. We are aware of having not

mentioned the very important case of disabilities. We

apologize for this, and we want to stress that this pro-

posal is just a ﬁrst approach, a ﬁrst step, that has to be

sustained by some evaluation and metrics we are also

planning. Being the results good, as we expect, some

approach to the disability case should be done.

It is very interesting that these electronic notes are

independent of the operating systems (OS). We pre-

pare them on MacOS, but they can be used on Linux

or on Windows, in any of their versions. This is a

very important advantage since we avoid the theoreti-

cally non-existent incompatibilities between OS that

effectively always appear. The electronic notes do

not know of OS, since in essence they are pure text

ﬁles, in JSON format, that are shown in the window

of an Internet browser. Of course, the browser can be

anyone, each one can work with its favorite one and

exactly as well in one as in another, nothing is go-

ing to be lost. It is also independent of the browser

version. Incidentally, once downloaded, no internet

connection is required: it works locally on each com-

puter, changes made locally in the text ﬁle are re-

ﬂected immediately locally. But, they can be shared

(there are public servers in which to upload the ﬁles

so that they are not only publicly displayed, but they

can be downloaded), can be sent by e-mail (without

weight, regardless of what is contained in the ﬁle, be-

cause you can always make videos, for example, that

could be very heavy, were not embedded, without be-

ing loaded dynamically, need connection, or loaded

the ﬁrst time and be embedded, so only the new lo-

cal version would have weight, not the one that has

been shared). Of course, to make all this fully work,

the students must have installed in their computer a

software, open source and free, that exists for all op-

erating systems and that is installed automatically.

4 JUPYTER NOTEBOOK

The following lines are adapted from (Jupyter, 2017).

The Jupyter notebook is an interactive computing

environment that allows users to create NBs that

include: Live code, Interactive widgets, Cells,

Narrative text, Equations, Images and Video. These

documents provide a complete, self-contained record

of a calculation that can be converted to various for-

mats and shared with other users via email, Dropbox,

version control systems (such as git / GitHub) or

nbviewer.jupyter.org.

Components

The Jupyter notebook combines three components:

• The NB’s Web Application: an interactive web

application to write and execute code interactively

and create NB documents. It allows users to per-

form the following actions:

– Editing the code in the browser, with auto-

matic syntax highlighting, indentation, auto-

matic completion and introspection.

– Run the code from the browser, so that the re-

sults of the calculations are attached to the code

that generates them.

– View the results of the calculations through a

large number of representations such as HTML,

LaTeX, PNG, SVG, PDF, etc.

– Create and use interactive JavaScript widgets,

which link interactive UI controls and displays

to second-level computations of reactive cores.

– Create Narrative text using Markdown lan-

guage, markup type.

– Construct hierarchical documents that are orga-

nized into sections with different levels of head-

ings.

– Include mathematical equations using the

Xsyntax, Markdown, which are rendered in

the browser by mathjax.

• Kernels: Separate processes initiated by the web

application of the NB that runs the users’ code in

a certain language and returns the output back to

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

468

the portable web application. Each core is able to

execute code in a single programming language

and there are kernels available in the following

languages, among others: Python, Julia, R, Ruby,

Haskell, Scala, Node.js, Go. . . The default kernel

runs the Python code. The NB provides a simple

way to choose which of these kernels is used for a

given NB.

• Notebook Documents: Separate documents that

contain a representation of all the content visible

in the Web application of NBs, including input

and output calculations, narrative text, equations,

images and representations of objects in multi-

ple formats. Notebooks contain the inputs and

outputs of an interactive session, as well as the

narrative text accompanying the code. The re-

sult of code execution (some program created in

the session, or that has been imported, even in

some compiled programming language) is part of

the output, in any type of format such as HTML,

images, video and plots (ﬁgures that have been

created with code), and this output, is embedded

in the NB, which makes it a complete and self-

contained record of a calculation, for example.

Notebooks consist of a linear sequence of cells.

There are four basic types of cells: Code cells:

live code input and output cells that run in the ker-

nel, Markdown cells: Narrative text with embed-

ded LaTeX equations, Heading cells: 6 levels of

hierarchical organization and format, Raw Cells:

Plain text that is included, unmodiﬁed, when NBs

are converted to different formats using nbcon-

vert.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Our proposal is to place the complete list of ele-

ments on the same medium, an electronic medium:

The Jupyter notebook version of the Notes, which we

have developed and given to the students at the begin-

ning of the subject.

1. The electronic medium is dynamic: not a mere list

of pedagogical resources offered, but a list of ped-

agogical resources that can be altered both in-situ,

in-vivo, ex-vivo; Students can edit the electronic

notes on the ﬂy, turning them into students’ own

notes; The electronic notes constitute a study el-

ement that provides a linear argument thread per-

sonally suited to study

2. These electronic notes are independent of the op-

erating system; The browser can be anyone, and

its version; Incidentally, once the electronic notes

are downloaded, no internet connection is re-

quired: it works locally on each computer

3. The electronic notes can be shared (in public

servers) and by e-mail (without weight); run on

open source and free software compatible with all

the operating systems

REFERENCES

Blundell, S. J. and Blundell, K. M. (2006). Concepts in

Thermal Physics. OXFORD University Press Inc.,

New York, 2007 reprint edition.

Bohay, M., Blakely, D. P., Tamplin, A. K., and Radvan-

sky, G. A. (2011). Note taking, review, memory, and

comprehension. The American Journal of Psychology,

124(1):63–73.

Bretzing, B. H. (1979). Notetaking and depth of pro-

cessing. Contemporary Educational Psychology,

4(2):145–153.

Bretzing, B. H. and Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Note-taking

and passage style. Journal of Educational Psychology,

73(2):242–250.

Brown, C. M. L. (1988). Comparison of typing and hand-

writing in two-ﬁnger typists. Proceedings of the Hu-

man Factors Society Annual Meeting, 32(5):381–385.

Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., and Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking

with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for

improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology,

105(2):299–309.

Callen, H. B. (1987). Thermodynamics and an Introduction

to Thermostatistics. John Wiley and Sons, New York,

4th edition.

Hembrooke, H. and Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the

lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning envi-

ronments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,

15(1):46–64.

Jupyter (2017). The jupyter notebook. http://jupyter-

notebook.readthedocs.io/en/latest/notebook.html.

Kittel, C. and Kroemer, H. (1996). Thermal Physics. W. H.

Freeman adn Company, New York, 2nd, 28th printing

edition.

Mueller, P. A. and Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen

is mightier than the keyboard. Psychological Science,

25(6):1159–1168. PMID: 24760141.

Pathria, R. K. (1996). Statistical Mechanics. Elsevier But-

terworth Heinemann, Amsterdamn, 2nd, 2006 reprint

edition.

Stacy, E. M. and Cain, J. (2015). Note-taking and handouts

in the digital age. American Journal of Pharmaceuti-

cal Education, 79(7):1–6.

Zemansky, M. W. and Dittman, R. H. (1991). Heat and

Thermodynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 6th edi-

tion.

Electronic Notes Via Jupyter Notebooks

469