Positive Effects of Restricting Student
Faculty Forum
Positive Effects of Restricting Student Note-Taking in a Capstone Psychology Course: Reducing the Demands of Divided Attention in the Classroom
Gerald M. Long1
Abstract Two versions of a senior-level capstone course with differing note-taking strategies were compared. In one semester, a traditional student note-taking format was used; in another semester, student note-taking was rendered unnecessary by providing students with complete instructor notes. Student performance in the course as well as student opinions of the course itself and the new no-notes format were assessed. The nature of students’ in-class participation increased significantly with the no–note-taking for- mat, and final grades exhibited a modest improvement as well. Students were overwhelmingly positive in their reactions to the approach. Recommendations regarding the potential benefits of reducing the divided attention demands of note-taking in the classroom are discussed.
Keywords student note-taking, divided attention, classroom participation
Numerous reviews of student note-taking have emphasized the
complexity of the task for the student who must listen to novel
and often difficult material presented at a range of paces, iden-
tify and extract critical components of that information, orga-
nize the material in a personally meaningful fashion, and
transcribe it in a format that will allow for useful review later,
while simultaneously keeping abreast with what is happening
in the classroom (e.g., Bligh, 2000; Dezure, Kaplan, & Deer-
man, 2001; Glenn, 2010). Given the competing nature of these
multiple underlying cognitive tasks that comprise note-taking,
it is not surprising that the quality of note-taking among college
students has been found to be so poor. Since at least the 1960s,
many studies have reported the striking level of omissions of
key items in student notes, reaching levels of almost 90% in freshmen (Hartley & Cameron, 1967; Howe, 1970; Kiewra,
1985). Related work has found frequent inaccuracies in the
information recorded in notes, gross oversimplifications of the
material in the notes, and poor organization of the notes in
which key items and supporting material are not distinguished
(see the review by Dezure et al., 2001).
In spite of these difficulties, it has also been found that note-
taking is generally beneficial for student learning. Students
who take notes and review them tend to perform better than stu-
dents who do not (e.g., Kiewra et al., 1991; Nilson, 2010;
Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004). Consequently, one popular area
of research has involved the consideration of improved strate-
gies for note-taking that may allow the student to overcome the
inherent weaknesses of the divided attention task represented
by note-taking during a class period (e.g., Kiewra, Benton,
Kim, Risch, & Christensen, 1995). Although the Cornell
Method, in which students explicitly format their note pages
following a strict template (Pauk & Owens, 2010), is probably
the best known, other approaches abound. The web is replete
with links to all manner of note-taking strategies, including
‘‘form-free note-taking’’ that tries to go beyond the traditional
linear format of notes by emphasizing the critical linkages
between key points and ‘‘visual note-taking,’’ which presum-
ably engages the nonverbal right hemisphere.
In contrast to this dominant trend of seeking methods to
improve the quality of students’ note-taking, the present work
involves a quasi-experiment that considered the potential ben-
efits in some contexts of essentially eliminating this competing
task from students’ in-class activities. Rather recently, espe-
cially with regard to the controversy concerning laptop usage
in the classroom, the divided-attention aspect of note-taking
has been emphasized (e.g., Fried, 2008; Glenn, 2010) and the
possible counterproductive nature of classroom note-taking has
1 Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Gerald M. Long, Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA
19301, USA.
Email: gerald.long@villanova.edu
Teaching of Psychology 2014, Vol. 41(4) 340-344 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0098628314549707 top.sagepub.com
at ROCHESTER INST OF TECHNOLOGY on March 20, 2015top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
been raised. Although there has been some work examining the
relative benefits of limiting student note-taking (e.g., Colling-
wood & Hughes, 1978; Cornelius & Owen-DeSchryver,
2008; Vandehey, Marsh, & Diekhoff, 2005), this work has gen-
erally suffered from weak external validity because it has used
noncourse-related materials, isolated lectures, or immediate
testing. In the present work, the type of note-taking available
to students was varied across successive fall semesters in a
senior capstone course in psychology. For one semester, a tra-
ditional outline of each course topic was provided throughout
the entire semester, and typical note-taking by students was
encouraged. For the next semester, the instructor provided
complete notes to augment the standard outline for each course
topic; and students were explicitly informed that note-taking
was no longer necessary. It was hypothesized that the removal
of the note-taking responsibility would allow students to
engage more in the classroom discussion, thereby fostering
more active learning on their part. The degree of students’ par-
ticipation in the class, student attendance levels, and students’
overall performance in the course were compared across the
two formats; and student’s opinion of the no–note-taking for-
mat was assessed. It was expected that measures of student par-
ticipation in the lectures as well as student perceptions of their
engagement with the course material and their overall satisfac-
tion with the course would improve in the no–note-taking for-
mat. Ratings of other basic course characteristics, such as
clarity of course goals, fairness of grading, respectful treatment
of students, relevance of assignments, and observed cheating,
were not expected to change across the two formats.
Method
Participants
Seniors (N ¼ 36) enrolled in a capstone course, Foundations of Modern Psychology, offered in the psychology curriculum at
Villanova in the fall of 2011 and students enrolled in the same
course (N¼ 19) in the fall of 2012 served as participants. There was no significant difference in the grade point average of
the no–note-taking students (M ¼ 3.45, SD ¼ 0.26) and the note-taking students (M ¼ 3.38, SD ¼ 0.39), t(53) ¼ 0.89, p > .05. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the
average combined SAT scores for the no–note-taking students
(M ¼ 1283, SD ¼ 91.60) and the note-taking students (M ¼ 1280, SD ¼ 104.84), t(45) ¼ .08, p > .05.1
Materials. A traditional block outline for each of the 16 broad course topics comprising the course was prepared. These multi-
page outlines provided a detailed organization of the lecture
material, clearly indicating the organization and chronology
of the material to be discussed in the lecture. In addition, the
outlines contained examples of particular concepts along with
reference to supporting research; and the outlines also included
relevant clipart, diagrams, and photographs to reinforce partic-
ular points. This same outline was then markedly expanded to
include detailed lecture notes that elucidated each of the
outline’s headings, subheadings, examples, and diagrams.
These lecture notes were intended to be very complete, render-
ing additional note-taking by the student unnecessary and
allowing students to feel confident that their own note-taking
would be redundant.
Procedure
Students enrolled in the course in fall of 2011 were provided
with the standard outline of each course topic 1 or 2 days pre-
vious to the respective lecture. This outline was e-mailed to
them by the instructor. Students enrolled in the second fall
semester were e-mailed the expanded version of each outline
and were explicitly instructed that note-taking during class was
unnecessary because of the detailed character of the notes pro-
vided to them. In all other respects, the course was as identical
as possible across the two semesters: the same two textbooks,
the same four writing assignments, the same PowerPoint slides,
nearly identical exams, and the same grading scale were used.
In addition to final grades in the course, student ratings of the
course and instructor were analyzed. At Villanova, the instru-
ment for assessing student ratings is the anonymous Course
and Teacher Survey (CATS) and it consists of 22 positive state-
ments to be rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) scale along with an open-ended section for student com-
ments. The individual 22 items include questions about basic
course mechanics and classroom atmosphere (e.g., asking stu-
dents to rate their views of the course assignments, exams, use
of class time, in-class discussions, instructor feedback to stu-
dents, grading, etc.) and two broad summative items about their
overall view of the course content and the quality of instruction
they received. A few additional items were added to the stan-
dard CATS instrument to assess student opinion of the
no-notes approach in the second semester. These included a rat-
ing of the students’ views of the notes-free format, whether
they found it necessary to take additional notes, and whether
the students would prefer to enroll in future courses that
employed the notes-free format.
Throughout the semester, the degree of student participation
in the classes was determined from audiorecordings of the
actual class lectures. These recordings were later coded by a
graduate student unfamiliar with the research hypothesis. Each
student comment or question was analyzed to determine
whether it was primarily ‘‘factual’’ (dealing with a specific
point of fact or clarification) or ‘‘conceptual’’ (dealing with
integrating points or arguments).
Results
Student Participation
There was a little difference in the average number of times stu-
dents in the two semesters spoke during a typical lecture. For
the note-taking group, M ¼ 10.6 and SD ¼ 4.45, and for the no–note-taking group M ¼ 11.5 and SD ¼ 6.44, t(39) ¼ 0.49, p > .05. However, there was a significant change in the nature
of the comments. The mean proportion of the in-class
Long 341
at ROCHESTER INST OF TECHNOLOGY on March 20, 2015top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
interactions that were deemed to be of a ‘‘conceptual’’ nature
rose from .58 under the note-taking format to .71 under the
no–note-taking format, t(39) ¼ 2.03, p < .05, Z2 ¼ .09. Even if only those interactions were considered in which students
spontaneously asked a question or made a comment without
prompting by an instructor’s question, the same pattern
appeared to remain: .78 versus .88, t(39) ¼ 1.56, p ¼ .06, Z2¼ .06, for a one-tail test. (Because of the general exploratory nature of the present work, a significance level of p < .10 was
adopted for all the analyses.)
A related issue of concern prior to the study involved
the possibility of increased absenteeism by students in the
no–note-taking section. This did not occur. Average daily class
attendance in the standard Note-taking section was 87% (SD ¼ 9.03); and average daily class attendance in the no– note-taking section was 92% (SD ¼ 7.45). Furthermore, both these figures underestimate actual class attendance because a
student arriving late for class was likely judged to be absent.
Student Grades
Probably because of the capstone nature of the course and the
generally homogeneous nature of the first-semester seniors
comprising the students in the successive fall semesters, final
course grades exhibited a restricted range between ‘‘C�’’ and ‘‘A’’ in both semesters; no grades of ‘‘F’’ or ‘‘D’’ were
awarded. The mean final grade for students under the standard
note-taking format was 83.6% (SD ¼ 5.46); and mean final grade for students under the no–note-taking format was
85.5% (SD ¼ 7.42). Because the possibility of a ceiling effect with these average grades seemed likely due to the nature of
this class, the assignment of letter grades was looked at more
closely. It was determined that the proportion of students earn-
ing grades of ‘‘A�’’ or ‘‘A’’ rose from .36 to .53, suggesting a modest improvement in overall student performance. If a 2� 3 table was constructed for the number of C-level grades, B-level
grades, and A-level grades under the two teaching formats, a
significant difference was obtained, w2(df ¼ 2) ¼ 11.43, p < .01, indicating different assignments to the grade categories
under the two formats.
Student Attitudes
Student ratings of the course in the standard notes format were
rather good. On the 20 formative (descriptive) items, the rat-
ings averaged 4.5; on the 2 broad evaluative items, the ratings
averaged 4.4. These were quite high and again raised the pos-
sibility of ceiling effects limiting indications of improvement
in the subsequent no–note-taking term. Nonetheless, student
ratings improved in the no–note-taking semester; and the
breadth of the improvement was quite large. Of the 22 items
rated by students, 16 improved from the note-taking semester
to the no–note-taking semester, suggesting more than chance
variability (p < .05 as a binomial probability). Further analysis
of the specific areas of improved ratings generally supported
the a priori predictions. The mean ratings on the 2 broad
evaluative items about course content and quality of instruc-
tion increased to 4.5 (from 4.4). Although the absolute differ-
ence was small, a 2 (note-taking vs. no–note-taking) � 2 (overall rating of course content vs. overall rating of instruc-
tion) revealed a significant effect of format, F(1, 48) ¼ 3.85, p < .05, Z2 ¼ .07.2 And there was a significant difference between the ratings on the two items, F(1, 48) ¼ 32.77, p < .001, Z2 ¼ .39, with the rating on the quality of instruction higher for both groups; but the interaction was not significant,
F < 1.0. For each of the two items, a one-tailed t-test revealed
significantly higher ratings in the no–note-taking semester:
t(48) ¼ 1.86, p < .05, Z2 ¼ .07, for the perceived quality of instruction, and t(48) ¼ 1.77, p < .05, Z2 ¼ .06, for the per- ceived value of course content. The mean ratings on the 20
formative items increased to 4.7 (from 4.5) in the no–note-
taking semester. However, as noted in the Introduction sec-
tion, little change had been predicted in students’ views of
several basic aspects of the course: clarity of course goals,
respectful treatment of students, keeping up with coursework,
relevance of exams, fairness of grading, availability of
instructor outside of class, class attendance, clarity of
instructions for assignments, perceived cheating, and hard
work required for good grade. In fact, on these 10 dimensions,
no obvious pattern emerged; and 6 were rated higher in the
no–note-taking semester and 4 were rated higher in the
note-taking semester. On only the single item of employs rel-
evant tests and assignments, there was a significant difference
between formats, with the no–note-taking class providing
higher ratings, t(48)¼ 2.33, p < .01, Z2 ¼ .10. In contrast, cer- tain dimensions of the course had been hypothesized a priori
to be particularly sensitive to the shift from the note-taking to
the no–note-taking format: course organization, intellectual
stimulation, learned a great deal, instructor interacts effec-
tively, instructor encourages participation, instructor
responds to student questions, instructor explains course
material clearly, instructor’s enthusiasm, instructor provides
useful feedback, and instructor uses class time effectively. Of
10 of these dimensions, 8 were rated higher in the no–note-
taking section. In five cases, the difference was significant
for the predicted superiority of the no–note-taking format:
t(48) ¼ 1.55, p < .06, Z2 ¼ .05, for interacts effectively; t(48) ¼ 1.54, p < .05, Z2 ¼ .05, for responds effectively to stu- dent questions; t(48) ¼ 3.21, p < .05, Z2 ¼ .18, for provides helpful feedback; t(48) ¼ 2.33, p < .05, Z2 ¼ .10, for found the course intellectually stimulating; and t(48) ¼ 1.39, p < .08, Z2 ¼ .04, for learned a great deal.
Finally, students in the no–note-taking section were explicitly
asked about their usage of the notes provided to them and their
opinion of the no–note-taking approach. On a 5-point scale
inquiring how often students in the no–note-taking section took
their own notes from 1 (never) to 5 (always), student ratings aver-
aged 3.0 (sometimes). However, in their open-ended comments,
several students indicated that the degree of note-taking was
extremely modest. This matched the instructor’s informal obser-
vation that, although students occasionally jotted down an idea,
the typical impression of extensive note-taking was absent.
342 Teaching of Psychology 41(4)
at ROCHESTER INST OF TECHNOLOGY on March 20, 2015top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
When asked whether they would prefer to enroll in future
courses with the no–note-taking format or the more traditional
note-taking format, the results were very clear. Only 2 of the 18
students preferred the standard format; 1 student was unde-
cided; and 15 favored the notes-free format in future courses,
w2(df ¼ 2) ¼ 20.33, p < .001. Moreover, their anonymous open-ended comments repeatedly reinforced this view.
Remarks such as ‘‘ . . . notes-free format allowed me to listen to what was being said rather than scrambling to take notes,’’
‘‘ . . . notes-free format was extremely helpful in studying and understanding the material,’’ and ‘‘ . . . notes-free format allows me to actually learn (and enjoy) the material w/o the pressure to
write everything down’’ were common.
Discussion
The results of replacing typical student note-taking with instruc-
tor’s notes that were provided to students prior to class meetings
of a senior capstone course in psychology are encouraging. The
quality of student participation in the class increased significantly
in the no–note-taking format, and there were indications of mod-
est improvement in grades as well. Moreover, student reactions to
the no–note-taking format were strikingly positive. Class atten-
dance was not adversely affected; and student ratings of the
course, especially on the two overall evaluative items of instruc-
tion quality and course content and on the dimensions related to
in-class participation, improved significantly. Finally, when
asked whether they would prefer to enroll in future courses with
a no–note-taking format, there was an overwhelming preference
for the no–note-taking format over the traditional note-taking
format.
Although the impact of the no–note-taking format is
encouraging in the particular context investigated in this study,
there is an obvious need to replicate this work because of the
unusual character of both the students (college seniors) and
the course (small lecture/discussion format) involved. How the
no–note-taking approach would fare in other classroom con-
texts is an open question. This caution is reinforced by the fact
that some previous work with instructor-provided notes has not
reported the apparent benefits described in the present work
(Cornelius & Owen-DeSchryer, 2008). However, several criti-
cal differences between that work and the present work make
comparison difficult, including freshmen versus senior stu-
dents, introductory versus capstone course, large versus small
classes, and significant note-sharing by students in the Corne-
lius and Owen-Deschryer (2008) study. These several factors
reinforce the clear need for caution in extrapolating from the
present results. Nonetheless, the positive effects obtained in the
present work provide a degree of support for the concern with
divided attention effects in the classroom.
Acknowledgments
I thank Takakuni Suzuki and Caitlin Dresler for their assistance with
the data coding and statistical analyses. The research protocol
employed in this research received prior approval from the Univer-
sity’s institutional review board (IRB).
Author’s Note
The results described in this article were presented at the annual Lilly
Conference on College and University Teaching, Bethesda, Maryland,
May 30 to June 2, 2013.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research
was supported by a grant to the author from the Villanova Institute for
Teaching and Learning (VITAL).
Notes
1. The degrees of freedom that appear in the statistical tests through-
out this article (e.g., for the tests of SAT scores and grade point
average measures) occasionally differ because the number of
records differed for the various data sets. For example, a small
number of students did not have SAT scores in their files; and 32
of 36 students completed the course ratings in the note-taking
semester, while 18 of 19 students completed the course ratings in
the no–note-taking semester.
2. Prior to computation of the analysis of variance and the subsequent
t-tests on the student-rating data, these values were adjusted with a
log-transform because of the well-known highly skewed nature of
course ratings. Specifically, the transformation used was log (high-
est score þ 1 – score), which served to normalize the data.
References
Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Collingwood, V., & Hughes, D. C. (1978). Effects of three types of
university lecture notes on student achievement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 70, 175–179.
Cornelius, T. L., & Owen-DeSchryer, J. (2008). Differential effects of
full and partial notes on learning outcomes and attendance. Teach-
ing of Psychology, 35, 6–12.
Dezure, D., Kaplan, M., & Deerman, M. A. (2001). Research on stu-
dent notetaking: Implications for faculty and graduate student
instructors. University of Michigan CRLT Occasional Papers,
No. 16. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Research
on Learning and Teaching.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learn-
ing. Computers and Education, 50, 906–914.
Glenn, D. (2010, January 31). Divided attention: In an age of class-
room multitasking, scholars probe the nature of learning and mem-
ory. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Turn-Their-Attention/63746
Hartley, J., & Cameron, A. (1967). Some observations on the effi-
ciency of lecturing. Educational Review, 20, 30–37.
Howe, M. J. (1970). Notetaking strategy, review and long-term
retention of verbal information. Journal of Educational
Research, 63, 285.
Long 343
at ROCHESTER INST OF TECHNOLOGY on March 20, 2015top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Students’ notetaking behaviors and the efficacy
of providing the instructor’s notes for review. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 10, 378–386.
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S., Risch, N., & Christensen, M.
(1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall
and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 20, 172–187.
Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer,
M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240–245.
Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pauk, W., & Owens, R. J. Q. (2010). How to study in college (10th ed.).
Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lec-
ture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447–461.
Vandehey, M. A., Marsh, C. M., & Diekhoff, G. M. (2005). Providing
students with instructors’ notes: Problems with reading, studying,
and attendance. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 49–52.
344 Teaching of Psychology 41(4)
at ROCHESTER INST OF TECHNOLOGY on March 20, 2015top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 175 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 175 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /ENU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice