 here. So welcome to the second episode of liquid margins where we're going to be talking about annotation in the composition classroom and we have some really exciting guests here that we're looking forward to talking with a little bit in a second. But as everybody gathers I want to just cover a little bit of housekeeping. So one thing that we don't like about the setup here is that Zoom webinar setup really doesn't make it that easy for participants to kind of join in the conversation and that's really what we want this to be about. But there are so many folks that we sort of have to use this mode. And so one thing that we invite people to do is you really can't see who else is here. But we invite you to use the chat to introduce yourselves if you wish and kind of let other folks know that you're in the crowd. And then you can also use that as a way to have a vibrant conversation in the background. But just note that in Zoom you probably all know this already, but you have to pull down that little menu to chat to all participants and not just to the panelists. Otherwise you'll just be sending messages to the folks of us that are here on stage. So please, you know, let us know who you are, where you're calling in from today, and what you're kind of doing at work. And I really like the way Jeremy introduced this the last time we had him on the show when he talked about the communication tools in Zoom as a way to annotate the meeting itself, where chat kind of acts as a sort of informal annotation, a kind of back channel on the conversation. Whereas using the Q&A tool is more like a formal annotation that you're submitting to the teacher for consideration. So at any rate, feel free to use either and both of these communication mechanisms. After a little bit of discussion, we will be getting to some questions and answers with the books that we with the guests we have today. And so I also want to do a small plug for next week's show where we're going to be talking about annotating in the history discipline. Today we're focused on composition. Next week is history. We're doing a discipline every week. You know, just kidding. And so these slides are available at the bit.ly link that you see in the corner. And the RSVP link is on them, but you'll also be getting because you registered for this week, you'll be getting an email invitation to register for next week too. So don't worry about that. So without further ado, I wanted to introduce the folks that are going to be with us today. And some of them are, you know, caught in some various contingencies as they may be popping in sooner or later. But we are going to have Anna Mills from the City College of San Francisco, Chris Julliard from Macomb, and Neema Kianfar, who is already here walking with us. And my colleague Jeremy Dean, the VP of Education here at Hypothesis. And so I wanted to start things off by just having each one of our guests introduce themselves by telling us a little bit about where they're from and what they what they do as educators and how it involves annotation. And because Neema is already so warmed up, I thought I might start with him. Neema, do you want to introduce yourself? Sure, sure. Hi, I'm Neema Kianfar. I teach at Contra Costa College. And for me, annotation, obviously, it's, you can't purposefully read or actively read without having some kind of design to your reading strategy, some kind of purpose to your reading endeavors. And I think in the past, what we've all done is just use, you know, certain guidelines to have our scholars annotate their texts and composition courses. But with, with Hypothesis for me, that takes it to a whole new level where we can have those same principles apply, but have them apply on a more interactive, communicative, and shared basis. That's what I'm doing. Outside of teaching, composition and rhetoric and literature and creative writing and things of that nature. We can probably get into an itty bitty later. Great. And all of that while you're on the move as well. Commendable. Well, I see Chris is here also. And Chris is going to need to keep his camera off today. So that's cool. So you'll see a black screen when he's talking probably just to but could I invite Chris to kind of say a little bit about who you are and where you're from and what your relationship to using annotation in composition is? Yeah. So I am my name is Chris Gillier. I teach a composition at McComb Community College in Michigan. And one of the things I've been doing lately anyway, is using Hypothesis to show my students how I read a paper, you know, and how I grade a paper. So that, you know, I've had students who are kind enough to provide their work as an example. And then I'll go through it very carefully and kind of point out here's a thing that's working well. Here's a here's a way that might be improved. Like here's how I look at this if I were grading it, things like that. And the early returns on that seem to say that it's been pretty helpful. So that's one of the ways I use it. That's great. Thank you, Chris. So thank you so much for being here. I know you I invited you kind of at the last minute. So I was really appreciative that you can make it. I see Anna is also with us here are other guests today. Anna, we didn't have time to check out if you're connected with with audio and such. Would you like to say a little bit about yourself and your relationship to where you're going in from and your relationship to using annotation in the composition context? Sure. I'm at City College of San Francisco. And I have been teaching annotation for a long time, but I've been running around the classroom and sort of flipping through student papers to check that they're doing it. And this has been an amazing improvement on that. You know, because of because it really makes a better foundation for writing as a conversation. And it makes a better link to the reading process. Because I'm able to skim their annotations ahead of time before the discussion. So I'm not wasting class time on on checking that off. And I can get a much better sense like I can pause and read it and see what their reactions are where they're confused. And I can use that to feed into the discussion. And then there's just all these layers because then there's a layer of Well, I can put up my discussion questions there as and as my annotations. So they're responding to the discussion questions they're interested in right there in connection with the part of the text that they that they need so they don't have to go find it. And it's also empowering to them because I'm annotating not just, you know, this is what you should be thinking about student, but I'm annotating where I have where I'm confused or where I'm questioning the meaning or where I'm having reactions, you know, sometimes I don't want to shape their their response too much. But but I'm showing them my process as a reader. So hopefully that's empowering. And then they're seeing that each other's reactions. So I had, I went back and saw one moment that was really cool where one student had commented on a piece about feminism and she was commenting on how it had missed out on talking about women of color. And another student chimed in and was like, right, it's never as inclusive as they try to make it. So it was this kind of moment of empowerment where they were both speaking back to the text together. And I thought that was that was a pretty neat example. So I'll stop there, I could say more, but you will, you will. That's what the conversation is going to be about today. So glad to have you here. Thank you for coming in. Hey, and so last but not least on my colleague, Jeremy Dean, I who is going to actually lead the conversation with these three fine folks today. So Jeremy, would you like to say a little bit about yourself and then kick off the conversation? Yeah, I'm thrilled to be here today with y'all. I taught composition for many years when I was a grad student at UT Austin in English and taught rhetoric and composition there. And I discovered the idea or the technology of collaborative orientation at that time and immediately started integrating into my into my teaching mayor. So I'm psyched that we're here with these folks and I'm psyched that we're talking about specifically the sort of composition or writing context for this technology. I wanted to start by asking a big question that Anna sort of hinted at. And that's just sort of to help me riff on the title that we came up with for this session. Good writing starts in the margins. And I just kind of want to hear different people's takes on why we're talking about reading if what you teach is writing. What is the connection there? And Anna, maybe since you sort of hinted at this, you said the link to the reading was important in terms of what annotation was providing. Maybe we can start with you and and then go to Chris and Nima in that order. But help me think about this idea. Why does does good writing start in the margins is the hypothesis marketing team correct in their title of the claim of their title? And then how does it start in large? What's the connection between reading and writing? I think it absolutely does. And I think, you know, most composition teachers, you know, love this idea that we're teaching writing as a conversation and that often that begins with reading and responding and that we're joining that conversation. We're not just coming up with our ideas out of a vacuum. And so, you know, we're forming our ideas in response to other texts in response to what other people have said. And we need kind of a free space to do that, where we're not, we don't have the pressure of coming up with a finished product. And annotation is that, you know, that it's the pressure is off. There are a lot of different ways to respond. There are a lot of different styles of annotation, but they're all about finding, finding a voice, finding some words in response to another text. And that's the kind of writing that I think that we, we mainly teach. There's always some sense of we're responding to other texts. We're responding to a conversation in process. So I think it's a perfect fit with, with that idea that we're always sort of saying writing is a conversation and it starts with reading and there's a big connection. We're always kind of preaching that. But I think that the more that we can demonstrate that in kind of an active process, the more that actually means something to students. And, and yeah, I mean, I used to teach discussion or kind of blog posts and say, you know, this is your free space to, to find your voice. But I'm thinking that the annotation might actually be a better way to do that because students when they're looking at that, that sentence on the page and the responding to the text and they're not thinking about, I'm going to form this beautiful paragraph, they're actually more free to keep writing. And I've seen some big, beautiful paragraphs in the hypothesis annotations that are, you know, just as polished as anything that students were turning in for their discussion posts. Yeah, that's great. Thanks, Anna. Chris, any thoughts about the connections between reading and annotation and writing? Yeah, I mean, one of the, I think, unfortunate things about how lots of folks, right, not only students, but people in general are taught to think about writing is that it's some solitary activity. And I mean, even in my own experiences as I've written a few things in the past few years, it has become, you know, even more clear how much something that you write is an interplay of lots of different voices and lots of different feedback. And, you know, I think that showing students that process and helping them engage in that, you know, that sort of disabuses people of the notion that you sit alone and at some device or whatever and, you know, genius pops out of you, you know, that instead, like so much of the writing that is done is it's a sort of combination and collaboration. And so to that extent, you know, not only when, you know, to the extent that they're reading and commenting on other sources, but having people read and comment on their own stuff that they're developing, I think is really important and something that can't be overemphasized because I think there's, again, pretty serious and unfortunate misconception about what it means to write and who does it and how it's done and how many people are involved. Thanks, Chris. Nima, your thoughts. Yeah, just to build off on what Chris and Anna were saying, this idea that writing is a solitary craft. Certainly we can, we can write in a vacuum. We can write for ourselves, but we're still communicating with somebody. We're communicating with our own self. But for me, when, when we write, we are usually writing for greater purposes. And when you're annotating, same as what Anna was talking about, this idea of conversation, writing in itself is a form of conversation on a different reading is a form of conversation because you're conversing with the writer. And as I've said before, with to my to my scholars, when we're, when we're annotating in the old school way and the traditional way of taking pen to paper or, you know, note making on a PDF, you are, you are in conversation with the author and the author is not a distant figure or an authority figure of any kind outside of, say, limitations of human beings. We can question, we can interact, we can communicate, we can challenge, we can react, we can make connections, so forth and so on. And I think by having the ability to take that sort of annotation process live, emphasizes the value or the ability to actually see it as a conversation that writing and reading are so intertwined that they essentially grow out of each other continuously. And when we have our scholars work within the margins and work within the margins, using hypothesis, we're able to actually highlight that phenomenon and show that your reactions, your connections, your conversation with this text is very similar to the way in which you communicate with your friends when you're talking about something, you're listening, but you're not just listening passively, you're listening actively, where you respond to what they're saying. You do a WTF or you you freak out or whatever the case may be, but you are literally responding in real time to the words that are coming out of their mouths. And I think actively reading is something of that nature on the page and now in hypothesis, it's something of that nature in a shared forum where we can all sort of react similarly and then react to each other's reactions continuously. That's great, Nima. Thanks. This is sort of a sub question. I think you guys may have already sort of sort of debunked this theory, but I get pushed back quite often when I'm presenting on hypothesis to instructors that are concerned about the idea that a student would arrive at a text and see a bunch of other voices or comments in form of annotation and thus be biased in their reading. And I'm wondering if you guys can just help me. I mean, maybe you agree with that or maybe there's a time and a place for that. But I often push back and say, I think, along the lines of what you have said, I mean, it's not to say that hypothesis would never develop a feature to enable this, but but that, you know, college reading and writing especially is all about dealing with that bias. And I appreciate that. Thanks, Chris. You could send that one to to the to all attendees. I think it just went to the panelists, but I see Chris Gillier to all panelists bias and quotation marks. So yeah, talk to me about this, because I always push back on this, right? Because of any, I don't know what an unbiased reading or writing that really ever exists. But if you can help me formulate some some ways to talk about the importance of of dealing with that bias, really, of surfacing it and and how that's a large part of the work that we do as scholars. And I'm inclusive in the term that you're using and the way you're using the term Nima, including your students as scholars, which I deeply appreciate. Can we start again with you, Nima? Sure. This idea of bias, for sure. When we talk about what we talk about bias, when we're thinking about ourselves as critical thinkers, we recognize that all of us are biased. We we enter, we approach attacks. We may have respect for an author. That respect automatically jeopardizes in certain ways the freedom with which we may actually approach that text or the the release that we may have interacting with that text. So bias will always be part of our reality where we're all victims of our individual perspectives. And I think with something like hypothesis, if if, for instance, people are freaked out about seeing other people's notes on the margins, well, hell, just put push the eyeball and erase everything or or not rather not erase but hide everything from view and approach it in a blank slate. But if we can show how other people's perspectives are not set in stone, other people's perspectives are in fact invitations for your perspective, they open up the conversation. It's like sitting in a room again, this idea of a conversation and people are sharing their ideas. That doesn't necessarily mean that those ideas restrict you from sharing your ideas. Your ideas could add more to the conversation. So if we begin to view it in that sense, then the more there is on the page, the more marvelous the experience can be because now we're no longer living in black and white or gray scale. We're actually living in a multifarious environment that is just seeping with colors and perspectives and ideas from which we can find certain angles or certain connections or certain branches with which we identify completely, not so completely partially or we don't identify at all. We're like, dude, what are you talking about? I've never heard this before. Could you expand on this? And that to me is like, damn, this is great. And if we had a world without bias, I don't know if that would be a world worth entertaining. Thanks, Neema. Chris. Fias more to say? Yeah, I mean, Jeremy, I know you can't just dismiss these people outright, like kind of what they deserve to be honest, you know, I mean, but one of the things I like to think about is that I often I often think about how we as scholars and academics and people who operate in the world, like a lot of times I think we kind of might model our practices and encourage students to think about those. So like, so imagine, right, if I if I'm on Twitter or if I email you or something like that and said, hey, this article is really interesting and you should pay attention to this part, right? Like this part where the author says this, right? Like if you email me back and said, you know, well, now that you told me that I really can't read this, you know, like it's absurd. You spoiled it for me, you know, I mean, like I don't I've never had that happen. I mean, maybe people do that to each other, but I've never had that happen. You know, and and like again, to to mirror some of what Neema said, I mean, there is no such thing as a blank slate, you know, I think that when we encourage students to buy into some of these myths, you know, they're intensely problematic for lots of reasons. But but mostly that notion that it somehow spoiled a text to know what someone else thinks about it rather than enriches it, you know, I mean, it is not like a way of thinking that I share. And in fact, again, like, I think so to draw another example, if you're in a lit class and you're reading, you know, so Tony Morrison's song of Solomon. What I used to do when I taught lit is you give like them also some criticism of that work, right? Well, again, like I I'm not familiar with anyone saying, well, now that you read that criticism, right, give them the novel spoiled. I mean that like so I think I understand where those notions are coming from, but I think they're really mistaken. Anna, anything to add? Yeah, I mean, I think it it is possible to be distracted by a lot of stuff in the margins and not to be ready to process it as a reader. You know, it's possible that readers might want to do, you know, a first read without that. But they can choose to do that. They have that option, right? And I think we just need to let them know that as teachers and actually they have that option more than if they have a used copy that has the annotations right written in, which is most of my students. And so I think that, you know, we often emphasize you want to do two reads, you want to read your paper twice once for, you know, looking for different things. And so I think we just have to kind of empower them to make those choices and decide what to look at when. Because I think that ultimately, yes, it's going to enrich their reading process. And of course, there are going to be other perspectives that will help shape how they see something. And that's not that's inevitable. That's not something that we want to take away from the reading process. We might just want to offer it in stages. And that's perfectly possible with this tool. Yeah, I'll just add a couple of things. I mean, you could, you could offer it in stages. This getting down maybe too much on the level of a feature, but could offer in stages where say the eyeball that Nima's referring to is sort of automatically on until you post an annotation and then it reveals other annotations. But I think then you still lose the opportunity for discourse that is, you know, site of production of meaning. And I'll just add one of the thing that is, I think part of the impetus of this, which I think you guys have gone taking the high road to some extent in your criticism of the sort of idea of unbiased reading. But the other idea is that, well, you know, Chris, if Anna has already annotated that chapter of song of Solomon, like, how do I evaluate you, Chris, and know that you have some original, you know, contribution to the thing if you don't have a blank slate to which you're responding to and demonstrating your comprehension or your your analysis. So I think it actually comes from the perspective of evaluation and the need to evaluate folks on a kind of blank slate metric where, you know, maybe when I'm teaching high school, I need to know all 70 of my students think about the green light. But once you sort of advance an education, I think it's more important to say, well, how do you get your voice in there on that symbol from the great Gatsby? How do you build on what others have said before, whether they're your classmates or as Chris mentioned, scholars who have said something about this work as well. Oh, this is great. Let me riff on something else that has been said here, which is or this is sort of simple. But, Anna, you you shared a really cool moment, as you said, from your experience with annotation. And I wonder if we could sort of circle back to Neema and just every one of you think of some very specific moment that something sort of awesome happened that was brought to the fore by the annotation or made visible by annotation. Any anecdotes from using hypothesis in the classroom that you can share? You're really cool moment, as Anna termed it, the RCM. I'm trying to think. Give me, let me come back to me, come back to me. I'll think about something. I apologize. Well, I'll broaden it out to and go to you next, Chris. It can be a really cool moment or share some sort of activity and way that you've deployed annotation, some specific anecdote or specific activity from the use of annotation in your teaching. Well, I guess I'll go back to how I've been using it lately. I, well, for those who don't know me, like my sort of problems with platforms like Google and things like that are well documented. So so what are the things I've been using hypothesis for? As I mentioned in the beginning, is just as an example to show students how I read something. And in that, you know, not not in a way, you know, and just as I mentioned before, in a way to like kind of help them see some of the both strengths and weaknesses for lack of a term of a particular document, but also to give them some insight into kind of what they might expect when it's time to submit like what might be termed a final draft. And I think that's been really useful, especially in, you know, kind of first year comp, because or first semester, first year comp, a lot of those students aren't exactly aware of what what like a evaluation or grading or looks like, or even what what strong feedback looks like, you know, like, so they're not only say, like, here's what works or here's what doesn't or something like that, but, like, how might you how might you improve that, which I think is an essential part of that feedback. So yeah, that that's what I do. And are you ready for a really good moment? Definitely. I think to also build off of what Chris is saying, this idea of showing them expectations, we we do that week. I know my internet, I know my internet lag there for a sec, but we show the models, we show them, we show them what it is that how it is we do what we do so that it could be a framework for them to do what what they need to do. One way that I've recently or last semester used hypothesis was and it was inspired in conversations with ESL faculty where we were talking about hypothesis and they suggested, well, can we do this? And I said, oh, yeah, definitely. And that's a great idea. I think I'll do that myself. And what they were thinking about was taking say model papers and using them as some kind of hypothesis activity. So to actively read model papers written by previous scholars and have our scholars see what worked, why it worked, what didn't work, why it didn't work, where certain elements within the paper are on the on a basic level, say thesis and paragraph structure, topic sentence, how to introduce evidence properly or successfully rather. And how to evaluate evidence, how to develop argument, how to expand on significance, those moves within argument that we constantly teach would be nice not to just show in a model paper where they can see these things in actions but actually show it in a interactive format where they can see it and comment on it and maybe ask questions about it and then see how their peers also respond and tackle those same questions or moves. And then I also decided well if I'm doing it with a model paper let's do it with a B paper and a C paper and even an F paper to emphasize look the B paper, why did it get a B and not an A there are some wonderful things happening here where is it sort of falling short where is it excelling, how could it be changed, how could it be made better and we continue this process on multiple grounds in multiple ways and I think it really does take us away from, I don't want to disparage face-to-face instruction, I love face-to-face instruction but face-to-face instruction also sometimes puts you on the spot and you have to deliver a response perhaps when you haven't had enough time to digest what it is others have said and what it is you wish to say but when we take it to this level of hypothesis and annotation on this platform we allow more comfort we allow a greater ease of experience where scholars can can read each other's comments and read the paper and think about the paper and let it marinate let everything marinate and then develop some kind of input that they'd like to share or offer that they think is appropriate or just put up a GIF or a GIF I don't know how to refer to it so I don't know if it's a GIF or a GIF so excuse me if one has a preference over another but yeah it does create that kind of environment that otherwise in my opinion may not exist in a face-to-face classroom because we have literally with my interaction with hypothesis taken the wonders the greatness of a face-to-face experience and transported it to this interactive framework of hypothesis where we can do all of those things that we would do in a seminar or a discussion on the page yeah we've definitely heard also just from an expert's point of view we've definitely heard from users instructors about how the sort of asynchronous aspect of collaborative annotation has an equity aspect to it to allow students to and different types of learners to take the time or formulate their thinking and experience in a different context Anna any really cool moments to share or a particular way that you've deployed annotation in the classroom you'd like to share before maybe we open it up to any questions that have arisen in the chat or the Q&A well I think I did I shared that one moment that I found where two students were kind of empowered together against the text and I think that it can amplify those moments of you know an emotional reaction or a personal connection because the students are then they know that the other students are going to read that and then maybe they'll find out what their reactions are so I think I think it's empowering and I also noticed that some of my Shire students are writing more in the annotations and thus they're participating more in in class and having more of a discussion experience and getting their voices in sooner in the process because they're a lot more comfortable with the annotation format and they're not just writing you know they start out with summary if they're feeling shaky they start out by summarizing what they're reading and then gradually I think they're the students who would just only do summary throughout in their annotations before are seeing the other students reactions they're seeing models of other types of annotation so I think they're more likely to try those out or to respond to other students who are doing you know making personal connections or connections texts or asking questions or answering back or getting mad you know so I think it encourages the students who are nervous about those kinds of ways of speaking back to try them out as well I'll also just add that I remember when I've used this kind of technology in the classroom that the use of GIFs or GIFs whatever they may be called the sort of informality the idea that you could respond with a meme as a way to articulate an argument or create a meme if that's your way of expressing yourself that's sort of another way to think about how one engages with texts engages with others develops argument develops analysis I want to stop here we only have about five minutes left and I don't know if made or Franny have been eyeing the chat or the Q&A to raise some questions from others I have a lot more to say about here I wish we had an hour and a half because you guys have brought up so many good points so we haven't even picked apart yet but we'll just have to do a part two at some point we definitely will and yeah thank you thank you all so much for the interesting conversation so far we were trying to keep this show to half an hour originally and that's just impossible especially with this many great voices around the table so a couple of things that have popped up there's a whole constellation of conversation actually that revolves around a kind of what you were getting at Jeremy around the functionality functionality questions about like situations where you might not want anyone you know students to see other annotations until they themselves have dated annotation or sometimes how if you if the teacher kind of seeds the text with very particular prompts then those can get in a way of the sort of free flow of reading that sometimes you want students to do and so maybe there's a whole kind of a constellation of stuff to talk about around that like how much functionality should be built in it's a tough one well I think let me riffle on the question a little bit it's you know to what extent do we expect functionality to stand in here and I'm not dismissing that idea that there should be certain functionality and to what extent are we laying bare different processes really difficult and various processes that are involved in comprehension and analysis and argumentation and to what extent do we just need to help to articulate ourselves and with and for our students you know don't just pay attention to what the teacher is saying it's great for a teacher to seed annotations to model annotations and to add annotations that are questions but that should never be considered an end and whether that's a functionality aspect where you don't get to see the teacher's annotations until you create one of your own or something like that or whether you just help students understand and and learn the process of as we've said from the beginning seeing other people's voices acknowledging them and then also you know using your own voice I don't know if others have a articulation about our response I know Chris would probably say you shouldn't just have functionality standing in for process right that's the problem oh yeah well you kind of read my mind there yeah I mean yeah I you said it a lot more eloquently than I likely would Jeremy I was sorry Neiman I was going to say that was a mic drop Chris is out he's like don't let functionality stand in for process boom boom yeah definitely and I think and I'm trying to remember what I was going to say but the idea here is where we're not one thing that we try to instill still within our scholars and to ourselves it's that it's not about it's not always just about when we're writing what we think because where we're coming from is just one particular perspective one particular idea but we want to be able to acknowledge and to recognize the conversations that are taking place around this issue so that we are either adding something to the conversation we are either challenging that conversation or expanding on that conversation or completely redesigning and reinventing that conversation very rarely can we do any of those things without having several ideas about what that conversation is or was or how it developed or where it's come to so that unless we're geniuses we will we will arguably fail to to be able to achieve that kind of insight and I think I think annotation is one of the essential elements of that kind of insight to achieve that kind of insight and I don't know if you guys are familiar with the slide of hand magician he passed away a couple of years ago Ricky J and he he's phenomenal if you guys aren't familiar with him looking up but this dude whatever money he made he would spend buying these ancient antiquarian books from like 400 years ago 500 years ago he would spend thousands of dollars on and when he would read them he would read them actively and annotate on the margins so he spent $25,000 on the book it brings it home and turns that $25,000 investment into pretty much a worthless investment because he's dabbling and writing up in it but he said look this book is made to be consumed this information is made to be communicated with and if I don't communicate with it I'm disrespecting the authors or the book's purpose for being so I think that same principle exists when we have all this information on the net it's there not just for us to consume but it's there for us to interact with to challenge to reflect on to annotate that's me Anna did you have any last words on some of the themes that have been discussed over the past few comments I think you're muted sorry I think it's such a flexible tool I mean I think the foundation of using it as a way to make this sense of reading and writing and as a process of conversation come to life for students is kind of it's right there in front of us and there are a lot of ways to do it and I think the only thing is that it can sort of get overwhelming to figure out how to start and which approach to use first so I think that you know I had to keep it simple this spring and you know sometimes I put a whole bunch of my own annotations in there and sometimes I just said you know once they got used to using the tool I just said annotate three times for credit and that's all I did as a teacher and they started to annotate and that was a great start and that took me a long way toward seeing what I wanted to do in the zoom discussion and you know and that fed into the writing they were going to do later in their papers on the same text and so I think that you can get started really simply and a lot of the benefits are already there with that with that basic approach and then we can all start experimenting from there hello there hey well unfortunately we have reached the end of our scheduled time I mean there's no you know giants policing function that's going to make us stop but we do want to be respectful of everybody's time and so you know this conversation just barely started this liquid margins is now a weekly show we won't always be talking about composition we will always be talking about collaborative annotation and social reading kind of topics next week I want to plug again that we'll be talking about annotation history discipline so please come to that we have seen so much interest in the composition topic we will definitely be coming back to it as a couple of people have mentioned there's a whole lot of great videos on the hypothesis YouTube channel one that I would particularly draw your attention to around this as Gardner Campbell's keynote I annotates the conference that we put on last year where he really spoke to this question of what prompts makes sense to give students for annotation and he has his own take on that we'll put a link in the chat and we'll also be up on the resources page afterward and you'll get an email when the recording and resources are available so I'm going to bring the show to an end there and hopefully give our panelists a chance to just say so long and farewell Chris would you like to start yeah thanks everyone thanks for inviting me Nate and it was wonderful to meet everyone and thank you great to have you Chris how about Anna thank you so much it was it was really a lot of fun and I'm honored to be invited thank you for coming on Anna it was so great to have your voice Anima yes thank you very much thank you I'm honored to have participated and I guess final word is look we can finally more easily communicate with authors because I know hypothesis works online so if you're annotating a text online the author has immediate access to those annotations as well so you can actually challenge the voice of authority and get away with it great stuff Jeremy Jeremy left unfortunately he left he's out okay sorry I didn't have the video up alright thanks for that Nima you're doing a better job stewarding us than I am alright well thank you all so much sorry we didn't get to answer all your questions there's a lot of resources on our website we put links in and you'll be getting a follow-up email with additional resources so thank you all for coming and maybe we'll see you next week on liquid margins episode 3