 Greetings, everyone. I'm Nate Angel from Hypothesis, and I'm really pleased to introduce this panel today with some really stellar folks who've been working in digital literacies for quite a while and have really interesting things to say I'm sure because I've heard them all say interesting things on Twitter for sure. So without further ado, I am going to pass the baton over to Mary Klon, who is one of our most treasured annotator resources and she has worked really hard to bring together this group of great folks to talk about Social Annotation and Digital Literacies. So without further ado, I'm going to pass the baton to you, Mary, and we'll be monitoring the chat and the Q&A to get to that when it's appropriate. All right, thanks, Nate. And hi, everybody. Thanks so much for coming to our panel on Social Annotation and Digital Literacies. So as Nate said, my name is Mary Klon. I am joining you all from San Diego, where I teach history at UC San Diego and San Diego Miramar College, and I'm really excited to get into this conversation between all three of these expert educators on annotation. It's going to be a lot of really interesting things to discuss. So the format for the panel, we have about 10 minutes per presenter, and then I'll introduce everybody like before they start talking, and then we have plenty of time for our discussion, for Q&A. So please feel free to drop any questions you have in the chat. I will keep an eye on it, and I'll make sure that we'll get to everything in our Q&A session. So, is everybody ready? Okay. So I will just be going in the order that's in the program. So the first speaker up is Jenae Kohn, and she is the Director of Academic Technology at California State University Sacramento. She writes and teaches about, or sorry, writes and speaks about teaching in digital spaces, and is the author of Schimdive Surface Teaching Digital Reading, which was published recently from West Virginia University Press. So with that, I will turn it over to Jenae. Thank you, Mary, for the introduction, and welcome, everyone. Nice to see all of you here today. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen, so if you will give me just a moment to get that hooked up here. I'm happy to speak today to, responding to a question about what do I, and I'm imagining a student here, do with a reading, thinking about social annotation as creative practice for online reading experiences. So specifically, what I'll speak to in my 10 minutes here is some thinking around what it looks like to support students in thinking of social annotation, not just as positioning students as pure respondents to readings or even as sort of pure kind of reactors to reading, but as people who can create and build new knowledge from reading as a component of developing digital literacies. So here's how we will get at some of those questions today. I'll start by discussing social annotation as creative practice as part of a digital reading framework that I developed in my recent book, Schimdive Surface. So we'll contextualize this concept with a little bit of groundwork framing. Then I'll move to make the case that social annotation, practicing social annotation is a reflection of digital literacy development. I'll define briefly what digital literacy means, and we'll bring social annotation into that conversation. And I'll end with some very concrete teaching tips. I imagine if you're here, you're interested in thinking about some ways you might bring this into a classroom practice, even if you yourself are not a classroom instructor. I believe everyone who is a designer or a thinker around digital interfaces is in some respect, a teacher too. So we will talk about some prompts and then a couple of activities before I pass it off to my panel colleagues and before we convene as a group. So in my book, Schimdive Surface, Teach Digital Reading, I composed a framework for digital reading that speaks to five forms of engagement. And really social annotation activates all five of these forms in different ways. Through social annotation, we curate knowledge by highlighting particular moments in the text, by aggregating a variety of different perspectives. We also engage in connection. This ability to see how one idea from the space of a digital text might bridge to other conversations online. This is something that's really unique about social annotation as a digital reading practice. In fact, the ability to pull information from the web and see how that's actively engaged in interaction online spaces. We'll be focusing on this center sort of third category of engagement here, creativity. Because social annotation, I think most uniquely helps activate for readers the ability, again, not just to respond in a passive way to text, but to really be an active respondent to be thinking about original and unique questions that might emerge from the group consensus making process, or the group differences, right, the kinds of the divergences in the moment of conversation that can happen uniquely within and from the springboard of the margins. Of course, social annotation also helps us contextualize information. When we're online, we have this unique ability to see how the text itself comes from a larger online framework, whether that's from a certain kind of publication, or from an author with a certain set of subjectivities and perspectives. Finally, social annotation might allow us to engage in contemplation as well, the ability to think about why we're reading what we're reading, and how our media and our environment shapes the ways that we're engaging with text. When we do paper-based marginalia or paper-based annotation, we're aware too of the material limitations, the ways in which physical margins, fonts, spacing, how that impacts where and what we can write. In social annotation online, we might have some new affordances exploded for us, the capacity to write more, to engage with media, to annotate not just with text but with visuals that might change our orientation. In many ways, we could talk about how social annotation ties even more deep with all five forms of these ways of engagement. We're going to focus on creativity today because I do think that this is where social annotation really particularly shines as a way to help students develop digital literacy. Let's unpack that a little bit more. I'm going to unpack that through a metaphor. When we think of being creative, when we think of being original, when we think of helping students construct new arguments or ideas based on text, we might first think of the concept of individual and unique genius, and that can feel like a really heavy lift that can feel very high stakes. But I like to think of helping support students in social annotation as more like taking on a sewing project, hence my image here of some thread and some ruler. I'm going to call those that tool in the corner scissors, but this is how you know I'm not really an expert sewer. I don't know what those are, but the point is when you are sewing a piece of clothing, you have a pattern that you're working with. You're not just creating something entirely from scratch. And if you're not a sewer, you're probably adhering to that pattern in a very strict way. If you're an expert, if you're a contestant on project runway, for example, and you're creating new clothing entirely, you might use a pattern as your foundation, but you may riff or build upon that as a more expert navigator. And I think social annotation works in a very similar way. There are constraints. There are conventions. There are patterns to follow, so to speak. And that can help students who may be encountering a novel practice really become much more comfortable and confident in that space. That is social annotation provides a unique form of scaffolding to engaging with digital texts that allows students to feel like they can be respondents to impart of the reading without having to create something entirely new without having to do something entirely derivative. So how exactly is this a component of digital literacy? Let's break that down a little bit more. And I'm going to be kind of framing this with a longish quote from Julie Coro, who is a digital literacy expert. And she defines successful online readers in three different parts. I'm going to talk through all three parts with us and tie this into social annotation and specifically the act of creating new ideas via social annotation. So Coro writes that successful online readers actively and flexibly regulate, integrate and adapt their use of digital reading, writing and communication strategies within a multitude of digital contexts. So even though social annotation is but one context. The idea of actively and flexibly regulating integrating and adapting their use has a lot of relevance for social annotation. Specifically because the ways in which different readers come into the text because the different kinds of texts that might be interfaced with social annotations from PDFs to active websites that might have multimedia. There is a process of thinking about how students might bring different sets of interactions those spaces. B, successful online readers approach online reading tasks with an expectation that literacy contexts and their associated context cues will rapidly change in ways that cannot imagine. So with something like a static PDF that students might be reading individually and not in a social context. These changes might not be so unexpected right the change might just be simply navigating through and encountering new ideas. But when you bring in that social component when other students might be part of and part of the part and parcel of the experience. That's really a component of building digital literacy here where students have to think about how their own responses might change how their own navigation of the interface itself might change when new voices and new perspectives join in in the digital margins. So as soon as engaged in social annotation they have to be reorienting their own mindset potentially not only changing their perspective but changing the ways again they navigate through the text and find ways to be part of the conversation even as sound metaphorical sound really because this would come in the form of text but sound and discussion become a part of the space. And finally see successful online readers demonstrate resilience cognitive flexibility and the self directed confidence in transforming strategies used in more familiar context into new strategies that are more useful in less familiar context. I bolted this last part of course quote is I think it's the most relevant in many ways for thinking of creative social annotation practice as digital literacy development. That is annotation contributions to annotations don't just happen magically students do need some framing lay those sewing patterns to get into it to provide the scaffolding to contribute to the conversation to develop original thought. And when it comes to interacting in a social annotation system or framework they might be taking familiar context of reading in other spaces perhaps in print spaces but perhaps also in offline spaces as in word processors or PDF editors to contribute to the social context and adapt and become that flexible resilient reader that Quaro is speaking to here. So what does this look like exactly in practice. Well in my book I outline four distinct goals of social annotation activities which is to develop shared community dialogue around a reading assignment. Understand the variety of strategies and approaches towards annotation as a reading practice showcase the diversity of perspectives and interpretations of a reading possible within a class community and spark questions and inspire a future inquiry through social annotation practice. So to achieve this goals we might do a few different things. One will want to start by coming to some shared understanding about what social annotation is and to achieve that flexibility that Quaro was speaking to to develop digital literacy. This might mean demonstrating showing what social annotation looks like perhaps both in the print context and a digital context spring in context that might be both less familiar and more familiar so students can bring their own perspectives this work. Some prompts to do this might be very simple but these are the kind of sewing patterns that you might use as part of these social annotation assignments things like which parts of the reading were the most interesting to you. Which section of the reading did you have a question about or not understand which parts of the reading surprised you and why or which part of the reading connected with something you learned in class or earlier in the term how that section reinforce or advance what you learned in class. These are not particularly novel examples but they are ones again that can activate unique knowledge that prompt students in ways that go beyond just saying comment contribute. We need a little bit of framing to build in that resiliency and flexibility. And once that happens we can then get really imaginative about the types of assignments for crafting. You might have students create something like a visual outline of a reading through mapping out the different sets of highlighted moments in the social annotation space. You could have heat maps of popular ideas created once you see which clusters ideas are most popularly connected to. And you might even use annotation with the benefits of being online to spur creations of things like mini podcasts or audio essays in response to the reading. Now I know I went through this very quickly but I am at time so I'll just say that creativity is a way to do something with the reading. So we hear that question of what do I do. But we'll build something new work with our patterns and create novel creations from there. Thank you I'm going to go ahead and stop sharing and pass it off to the next presenter. Thank you. Thanks today that was great and that was like perfectly on time. I didn't even have to do like a wave my hands thing now. Thank you. Okay I am so excited to talk more about this. We're going to talk to Cherise or Cherise McRide is going to share next and she is a digital literacies researcher and teacher educator at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Education. She's a scholar of digital literacies and pedagogy and her most recent article is exploring the edges of collegiality across case analysis towards humanizing teachers connected learning which was published in pedagogies and I will hand it over to Cherise. So I am going to share along those same lines of thinking about digital literacy development and particularly in this case around how teachers how we see teachers making their thinking visible. So let me pull up mine here. So the work that I've done you'll see that I'm going to contextualize it in a larger project which many of you here may be familiar with and that is the marginal syllabus project. I'll be sharing a bit more about that. But essentially it has offered an opportunity for us to engage with wide audiences around digital annotation social annotation and allowing us to ask questions of what is annotation what's the significance of it. So in my work with teachers I work with pre service teachers and in service teachers we're asking questions like what does it mean to annotate. Often we think of the image of writing in the margins and that's something that teachers can pull on in their own repertoire as a practice as they continue to build out their digital literacy skills. And as they think pedagogically about what this will what this might look like for their students and particularly in the context of a contemporary context of our world that is becoming increasingly digitally mediated who gets to annotate. Interestingly I had a workshop where teachers said oh that's an interesting question because it presents it as an opportunity whereas in many classes it can sometimes feel like an obligation or responsibility like oh it's not who gets to annotate in that case it's sort of who has to So we're thinking more broadly about annotation as an opportunity or as a privilege as we're able to make our mark on the world and speak with with authors and become authors ourselves. This is a key one for today. What are the risks of annotating what actually happens when we annotate for us individually and as a group and what are some of the possibly negative feelings or experiences that might come up with that. Where does annotation happen and what are the benefits. So these are just you know framing questions that I continue to think about as we're leading educators through annotation practices but again that key today I want to talk about is what are the risks of annotating. For thinking about annotation as thinking publicly especially social digital social annotation. There are certain risks that come with that and so drawing from the work I'll skip that one drawing from the work with marginal syllabus I want us to think about how that what those risks end up looking like and how we respond to them. So if you're not familiar with it marginal syllabus is a partnership between three key organizations and that's the National Council of Teachers of English which publish the articles that the journals that have the articles that we use to annotate the National Writing Project and Hypothesis and so what it involves is having a series of reading lists that we will put out publicly for folks to dive into to to annotate to mark up and share with one another and to use in their own education settings so that might be a teacher ed or even in informal learning groups. The key is that we are creating space to have a widened conversation with authors with students with teachers and we do that in the margins of text online again using hypothesis but we also do that on the on the website. Sorry I'm not ready that we do that on the website through oral conversations where we actually speak with authors and give them an opportunity to share the impetus behind their work and some of the ways that their writing came to be. So it really it really again expands that notion of authorship that I was just describing allowing us to see behind that like invisible author that so often exists in academic writing. So I would encourage you to you know continue to look into that if you're interested but I'm drawing from our definition here of we have a graphic on our website that talks about why annotate and I really appreciate this definition. That frames it as a relationship so annotation is observing remarking noting down it's the act of marking it's an act of love right marking up a text is an act of love. Because of one's commitment to stay in relationship with the creator and with other readers and observers and that's what really comes forth in our marginal syllabus project because we are again directly talking to authors. And we are continuing as observers and authors ourselves to further those conversations and that does take commitment it does take risks. And so my teaching context as I as I've shared a bit is thinking about teacher ed across graduate level mostly and thinking about digitally connected teacher networks and also using some local networks to kind of model these practices. So one of the assignments that I gave my pre-service service teachers was coming from the marginal syllabus project and it's available on educator innovator. If you're interested in seeing exactly where this comes from but there's an open access link to a piece by Watson and Bamer that really focuses on how place and space is enacted by you through their digital composing practices. They particularly made songs that gave tribute to their home city of Detroit. And so what we had them do was you know my teachers as learners I had them engage in annotating that article on hypothesis and then reflecting on their own learning process. I do want to also just mention that as they shared their you know as they shared their thinking about it. They did have a specific prompt that was around. Well initially we gave them just an open kind of conversation and again Janay gave us some really good scaffolds that we might use in these settings but our invitation to them was just mark up the text as you're reading it. And so you'll see here as an example you know this is what it looks like on hypothesis where you have the open access link and then to the right are some of those annotations and I'll get more into those but I just wanted to show what that looks like. Again when they are on the they got they got a chance to look at the educator innovator website and see the video of the authors as they talked about their work in conversation with other educators and then afterwards is when they responded with this prompt on canvas and a discussion board. So it was just an opportunity for them to share what their experience was as they engaged in marginal syllabus and how did those tools basically extend their repertoire as a practice either with annotation and with the digital tools being in a community of learners. And then some of them they had the total option to opt out and some you know we asked them to share what what had been their broader experiences of annotation and other discussion boards and how they might apply this to their practice. So I want to just highlight some of the risks that were emergent from those reflections. And I just invite us to pay attention to the, you know, affective responses and then the ways that students reflected on their own, you know, burgeoning familiarity with the with the digital tool. So someone says the public nature of my comments made me feel both guarded and excited to see who would respond and what those responses would be. I personally do not like to use social media to find connections with strangers. Someone else is this is really, they say to be honest, I'm still wary of digital tools and find myself focusing on the aspects of the face to face interaction that are lost. When we go into these digital conversations. I want to note this one too because the group that I was working with here would be typically characterized as quote unquote digital natives, a term at which I cringe because it does offer it offers a really happening way of looking at how people within a surge age certain age bracket might be experiencing digital tools. And we hear we see here that even though this person would fall in, you know that category, they express some weariness around the tools. And then again someone says I kind of hate it using the hypothesis tool, it was a bit arduous and intrusive to have to install something on my browser. So and then also discomfort. I will mention that when we have that conversation around the tool itself and the terms and conditions like this. This student brings up we do talk about the affordances of hypothesis as an open tool where you can take your data with you and things like that. Just a side note. So my question is how do we help learners then navigate some of these risks of thinking in public. And I will share briefly. This is some of the work that came out of our recent article and a Smith Christopher Rogers and I are thinking about discourses of collegiality and this is what we term. Some of the practices we found teachers engaging in digitally mediated spaces, particularly on Twitter. That's where we studied this work. So we found practices across these three continua that we define as humanizing practices. And I think we can learn a lot from these frames to think about how we might use digital annotation. So these discourses of collegiality include how teachers are sharing with one another, how they exercise care, and how they move into experimentation and framing the work that they do online as experimentation. The continuous representative, you know, the far end is more humanizing practices, and on the left is, you know, those that that teachers themselves spoke to as not feeling very humanizing in their spaces. And so just I in this last bit that I have I want to highlight what that was as I as I'm analyzing the work that my teachers have done on hypothesis. Some of the sharing that we see is really afforded by the multimodal aspects and the ability to link to other pieces. So in this piece, the Watson and Bamer piece. You'll see highlighted a red there that the versus is the program that was named. And you'll see in the margins there that you had experienced and novice teachers sharing about that project and what that prompts for them. Dog tracks shares a link to the SoundCloud so students can actually hear or readers can actually hear what was produced in that project. And then you'll see others who are saying thank you for sharing this is awesome. It gives a new dimension to the text. So that's just an example. And where you see also pre service teachers sharing that they value seeing others perspectives, instead of just reflecting on the reading on their own. And that's an example of that pedagogical what's called pedagogically productive teacher talk. This is from left Stein and others in 2020, who share about how teachers are sort of part of our practices engaging in conversations that help us to, of course, think about how we're going to teach and that's one of those humanizing practices that we identified in our, and our other work on digitally mediated spaces so the sharing that occurs becomes really meaningful. So there is also exercised as, as folks in this example, begin to ask questions with one another. Again, this points to some of jane's framings I really appreciated that around like, not, meaning making not just being an individual process right it's a collective work. And so someone asked like about the difference between space and place and then you'll see a conversation between Hannah MK and Mushu 123 about their meanderings around what that might, what that might mean so they're exercising. This is what we characterize as exercising care with one another, as they, you know, nurture their learning rather than just, you know, put things out there and hope that others take it up they're actually engaging in a dialogue together. And the last one around experimentation, we see the, I think what I want to highlight there is that experimentation involves feeling the discomfort, but then moving into a space where there is some generativity that's acknowledged in that and continuing. This, this example highlights that and I know I'm getting over on time so I'm going to. I'll just these are available to you but I think this is the final thing just to leave with you is that as we continue to humanize thinking in public which can be a risky endeavor. It's important to acknowledge the risk and then to think about the potential for productive struggle. You know, these the aspects that were highlighted, these wide and perspectives that teachers get through the space and when I say teachers, that's teachers as learners so it could be applied across different populations. More engagement and then the ability to write for an authentic audience and generate work and talk that is meaningful for their practice. So I think that's it for me. Thank you all. Thank you so much. That was so interesting. Yay, I can't wait to talk more about this. Okay, the last one or the last presenter we have for today is Paul Schacht, and he is a professor of English director of the Center for digital learning at SUNY Geneseo. He is also the director of digital throw, which is a digital humanities initiative that promotes public engagement and collaborative annotation of the works of David throw. We're going to get to hear a little bit more about that right now, so I will pass it over to you before I free yet. Okay, great. Thanks, Mary. Give me a second to share my screen. So, Henry David thorough is famous for going to walled and pond in order as he put it to live deliberately. When we ask students to annotate we want them to do that deliberately to, and we want to be deliberate ourselves about the annotation assignments we give. One way to be deliberate about annotation is to do it understanding that different types of annotation presuppose different audiences and different objectives engage different cognitive capacities and operate within different epistemic frameworks. A deliberate annotation would be one where against the background of that understanding, you choose what kind of annotation you want to write. And in writing it, you know what you're trying to do. A deliberate annotation assignment would be one that's at least designed to solicit the kind of annotation I want my students to write. And at best, designed to sharpen their understanding, not just of the text they're annotating, but of annotation itself as a practice. So I've seen various taxonomies of annotation. I know you have to the list that you're seeing here. Some of the items will look familiar from Janae's list. This isn't intended to be novel or definitive or comprehensive simply to capture some of the variety of things that readers may be doing when they annotate, explicating the text, providing context for it, arguing either with the author or another reader, conversing with another reader without arguing, making some personal connection to the text, maybe sending a message, which is what Thoreau is doing on my cover slide. If you noticed some writing at the top there, he's scrawled some instructions to the publisher on a page proof of Walden there. Or expressing an opinion, as William Blake does here on the title page of Joshua Reynolds's Discourses on Art, where Blake has written, this man was hired to depress art. This in the opinion of Will Blake, my proofs of this opinion are given in the following notes. H.J. Jackson's book, Marginalia, looks comprehensively at the different ways readers write in their books, and it made me reflect on the fact that even something as brief as a penciled N.B. in the margin that you see here in my copy of Jackson's book, or a double check mark, or as in the lower right, an asterisk in a circle, personal symbols that I use when I'm reading. These marks have specific meaning for a particular reader, and they could also be considered annotations of a sort. At the I annotate conference two years ago, Gardner Campbell gave a keynote address in which he talked about the potential of annotation to make use of students' knowledge emotions, a term he borrowed from psychologist Paul Sylvia. These are emotions like confusion, surprise, interest, and awe. And I noticed in some of Janae's prompts, she was looking for students to tap into some of those emotions as well. These are emotions Campbell said which foster learning, exploring, and reflecting by forcing us to make some kind of appraisal of our reading experience. Campbell's keynote made me see annotations like these left by a reader on the Gutenberg.org walled in using hypothesis with new eyes. Very intriguing quote. That's for sure. These annotations aren't analytical or informative, but emotive and evaluative. They're not oriented outward to other readers, except perhaps as markers planted on the trail of the text that say to others, you ought to look at this. They're more concerned to register this particular reader's immediate response. Before hearing Campbell's keynote, I would have seen annotations like these as, frankly, somewhat superficial at least as a way to fulfill an annotation assignment. Afterwards though, I began to think about deliberately soliciting annotations like these in hopes they might make a valuable starting point for deeper exploration, even for either for the student who left the comment or for another student whose attention is drawn to the passage by the comment. I'll come back to Campbell in a bit, but now I want to pull back in our thinking about annotation types to consider two broad types of annotation, one that I'll call scholarly and another that I'll call responsive. Scholarly annotations are generally intended to share knowledge or a highly informed perspective and are usually directed to an external audience, whether other scholars or general readers, whereas responsive annotations register reactions of one kind or another, and may either be intended to be read by others or only intended to be read by the annotator. So I run a website that provides a platform for social annotation of Thara's works, and a while back it occurred to me that the structure of the site offered a way to do some kind of crude comparison of the language of scholarly annotation with that of responsive annotation by simply looking at what readers have written there. I could do this because when the site launched it was seeded with the scholarly annotations from a print annotated edition of Walden from 1995, edited by the late Thara scholar Walter Harding. We simply put these print annotations in the margin as comments by Harding when we launched the site. Since then, some thousands of comments have been left by other readers, almost all of them high school and college students typically organized into groups that I will set up in answer to an instructor's request. And so here are some of the words. Here to start are the 50 most common words in Harding's comments visualized in a word cloud. Walden and Concord, where Walden pond is located, are the most frequently occurring, not surprisingly, words like book, journal, and less prominently addition are suggestive of Harding's effort to put Walden in literary context. There are also words that point to time, place and history as context. Boston, England, century, years, Emerson, Channing. The words known, according, referring suggests and probably seem to bespeak a scholarly effort to establish responsibly and with proper attribution, the scope of what can be reasonably asserted about Thara and Walden. We can think of these words as both reflecting and establishing the epistemic framework within which Harding is operating. 50 most common words of all other readers combined are quite different. Thara was no surprise, though it's interesting that it's much larger than Walden and that pond and Concord aren't here at all. Many of the predominant words here, nature, life, think, people, world, live, bespeak an interest in identifying key themes in Thara's work. The broad difference in emphasis between Harding and other readers that we find looking at word frequencies globally become even more dramatically apparent when we look separately at different parts of speech. Here, for example, are Harding's nouns. And here are other readers' nouns. Harding again. Other readers. Here are Harding's verbs. We see our friends suggest and know again along with quote, refer, know, think, describe and say. Other readers use think and say a lot and also describe, but also mean, compare, understand, believe, wonder, feel, remind, enjoy, become, change, make, and live. Some of these words point to readers' efforts to interpret. What does Thara believe? How is he asking us to live? Others seem more reflective of readers' efforts to articulate their own responses, what they feel about Thara, what passages in Walden remind them of, what they do and don't agree with, either in Thara's writing or in the comments of other readers. There's an inwardness to some of this vocabulary that seems largely absent from Harding's. Here are Harding's adjectives. Here are other readers' adjectives. Harding again. Other readers. The adjectives seem to offer the most dramatic evidence of two very different readerly orientations. The one principally concerned with history and the other with states of mind, values, and emotions. We see the same difference in orientation from a somewhat different perspective if we compare Harding's and other readers' longish words. In this case, words of 15 letters or more on the assumption that such words are one way to get a handle on the intellectual content of the comments. Harding is interested in historical time. And in general, it seems in numbers. He seems more interested in the concrete than the abstract. But there are also some abstractions in this list, including, but not surprisingly, transcendentalism, transcendentalists. Other readers did reference one century at least. And not surprisingly, they had these words in common with Harding. But they had a lot more 15 letters plus words altogether. And this list is kind of interesting. Again, what they seem to reference primarily is the realm of behavior, emotion, judgment. And finally, the vocabulary of the non-Harding readers seems altogether more conceptual than Harding's. These are other readers' phrases or combination words. Well, I want to come back now to Campbell's 2019 I annotate keynote. And remind you that it was in light of his case for using annotation to get students exploring knowledge emotions that this slide suddenly looked different to me. Campbell's keynote also gave me a new way to think about the prominence of that word interesting in the non-Harding adjectives. So the next time I wrote some annotation prompts for my students reading Walden, I decided to lean into knowledge emotions with prompts like these. Leave a comment on anything in the bean field that makes you feel joy, wonder, confusion, or anger. Explain your reaction. Find a passage in Walden that underwent a revision you find interesting, explaining what's interesting to you about the revision. Again, you'll note the similarity with some of Janae's prompts. But I wasn't satisfied still. And it was that word, those words explain and explaining that I wasn't satisfied with. They somehow I felt got in the way of the immediacy and authenticity that I was looking for with my prompts. It's not that I don't think students should reflect on how they feel when they read something, but somehow that word explained just felt too much like a teacher's word, one that almost seems to be a demand for justification. We might think in this context about Cherise's thoughts about the risks of annotation, right? What if my explanation is not good enough? Would students be honest about their reactions? I wondered if they had to justify them. And then I'm looking at some examples of how non-Harding readers use the word interesting. I came upon this. It's actually not a comment from a student but a comment from a colleague at another institution with whom I had team taught an online course in which we had students read and annotate Walden. What I love about Deborah's comment is that it expresses a knowledge emotion, but also predicates something about it. It says what's interesting in a way that makes the comment more than just an interjection, more than just, huh, interesting. And instead a possible jumping off point for analysis. And yet it doesn't feel like a forced explanation of anything. So here's the set of prompts I plan to use the next time I ask students to annotate a text. And I'll end with these and I'm looking forward to the discussion about all our presentations. The prompt would be to write a single sentence that takes a form like this. It's interesting that I'm surprised that it's confusing to me that it's funny or strange that I like that. It bothers me that I wonder why. I'm looking forward to trying these out and seeing what I get from students. Okay, thank you. I feel like I'm seeing some feedback that suggests that people actually all I could see was, you know, my own slides had no idea if I was still connected. There are some comments in the chat that's like blowing my mind. Everyone likes it. So I'm so excited to talk about all of these three presentations together because I think they all work so well together. And I have some questions. I have some things I think that all of you all be able to answer and feed off some of the things that you brought up in your talk. So maybe I'll just start us off with my observations and questions and then we can see what other folks have in the Q&A and the chat too. So I am so interested in the common theme of building confidence in the annotator. So that could be, you know, teacher educators have a whole, this is a whole like another level of confidence you have to build because they're the ones that have to go in. The teachers have to go in now and then build it in their students. The students have to, you know, come to terms with how to, you know, feel comfortable putting themselves out there. And then the instructor has to model that creating those patterns that Janae said. So I think all of you have some thing to say about that. So what's the, I mean, Paul, you sort of ended with this idea of these prompts that are seemingly simple but really sort of provide this jumping off point for analytical annotations or, you know, reactions and all that stuff. How best do we, if for educators or facilitators, how do we go about building the confidence in our annotators? I'll open that up to anybody who wants to answer. Well, I'm the only one whose mic isn't muted, so I'll try to start us off. You know, I think one important thing that we heard in some of the other presentations has to do with students familiarity with the interface, that problematic phrase, digital natives and the problematic assumption that our students know what they're doing and are comfortable navigating these interfaces and are comfortable about data questions, you know, what's being done with my data and so on. So I think one really important step to building confidence is to be patient with them, help them understand the interfaces, make it clear. I mean, I always share with my students how I can get discombobulated by interfaces of things that go wrong for me. I make a point of having some things go wrong in class demonstrations so they see that things can go wrong for me. But then when it comes to the annotations itself, for me, a key theme that has emerged in my thinking from my experience with student annotations is to make sure they don't feel like they're being asked to write an essay, or, you know, do the kind of writing they're expected to do with essays. So I encourage them to be informal, to leave short annotations that can always come back and leave more. And then the last thing I'll mention, Sharice pointed out the power of links and embedded media in annotations. So I encourage them to provide, you know, share links where embed YouTube videos, embed SoundCloud files, whatever it is that they might want to share along those lines. That's great. Yeah, that got me thinking too about how we can think about the literacy moves that readers are making and emphasize that those moves can be made across their tool agnostic, right? We can use other tools and give them a chance to choose. So like the practice that we did of saying you can use hypothesis and we understand that brings up certain considerations. Being able to identify the risks that students are feeling and then talk through them. And I think that's really what digital literacy, digital fluency is about, is being able to navigate digital tools as well. So now that you've thought about, this is to the students, now that you've thought about the risks and you've been able to maybe try out some of these things, identify which one really works for you, right? You can do this on Google Docs, you can do this in other ways, right? Using hashtags or padlet or a whole variety of things, but really highlight the skills that we want to develop. And then I just want to say that it's important to emphasize that this is needed work. Like the ability to support public thinking, to support collaborative knowledge development is a practice that's so desperately needed. Given where we are like learning online, you know, things have transferred over to the digital environment. And we see the proliferation of like, of course misinformation and hate speech and these practices, we have to figure out how to teach these scaffolds around visible thinking and working through those risks together. I really appreciate Paul and Sharice's responses to this prompt. I'll just add one other thought here, which is really to say that it's also sort of work, I think unpacking with your students from an affect level, what being confident means to them, right? So if we're asking how do we evoke confidence, there's a lot of work we could do to kind of understand prior experience with annotation and how social annotation, this sort of the risk of moving to this public space that both Sharice and Paul have spoken to how that might be different for them, how that might be changing what they are experiencing. So really knowing that we have this capacity to build upon that that prior knowledge should then scaffold to that public facing skill experience, especially that Sharice is sort of speaking to in terms of the importance of here, right? We know that there's tremendous value in doing this. But for students that might not be so obvious if they're not really seeing how it built upon what they might have done prior. The other piece I think that we can think about to that end is also creating options too for students, right? So from both Paul and Sharice spoke to the interface is a potential limiting factor to confidence with the task. But there may be true accessibility limitations as well. There may be, you know, especially for students who might be engaging annotation tasks with different kinds of devices. There might just be things kind of outside of our scope of understanding that we can, we can see it right away. So knowing that we can give students as options as different pathways into the task as much as possible could also help in developing confidence students see that we're giving them those the freedom of choice to engage in the task in ways that sort of work for them too. Wow. Okay. Yay. I, I also love what's happening in the chat with people thinking about incorporating reflection into annotation like thinking about why, why we're annotating like what's the purpose of bringing annotation into the classroom setting and that's something that I think Sharice, when you were talking, I came up with the question of, like, how do we establish the purpose of annotation and do students play a role in establishing the purpose? Like, are they the part of this, like, figuring out how we're going to do this, why we're going to do this, are they just sort of people we have to get on board or however that is, like, leading into discomfort and to start their annotation process? Or are they, like, you know, part of the building from the beginning? I wonder if you all have any thoughts about that, about that question. I can just say briefly that definitely learning is going to be more consequential when it is situated in student experiences, their desires, where they want to go with this, you know. And so these opportunities to generate, like, our frames together, you know, we've seen from my co-presenters here that there are frames we can come up with and I think they're going to be contextual, right? Like, what is the, what are we doing in this class? What are some of the disciplinary dispositions that we want to think about in practice if we're in a chemistry class and we want to be finding ways, you know, to identify evidence or hypothesize in certain ways? Like, those can become our collaborative frames and I think in that practice of identifying them together, we will learn a lot as educators, like, about what really matters and that's what matters to our students and I think that's really where our pedagogy needs to emerge from that student. To build off Cherise's point here, I think that it can be very helpful for students to see just kind of a different kinds of authentic examples of what this can look like, either based on their experiences or even, you know, depending on disciplinary context or professional context in which an annotation task is happening. You know, just literally what do other thinkers do with this? What does this look like? How do we support these kind of dialogues that might be kind of carried on in authentic context? I think one of the challenges we continue to face in education is making that transferable connection very clear between sort of, I mean, this is not just true today, this has been true for a long time, sort of translating academic literacies to other kinds of literacies that might have benefit or value insituated in authentic learning context too. So I love that we're focusing on metacognition and reflection, among other things. I think it's so important for us to help our students understand what they're doing when they're doing it. And I love Janae's idea of having them look at other examples of annotation on a social annotation platform, you know, that's relatively easy to do, have them look at other people's annotations. But listening to this conversation, I had an idea that I hadn't had before that I'm interested in trying out, which is simply to have students rifle through their own annotations because we all annotate, right? I mean, this is one of the interesting things about the challenge of using annotation as a teaching tool. It may seem foreign to students to ask them to do this. They haven't done it in this context in this way, but they've all done it. And to ask them to maybe, you know, to bring to a class meeting annotations that they put in the margins of a print text and maybe try to do their own sort of taxonomy of their own annotations. What was I doing when I was making these marks in the margin, try to categorize them and share those out? It would be one way to start getting them to be more reflective about their practice and ease them into the situated annotation we want them to do in our classes. That's really great. So I was thinking when I was listening to you, Paul, about my AP English teacher in high school who just said, you have to mark up this reading. And she didn't have any sort of explanation on what that meant. It was just like she just came around and made sure we had notes to prove that we read. And it was always so confusing. But like seeing like, well, there's like, there's symbols, there's things that we write or underline when we're writing just or annotating just for us versus when we're talking to each other. So yeah, there's a whole bunch of things to keep in mind. Yeah, and if I may, I'm sorry, Mary, I just building off your thought, you know, if I may, I think one thing that's really valuable, what you just said too is that annotation can so easily become part of a hidden curriculum, right, that students who learn how to annotate have had access to certain discourses that other students have not had, right, and we could probably track that in curriculum, you know, on our spectrum of, you know, of privileges, right. And I think the more that we can make visible the ways that we discursively engage to annotate spaces to it's also an equity based practice if we're giving these kinds of assignments. So just throwing that out there. Yeah, that's a really good point like even and that relates to what Paul was saying to about the response, like even inviting people to say that's interesting. That can be so powerful because then you get people into the conversation that weren't there before. Yeah. So there is a question in the Q&A I wanted to bring up. And it's about kind of logistics which form of hypothesis or annotation software do you all prefer is it the one that's loaded into the LMS, the free one. Do you have any pluses and minuses of either that you want to chat about. I think I don't really have. Oh, go ahead, Jimmy. You go first, I'll go after you. Mine is brief. I don't I don't really have a preference per se, just noting that using it within the LMS is private rather than public. And that's that's meaningful for in its own right, you know, being able to have those scaffolding environments again learning to navigate these practices without some of those additional high stakes that might come into public space. So that's, I guess, an affordance of the LMS. Yes, I'll build on this with my technologist cap on, which is that Sharice makes a really good point about the private nature in the LMS, you can create private groups within the browser based version to outside the LMS but the LMS adds an additional layer of security. Right, so if you are concerned with things like using single sign on authentication to access course information, if you're tying the use of annotation to any of your grading based practices, there are FERPA implications that you may want to think about when you use it in the LMS. So specifically, you know, if you're going to give any kind of assessment based data within your annotation practice, it is much safer to do so behind a single sign authentication paywall, not a paywall login wall, what am I saying. Then it is to just have students create free accounts and be building from that perspective. I'd also encourage you again with technologist cap on if you're trying to finance this question to talk to your campus it group or your campus librarians you know whoever is kind of the administrators for these kinds of LTI integrations. They're going to know a lot about the testing and security practices and accessibility practices that can also help you determine which version will be the best choice for your students for protecting them. And your instructional line staff might also be great for helping you determine how you might scaffold these kinds of tasks right so how important is the annotation to some of your core assessment based practices in the class. It might be another factor to think about in term and what kind of feelings you students have about the LMS that matters to in terms of whether that integration is supportive of your pedagogy. I'll just say, I think that the, you know, they're, they're all great. They have different somewhat different affordances, I you can have students annotate in Google Docs and that that can work. But the key thing is what we've been talking about making sure that whatever platform is being used students have control over their comments whether they're seeing publicly or not. And so the LMS provides one way to do that, but hypothesis allows for private groups where, you know, the comments could only be seen by members of the group. I've set that up. The Reader's Thorough website uses comment press and the groups that I set up for classes there can be private or they can be public. They can also be showcase groups so that the comments can be seen by the public but not interacted with by the by the public. I just think, you know, students ability to have control over the visibility of their comments is a key thing. The last thing I'll say about this is I've watched with excitement the development of hypothesis over a number of years, maybe five, six years ago, I had a really interesting email exchange with Jeremy Dean at hypothesis where he was wondering why I wanted to use comment press, which is a plug into WordPress, because it groups the it attaches the comments to paragraphs and not to to strings of letters in the text. So it's it's hard in comment press to tie a comment to a targeted bit of text in a long paragraph in particular that can be a bit confusing. And it was a really interesting email exchange I won't go into the details but I like them both for different reasons. I think somehow in some ways when the comments are organized at the paragraph level, it can be a little bit easier to navigate your way through it that it's not as overwhelming as it is when you see all that yellow highlighted text. But I've I've had students use both. And the important thing is that they're annotating. That's great. Yeah, there's some. There's a lot to keep in mind actually when you all started talking like I realized how complicated that question actually is because issues of control and privacy and and equity and access and all that stuff it's like all those considerations matter so that's great. So I have one more question. I have many questions but I'll ask one more so it was something else that Jerry said when you said you invite the creator the author into annotations to discuss things with the annotators or the readers. It's really interesting and something I wanted to hear just a little bit more about what that does to change the dynamics of a discussion to teach history so a lot of my creators are dead, dead and gone. Like you know by annotating a primary source by Thomas Jefferson there's like a power in that because students can really tell Jefferson what they think and he's not going to talk back to them. But there's just like an interesting thing that comes up when you're actually humanizing the creator like there's there's somebody behind this text and there's a different element of a discussion that can emerge from that too. So I wanted to hear from all what that what that adds to the conversation or any you know throw is also dead. So what kind of things are we talking about when we're entertaining historical text versus others. Well I can speak to what it's looked like in marginal syllabus and I think the larger question of authorship really brings in some great, you know pieces around like digital literacy development of the readers and understanding the writing process or that you know this this writing is a process and and we've seen that with. I know in some of the reflections I've seen students have said I didn't. I didn't think about my this I didn't think about the readers of the tech or the writers of the text this way and so they get to like see them they get to see what other educators are talking to them about in person you know the video. And I think there's also the power of being able to take those those transcripts and kind of think about like from the from a pre service teacher perspective. When they see other educators and conversation with these authors that also helps them to think about like their pedagogical practices. So that's one that's one piece of it but there's there there are great benefits to being able to have that conversation going but I think the pieces around what happens. You know with with authors who aren't here is also important for us. So yeah you know I one of the things I find it. I'm not sure whether I'm answering the question exactly but one of the things I find really compelling about having students do annotation is that it creates the opportunity to speak back to the writer as though the writer is not right in a way that's a it's a bit different from what you're doing. If you write an essay you're also kind of speaking back to the writer or we're speaking about you know you're in conversation with the writer when you want to analyze what you think the writer is up to but not in the direct way that you are when you are annotating. I think this is also part of the customary annotation practice. You know you're reading a Jane Austen novel and you write you know yes explanation point in the in the margin or no or what you know. But it's as it's as though that person is present for you and I think annotation makes that happen in a way that the conventional essay about an author doesn't. I've I've had students connect with thorough scholars both in the margins of some of these texts and then you know by by video chat after they've gotten to know them a little bit in the margins. That can be really powerful as well so it's not connecting not connecting you know what you're not bringing the author back to life. Then the last thing I'll say is you know I mentioned that we we launched the reader's thorough site with Walter Harding's annotations put in as comments. And there was something about that in particular when we created a little avatar for him. It happened then you know and not really before that suddenly it was like he was alive there in the text speaking to the readers of the text in a way that I don't think it feels he's doing if you're reading his print annotations in a print copy the text. These are wonderful examples thank you for both of these Paul and Cherise. I think the only thing I'll mention is just when you're working with historical texts versus contemporary texts. You know Paul has already listed a number of sort of like imaginative and creative ways that you'd kind of bridge the past and the present. And so I think that another kind of imaginative way you could do this and think about this is by thinking about all kinds of artifacts from historical context that you could bring into the annotation process things like maps things like you know archival footage or documentation it depends on how historical we're talking here I suppose. You know all kinds of linking or kind of forms of connection that you can do to larger historical context that can really make that historical conversation very rich, even if the authors themselves are no longer alive. It's the same thing with contemporary text of course of course as well. But the point is I think with the historical work, you have this real opportunity to think about how written dialogue sustained certain kinds of conversations, and that sort of texts are not sort of these like neutral floating isolated sort of moments in time, but are part of a larger fabric. Historically speaking there's this power, this is power of being able to annotate and think about historical documents is to Paul's point being alive. Still, as you continue to kind of unpack and bridge and think about what those implications are for our contemporary context. Yeah, I love all. This is one less thing around the having folks in person or having folks who are alive and attaining their texts one key consideration that we always like center in this work is permission. And so being able to make sure that the authors have, you know, granted that permission to share their work and to have it in common in conversation really helps to again demonstrate like that practice of like pure, you know, I wouldn't say peer review exactly, but you know like refining our thoughts together. They are, I think they're embodying that and we also I honor that and I share that with the readers that I'm introducing to this work that they've given us permission, and this is going to keep furthering the the development of these ideas, we can take that up they they're going to take that up. And so it becomes again generative practice. And so generosity and permission are really key values of mine, as I care. Yeah, that's really great that just builds up the whole. I mean the community as a whole because you're asking everybody is exchanging on, you know, everybody's getting their permission to take the risks right to build up that. I have another question in the Q&A so I'll ask that. So it's from Chris Aldrich says, I am curious if anyone on the panel is helping students move their data thoughts into personal platforms to take their notes with them and build on or expand upon them. And what does that look like in the long term for students. That's a great question. I'll kick us off on this because I'm actually going to have to leave the panel a few minutes I have a schedule conflict right after this all. I have saved my piece listen and I'll have to leave but the short answer is yes. We have a lot of conversations in the classes I've taught about options for transferability. And I think options are always key right you want students of agency over their their thoughts because annotations are a form of intellectual property. So we do want to be mindful students sort of having ownership and agency over their ideas. So one way we'll talk about that is by helping students sort of learn about a variety of tools both that go supported by the institution and those that you know may not that might be more personal proprietary platforms. How they might share or save things how they might archive their knowledge what those choices look like, both online and offline. And there were and with paper right we can talk about no taking to something you can still do in an analog capacity as well. But present those options in a way that honors, again what students might value from their notes to. So sometimes usually this is for me just kind of like I will create like a sort of toolkit in the classes I'll teach with just like hey here are some tools to think about to support you again here are the ones or it department supports where you can get help here are the ones that they don't support but that you might still want to think about using for these reasons. And we go from there so that's kind of my short answers that question but yes I think that making the transferability of the academic literacy transparent is a really great idea. I'm going to hear what Sharice and Paul are thinking. I haven't done what Chris is asking about but it's a great idea. I will do it. You know an account user can see all of their hypothesis comments in one place. I haven't played with downloading that to speak to the question of agency and ownership. I mean that the terms and conditions of the readers thorough website are that your data belongs to you. If you if you want it deleted you can request it to be deleted be you know it will be deleted. But I will think about how to make it easy for them to actually download it and do stuff with it particularly in digital humanities context where maybe what they would want to do is do some text analysis of their own writing and see what they find. I think it's a great idea. I think it's a great question and I just like Paul I want to keep building that out. I will mention on the technical side there is the crowd layers tool behind with marginal syllabus that allows folks to see patterns. It's a learn analytics tool that allows folks to see patterns in like well maybe not well they can create patterns and analyze those patterns but it allows them to see the analytics behind who's annotating articles. So I put that name in the chat. Yeah, thanks. So that's I think that's a tool once we think about you know our pedagogy, which is the most important. Very cool. Thank you. Is there anything else you all have you have questions for each other or anything else I want to say I know Janae you have to head out pretty soon is there anything else you want to mention before you go. Yeah, and I'm sorry I have to leave a few minutes before our panels officially over but just want to thank everyone for their contributions today I agree Mary with your assessment that these topics worked really well together there was great cross dialogue and conversation so I look forward to keeping track of the excellent scholarship mentioned in this panel, as well as staying in touch on the internet where we all live. So thank you I'm going to log off I know we started a few minutes off but I appreciate everyone's contributions today thank you have a great day everyone see you around the conference. Thank you Janae. So anything else. Paul and Teresa anything else you want to share our questions you have for each other. We have about 10 minutes left. I think this has been rich for me I have a lot of notes that will continue to my thought and conversation with you all. So I'm looking forward to, to more of the conference and staying in touch. Yeah, I'll you know I'll just add that. I had not met trees, Mary or Janae before we got together not very long ago to get ready for this and I'm just amazed at the amount of overlap and convergence in the in the issues that we're talking about and the ideas we have and the challenges that we see anyone is going to face in making this work in a pedagogical context or you know just around annotation in general. You know, I'll, I'll toss out one last issue that we haven't talked about that our students are not likely to face but that writers on the open web face. And this came up for me in a piece that Audrey waters wrote objecting to the fact that people were leaving hypothesis comments on her blog. She was writing on the open web and had deliberately turned off the comment capability in on her blog. She was getting a lot of nasty stuff in response to some of what she wrote. And, but then lo and behold she found people saying mean things in hypothesis comments, which are a separate layer that she didn't have to look at, and that other readers wouldn't necessarily look at. I remember that they were there and I know some of the hypothesis folks were in the meeting may know more than I do about conversation that she had with hypothesis about it. This is this is, I have never settled with myself exactly how I feel about this people were, were, you know, essentially engaging in constitutionally protected speech. They were using the technology that they were, you know, layering the hypothesis technology over her site in a way that felt intrusive to her. And I think it's a fascinating and I haven't seen anything, you know, about this since a couple of years ago, I don't know whether it continues to be a live issue or others have raised it. So it's a really interesting question at the crossroads of speech and democracy and privacy. So I heard, I heard that topic come up and so I pop back up on stage in case, in case you all wanted me to say anything. One thing I'll have to say about that. I love that this panel had like the full amount of time to really unfold and explore a lot of different things, almost to the point where we're like, maybe we've actually come to the end of the discussion just then Paul raises like one of the thorniest issues ever possibly. But I mean, my quick response to that is that, you know, I mean, I am a study of, you know, power and knowledge and discourse, like that's my that's what I think about. And, you know, someone like Audrey sits at a very different intersection of power and knowledge as an independent scholar not affiliated with an institution, then say the President of the United States does. And so I don't, I think a lot of people when they're considering the issue about all the things that you raise Paul about this, this intersection of privacy and free speech and everything. A lot of people are reaching for some sort of rule that will work everywhere for everyone. And I guess I feel like that's not really going to be a fruitful path for us. I think it's always going to have to be a more complex contextual thing that happens just like speech is in almost every case. Right. I appreciate that, Nate. I don't think that there is a blanket solution, a one size fits all solution to the issue. There have been quite a few sessions that other gatherings other ionitates and so forth where, where people have have wrestled with it. And it's never really quite come up to, you know, no one's found like the magic bullet that solves the whole problem, you know, as if a bullet would solve anything. Wow. Keep it continued. That really cool, like, non complicated question. It's really interesting. I actually hadn't heard of that. And now there's like a lot of links and stuff in the chat that I really want to go look at and read. But it did remind me a little bit of what Cherise was saying with that, like asking permission, especially with authors that you're sort of inviting discussion. But there's a whole other layer when it's not for a class. It's not like this structured conversation where there's a facilitator and an instructor there. It's just like, you're out there on the internet stuff. That's a whole other thing. I have nothing wise to say about this except I'm interested. Cherise, do you have the solution for this problem? No solutions, but I think as is the nature of inquiry, we're kind of seeing these things evolve. I think it comes up somewhat just the right to data, your own, you know, this, I heard someone mentioned earlier, intellectual property. And I think that digital, the digital is really challenging some of that. In our laws, in the ways that we conduct IRB ethics, you know, there's a difference between, you know, what's okay and what's right, you know. So, yeah, I just, I think these are important considerations to keep taking up, not my area of expertise per se. I just kind of generated from the humanizing aspect in, yeah, more considerations of ethics. So that's, I think that's all I have to contribute about that. I am glad you use the word humanizing. I think that's important. Like, for all of the players in this, like the, if we're talking about annotating in the classroom for the teacher, for the students, for the author, whoever, like it's all important to us to recognize human beings in the internet. And now that this might become like an incredibly, you know, turtles all the way down discussion, but later in the week, well, Rami Khalir and Ontario Garcia are going to be discussing their book, Annotation. And they have a really good chapter on this subject, I think, oh, there it is. You know, I think I have mine right here too. How many people have their annotations again. They have a chapter that specifically talks about, you know, the power knowledge, you know, intersections that happen in annotation. And I think it's that we could just talk about that. And I think Rami's in the audience right now, so we can feed him that as well. Yeah. I'm really looking forward to that talk. Me too. Rami says, do we not? All right, well, it's two minutes to 1130. Is there anything else? Any last questions or come in from the chat or anything else you all want to say before we wrap up? I just want to thank both all the presenters, Janae, Paul, Cherise, for all the things you said. I took a ton of notes and it's been really interesting. Anything last thoughts? Last time you did that, Paul. Last time you did that, Paul raised a really. I just wanted to thank Mary for a great job of moderating and for, you know, for the opportunity to be part of this terrific discussion. Well, thank you. Yeah, it was really fun. Then thanks to Nate and Franny and Rami for asking me to come on board. It's been really, really cool. So, yeah, thank you.