 One of the things I try to use social annotation to do is to help students to translate between those different modes. So one of the prompts I'll sometimes give students is, you know, point out a formula somewhere in the text and try and put into words what that formula actually means, why somebody should care about that, right? Or if you had to explain this to somebody who's not currently taking our math class, what would that explanation look like? So this is an example of an open text called Active Prelude to Calculus. It's part of a sort of a three volume open educational resource written by Matt Balkans at Grand Valley State University that I recommend anyone teaching in the calculus sequence has to check this out. And so here's an example of sort of a sentence that has some mathematical notation in it. It's asking about a specific, you know, word. What is the domain of this function which is written as H equals G composed with D? What is its range? And so, you know, I asked my students to not only kind of address the question, but also kind of tell us about the thinking that led them to their answer. So this student is probably not super visible, but they're saying, well, for this domain, here's the answer that I got for this. I was wondering if somebody can check my work, which to me that's much better than asking the sort of closed ended question, hey, solve this question in an annotation, right? Instead, this person got an answer and then they're inviting further conversation for which then I have a couple of students who jump in and they verify, oh yeah, I also got this and here's how I did it. Oh, this person says it took me a couple of tries before I figured this out, but I did get the same answer. One of the first context in which students will find it natural to kind of have conversations in the margins of the math textbook is just in the sort of problem solving context. Here's the answer that I got. Does anyone agree with this? Can you check me? What's your process?