Welcome to liquid margins, social annotation, bridging theory and practice. Today's guests are Cindy Garcia, associate professor of theater, arts and dance at the University of Minnesota. Melinda Lindquist, associate professor of history at the University of Minnesota. Jiren Zhu, PhD student in learning technologies and today's guest moderator, Bodong Chen, associate professor in learning technologies, also from the University of Minnesota. I don't know what their mascot is, but go fireflies or whatever it is. It's all University of Minnesota today. Might be mosquito, not sure. Okay.  Welcome Bodong. Thank you for the wonderful introduction, Franny, and welcome everybody to this episode of liquid margins and Bodong Chen. I am associate professor in learning technologies and at the University of Minnesota, our mascot is Govers. So we're all Govers here. We're super excited for this opportunity to share a really recent partnership we have been building in the past semester at the University of Minnesota around social annotation. So now I just want to ask our panelists, maybe to jump in and tell a little bit about yourself, including what is your primary role at the University, which are academic or even hobbies or academic interests and personal interests, just to tell us a little bit more about yourself. So Cindy, do you want to kick us off? Sure. I'm Cindy Garcia. I'm an associate professor in the Department of Theater Arts and Dance. I have an interest in Bailay Popular, which is Latin American social dance, popular dance. So my first book is on salsa dancing called Salsa Crossings, Dancing Latinidad in Los Angeles. So I really like to think about how the social like race, racism, gender, social class, all play out in relation to people in social spaces. And yeah, I'm a former elementary school teacher at an experiential progressive school, and that really informs a lot of how I teach. So thanks. Melinda, do you want to go next? Sure. Thank you so much. I'm Melinda Lindquist, and I'm an associate professor of history. And my primary areas are US history, African-American history, gender history, and intellectual history. And my work thinks a lot about the ways in which social scientists construct knowledge about race and gender in the United States. And the current project that I'm working on is a history of the achievement gap and thinking about what the discursive work of even that notion of having a term like the achievement gap does. But I'm also really interested in the ways in which social scientists and also lawyers and legal scholars, as well as youth have engaged in debates about education and achievement. And I would just say that, thank you for the invitation today. And there's been something very nice about working with this tool and actually sort of thinking about sort of notes and notation and the ways in which they're very much sort of linked to learning, which is something I'm much more interested in than achievement. So thank you. Xinran, please jump in. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Xinran. I'm a second year PhD student in learning technologies at the University of Minnesota. And I'm also working as a graduate instructional designer at the College of Design that supports online teaching and other online learning initiatives. And before I came to UM and I did my master in education psychology at the University of Connecticut. So research-wise, I'm interested in learning analytics and online collaborative learning and now exploring connecting social annotations and learning analytics techniques to support teaching and learning online. Thanks for having me today. All right, wonderful. Thanks everybody for your quick introduction. I also want to give a great shout out, a big shout out to two colleagues who are attending the webinar who are Shauna Kroosen, who is the educational technologist at the College of Liberal Arts, who has been doing unlimited support for this partnership and also Hong Shui, a PhD student working with me and Xinran on the research and design side of this partnership. So a big kudo to them as well. Personally, I have been using hypothesis. I've been interacting with hypothesis for a while for many years. I have different hats. I use it as an instructor myself. I teach using hypothesis in my graduate level and undergraduate level courses and I also have a huge interest in, like Maninda was talking about, how annotation as a knowledge practice is connected to other parts of learning and cognition which expands my interest to, you know, designing and incorporating annotation in workflows as young as high schoolers to see whether they can, you know, bridge their classroom discussion with what's going on in the news around climate change and so that we can design newer pedagogical practices to really enable new type of learning in the classroom. So I really appreciate being able to work, being able to use an incorporate hypothesis in all kinds of settings. And that really transitioned to my next question to our panelists, that is how did you learn about social annotation and why did you use hypothesis in your class in the past four semester? Please feel free jumping. We don't need to necessarily go in order, but Cindy, you're ready. Okay, I learned about it through a workshop this summer where Shauna Crossen was there, a technology consultant at the University of Minnesota and I think maybe Shin-Won was there and Hong and Bodong, you may have been there too. And I remember getting really excited about this idea of hypothesis and social annotation and I pursued getting the integration into my Canvas site and I went to this special training just for hypothesis and social annotation which was exciting to me. Probably the most exciting thing I learned about online teaching this past summer and I was excited about it for a couple of reasons. I was going to be teaching, I was developing a course, Dance History that I had inherited that I was wanting to change up and really think about it. It's a writing intensive course and I really wanted to think about how to teach writing in a way that students could really pay attention to the texts that they were reading in order to learn from the writing strategies of those authors and then incorporate them into their own writing. So that was one thing that was exciting to me and another was just really focusing on how do you read one of these university level texts? It's hard enough to read by yourself and so when you get to read with co-students, it's really wonderful for the students to share their knowledge with each other. So I wanted to incorporate one, this cooperative learning model that I used to use when I taught elementary school and also I used to teach reading. So I had all this training on comprehensive strategies and so I would include that as prompts for students to annotate. So things like using prior knowledge, what's familiar, identifying the main idea or the argument, asking questions, what's new to you, making connections and then another time we had an annotation based on what in this reading sparks your curiosity. So that's how I got excited about all of this. So maybe pass it to Melinda. Thank you. I similarly was introduced to the tool by Shanna Crossen which was wonderful. I was really very excited about it and I think part of the reason I was excited about it is because before learning about the tool, I had started to shift my teaching practice in the large survey course that I teach which is also a writing intensive course and there's a lot of attention to writing a certain type of thesis-driven essay that engages deeply with primary sources and as I was rethinking that course last year before hearing about hypothesis, I had come to the conclusion that I think that some of the most important work and thinking that scholars do is in the process of reading and taking notes. And so last spring, I revamped that course and all of a sudden note-taking became one of the most important things that the students did. It was the one assignment that they were always required to like that was basically like the week's assignment. They would work through different types of things around writing, but each week they had to always submit their notes. And so I think that since I was already sort of shifting my thinking in terms of the ways in which scholars do so much thinking in terms of annotation and how they sort of deeply engage with the texts before they move on to forming a thesis and writing and through that process. So I think that when I heard about the tool from Shauna, I was excited because I had become excited about note-taking and then this time, since you gave a little bit of a preview of some of the ways that you have been using the tool in your class, in my class, the students spend a fair amount of time in the beginning really like just thinking about notes as you know, how they do that individually, trying lots of different types of note-taking techniques that historians use, different techniques for primary sources versus the sort of techniques and approaches for secondary sources. And then social annotation just really comfortably fit into that because then the next step was now, what is it to take notes collaboratively? What does that sort of open up in terms of opportunities for learning or for questioning? Or sometimes there's lots of works, like how does it also help in terms of the distribution of labor to make actually the work more accessible to students on weeks where the reading is heavier? How is it that we can sort of share? And so I've just found it to be a tool that I think, I was introduced to the tool at the moment that I was actually ready to think and really be able to engage with the tool just because of how important I think notation is. And then it really opened up a lot of different opportunities for how to use the tool, especially in the context of the pandemic, how this tool creates community when it can be very difficult to create community. I mean, I was in a course where I had no, physical contact with my students and normally that course is set in an active learning classroom where there are 14 tables of nine and they're mostly sitting and facing each other because the course is very conversational. And so the tool also helped to sort of bridge some of the gaps that were created, I think in the learning experience because of the pandemic. One reason I really enjoy in talking with both Cindy and Melinda every time is just to listen to them, processing their thinking on teaching and ways to support really deep disciplinary engagement in a specific area. They're really thinking deeply. And so I always learn new things, just every time I meet with them. I liked right now it turned to Xinyan because you led a systematic review last year, sorry, earlier this year. And that's really before this partnership was born. And then when we had the chance to pilot hypothesis at the University of Minnesota and then kind of all the dots are connected. It was exciting for me because there's such a great group of faculty members and instructor who are piloting this. We have been thinking about social and collaborative annotation as part of our research. And then that took off, the partnership took off just because of mutual interest from both the research side and also the educational practice side. So Xinyan can you tell us a bit more about how this partnership looked like and which kind of activity we had that really, which kind of contribution we brought on the table to make this happen? Yeah, so first I would say in general I think this has been a very meaningful collaboration among instructors and technology consultant instructional designers and researchers. So as researchers we have been interested in social annotation for a while. Last March a group of us wrote a paper about social annotation in response to COVID-19. And we developed a strong desire to partner with instructors to design solutions for online teaching. So this summer, Shana helped us connect instructors to collaborate. And so Shana is really supportive and passionate about the project. And with Shana's help, Cindy and Melinda and another instructor were on board of our research. So I think there are two key elements in our partnership. First, as we collaborate, I would say we all have shifted our identities. We're not just researchers and they're not just educators. I would call us all as research informed practitioners as we're all trying to turn research into practice by co-designing the social annotation activities. In our co-design meetings, Cindy and Melinda shared their course objectives, their insights and their teaching strategies. And then based on that, we introduced some scaffolding activities and collaborative learning strategies from the research literature. So through the interaction, we were able to integrate the research differently to fit in different classes. And for the second element, I would say it's a strong rapport we have established during our collaboration. Throughout this semester, we kept our routine design meetings as a chance to share both positive and negative updates and solve problems together. So our co-design has always been an ongoing process. There were always great ideas coming from the design meetings and both Cindy, Melinda, and Shana have inspired us a lot. So I really appreciate this great partnership and I think those two elements have been the foundation of the project. Thanks a lot, Shinran. Yeah, I'm together with you. I so appreciate this partnership. And I want to, maybe it's a time to ask Cindy and Melinda specifically because you already told us about how the course looked like, how the key element about social annotation that was introduced to your course. And I want to invite you to share a little bit more about what was the day-to-day or week-to-week activities that were designed and we implemented. And what was the, how was it from the side of the teacher or how is it from the side of the student? Which kind of strategies did we co-design that were eventually implemented in your course? Well, I do want to thanks, Shinran and Hong and Bodeng for the collaboration. It was wonderful to be able to sit on Zoom several times throughout the semester and plan. And my original intention was really only to use the tool for two assignments. And so, but to do those two assignments which were week four and five, we met and we developed the scaffolding. So in my very first class, and since again, I was saying that the model for the class is a very much collaborative learning model. So, there were portions of our synchronous meeting times where it was sort of lecture or large group interactions, but there were lots of small group interactions. And so I introduced the tool the very first class when I had them break up into conversations to read a set of guidelines to think about how groups work well together and how they might not work well together. So it was really helpful having these conversations to think about how to introduce a tool which is a very different type of tool, but then to slowly give the students but also myself because it was my first time using it really a comfort. So the plan was primarily for these week four and week five assignments which were groups around small groups as well as large groups. There were either annotating historiographic pieces or primary sources. But to get there, we had that initial meeting and then I continued to introduce the tool slowly before we got to those first two assignments. And then the main thing that I had them do, I had them use the tool but I never graded them on the work of using the tool. But what I did ask them to do after they use the tool was to reflect on the process of social annotation both for dealing with primary sources as well as dealing for historiographic articles. And after that, I decided to use it basically throughout the rest of the semester. So that was my original intention but then I kept coming back and having conversations with you about how to continue to use the tool, how to extend its use. And it was really always very helpful because as the use would change we would try to make sure that certain things remain stable. So I remember one conversation we decided, we're making these different types of changes and how we're gonna use the tool but what we wanna keep constant are the group members in a group when they're using the tool in a different type of way. And so I think that scaffolding throughout was really helpful and then making sure that just like certain variables were changing over the course of the semester and the tool was functioned in a lot of ways. So it was definitely a conversational because it did create the space for conversations between the students. It was reflective because no taking is so important in my class and I required them to reflect both on sort of individual as well as the no taking that they do in social annotation. It was also by the end because then I incorporated it more fully we ended up reading a book together where each group had ownership of a certain chapter and then produced a final presentation about their chapter. So then we spent a class where basically we worked our way through an entire book but the tool was this wonderful learning space to then create these final products. So that was the one place where it was also like very specifically productive of a certain type of writing as opposed to sort of conversational or reflective. And the other thing I would say is that I had a class where I invite like about 13 faculty members to come and talk about, there's a course about the 1960s. So they talk about 1968, like all around the world. And for that week the students also read primary sources from South Africa or Mexico or Canada. And what I really liked about the tool that week is that it made it really easy because for that week I just invited all the faculty into the tool. And so it created this space for the faculty coming in like not knowing the students they're only gonna spend an hour with them but they were able to come in and already have a sense of the conversation. So the tool was also very invitational in that you could sort of invite people into conversations. So, yeah, I ended up just I used it in a lot of different ways. I used it at a certain point I gave people a choice about like whether to opt into conversations based upon gender if they wanted to be in a male or a female or a non-binary or mixed group. And so it also did allow for these different types of configurations. I really like Melinda, how you talked about reflection. Anyway, but yeah, I'm excited about that. Well, in our class and dance history when I think I met with Sinran and Hong and Borong at the beginning it was still in the summer I think and also my TA Jason Norr who might be out there in the chat. We were talking about how to develop assignments and I think it was Sinran and Hong who talked about these roles and introduced Jason and I to this way of approaching this social annotation. So one is the facilitator. So a student would be assigned the role of facilitator and as the students were all collectively reading over the weekend, preparing for Tuesday's class the facilitator's job was to jump in and encourage the conversation, make some connections, point out who's agreeing, who's disagreeing to further the conversation. And I think Sinran you were saying this is sort of the how, like how do we get this conversation going? And then the what, it was that the next role was the summer, or sorry, the synthesizer and the synthesizer for Tuesday's class jump starts our class conversation by synthesizing the conversation that we had about the annotations from Tuesday. They bring up the ideas, they bring up disagreements but they're really pulling these ideas together and asking questions for us to think about for the Thursday class. And then the summarizer would turn in a summary of the weeks, findings, discourse, arguments, tensions, questions that we developed and create a summary. So we would stop, so that's facilitator, synthesizer and summarizer. And Jason and I noticed a couple, two or three weeks into this that it was really getting slippery between the different roles and we needed to pause and work with, well, we had to actually to ask Sinran and Hong, okay, we have to just get clear on this again. So we really tried to delineate more clearly but what's the difference between these roles and how can we communicate that better to students? So we recreated a document that we could share with students about what are the possible ways to respond within each role? And the students actually helped develop that too. We asked them, what did they think? How did they activate this role? So we had that list going and that really improved their work and it really improved the quality of the way that they perform these roles and even the way that the other students then would respond to the synthesizer or be able to use the summary. They started to realize, okay, we spent some time talking about what's the difference between a synthesis and a summary. These are two different kinds of writing. So this became some of the part of the focus of our writing intensive course. They were doing annotations. They were doing facilitation, writing as facilitation, synthesis and summaries, as well as writing reflections. So, oh, I can share that document if I can find it. You just got to email me. Here's Lee Stewart. Anyway, so yeah, that was really probably a really powerful experience. It lasted the whole semester. It took a lot of energy and students really had to do, like complete their roles by a certain point each week. So we had really clear deadlines. And then when the facilitator was done, all the students would be done doing this by Sunday evening. So I was gonna teach on Tuesday. I would go reread this article and look at what the students said. And I could notice things like where were they, where did they really understand what this author's saying? Where did they really go off with some other idea? Sometimes students weren't really clear about like the history of blackness or ways to think about race and racism. And so rather than pointing out people in a conversation, in class discussion, I could really back up and scaffold ways to talk about race and racism if students hadn't really done that before. Sometimes students would pull out quotes that the author would use. And they would sort of decontextualize them. And then I would say, aha, they're just looking at the quote. They're not looking at how the author is using this quote to create an argument. So the author doesn't believe in this colonialist idea of racism and dehumanizing enslaved Africans. It's the quote that is creating this idea. So I would back up. So in the class that I would lead, I would look at the, where the author is structuring her argument. And then I would bring that quote up and say, why did the author use this quote? So I could really recreate and scaffold better when I was teaching. And so the idea of any kind of pre-planned lecture is not really part of how I used this. It really is like you are really teaching to the students who are in your class and the ideas that they bring. So it's always, you're always recreating ideas and learning together. I love the way you're putting it, Cindy, that it's always recreating ideas. And I also appreciate both of you, your openness in terms of rethinking what learning is in your course and rethinking how learning can happen in your course in such a special semester. There's a lot of design efforts that were put in reimagination of the course and what writing is. For example, writing could be very linear, but the way you're describing it is reflective, conversational, facilitatory, and so on. So I really appreciate that. In the meantime, I'm looking at a time. So I'm gonna pose one final question to all of you. First to Xinyuan is, we have been, you know, this research is still ongoing, but I wonder what type of research ideas you think will be on the horizon in terms of this only first round of this partnership and what will be coming out next. And also to Cindy and Melinda, if you're gonna do this again, I hope that's the case for the spring, no pressure, but that's my hope. How might you do differently? How might you use hypothesis differently? What are the hopes you have as an instructor that we want to explore further? So Xinyuan, do you wanna get us started? Yeah, sure. So we did a little review this year on social annotation and we found there are great nuances with designing and social annotation activities. So at the same time, one major focus from the current literature as I see is that some studies have been focusing on describing the application and results of the technologies or interventions in online or hybrid classes, but there are not enough studies to define the design process nor explore how the design plays out over time. And also as instructors, they're always very busy with their teaching workload. It is challenging for them to gain useful information from research. So I feel like there's a gap between research studies in one specific classroom and other classrooms outside of the research. So as the technology materials, it will be nice to distill design patterns, test them in various settings and then make them broadly available for instructors to consider and apply in their own classrooms. And also we're also exploring building analytics tools first to help teachers to have a better understanding of how their students are reading and annotating and to inform their instructional decision-making. And also then we want to help students to track their own learning and be more self-regulated and engaged in the collaborative learning through the social annotation. Thank you. So in terms of, I definitely plan to use this in the future. And I'm thinking I'm gonna use it in a pretty different way. So the course that I just taught, it was a large course, but it was not a writing intensive course. And so I think that the tool, while our use of the tool was highly scaffolded and very conversational and reflective, and I frequently encourage them to use the different types of sort of note-taking strategies and to bring those into social annotation, that was not a requirement in this course. And so thinking about the conversation about Cindy and reflecting upon the use in that class, my plan next time in the writing intensive course is to use a much more sort of directed and directive strategy with hypothesis. So this time around, I mean, I would read through their responses. I would definitely use their responses in the places that they were really interested in. I would highlight those points or if I saw issues that needed clarification, I would definitely use that in the lectures and sort of like bringing those questions to the larger class. But I do think that in a writing intensive course, there's a lot of opportunity to use the tool to specifically do the work that I want the students to do in terms of, like gaining confidence about what is a really strong thesis, how does one encounter it in the text, and then how does one then think through their own primary sources to be able to generate a thesis of their own. So my plan is to move from this sort of more open-ended approach to a more directive strategy. And I'm gonna be really curious to see how the students responded. The students responded, I think, very favorably to the way that we used it in the course. I think that they really appreciated the fact that they could sort of use the tool, how they wanted to use the tool. And then just sort of thinking about research, and this is a conversation that we had when we were together. And one of the things I noted was, right, the ways in which the students in the course frequently responded, like there were a lot of emotional responses in their annotation. And I think one thing that I've been curious about is what is this relationship between like emotional and effective responses and intellectual development and inquiry. And it strikes me that these things are actually very closely related, more closely related than we might think. And that getting a sense and seeing their engagement in those terms while my first response was maybe to think, oh, like this isn't the right type of use of this tool. By the end of the semester, I was thinking, actually it's really important to have these types of reflections embedded in the annotation, not only because it's a very sort of authentic reflection of how they're encountering the sources, but also because I think that these things are closely related and I think it would be interesting to do more research just to think about these things. And in my course, I also did use something called a labor log. And so each week the students, and we talked about this as well in our conversations, each week when the students logged in their labor, they also did log in like their mood and they're the different types of emotions that they were carrying through the course of doing the labor for the week. So I would be curious and I think it'd be wonderful if there was research that continued to think around those types of questions. I would be interested in reading it and learning from it. Well, I'm definitely going to use this again. Next semester I'm teaching an entirely different course and I haven't figured out how I'm gonna use this, but I will. When I teach dance history again, probably in the fall, I want to build in, it seemed like we just went at this pace. We really jumped in, which was great. And we had little times for reflection here and there, but I really want to do something where I reorganize the syllabus to maybe have a couple of weeks of reading and going through the process. And then another week where we don't have new readings, we really refine the process of the roles, how are we making annotations, looking at specific annotations that we thought were really effective or that reading somebody else's annotations, like how did that affect their own learning? So really having students dig into what have we done in these first two weeks, right? And then what have we learned in terms of content? How are we thinking about diaspora by way of the Caribbean? Like what are we learning here? And just kind of logging that together and then asking questions. And then we'd start another like two or three week cycle and then another week off to try to really integrate together some of these new skills and really develop, really fine tune what we're learning so that they can keep developing these when they're reading at home and making annotations. So that would be something to integrate, but also one day, Cynron and Hong came in and they were asking the students, what did they like about this platform about social annotation? What were they learning, all of these questions? And one of the students started talking about how she read. She was like, oh, well, usually I read everything first. I read the article twice before I even start to annotate. And I read everyone's comments and then I annotate. And then another student said, actually, I just read and I just annotate the first things and I just read it one time through. And another student had a different way of reading. And so I think that that discussion was really exciting for me because I then thought I want students to become aware that there's many ways to approach a text and they're all different. If you read the text twice and everyone's annotations first, that will help frame your thinking and you might be already reading to respond to one of those annotations, which is great. And those annotations might help you understand the text more deeply. So if you read it all on your own and you don't look at annotations, that might bring some fresh ideas and then you put that in relation to other people's ideas. They both work. And I think there are many other ways to read and I really want to explore that with the students. How are they reading? Because not everyone comes with a deep understanding of how to read critically. And so this kind of collective learning really enhances everyone's, I think, ability to learn and understand course concepts. So yeah, thank you. There are a couple of questions from the chat. So Podong, if I can love those to you and then you can love them too different. You can answer them or love them to the guests, whatever you'd like. So Karen Labonte or Labonte, and I should know how to pronounce her name because shout out to Karen who's also in Portland and it attends so many liquid margins shows. It's always great to see you at some point or maybe in the chat, just tell me how to pronounce your last name. So I get that right. Karen says, would you say hypothesis affected your own research practices and conceptions of quote unquote research? It's a great question. Thank you. I'm happy to take that one. And there was a chat in the chat channel of that. We actually, as personally as a research, I use hypothesis daily as part of my research workflow as the date of the engagement with articles I read. And she mentioned about this literature review article we wrote in the spring. We actually, as a research group, we use hypothesis to do that literature review just because annotation is so, I think it's fundamental for a researcher to send them, Linda mentioned about note-taking as a reader, I think that's the same. It's so embedded in our engagement with reading materials whether it's on paper or whether it's on a PDF document or whether it's on a website. So that's, to me, having this hypothesis infrastructure, I see it as actually a knowledge infrastructure for researchers to better archive our annotations, which could be emotional, could be very quick and crappy in my case, but so important to archive that moment of thinking and then revisit that at a later point to make synthesis, to process that thinking further so that I can actually link that idea with my bigger research agenda. So I actually think it's very fundamental as a researcher to think about annotation and think about what tools can actually support that type of commission as a researcher. So the next question is from Chris Andrews and he says, we often talk about what worked in our classes in terms of social annotation. Do you have any experiences of what didn't work or didn't work as well as you'd hoped regarding social annotation use? And what do you think didn't, no, why do you think they didn't work? Sorry. And what adjustments did or will you make with social annotation in your courses? Another great question. Thank you, Chris. I mean, I would say that some of it's not that it didn't work. It was just learning how to use social annotation and experimenting. So my TA and I would talk about, Jason and I would be like, okay, what kind of comments are we getting? How can we get people to think about it at deeper levels? And so, we would pull out some of the annotations that were really thick or critical or just really well-written and just have students think about that. I don't think that the methodology is, it's just always learning how to do it with the students that you have and the discipline that you're in. So I wouldn't say that there's something that I would throw out necessarily. It would just be to like sometimes have more time to reflect and deepen the learning is what I would want to do. I mean, I think the only thing I would add is that I do think that because the students in my class had spent the two prior weeks really practicing with these very specific ways about how to read and take notes on primary sources and historiography. I think I did expect more of to see that carry through more in the social annotation. I encouraged it, I didn't require it. And I think a portion of the students took me up on that, but a large number didn't take me up on that. And so I do think also because my approach was much less more sort of directive, like I would give people, I did in fact give lots of directions. So for example, in Cindy's earlier, when you were talking about the different types of ways of reading, even as they were using the tools, my instructions would be very specific.  So you have the experience of what is it to have gone through that entire cognitive process on your own and then use the tool. And then another time I said, I want you to only read within the tool. And there will necessarily be, you might be the first person. So it might be the same process or you might be the 15th person. And then you're gonna have to sort of juggle between how it is to read and to see other people's ideas in the comments. So I think that the tool, I ended up finding like different ways to sort of use it or think about it, which I thought was helpful in terms of helping the students think about their own process of learning. But there was less of that immediate translation.  So I was thinking that they would sort of like use these tags and bring that, those specific styles of annotation in. And they really opted not to and I didn't require it because also I wasn't, I didn't have in a course of 120 students, even with my two TAs, like we were not gonna be able to police and monitor that work. There was just no possibility of that. And I think at the end of the day, I was fine with that as well. But I don't know if it's a failure, but it was an opportunity that I think at first I thought, oh, like this is maybe a missed opportunity. But then it did open me up to just sort of like thinking more about the relationship between like the affective and the intellectual. Melinda, can I say the tags? I forgot about the tags. I would totally want to redevelop how I teach with the tags. I tried and they were just sort of a thing that students did that we, I didn't pursue in a way to make sure that they were cohesive or that we're trying to identify particular categories that we could go back and use. And so that is actually something that didn't work so well because I was focusing on so many other things. But I teach dance history one. So if the person who teaches dance history two, now that the students are trained, maybe she will like, okay, in this course we're gonna develop the tags. So I think there's so much to do that the students could actually break it up into different semesters, different courses. So yeah. So sort of a follow up, I know Bodong, you gave Karen a response in the chat, but I thought it might be worth just taking this last question, kind of exploring it a little bit. Do you share your own learning processes with students? Yeah, I do like to kick out a little bit. It depends on which semester I'm teaching. And I do tend to geek out about, how do I think about knowledge workflows and to chat with them about, of course also learn from them as well of how they think about knowledge practices, how they think about other different, they have different professional identities, how they think about what is knowledge and how is knowledge generated and how does it look like to work as a community because I always bring up the idea of community together whenever I teach and how does it look like as a community we're building knowledge together and that will really be connected to the use of social annotation in my course because we're annotating for our collaborative sense making a very dense idea, sometimes very technical ideas that no one know all those ideas, but as a group, as a community, we can conquer and really make sense of those ideas together and then build new ideas. So that aspect of my teaching, I think every semester I will spend a bit of time just geeking out with my student and chatting with them so that we have that basic community culture already built before going to the tools. And I think that I didn't, I really appreciate the question from Karen but I didn't do any research yet about how that might have impacted students but it will be a great thing to do, a great research idea to explore as a next step. That's great. Hey, we're one minute before the top of the hour. I think we should probably wrap this up. I just wanna thank you all for coming and this has been so amazing. Great show and thanks to everyone in the chat. It's a really good chat. There's a lot of bonding going on in there. I always love to see that and people helping people. So it's sort of like the annotation of the show and again, there's real community going on there. So thank you all for coming and I hope to see everybody again in January when we after the holidays we'll start back up with liquid margins. So please join us. This is being recorded and the recording should be available this Monday possibly beforehand, so look for that and thank you again for coming and have a great weekend.


As the golden rays of the sun make the sky bright The light which comes and gives light in years Light a life to the priest This year is more shiny This year is more In back all the sweet colorful Who is like a gif of the numberless priest Satisfaction and joy


So today's talk is about getting away from the approximation that even when the enthalpy of mixing is finite, we assume that the atoms are randomly distributed to calculate the configurational entropy. And in general that cannot be the case because if the enthalpy of mixing is finite that means some atoms prefer to be next to particular kinds of atoms and therefore the configurational entropy cannot be random. And the sort of model that I'm going to describe has a variety of hierarchies. So the regular solution model that we discussed is known as the zeroth order quasar chemical model because it basically assumes a random mixing for the entropy with a finite enthalpy of mixing. And today I'll discuss the first order quasar chemical model where we will look at pairs of atoms rather than individual atoms and there are even higher order models where you look at clusters of atoms being distributed in your system. Okay, so just to summarize then these are the characteristics of the models that we have discussed so far. The ideal solution has a random mixture of atoms and zero enthalpy of mixing so the entire contribution to the free energy comes from the minus T delta SM term and the system is said to be completely random at all temperatures. In the case of the regular solution model we assume that sorry that should be I'll just change that so that there's no confusion. So this is the regular solution model and this is the quasar chemical model that I'll discuss today. So in the regular solution model we assume that the entropy of mixing is determined by a random mixture of atoms but we admit that the entropy of mixing is not zero and the quasar chemical model deals with this problem where we don't assume that the entropy of mixing is ideal. So in a regular solution model, atoms are treated as independent entities and it's called the zero order quasar chemical model. Okay, so in the quasar chemical approximation first order we say atoms are not distributed at random but pairs of atoms are treated as independent quantities, okay, right. In order to go through the derivation I'm going to go through a very simple case where we have just two energy levels. This is the ground state here and this is a higher energy level by this quantity E1 and G represents the degeneracy of states that means at this state I have two equivalent states with the same energy okay and in the ground state I have three equivalent states with the same energy which is zero in this case for the ground state. So the atoms will distribute themselves amongst these energy levels depending on temperature and the quantity E1 so the number of atoms out of the total number capital N which are in the ground state will be the degeneracies of the ground state the we have these three energy levels say divided by the total number of possibilities where this is the ground state and this is the higher energy state and the chance of occupying the higher energy state E1 over KT. And similarly the number in the higher energy state is given by N1 over N which is the chance of being in the higher energy state times the number of higher energy states with the same energy that exists, okay. So this is straightforward and the importance of this is that it defines what we call a partition function okay so this is very common in thermodynamics partition function is simply the sum of all these terms here where again this is the degeneracy of the higher state here and the energy difference between between the states relative to the ground state. And if I take the logarithm of this term then if you work it out you'll see that that gives us the free energy of the system the Helmholtz free energy of the system. So if I take the Helmholtz free energy of the system minus RT log of the partition function and substitute for the partition function then that is our partition function G0 plus G1 into exponential E1 over KT and expand that and I get this as the Helmholtz free energy and if you want to convert this to Gibbs free energy then you just add a P pressure times a volume change term. So if I want to work out the difference in energy between the state where all the atoms are in the ground state and then at a particular temperature T then this term disappears here and that is our difference in the Helmholtz free energy okay. So that is the meaning of a partition function you know how the atoms are distributed over the different energy states how they are partitioned on the different energy states and the importance of that is that we can take the logarithm of that function multiply by RT and we get the Helmholtz free energy term for that particular system. Okay now if I'm looking at a system of A and B atoms then the number of AA bonds is simply the total number of A atoms minus the number of AB bonds because this fraction of A atoms has been this number of A atoms has been taken up in forming a bond with B and therefore it cannot contribute to AA and since we can't distinguish these two A atoms there's a factor of a half here and this is a coordination number said and the number of BB bonds is similarly given by the number of B atoms minus the B atoms that are occupied in forming AB bonds which are not the same as BB bonds okay this is just a reminder and we have a binding energy between the atoms which was defined as follows so if I take two A atoms from a distance far apart and I bring them close together then I get a curve like this where initially they may attract and then they start to repel as you push them closer and closer together so that the electron codes are interfering and the binding energy is defined as minus two AA or here and the whole basis of the binding energy is that we want to work out the enthalpy change or in this case an internal energy change when we make a mixture of A and B atoms so this is the total energy of our assembly or total internal energy of our assembly where this is the binding energy half the binding energy of the AA atoms multiplied by the number of AA bonds BB number of BB bonds and AB and the number of AB bonds where AB can be distinguished from BA so if I just simplify this then that's minus Z into this term where omega you'll remember from a previous lecture is when I take an air bond and a BB bond break them apart and form two AB bonds so that's nothing new from what we've done in calculating the enthalpy change for the regular solution model okay now let's let's try and make a partition function for a system where we have a number of energy states okay and here is our equation where this is the number of AB bonds the degeneracy of states for that number of AB bonds and the internal energy for that number of AB bonds and you know you can have a different number of AB bonds depending on how the atoms are arranged so there's a whole summation here of the degeneracies of the variety of NAB values and the variety of U NAB values and I substitute for U from the previous slide and this is what we get so G NAB is simply the total number of arrangements for a given value of NAB is the degeneracy of that state how many states do I have which have the exactly the same number of NAB atoms and energy and sigma NAB that means the total number of arrangements I can get in a mixture of NB is simply N factorial or NA factorial into NB factorial as we did in our earlier example now we are going to make an approximation okay and the approximation is that you know to work out the Helmholtz free energy you take the logarithm of the term and that will be dominated by the maximum value of of NAB okay so we'll ignore all other terms in the summation and simply take the maximum number here and therefore the degeneracy for the maximum value of NAB must be equal to this here okay because we've approximated this summation by simply taking the maximum value given that it's the logarithm of omega which gives us the free energy so that's an approximation that we have to make in all of these quasi chemical models to make it make it simpler okay now I can write just as we did for a random solution here where this is N factorial over NA factorial NB factorial I can write the number of possibilities for having a certain number NAB bonds in a mixture as this which corresponds to this term here remember we are dealing with pairs of atoms now okay and that's why we have the coordination number and the half and similarly we divide by the AA bonds the BB bonds and we distinguish between the AB and VA bonds but the important thing I want you to notice here is that while this is an equality for a random solution this I've written as a proportionality and that's because there's a problem in dealing with pairs of atoms that we can't count the number of AB bonds independently okay and I'll illustrate that problem here I've got these four atoms here A, B, B and another B once I've placed this B atom next to this A atom I've got an AB bond and once I've placed a B atom next to this B atom I've got a B B bond and once I've placed this atom here I've got a B B bond but there's no choice here okay once we've made this arrangement this bond VA is there it's not independent of the counting that we are doing so we want to treat these bonds as independent but we can't because there's no way you can do that so how do I change this proportionality here into an equality because you know we need to do that to work out the free energy okay so I hope everyone understands this that once we have fixed these four atoms in position the this bond here VA is not independent of the configuration of the other bonds in other words we are not taking account really of the orientation of the bonds in the lattice in calculating the number of AB bonds okay so this is the number of degeneracies for the maximum value of AB bonds that we described earlier and again we have a proportionality sign giving us the number of possible arrangements which give me this maximum value of an AB but that must also equal this and therefore we can normalize the equation by dividing the top and bottom by these terms here which are equal okay so I can write that the degeneracy for a particular combination of A and B atoms is given by the usual factor and a normalization factor which converts it into an equality right so that's quite a lot to take in but the principles are straightforward so far that in our partition function we have simplified the problem by taking the largest number of NAB bonds okay and ignoring the number of configurations for the largest number of NAB bonds and ignoring all others and in this process here because we can't treat pairs of atoms as being completely independent this if this was an equation it would overestimate okay so what we are doing is we are normalizing the general equation for the number of AB bonds by these these terms here which are equal just just dividing at the bottom by this and multiplying by this okay okay so in our partition function we've already said that we don't need this summation we are simply going to set this to the maximum value of NAB so we don't need this summation here but we have now the complete equation we have here the degeneracies for NAB being the maximum number of AB bonds and given that we know the value of NAB we can work out the internal energy part of the problem so all we have to do is differentiate this equation with respect to the number of AB bonds to find the equilibrium number of AB bonds and when you do that you get an equation like this okay where this is like a regular solution model where we have the coordination number x one minus x being you know the mole fraction of B atoms and mole fraction of A atoms and the total number of atoms this term is special okay so it's taking account of the fact that we have a finite enthalpy of mixing which is given by this term omega the difference in the binding energies and therefore this will not be equal to the number of pairs or a number of AB pairs that you would find in a completely random solution it will depend on this value here so if I take a plot of this this equation this is how the number of AB bonds varies with our enthalpy term okay omega and this is how the number of AA and BB bonds changes as a function of the enthalpy and when we have an ideal solution that means the enthalpy term is zero you know these this quantity is simply given by you know the probability of finding an A atom times the probability of finding a B atom and so on and similarly an AA is simply proportional to one minus x squared and and BB to x squared as usual but when we have a finite enthalpy of mixing that is no longer the case okay so you can do a fairly rigorous calculation of the free energy using that partition function and this is the Helmholtz free energy and if we are working at zero pressure that's equal to the Gibbs free energy we take the logarithm of the partition function this term we've already determined from the omega and the equilibrium number of bonds and this when we expand this we have three terms here this is our normal enthalpy of mixing if you ignore the denominator here okay but this takes account of the fact that there's a finite enthalpy of mixing because the number of AB bonds will not be given by random probabilities this of course is the ideal entropy of mixing and this term here corrects the ideal entropy of mixing for the fact that we don't have a random mixture of atoms okay now you might ask you know what is the importance of this equation you know why can't we just use the empirical thermodynamics which were there in the thermo calc and empty data and backstage and so forth where we have polynomials and so forth there are cases where you cannot do that okay so if you have an ordered system you cannot actually talk about the pairs of atoms or atoms being distributed at random it just doesn't make sense when we come to for example the diffusion of carbon in austenite you know the concentration dependence of the diffusion coefficient is given partly by the fact that the chemical potential is a function of the composition but in part it also comes from the fact that the carbon atoms do not ever want to be in adjacent sites within the lattice because they strongly repel each other and that's that term comes into this this kind of a factor beta q and provides an additional push to the carbon to diffuse down the gradient simply because the carbon atoms don't want to be next to each other so you cannot explain the concentration dependence of carbon in austenite simply by saying that there's a thermodynamic factor which comes from the dependence of the chemical potential on concentration these terms become important and if you go to my website and look for a paper on the diffusion of carbon in austenite Siller and McClellan did a lot of work on this and I derived some coefficients for that work and you will see that it beautifully represents the concentration dependence of the diffusion coefficient of carbon in austenite so there are cases where we cannot simply use empirical terms the other point is that a lot of the thermodynamic data the equilibrium thermodynamic data will be derived at high temperatures because you cannot really achieve equilibrium if you go to sufficiently low temperatures that means that if you try to extrapolate those functions you might get some strange results in using you know thermodynamic databases alone so this method also enables you to extrapolate to low temperatures and by low temperatures in the case of in the case of nickel and iron you're talking about at temperatures below about 600 degrees centigrade or lower so in in doing our calculations on the transformation start temperatures for the non-equilibrium transformations like martensite and bainite and so forth we use quasi-chemical theory to do the extrapolations okay because this is a rigorously founded theory in as far as we've now gone on to look at a non-random distribution of atoms for the configurational entropy if you go to higher approximations of quasi-chemical theory they're generically known as cluster variation methods okay so this is just an introduction to quasi-chemical theory and i'm going to summarize this now so how to derive all these solution models well first of all we categorize and count the variety of atom atom or atom vacancy pairs that are possible in the solution and you know in the case of an inter-sexual solution the number of vacancies is of course much much greater because the vacancies are simply the holes between the atoms so you have to explicitly take that into account you estimate the configurational energy that means the enthalpy term if we are working with Gibbs free energy and internal energy term if you are working with Helmholtz free energy then you write a configurational partition function you know they're basically telling you how the particles are distributed along the different kinds of energies and the degeneracies of those energy levels discover the degeneracy for each configuration and because we cannot strictly count pairs of atoms independently we have to normalize that degeneracy function okay and replace the summation by the largest term in there and then we derive the thermodynamic partition function and the problem is solved of course there might be other terms which come for example from thermal entropy and so on now i've talked for approximately i would say 20 minutes okay or 15 or 20 minutes but the concepts here are actually quite powerful and you actually need to do something with greater chemical theory to understand its full power and i don't need to go into any more complexity beyond what i've taught you because the idea is simply to know that there exists a method which can take account of non-ideal configurational entropy all right so that's the important takeaway from this so someday you come across a problem where you need to treat a solution with a non-ideal configurational entropy of mixing this is the way to do it and to be honest you know all this talk about high entropy alloys which i mentioned in my very first lecture is remarkable that they all assume the ideal entropy of mixing whereas it is simply impossible in that sort of an alloy system to get an ideal entropy of mixing okay so someone needs to do proper work there to see whether these are really high entropy alloys or some wishy washy low level of entropy because the atoms are not distributed at random so i don't want you to worry too much about the mathematics that i've presented i want you to understand that there exist methods which enable you to work out the configurational entropy in a much better way than simply assuming that the atoms are randomly mixed and this is the end of the course so at the end of the course we must have a little celebration so this is how i would like to celebrate if i was there this is a picture that was taken at the indian issue of technology in karagpur and this actually is the first time i had this after emigrating from kinia as a child because in kinia we used to have this as well where you chop off the top of a green coconut you drink the juice and then you scrape off the flesh and eat it and the sad thing is that one of these in britain costs about 450 rupees okay so so it's more or less unaffordable um so thank you all for attending the course i have really enjoyed it and all the videos for this are on my youtube channel if you ever want to look at them again okay harry okay thank you very much for this wonderful series and it's so nice of you to you know have so much of time for our students and other participants we really you know we are really grateful to you and i hope in the future we should be able to do it again sometime