Yes?

LOL!

Something that I struggle with somewhat is the tendency for intro activities to be these great moments where students can project their true selves into the learning community—and then that disappears from the rest of the course. Looking for ways to help keep this alive throughout the term. For example, do you build formal, though perhaps no/low credit assignments, that require students to learn about their classmates or use that information somehow? I fear students feeling that they have this chance to project their own persona, but it’s just pro forma and doesn’t matter.

One of the most common things I find in how faculty create online classes is that they lack any sense of tone or personality at all.

Just because the design of learning experiences is done in advance, that doesn’t make it any less important.

One of my biggest pet peeves about the “benefits” of f2f. Unless you explicitly elicit student feedback/performance, your “informal” check will always be foiled by the “smile and nod” phenomenon. Also, student understanding is not a fixed thing. Students may report on day 3 that they understand, but on day 5 realize they need clarification on something. This is the normal process of learning.

Yes. Online lacks these liminal moments, and it seems that recreating them intentionally can feel awkward.

It strikes me that this has little to do with f2f and more with the administrative details of your course. Nothing says an online class has to have wildly disparate assignment submissions, and nothing says f2f has to all be at the same time.

Yes. But is it interesting that something being highlighted as a feature, presumably positive, of f2f is that you don’t have to plan well?

This is true, but it’s not necessarily DIFFERENT from a face-to-face class. Students still email at all hours, and assignments can still be submitted online.

This is a test annotation to see how well this syncs everywhere.

Good point

The question is who makes those decisions. The response I’ve seen from so many faculty “forced” online is that without question their courses need to be face-to-face.

Perhaps of all the scenarios, it’s easy to imagine that the kind of plans/programs that would come out of this scenario could be the most worth keeping long term.

Of course in this situation, there might be multiple competing definitions of “vulnerable”

The IFTTT model of the LMS?

Mistype?

Of course, research is frequently at the bottom of the to do list for NTT faculty.

Did this work?

That's us!

[from JessicaVanderSloot] I believe these statements and questions point toward the fact that Stephen G. Breyer is one of the justices that voted in favor of the church. He bring up the point that the churches are not denied fire protection, police protection, or other public health protections, so this should be no different, the playground surface is for the health of the children and it shouldn't matter if they are on religious grounds or not, they deserve the safety protection the playground surface provides.

[from JessicaVanderSloot] This statement and question leads me to believe that John G. Roberts Jr. may be one of the justices that voted in favor of the church. He is bring up the point that the playground could be used for religious and religious activities but the purpose of the softer ground for the playground is for when children are playing, a non-religious activity. He compares this with a public school can use their playground for other activities other than play so he asks if a religious school should be able to do the same thing

[from taylorkeefer] This is another point that is brought up several times throughout the transcript that makes me believe Justice Roberts and others would vote in favor of the church. The state repeatedly contradicts itself in its argument that the Establishment Clause is being violated. From the states argument, it is unclear whether they believe the church is violating the Establishment Clause or not. Justice Roberts uses this uncertainty to question whether the basis of the states rule is valid or not.

[from taylorkeefer] This quote from Justice Kagan makes me believe she would vote in favor of this case. This argument is not only brought up by Kagan, but a few other Justices throughout the transcript. Since the point of this new improvement to the playground is to make the surface safer for the children to play, there is no difference in using government funds for this safety improvement when government funds are used to provide police and fire protection.

[from taylorkeefer] Justice Sotomayor's question of how you separate secular from religious functions makes me believe she is a dissenter in this case. From the bylaws and advertisements the lines of secular and religious functions at this church are blurred. Since the argument in this case is that the playground is a secular function at the church, if there is a chance that the religious functions at the church could overlap, Justice Sotomayor would be opposed.

[from taylorkeefer] This quote makes me believe that Justice Ginsburg is one of the dissenters. She raises the argument that it was not the intention of the Framers to use tax dollars to build or maintain church property. If this is indeed the interpretation of the Constitution, then Ginsburg would disagree since the point of this case is to allow this church to receive government funding in order to maintain the church property.

[from taylorkeefer] Justice Alito brings up a good point here. In his statement, he asks how a church is defined. I'm assuming what Alito is getting at is that through the State's definition of a church, the Court can then determine whether the facility is allowed access to government funds. Before reading this case, my original perception was that a church is seen as a separate institution from the state and therefore does not receive government funding. Cortman tries to argue that it just depends on how religious the institution is. If this is the basis for the definition of a church, I feel that this could easily blur the lines - what makes one church more religious than another?

[from taylorkeefer] In this question, posed by Justice Sotomayor, I am a little confused as to what her question is implying. Is the Justice stating that the position submitted by the state is no longer valid, and thus Mr. Layton's argument for the state is now moot (subject to debate)? Is she also saying, that by appointing another to defend the case, the Attorney General, is creating a perception that state has backed away from this case? If this is in fact true, why didn't the state dismiss the case before it appeared before the Supreme Court?

[from taylorkeefer] In this statement from Justice Sotomayor, she brings up the point that churches receive tax exemptions for being religious organizations. If it is determined that religious people are being discriminated against in this case, what does this mean for the tax exemptions they receive? Is it fair to give churches tax exemptions, as well as, additional government funding?

[from JessicaVanderSloot] I think that Ginsburg may possibly be one of the dissenters because this statement makes me think that she believes that it was the framers intent to not have any tax money pay for anything affiliated with church property, and the playground would be included in this.

[from JessicaVanderSloot] I feel that Sotomayor is one of the justices that that dissented and she displays why here. In this portion of the argument she states that the state does not want to be involved with the church whatsoever.

[from JessicaVanderSloot] If the preschool cannot get the funding for something that is not religious- children playing on a playground because there is a chance that a religious activity could occur there wouldn't that mean any playground shouldn't get the funding on the chance that a religious activity could possible occur there such as a child deciding to kneeling to pray on their own while on a public playground?

[from JessicaVanderSloot] If this case is based on the fact that this Lutheran church is not getting money from this program and is being discriminated against based on it being a religious organization then how come any churches or religious organizations of any type are getting money from the program?

[from JessicaVanderSloot] Cortman keeps claiming that this is an easier case, throughout the whole oral argument he keeps mentioning it is an easy case in response to what the justices are asking, why would this help his case and be beneficial?

I think this is a very important point. I think the real take-away from this study isn't all that novel: not all types of videos are right for all types of content and learning tasks.

I'm trying to understand what this might refer to, but I'm coming up short. I understand hands that are not gesticulating, but hands detached from a body?

One of the Chief Justice's duties is to control the flow of business during oral argument sessions. This includes announcing the cases and cueing the attorneys.

We're here visiting from the Bored-Free Discussion workshop.

This "rebuilding" is so much easier when there is shared ground among the participants. I fear that one thing the "time of Trump" has shown us so far is just how deep the divisions are within our country—to the extent that it is increasingly difficult to agree about what counts as a "fact" and who we can trust as sources of facts.

Reminds me of the news story about how Target outed a young woman's pregnancy.

Hamilton was so wrong on how this would turn out.

sigh

Because the Electoral College is a temporary body, it can't be bribed or bought in advance.

Because the electors meet separated by state, they will be insulated from public election fever.

Hamilton is suggesting that leaving the election of the president to the public as a whole would lead to public strife and argument. The public choosing electors won't be so heated.

And…there's the elitism and fear of the masses coming into play.

Token deference to popular sovereignty.

So true!

And this is in A

test

This is in B