I'm a little confused by this question. Is it meant to get at whether the student used all avenues of learning that are part of the course?

Is this similar to the question above comparing online and on campus. I like this one more.

This question seems vague and not really needed since there are more specific questions following.

Is this content specific?

This section seems a little problematic in that there are several different instructors who are each designing their sections. Answers could vary between each instructor.

Maybe word this one a little more explicitly:

What were the positive and negative differences you observed, taking this class online compared with taking a similar class on campus?

Is this being compared to grades or how well students did in the course?

This is where I start to push back. The idea that this is digital life. That everyone is trying to portray themselves in a way to make others want their life. That is one thing that is happening in those spaces, but others are finding that they are not the only one who ... Back and forth interactions online make this narrative less the norm.

This language fits with a lot of the talk about the "future of the workforce" and "skilling up the the workforce". It is language I get extremely uncomfortable and I think this article does a good job recognizing it as a core part of the sense of burnout.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tianaclarkpoet/millennial-burnout-black-women-self-care-anxiety-depression

It is interesting, they don't give much information about their reporters. Tried to quickly find out a little more about her and didn't find much other "Anne Helen Petersen is a senior culture writer for BuzzFeed News and is based in Missoula, Montana."

test

Plug 🔌🙂

This can actually become quite hectic. Helpful to develop a process of way of reading the main text, annotating, reading other annotation, and replying.

This is very much a design concept. Where do "we" like to access and engage with material?

Having a recent conversation with a student about data, it became clear that we need to provide a sort of big picture of data. It is not just that the information they are sharing will directly negatively or positively affect them, but that it may be used in the aggregate.

This is a test.

I wonder how to ask this question, without asking in this way.

I appreciate that the authors also mention IPAR or Intergenerational participatory action research. This is not just in reference to youth but everyone's part in this type of civic engagement.

Especially lately, I have found many people around me have given up on this idea. How do we do this in small ways?

Is this pretty standard? One thing I have appreciated about Slack is that I opt out in the very beginning and never receive anything through email. I know this is simple stuff, but it an obvious opt out.

Can I annotate Tweetdeck?

I find this is often overlooked. That the ways scholarship is written/shared in open digital environments can be totally different.

I love this idea of making the process visible. In a conversation with @donnalanclos she mentioned this same thing about technology. It is better when we can see and understand how something works. Not a shiny bulb, but something with stitches and seams.

Can we keep this word out of conversations about developing digital identity?

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you show us how students would access the page?

This example is really helpful!

A broader range of perspective or more thoughtful thorough responses. Would this then depend on the type of research or work? It would work well for some but not for others?

I really love how she brings this aspect in. How important these seemingly only personal things are in creating a human presence when now dialogue is part of the process.

If scholarship is changing in this way, how do you feel about it? Or what part of this is most exciting or terrifying to anyone who has done traditional scholarship?

This could be said about how some scholars approach class or teaching as well. Or is that harsh? That some people approach online spaces and imagine a passive audience is definitely something to remember.

I like this phrase. Figuring out the network of actors.

Looking at what has AND HASN'T changed is a nice place to start.

For Google Hangouts / Office Hours say something about just easily adding a link to lms or website?

Store Video - Mention how students can also view from Google Drive without downloading.

This is looking really good so far! Nice work!

Do we actually want to encourage this?

Along with Screen Capture, should we have the link to how to take a screenshot as well. Very useful. http://www.take-a-screenshot.org/

Youtube - Mention signing in with your SNC account. Many don't know this and think they have to create an account.

Moodle quizzes should be on here. They offer timing and other options that are useful.

General - The name of the tool should stand out more.

Store my files - Should we say something here about easy access to files for class?

This part I find harder to get my head around. How this make sense and is useful.

It is interesting to start with comments and then go to text, different from reading the text and when there is an annotation decide to read. I hate to say, but could be used kind of like cliffnotes?

I'm wondering how this mingling with the author changes when it is public annotation. Is it a less intimate reading?

Participation over presentation!