Before Thanksgiving I made a quick decision not to flip a weeks worth of lessons based on a post I read on Ramsey Musallam's killer blog on flipped teaching.
The topic was universal gravitation and the core idea revolves around the relationship between the attraction of gravity between two objects if A: distance changes, B: mass changes. The challenge that I find with this unit is that there are very few personal experiences that students (or anyone) has experienced on the topic.
Beyond, bouncing astronauts and zero gravity movie space scenes, there is little experience (or interest) in changing gravitational fields. I'm quite certain there is something that I am missing as far as proper instruction and leadership that could instantly change this scenario, for now I will work with what I have available to me.
To the point, this is the third time I have moved through this content and I can predict a high need for extra explanations due to a uniformly low amount of background knowledge and conceptual basis. I am quite proud of this decision as it demonstrates that my interest in furthering this flipped experiment, does not blind me to what reason calls for.
Direct instruction is still good and will always have a place in teaching. It is also extremely efficient when everyone is at the same place and has similar needs. Although it does not have the sex appeal of digital lessons, differentiation, or PBL, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that in my classroom there will always be some room for a teacher standing in front of the room talking to a large group of students. Especially if that teacher (me someday) is a master in the content, which means there is a tight understanding in what examples best serve the transfer of the idea as well as what prompts best encourage mental engagement and thought.
Malcolm Gladwell speaks about this idea at length in his awesome lecture found here, don't have an hour (also available on 92Y itunes account to listen whenever) here is a summary which this post is based on. Prodigies are easy. They advertise their genius from the get-go. Late bloomers are hard. They require forbearance and blind faith. (Let’s just be thankful that Cézanne didn’t have a guidance counsellor in high school who looked at his primitive sketches and told him to try accounting.) Whenever we find a late bloomer, we can’t but wonder how many others like him or her we have thwarted because we prematurely judged their talents. But we also have to accept that there’s nothing we can do about it. How can we ever know which of the failures will end up blooming? The problem is that we identify talented kids by their ability to learn things, and we identify talented adults is by the ability to do things. Yet the difference between learning and doing is the difference between black and white. Rest of Article
I personally struggled (well maybe not struggled, but I was certainly aware of it) with classification in school. In elementary my friends were in Gifted and Talented and I wanted to go with them to do the cool stuff they talked about (we are talking 3rd grade here), I don't remember the explanation as to why only some 8 year olds got to go the "gifted and talented" class, but I am sure it was rich.
In 7th grade I wanted to be in pre-algebra with my friends, so much so that one day I got a bathroom pass, walked into Mrs Drakes 2nd period class with my friends in it and asked if I could be in the class. How would you handle this situation? I really wanted to be in the class, and although I never felt "dumb" because of the classes I was in, I quickly figured out I wasn't one of the smart kids...
... and by 9th grade, I stopped asking. I didn't enroll in AP courses when given the chance, and I only took one honors class (H Spanish 3, which was a joke by the way that I got a credit boost for that class) when a teacher said he/she thought I would be successful at that level. This is the challenge of a system that has certain gatekeepers to achieve at a certain level. I lost all agency in determining how high I could go. The bar had been set, I knew what kind of student I was and worked hard to do the best I could at that level.
The problem lies in the focused linear and non-permeable lines we draw for students to move through school. I feel like online lessons can work to undue this problem. I am delivering content through Youtube videos that I make and let students work through material asynchronously, sometimes in class, sometimes at home. I'm trying to introduce the business concept of ROWE, into my classroom (thanks Daniel Pink!).
This year I have asked our AP physics teacher to list one or two ideas per unit that I can present the students that he would like them to be familiar with coming into AP physics. Students can self-select into this content should a bolt of confidence strike them given their progress on any given idea. Having produced the lesson and practice online, I am not responsible for the differentiation that comes with inviting students to choose to do this work. I only have to be there for support when they come to bumps in the road.
The big picture is this class, for any student, at any time, can morph into a H Physics class as the students choose to. Students have a choice to push themselves to that level that is never there once you enter the College prep track. The open ceiling also includes a clear well defined floor. If you can do these things (insert list of essential core standards of passing a class here), you are guaranteed a C. One teachers comment.
"So you have asking them to do the work in your class, that they used to have to do in G (general) Physics".
My response was yes! the only difference being that with confidence and encouragement, that student can self select into more challenging work at any time. Where as once they were enrolled in the G course, that was all they were going to be exposed to all year long.
It's important to note that everyone (teachers) would prefer school to be this way, we have simply been lacking the tools to make it viable....until now :)
if you are not familiar with either term, or just want to be inspired watch this video by Dr. Tae the skateboarding physics professor and assessment reform proponent. The first 8 min are epic.
If you are familiar with this the term skip down about 2 paragraphs.
I was having dinner with my wife the other night and I was sharing the model for the flipped classroom with her and accidentally used the term Mastery Teaching (from Bergmann and Sams book and other stuff from the 1980s) instead of Standards Based Grading. My wife stopped me and asked me what "Mastery Teaching" was (she is a principle and is very familiar with what I do). I shared with her how it is another term for SBG that I have come to describe in elevator pitch mode as
"A method of instruction and assessment that allows the teacher, as well as the student to know exactly where they are on the path to mastery".
She loved it! not the specific idea, she is an administrator and knows all about SBG. What she was interested in was two things 1st: the cultural implications of the term "Mastery Teaching", she felt that it implied the teachers role in moving students toward mastery is at the core of the assessment system. 2nd: She didn't know what it meant and was curious to ask...as opposed to "Standards Based Grading" which is getting dangerously close to being a "thing" that everyone feels like they know what it is (which can be dangerous).
Mastery Teaching is essential for flipping given that the criteria focus makes the videos and subsequent assessment to follow, manageable by students and parents who may not have any previous experience in our own content areas.
Here is a link to one of my current unit plans...science teacher or familiar with the material? please offer ideas for improvement. One of the biggest changes I made this year is a move away from a descriptor model of "Basic", "Proficient", and "Advanced"...as students were beginning to adopt the labels and apply them to their own fixed mindset (thanks Carol Dweck). That is to say, after a few units students began to believe they would never be able to access "Advanced" content, and therefore tended to check out on those days lessons.
Student have different needs...all of them...all the time
(friggin awesome video by the way, thanks Tammy Heflebower!)
After my first week of out of the lab flipping (that is too say instead of practicing in the computer lab, they actually did the work at home). I came a cross a curious senario.
Big gaps in needs based on assessment results on the idea that we covered (Newton's 2nd Law). Some students totally understood what I asked them to learn. Other students understood the core idea, but have gaps in their ability to take it to the next level when it comes to 2nd Law. Other's are lacking application and understanding of the basics. Once upon a time...next topic, or work my but off to create a 3 tiered lesson, mostly help one group while managing the others.
Now that I have been busting my but to produce online content in order to flip, I find myself uniquely qualified to handle the problem in a non-flipped way, using the material I have created.
Group 1: 8-12 kids with me working in groups of two at the most in the front center of classroom. Use a preexisting worksheet that I had that covers the three levels of understanding.
Group 2: 5 or 6 kids can work on the following: create extra problems with explanations on the computers (that I have attained through grants) show the set up and explain how to solve it or...move on to extra credit content requested by our AP physics teacher. Both options I love by the way, they are making stuff that will be posted on my website to help other students who need more practice (and probably explain it better than I do) or do work that I regret is not worth presenting to the whole class.
Group 3: Students with holes in their learning working in groups of three or four. Individually these student's don't understand everything, collectively 1 in 4 can help on any particular problem, question, idea.
The best thing about this lesson was my prep time was already paid when I created my lessons and coached them on how to navigate the content. The membrane between the groups was semi-pearmeable (I'm teaching two sections of biology this year), that is to say students could demonstrate a level of learning and move to a different group or assignment. Finally...it worked!
I had a room full of people not just working, but doing the right work for them. This is very difficult to plan, but the flipped culture (not just the structure) allowed the students to completely understand the design of what we were doing this day.
Given that I am regularly struggling with actually home participation (more on my soon to be weekly "by the numbers" blog post) in the lesson viewing it is important for me to focus on small victories.
Is this a victory? Many that could be watching them at home are not. The test is friday and purhaps the results will provide opportunity for a "come to jesus" talk about their own levels of participation.
What if the home participation is low, but the test results are better than last year given the change in lesson delivery (even if it is mostly still happening in class)?
b: the relationship between a principal and that person's agent
2
: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power :operation
3
: a person or thing through which power is
exerted or an end is achieved :
4
: an establishment engaged in doing business for another <an advertising agency>
5
: an administrative division (as of a government) <the agencyfor consumer protection
So far the classroom is barely flipping, I'm really struggling with curriculum pacing mixed with practice, application, and labs. There isn't really "homework" anymore...just work.
Lack of solid design, direction, and structure hurts my chances at a successful flip. By success I mean the biggest thing most teachers I know are curious about. Will the students watch the lessons at home?
Most students continue to do stuff in house...which is not what I hoped for, but it's early. What this in class practice and experiment with unit pacing has produced is a high amount of student agency. They regularly choose what to do next based on personal progress. After our initial, inquiry experiment that lets them feel what we are about to get into (example: inertia olympics), the week then opens up into a list of objectives, with assessments coming mid week or end of week (or both) depending on the size of the idea.
There are early signs that students have the potential to work the system if I could ever figure out how to lead them through it. Their video lessons involve an intro with examples of things they should know or be able to do already. Then reminded that if they do not understand this base idea, to follow a link to the precious lesson.
And it worked...students were regularly making the right decision about what to be doing...which is awesome by the way. When they start a day based on their needs, they respond better to peer and teacher support. They make better decisions about what to work on after the lesson and who to work with.
So far I cannot claim that my students are doing more work, or if they are it isn't noticeable. What I see without a doubt, is student doing more of the right work...and my friday assessment results reflected that. I need to share this with my class and share that this first step...good decision making and self directed progress is a first step. The next move is to utilize home access to increase support time in class and take it to the next level.
More on this topic on my post about a differenciated suprise!
"It always starts with them, it is for them, they want this to happen and here is another reason why. I have to continually remind them of the message that started it all. Although the conversation was powerful and engaging, it was like three or four days ago and big emotional and cognitive ideas don't stick for that long in the heads of most people."
Here is a walk through of what my first full week in the lab looked like.
If you have questions about curriculum design follow LINK to a post on how I formatted my class so that students can self navigate content, which (seems to be?) is an essential component to making this thing work.
The first two lessons were done in the "lab" that is to say the controlled environment of the classroom so that I could coach steps of the process (as opposed to simply letting them know today's lesson can be found at www...be prepared for discussion tomorrow).
Cultural Goal: practice what it is like at home, and learn the structure of the lessons.
Lead with the "Why":
"We are going to be spending a week practicing what this process will be like for you. I have done this with students before so I would like to warn you it may be awkward. If we are going to succeed at changing school so that it can serve you better, we need to practice like we play. Therefore (although it may seem small), it is very important that everyone works independently (no sharing computers) so that you can get a feel for what it is like."
I learned this lesson the hard way last year, because I didn't think it would be, and it has nothing to do with being distracted. Students are far less likely to do the things that are intended with this model. Pause, rewind, "stop and think" when the lessons prompts them to because they are concerned about the person sitting next to them and slowing them down.
Also notice how different this message is then just simply starting with
"Today you need to work individually, so no sharing computers or devices"
This message was shared before I walk through the structure of a lesson. It took me two periods by the way to figure out that I need to Start with this idea as opposed to end when they are (mentally) on their way into the computer lab or what ever.
Here is a look at some types data I collect at the end of every lesson. How cool would it be to know this stuff at the beginning of class.
Culture Goal: I need your feedback, but am not sure the best way to get it. "We have already discussed how much more efficient school could be if we weren't so stuck on the idea of delivering one message to everyone, there is another possible benefit to this system should we succeed in working together to make it work. I usually share some info, we work on it, then have a small quiz or assessment. It is only then that I really am able to take a look inside your heads and see what things are sticking and what things are missing their mark. Think of all the time wasted between the lesson and the grading of the quiz...we usually have moved on to another topic by then. That crucial information is almost useless at this point. One thing I would like to coach you all to get good at is leaving feedback the moment you finish a lesson, when you are best able to articulate what works and what didn't. Here is one way to try doing that..."
It always starts with them, it is for them and they want this to happen and here is another reason why. I have to continually remind them of the message that started it all. Although the conversation was powerful and engaging, it was like three or four days ago and emotional and cognitive ideas don't stick for that long in the heads of most people.
One important question that I lovingly rip off from the godfather of flip, Harvard Physics Professor, Eric Mazur 1, 2, 3. He is my friggin hero! and all three of those links are worth investigating in order of awesomeness. The first is an audio documentary on the observed ineffectiveness of lecture at the college level. Number 2 is a video podcast with tons of his "how to" stuff. 3 is a keynote he did at a teaching/tech conference. killer.
"Please tell me one thing you found difficult, even if came to understand everything, some parts were certainly more difficult than others. We are going to practice different ways for you to communicate with me your thoughts. Feel free to look at what others wrote and give them a thumbs up if you agree with them, as opposed to putting another comment. "
"Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them."
How not to coach the flip
When I first experimented with digital lesson's in the lab (literally computer lab), I was shocked by my student's response. "Boring", "no interaction", and a nearly uniform desire to continue with lecture. They even complained that they needed a teacher standing over them so that they would stay focused.
It is important to note that I am kind of a whack job in the way I run my class so relative to most teachers, there is an entertainment/interest factor associated with "what is he gonna do next?". I would like to recognize that this does not translate to better learning, as much as it makes them more willing to sit through lecture.
Anther unexpected mistake was that I waited until the end of the year to experiment with it. Student's had learned the system and were comfortable with it, even if it meant accepting a lower grade then they would have expected of themselves.
Comfort is a powerful draw...sad face.
On top of all of this, my most glaring error was articulating my intentions with structural rational predictably following the what, how and very little on the "why", which is a trademark of uninspiring leadership everywhere.
Culture Eats Structure for Breakfast
I have changed very little in my videos, curriculum, and website design. Before I started the flip, I obsessed over creating a course that students could self navigate. Criterion referenced so that students had incentive to revisit old material. The structure was ready for the flip, so why was my initial experiment meet with a luke warm response? Because culture eats structure for breakfast, at times I have tried to replicate what other people do in their classrooms, things that don't appear to be terribly complex. When my results fall short it is not for lack of execution or experience, but the lack of cultural leadership that usually lead me to say things like, "well that doesn't work with my students".
This summer, I spend 18 min listening to this TED video during a morning run, the first 8 min was all I needed. Leading with the "WHY"
Combing my experience last year with ideas from this video I made the following move.
First: Do business as usual for the first unit. Students are very effectively primed to experiment with school after they have gone through the pain of sitting through lecture and not understanding content while the class keeps moving, or sitting through example after example when the message was clear to you the first time. My first unit is very rigorous, possibly the most difficult of the semester, so most students are below where they would like to be and therefore more open to change.
Second: I carved out time for them to make a case for what works and what doesn't. We used todaysmeet.com to have a quick informal conversation around two questions. How much time does (during a given class period) does a teacher spend addressing your questions? How much time does a teacher spend talking to everyone? The results are predictable.
After this brief interlude from business as usual, my students were ready for the "why", ready for it to be something they could b a part of, that would meet their interest. The entire pitch needed to be about them, how this is for them, and how this will solve more problems (and there will be problems) than it creates.
The Pitch...I made a recording of the conversation I lead (minus the student interaction) to provide some talking points you might consider.
The results were a complete shift in my students initial attitude toward the process. They see it for what it is, an experiment to solve a problem that is important to them. I continue to be honest with them about the challenges and regularly invite their feedback. They are part of the process, it is 100% for them and they know that it is experimental in nature and expect problems to come up. It's less about if they like it or not, and more about inquiry to see if it works.
“Coaches are often portrayed as tough and demanding but deeply concerned about helping players to realize their potential.
After reading the following article, I decided to make the switch and have my students call me “Coach V” instead of “Mr. V”. I made this decision the night before my first day on the job!
I have been consistently impressed by my students ability to go along with whatever weird stuff I throw at them. My typical response to the question has evolved to, "Science, Tech Stuff, and being Awesome!". I pretty much agree with everything Steven G has to say so I will let the original author speak for himself. Leave comments or questions below.
You win with people.Woody Hayes, Head Coach Ohio State Buckeyes, 1951-1978Every term, students ask, “Why did you give me a C?” or “Is this going to be on the test?” I think these questions indicate something more fundamental than laziness or stunted intellectual curiosity: a misperception of the teacher-student relationship. Faculty members think of themselves as enablers of student performance, advocates for students who guide them through the learning process. Students, on the other hand, frequently think of “the teacher” as the opponent in the learning process and the primary obstacle to an A+. Of course, not all students see us this way, but a disturbing number of freshmen and poor students consider us competitive adversaries.This unfortunate notion develops early in students and represents a discourse reinforced daily in our culture. Media and political interests have contributed mightily to less-than-desirable images of teachers. Students may be internalizing some media-driven stereotypes of the adversarial teacher. Though a significant number of positive media images of individual teachers exist, these characters stand out precisely because they are cast as heroic figures, laboring in a sea of mediocre, apathetic pedagogy. Many teachers are portrayed as contemptuous and embittered.On the other hand, coaches are often portrayed as tough and demanding but deeply concerned about helping players to realize their potential. Teachers who are similarly demanding tend instead to be characterized as unfair and unsympathetic to student needs. Students frequently avoid demanding teachers, but athletes search out coaches with high expectations. My point is not to complain about the unfairness of the media representations, but rather to encourage teachers to claim some of the cultural capital earned by coaches. The mythology of “the coach” is both common enough to make it usable as a metaphor for teaching and powerful enough to help supplant student notions of the teacher-as-adversary.
Observing a Colleague as a Coach
The value of the coaching metaphor first became apparent to me during my second year of full-time college teaching. I began to realize that I was becoming stigmatized as a “hard teacher.” I thought of myself as having high expectations of my students. I thought they should want their money’s worth from a class. I also realized that most students treated my courses as games where their grades were a metaphorical final score.
I noticed that one of my colleagues consistently seemed to elicit better classroom effort and performance from a common pool of students, especially from our student-athletes. Initially, I thought his success was a by-product of his friendships within the athletic department, and that the athletes worked harder for him because he knew their coaches. I came to doubt this hypothesis, for it explained neither his success with non-athletes nor my continuing failure to get athletes to perform, even after I made contact with coaches myself.
Eventually I suspected that my colleague’s love of sport and his ties to the athletes permitted him to employ psychological transference among students, who worked harder because they saw him not merely as the teacher but also, at least partially, as coach. It was a simple distinction, but it made a lot of difference and I came to envy it. Though I can never completely transform myself, I have for several years encouraged students to think of me as their “geography coach,” and it has been a successful strategy.
The Power of Metaphor
The power of metaphor has been widely championed in recent years among theorists working in cultural studies (Hebdige 1993) and in my own discipline of geography (Cresswell 1997; Gurney 1999). Many of these authors have found that successful metaphor manipulation by media and political interests has wide-ranging effects on our perception of the world. Effective use of metaphor also figures heavily in recent research on student learning (Wilson et al. 1987; Wineburg 2001).
The most valuable component of having students think of a teacher as a coach is how they are forced to rethink their role in their performance. Sports is an arena still relatively unburdened by society’s pervasive culture of blame. In defeat, coaches often take the blame, but players rarely permit them, repeating sports clichés like “Coach put us in a position to make plays, but we didn’t make the plays and we lost.” After a win, the players repeat, “We needed to step up and make plays, and we did that this time.” Moreover, coaches are never blamed for the difficulty of the opposing team, and indeed players relish playing tough opponents. The sports attitude discourages the unexamined assignment of credit and blame often overheard in hallways after an exam.
The coach metaphor reconstitutes teaching and learning as a team effort, with the instructor as a hard-working advocate of student success. Thinking of themselves as academic athletes encourages students to take greater ownership of their performance. Acting as coach also permits a fairer assessment of the teacher’s part in student success and failure.
Practical Applications of the Coach Metaphor
On the first day of each term, I make it explicit that I consider myself the “course coach” and that students had better get used to thinking of themselves as “players.” I also point out that the schedule of “opponents” that we will be facing during the term will be challenging. By putting myself on the sidelines with the students, the evaluation instruments (tests, quizzes, writing assignments, etc.) become the opposing team. I admit to manufacturing the opposition, but most will agree that a quality education requires challenge in much the same way as championship sports.
Once the metaphor is successfully implanted in the class psyche, many academic-term routines easily snap into place. For example, sporting metaphors make clear the value of regular attendance and conscientious preparation. While I don’t ask students why they “missed practice,” I do label my assessment-oriented assignments “Practice Quiz Five” or “Practice Essay Two” to reinforce the metaphor.
Frequent Practice Assignments
Not only students benefit from this metaphor. I have become more aware of the value of regular feedback when I’m thinking like a coach. For example, I have increased the number of quizzes and short writing assignments. These assignments give students multiple low-risk practice opportunities before a test, chances to make and correct mistakes. Students experience less test anxiety because they’ve seen mini-versions throughout the term. These “scrimmages” also allow me to assess student progress and fix problems before they get too big. Assessment activities of this kind are manufactured, structured teachable moments that allow both student and instructor to focus on improvement rather than on evaluation. It is exactly the process used by coaches as they prepare teams for games.
Cumulatively, practice assignments are worth a small percentage of the students’ course grades, but those who develop good practice habits on these short assessments regularly score higher on exams and longer writing assignments. Students seem to accept that this process is similar to the way football teams “scout” upcoming opponents as they search for tendencies sure to be seen in upcoming games. The metaphor also permits me to justify why students cannot practice for “opponents” the class has already “played,” and I see fewer late assignments than I used to.
Twice, several weeks before the first midterm and again shortly after the midterm, I review the practice habits of a few anonymous students with the class. By first projecting my grade spreadsheet onto a screen and making predictions regarding the success of students based on their practice habits, I can later point out the strong correlation between practice habits and midterm scores.
A Winning Mindset
By the time “rivalry week” (finals week) arrives, most students are in a mindset conducive to success. Since I’ve been urging students to think of the term as geography season, performance on test questions from a standardized test bank has improved by 5 to 8%. I cannot say for certain that the coach metaphor is the operant variable in the improvement, but I can report a significant drop in post-term complaints. Fewer students blame me for poor grades, and seeing them take responsibility for their education is the best incentive for using this metaphor. To me it signals that in becoming self-educating, my students have taken the indispensable first step to lifelong learning.
The structural nature of the relationship between player and coach, so deeply encoded in our culture, permits and even encourages players to give in to the manipulative tactics and strategies of effective coaching. I try to work those structures into my courses. Many professors, some of whom openly disparage “dumb jocks,” may resist trading the hard-won cultural capital that comes with a Ph.D. for the mantle of “coach.” I don’t like it myself, but this role-playing game has produced enough positive results that I don’t mind occasionally being called “Dr. Coach,” especially if coaching prompts students to give the metaphorical 110 percent.
The video below outlines the inspiration for the project you are about to join in...cheers!
As part of my masters research I came across President Obama's opening letter and I meet it with mixed emotions. The voice of the letter sounds approachable, however I couldn't escape the gut feeling that this is just another political goal that that sounds great, is ambitious, and ultimately no one in the trenches believes is doable. After all, we a big more than one year away from all students being proficient (as planned at the onset of NCLB in 2002).
It also explained my districts interest in raising the graduation requirement to match those requirements set by California University and State Schools (CSU/UC).
It is important to note that this is a good idea, or noble as I put it in the video. Many of our students have no one in their life that has high expectations for them. If not us (school system) then who? Anthony Muhammad described it as (paraphrasing), "We are regularly giving our students carte blache decisions about the direction of their lives at ages 15, 13,...10 years old, when we let them fail based on their own behavior, decisions, and motivation.". Rare is the adolescent that can exceed his or her families lack of expectations.
Although Muhammud, my school district, and President Obama may be right, that doesn't take away from the very real and present challenges that come with this mindset. As my district has moved towards a graduation requirement that matches the UC/CSU enrollment requirement secondary teachers across the same needs I described in the video. We need not look any further than results of the algebra for all 8th grade mandate of 2008 to predict how this plan will work out so long as our approach to teaching and preparing to teach remains constant.
My prediction is as long as the lecture is the main format of information delivery, we will not be successful in meeting the needs of so many students. The flip is the response to the differenciated instruction need that I personally have been struggling with for 4 years. Unfortunatley this is not something you can just "try out for a unit", because it sounds nice. It is a big front loaded endeavor, one that I am willing to take on if it means that others have an opportunity to authentically assess the effectiveness before investing in their own practice. I will still count on the support of others, after all...I have no clue what I am doing, which I think makes worth following.
When trying something new, the most common questions that arises are along the lines of, "what happens if...?".
Providing an opportunity for others to see how I handle things, as well as establish a network of supporting suggestions when things go wrong (and they will) is a great two way road worth driving down.
