Cross-Country Science Collaboration, Part 2

In the previous post, I described the nuts and bolts of a collaborative unit between the Anatomy classes of Trish Shelton (@tdishelton) and myself. In this post, I'd like to delve deeper into the pedagogies that truly made this unit unique. I need to preface this by saying that the majority of the innovation was driven by Trish's expertise in NGSS, and much of the time I was simply soaking up the "sciencey-goodness."

I've attempted to break up the pedagogies into four major themes that have had profound impacts on how my students experience science learning.

1. Student Questions
We started the unit with a video about water intoxication that was intended to introduce the driving question. However, immediately after showing the video, we solicited student questions. We emphasized to the students that these questions would help to determine the direction of the unit, and they did. The students were also given multiple opportunities to revisit their initial questions and consider new questions they were forming as they learned more content. We checked back on previous questions to make sure they were making progress on those, and researched new questions. All of this research was eventually used in the final Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) discussion addressing the driving question.

Here is an example of a question prompt in the middle of the unit, intended to help students reflect on prior questions and consider new questions:

• We are wondering about _____ because _______.
• We think that if  we knew _____, it would help us to explain _______.

A student response:
"We were wondering about why the liquids didn't flush out of his system because we now know that that should have happened through filtration of the kidney. We think that if we knew his kidney failed, it would help us to explain why he died."

2. Content via Processes
Although students learned specific content throughout the unit, this wasn't the focus of the assessments. Three main science processes were stressed throughout the unit, again based on previous work Trish had done in this area: Argumentation & Explanation, Evaluating Models, and Constructing Models. Based on rubrics that Trish initially built, here is an example of the guides I designed for assessing student work (I incorporated suggestions on making single-point rubrics based on this blog post):

Argumentation & Explanation

Concerns Areas that need work.	Criteria Standards for this performance.	Advanced Evidence of exceeding standards.
	Claim is clearly stated.
	Multiple pieces of evidence are present.
	Evidence supports the claim.
	Scientific ideas are used as reasoning to relate the evidence to the claim.

Evaluating Models

Concerns Areas that need work.	Criteria Standards for this performance.	Advanced Evidence of exceeding standards.
	Identify the model target (purpose) and the core scientific principle or idea represented by the model.
	Describe how the model addresses the target with evidence from the model.
	Base the evidence on an analogy between the target and the model related to structure, function, or both.
	Identify the limitations of the model.
	Identify the merits of the model.

Constructing Models

Concerns Areas that need work.	Criteria Standards for this performance.	Advanced Evidence of exceeding standards.
	Identify the purpose of the model (predict, explain, test a process, generate data).
	Assess if the model reliably achieves its purpose. Provide evidence.
	Compare the model with alternate models. Evaluate merits and limitations of each model.
	Identify model revisions that were applied and the rationale for those revisions.

All of the student work was evaluated based on one of the three rubrics. Other than identifying anatomical structures during the kidney dissection, students were never strictly assessed on their content knowledge. They were instead asked to use the content they had learned as evidence for a claim based upon a phenomenon. Or the students were expected to pull upon their knowledge of content to evaluate and/or create models. This is a much deeper type of scientific thinking and more challenging for students than simply regurgitating facts on an exam. Employing the science processes as your assessment of student learning places an emphasis on application of content to solve problems and explain observations. And I would argue that my students learned the content in the initial unit as well as, if not better, than they had in previous years. This is "science learning" at its best, helping all students to "think like scientists," an essential skill for their futures, regardless of whether or not they pursue science as a career. Even more important, perhaps, than the content.

3. Modeling Progression
Throughout this unit, students worked with models in a variety of modes. They created their own whiteboard models describing their thinking about the driving question three times throughout the unit. They worked with and evaluated three different pre-set models to understand content: the bean and rice filtration model, the dialysis tubing investigation, and the kidney dissection. They also created their own model for the urinary system to demonstrate their final understanding of the processes they had learned.

The progression of whiteboard models to show student thinking was an especially powerful aspect of this unit. Not only did their whiteboarding help me to better understand the changing student perceptions around the driving question, but they also made the student thinking more clear to the students themselves. Each of the models was the result of conversations within student teams, and the discourse that occurred amongst the team members helped them to more succinctly organize their own thoughts. They were also able to reflect back on their learning as they looked at Model 1 vs. Model 2 vs. Model 3. This reflection on change in thinking emphasized how scientific ideas can evolve over time.

4. Student Connections
One of our goals in this unit was to explore ways for our students to interact with each other. Although our thinking on this goal is still developing, I'm excited about the possibilities based on what we have accomplished so far. Trish's students use Twitter quite a bit during their class time to communicate with each other, their teacher, other students, and even scientists. Twitter is blocked in my school district, but we do use Schoology as an LMS for all courses.  I thought that perhaps a joint Schoology course for Anatomy students in Minnesota and Kentucky would be a good substitute for Twitter for now. And thus "Biofeedback" was born. In this Schoology course, so far students have participated in a brief introductory activity and shared questions around our second unit focused on energy. As the year progresses, we hope to continue to find more uses for the Biofeedback course.

Our students were also able to connect via Google Hangouts at the end of September for a simple introduction activity based on the common icebreaker "Two Truths and a Lie." For this version though, groups of students from both schools were asked to find two Anatomy "truths" and one Anatomy "lie." They took turns presenting their research to the other school via GHO, and then the students had to determine which of the facts was a lie. Although there were some audio and lag issues, the students enjoyed the interaction and requested that we try again in the future.

The dominant form of interaction recently between the two schools has been the coaching of video artifacts. Trish has worked with Benchfly in the past to introduce video as a medium for students to explain their scientific thinking. Benchfly is also a service to house all of the student-made videos. In previous years, Trish's students had coached each other's videos, looking for claim and evidence and commenting on various aspects of video formatting, such as lighting, sound, and framing. Now that our classes are connected, we have been trading student videos between the students at the different schools and asking that the students coach their cross-country counterparts. We have found that even though our classes are working through the same unit, because student questions drive the learning, the classes sometimes move in different directions. Therefore, the video products the students create are never identical. This sets up a unique situation in which the content and experiences in which the students are immersed is the same, but the discussions and thinking about those experiences is different. So when students coach each other's videos, they have the background knowledge necessary to evaluate them, but the videos are not replicas of their own. They often take the learning in a new direction.

An example of this is the "Make a Better Model" videos. The Minnesota students had a lot of questions about the removal of drugs and toxic substances, based on the beans and rice filtration model. Trish's students had a lot of questions about the brain and it's role in water regulation. When students shared their "Make a Better Model" videos with each other, these differences were clear in the videos. The students' approaches were completely different, which made the coaching more challenging, but also more realistic. I explained to my students that this is why clear communication in science is so important. Not everyone has the same experiences, so it is essential that when you're explaining your thinking that you do so in a way that is accessible for anyone.

Trish and I have continued our collaboration and are currently in the midst of Unit 2 focusing on Energy. We're using the same pedagogies that were so successful in Unit 1 and are constantly revising and learning as we move forward. I will make sure to continue to document our progress on this blog. Please feel free to share any questions or comments!

Cross-Country Science Collaboration, Part 1

About a year ago, I "met" Trish Shelton (@tdishelton), a high school science teacher from Kentucky via Twitter. We immediately recognized that we share similar thoughts about science learning and teaching, and continued to communicate via Twitter and Google Hangouts. Through our conversations, the decision was made to connect our Anatomy classrooms during this 2014-2015 school year. So far, this adventure has entailed planning units together, utilizing a joint Schoology course for our students, exchanging student work between classes, a Google Hangout between the classes, and constant communication between Trish and myself.

I hope to share the experiences of our collaboration throughout the year, so this post is the first of many reflections on this unique experience.

Trish had an idea of where she wanted to start the year - a unit on the urinary system and homeostasis that had been successful in the past, although she had never started the year with this particular topic. Being a science teacher in an NGSS state gives Trish a very specific lens through which to view planning and instruction, and she felt this unit in particular would be a great way to immediately incorporate NGSS. My home state, Minnesota, does not use the NGSS, much to my chagrin. However, I hadn't taught an Anatomy class for two years and was looking for curriculum changes that would better reflect my own evolving thoughts regarding science instruction. In other words, when I heard Trish had this unit she wanted to try out for our first topic, I was all-in!

After some "beginning of the year" activities focused on asking questions, learning in teams, mindsets, and scientific explanations, we were ready to start on Unit 1. What follows is a general sequence of how the students approached the driving question: If water is necessary for survival, how can such an essential substance hurt us?

*By the way, no, I don't teach in an all-girls school as the photos and videos below may suggest! My class consists of 16 Junior and Senior girls, and 1 Senior boy.

1. Students watched a YouTube video (link here) of a news report about a high school football player from Georgia who died of water intoxication in August. They recorded their questions on a Padlet.

2. Teams created whiteboard models of what they thought happened to the victim's cells. They used their iPads to take photos of the whiteboards and posted them to Schoology.

3. Urinalysis Investigation. I mixed up four different "urine" samples from four "patients," and students tested the samples for sugar, protein, pH level, clarity, and color. They were also given information about the presence of blood cells and other debris. Based on their results, they needed to determine what, if anything, was wrong with the patients. For each patient, they structured their diagnosis in the following way:

• Claim: State your answer to the following question: What condition does the patient have, if any?
• Evidence: Use multiple pieces of evidence to support your claim.
• Reasoning: Explain how or why the evidence is connected to the claim.

Students then recorded videos in which they shared their "diagnoses" with the patients. They also created a class model of what "normal" vs. "abnormal" urine looks like.

4. Students watched a YouTube video about the general structure of the kidney. They then participated in a simulation of kidney filtration, timing how long it would take to separate rice, beans, and staples using different methods. The beans represented the blood cells that stay in the blood vessels, the rice represented wastes that enter the glomerulus, and the staples represented drugs and other toxins that are actively transported into the filtrate.

5. Whole class discussion on the difference between structure and function. I brought in a football helmet and a hat I wear when I run. I asked students to brainstorm in their teams the structures that made each head covering unique and how the structures contributed to the overall functioning of the hat.

6. Students reflected on their learning by writing a tweet, "What I know about the kidneys so far..." and posting questions that they still had on Schoology. They then researched to see if they could learn more about the questions they had.

7. Dialysis Investigation. Students filled dialysis tubing with various types of solutions, such as salt, sodium bicarbonate, sugar, and starch. They placed the tubing in distilled water overnight, finding the mass of the dialysis tubing before and after adding it to the water. They also tested for the presence of the solutions inside and outside of the tubing.

8. Students watched a YouTube video about the structure and function of the nephron. Based on this new information, they evaluated the dialysis investigation as a model for nephron function as the assessment for the investigation.

9. Sheep Kidney Dissection. A verbal "practical quiz" on the structures of the kidney based upon the dissection also included questions about movement of urine and blood through the kidney.

10. Urinary System Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER). Students submitted a written reflection of what they had learned from the three models (Beans, Dialysis, Kidney Dissection) using the following format:

• Claim: State your answer to the following question: How does the urinary system work?
• Evidence: Use information from the three models to support your claim.
• Reasoning: Explain how or why the evidence is connected to the claim.

11. Teams created whiteboard models of their new thoughts of what happened to the victim's cells (from the beginning of the unit). They used their iPads to take photos of the whiteboards and posted them to Schoology.

12. In teams, students evaluated one of the three models (Bean, Dialysis, Kidney Dissection) based on its merits and limitations in explaining urinary system structure and function.They recorded videos of their model evaluation to share with the class.

13. Make a better model challenge. Students were tasked with using what they had learned thus far to create a better model of the urinary system. They were given random supplies from the classroom and recorded their model and explanations to share with the Kentucky anatomy classes.

14. Homeostasis Simulation. The player in this simulation needs to adjust various internal conditions of a runner as she speeds up, slows down, and traverses up and down hills in a virtual race. Students begin to understand how the body reacts to changing environments in order to maintain relatively constant internal conditions.

15. Students watched a YouTube video about negative and positive feedback loops. They worked through sample scenarios of feedback loops in the human body, identifying sensors, effectors, and whether the loop was positive or negative.

16. Students read articles about water balance in athletes' bodies.

17. Cheek cells observations. Students collected their own cheek cells, stained them with methylene blue, and observed them under a microscope before and after being flooded with salt water. They connected these observations to results from the dialysis investigation.

18. Teams created final whiteboard models of their new thoughts of what happened to the victim's cells (from the beginning of the unit). They used their iPads to take photos of the whiteboards and posted them to Schoology.

19. Whole-Class CER. Students worked together as a class to develop a claim as to why the football player died of water intoxication. They were able to anything they had done or learned in class as evidence, and they related their explanations back to to "big ideas" of osmosis and homeostasis.

20. Summative Assessment.
Choose ONE of the following explanation prompts and respond based on your understanding of:

• The Urinary System.
• Osmosis.
• Homeostasis & Feedback in the Body.

1) Explain why the composition of urine could change throughout the day.

2) A ship sinks off the coast of the United States leaving its passengers stuck in life rafts. After several days, the passengers begin to notice the darkening of their urine, decrease in urine output, and the symptoms of dizziness, weakness, and nausea. Several passengers decide to drink the seawater. All the passengers that drank the seawater died of dehydration. Provide an explanation for the “seawater poisoning.”

**Whew, that got a lot longer than I anticipated! 

In my next post, I'll share my reflections on student learning during this unit.**

The Best Laid Plans...

Recently, I watched an extremely brave teacher on the Teaching Channel as she shared a "failed" lesson from her English class. The camera was in her classroom and recording all the awkward moments and typical student responses when they aren't engaged in a lesson. She then went on to successfully change that lesson for the next section of students. She also debriefed with a colleague when everything was said and done, questioning whether her students were even ready for the task she had planned for them.

These "failure" narratives, occasionally shared by teachers in public spaces, are like a fresh of breath air in the super-hyped, "look at the awesome thing I did," and "aren't my students amazing?" world of edu-social media. Not that people shouldn't share their successes and their students' excellence (in fact, I do this quite often!). It just gets a little overwhelming when you're struggling in the trenches of your own not-so-perfect reality. This is why I appreciate it when teacher-bloggers bare their struggles. It reassures me that even though I have my own challenges, this is a normal occurrence for educators.

So, in the spirit of the brave teacher I spoke of earlier who opened the doors of her classroom for everyone to see, I'm going to begin sharing more lessons, ideas, and projects in my classroom that aren't successful, starting with my idea for student research projects.

Inspired by the idea of Genius Hour and my own conviction that students should be participating in scientific research that is relevant and interesting to them, this summer I envisioned that my students would do unit "research projects" related to each unit topic. For example, for the first unit of the year, Ecology, students would choose any topic under the very wide umbrella of Ecology and design a project of their choosing. Besides being within the realm of Ecology, the only other stipulation would be that the project had to be shared with others in some way. My students had completed similar projects in the past, but finishing one for each unit was a new expectation. Also, I planned on tying Minnesota's Nature of Science standards to the project this year.

During the first week of school, I briefly explained to the students that they would be doing these projects, but before I knew it, midterm had come and gone without any class time spent on the research. I told myself that this is typical of the first quarter of school, when we spend a lot of time developing class culture, routines, and everyday skills. Change of plans: instead of having a project with every unit, we'd have a project for each quarter. I scheduled a class day for students to choose their topics and start researching. They were supposed to fill out a Google form to let me know what topic they were considering and what help/materials they'd need from me. My students struggled to choose their topics and only about a third of them even filled out the form. For the students that did have a project idea, they were unsure how to begin their research from scratch.

The next time the students worked on their projects in class, I tried to help them develop topic ideas with a whole-class activity. They filled out another form, or that is, some of them filled out another form. Not only were some students still unsure what they wanted to research, they also couldn't imagine what their "product to share" would be.

Hoping that the third time would be the charm, I spent a Sunday afternoon scouring TED for videos about pursuing curiosity and being creative. I showed the videos in class the next day, and asked the students to backchannel their thoughts while watching the videos. We had a whole-class discussion about why curiosity is important. I asked them to fill out the Google Form with their research ideas one more time.

I still received responses from less than half of the students.

At this point, we were under 2 weeks from the end of Quarter 1, and students had yet to do any meaningful research on their projects. Many didn't know what they wanted to research and/or what their product would be. And we ended up needing to devote a lot of class time to a different project the students were also struggling with - their digital portfolios (I'll blog about these as well in a separate post). It was time to call "uncle." The research projects were not going to happen during Quarter 1. For all intents and purposes, the idea was a failure.

So far.

I still intend to have my students complete at least one research project this year, probably as a cumulative piece at the end of the school year. But everything that I had dreamed up and planned for these projects over the summer just ended up fizzling. There's a part of me that feels like I failed in some way, but another part knows that you need to know when to let go. This wasn't the first time that everything didn't go exactly to plan, and it won't be the last. Just like the teacher from the video I mentioned earlier, I tell myself what's important is the ability to be a responsive teacher and adjust a failed idea to something in which students will find success.

Photo is from a map of the old Berlin train network, taken by SnaPsi Сталкер, from Flickr, licensed via Creative Commons.

Connected Moments

What follows is an overview of what I did between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m yesterday morning while in my pajamas and eating my breakfast:

• I checked my Schoology notifications to looked over some student assignments that had been handed in the previous night. I entered the scores in my online grade book and removed the students from our district ICU list, also online. This automatically generated an email to their parent or guardian, letting them know the assignment had been completed.

• I listened to my Voxer messages and left some messages. I had questions about metacognition, so a fellow Biology teacher from New York and I decided to chat about strategies he uses in his classroom.

• I checked my Newsify account to read the most recent posts from the blogs I follow. 

• I e-mailed an Anatomy teacher from Kentucky I've been working with regarding setting up a Google Hangout soon for our classroom collaboration.

• I checked my Schoology messages and discovered that some students were looking for feedback on their Weebly digital portfolios. So I opened up my Weebly classes, checked out the student portfolios, and sent them feedback via Schoology messages. I also updated their scores and feedback in a Google Doc I created for the in-progress portfolios.

• I checked my personal blog to see if their were any posts I should respond to.

• I read through the two Paper.li whitepapers I subscribe to.

In October of last year, I wrote a piece about being a Connected Educator and shared it with my colleagues. This year, I had no intention of writing about the topic because I didn't feel like I had anything to say that hadn't already been said. However, after breakfast yesterday it hit me: the connections and information we have at our fingertips are just amazing. Working with teachers across the country, open and immediate communication with students and parents, up to date information about the latest in learning and education...none of this was possible before I became a connected educator. Moments like yesterday morning simply inspire awe in what is possible.

Photo from Heather on Flickr. Licensed via Creative Commons.

In a World Full of Distractions...

I write a "Tiger Tech" newsletter every other week for our staff, and publish it via Smore. The following is a piece I wrote last week. 

I recently read an article from The Washington Post entitled, "Why a leading professor of new media just banned technology use in class." (Link HERE). Like many headlines, this one was a bit misleading, but the content of the article was still thought-provoking.

Clay Shirky is a professor of media studies at New York University, and he's had a "relaxed" approach to devices in the classroom for many years. However, he has noticed that his students are becoming more and more distracted by their devices in recent years. He attributes this to the many social media platforms that compete for student attention while they're working on school-related technology tasks. He states, "Computers are not inherent sources of distraction - they can in fact be powerful engines of focus." However, "...hardware and software is being professionally designed to distract..." Shirky also discusses how these distractions encourage multi-tasking on the part of students, which has been shown to decrease learning in multiple studies.

After reading the headline and beginning of this article, you might expect that Shirky threw up and his hands and banned all technology from his classroom. This is not exactly the case, however. He reports that he has changed his rules for devices from "allowed unless by request" to no device use "unless the the assignment requires it." In other words, students are only using their devices in class if there is a specific learning goal for using that device.

I see our high school students struggling with these same issues. When is an appropriate time for them to check their most recent "Draw Something" picture or visit a messaging service? These programs have notifications, pop-ups, and all sorts of bells and whistles that are constantly crying for their attention. I believe it's part of our role as teachers to help them navigate this world. Shirky states in his article,

I've stopped thinking of students as people who simply make choices about whether to pay attention, and started thinking of them as people trying to pay attention but having to compete with various influences, the largest of which is their own propensity toward involuntary and emotional reaction.

After reading this article, I've been trying to make this more clear for students in my classroom by stating explicitly the appropriate times for...

• No devices at all.
• Using devices for a specific classroom task only.
• Using devices for their choice of activity.

I think there is a time and a place for all of these situations in the classroom, but it's our responsibility to guide students in interpreting the task and environment correctly so they can eventually determine appropriate device use for themselves.
Image"Partial Attention" from Flickr by Marina Noordegraaf. Licensed by Creative Commons.

Thinking About Flops

I write a "Tiger Tech" newsletter every other week for our staff, and publish it via Smore. The following is a piece I wrote about a month ago. 

Have you noticed how students seem to be really well-behaved during the first two weeks of the school year, until the third week rolls around and you find yourself dealing with more and more behavior issues? At first they're small things, like a couple of students whispering in the background when they should be listening, but then you suddenly have your first major "confrontation" of the semester. We all know that how we deal with these challenges early on can have implications for the entire school year.

It seems to me that trying something new in your classroom, whether it be technology-related or a different teaching practice, follows a similar path. The first few weeks can be exciting and full of high expectations, but it doesn't take long to hit that first stumbling block. I had a lesson last week that took a lot of thought and planning on my part. Not only did it use technology that was new to me, but I was also exploring a different way of introducing content to students. To make a long story shorter, it flopped. The students didn't engage in the topic like I thought they would, one of the tech pieces gave us trouble, and when it was all said and done, I don't think it promoted the student thinking I was hoping for.

While my knee-jerk reaction is to throw up my hands in exasperation when these set-backs occur, I try to focus on having a Growth Mindset, knowing I can improve the lesson through additional reflection, practice, and time. After all, isn't this the same expectation I have for my students when they struggle?

So as we approach the midterm of Quarter 1 and that "beginning of the school year" glow starts to dim, I encourage you to give yourself a break! Not everything new you try in the classroom will work perfectly the first time. But don't let those set-backs stop you from moving forward either. After all,

"If we only did things that were easy, we wouldn't actually be learning anything. We'd just be practicing things we already knew." - David Dockterman

Image from Swoolfrey on Flickr. Licensed via Creative Commons.

What I Learned During The 30-Day Blogging Challenge.

This word cloud captures all of my blog posts up to this date.

I recently completed TeachThought's 30-Day blogging challenge, and now that I've taken a few days off to recover from the writing-marathon that it was, I'd like to wrap it up with some reflection on what I learned about writing, blogging, and myself by participating in the challenge.

First, some background. I started my blog about a year ago because I was writing a lot for a class I was taking and it was easy to post my written assignments to a blog in order to submit them for the class. I continued to write blog posts throughout the year, probably averaging about one per month. I felt like I should probably write more, but a variety of factors were holding me back. When I saw the TeachThought challenge on Twitter, I figured it would be the perfect jump-start to get me over some of those blogging hurdles. Starting on September 1, I successfully posted an article on my blog every day for 30 days, using the prompts provided by TeachThought.  Here's what I learned:

1) Blogging regularly takes a lot of time. There were nights when I would be working away diligently on grading or lesson planning, look at the time, and just groan because it was already 11:00 and I hadn't yet started my blog. I lost a lot of sleep from staying up later at night just to write. While I was writing one post, I was actually repeatedly dozing off. I kept waking up to see that I was typing gibberish in my sleep. Despite the work and loss of sleep, however...

2) ...the process of writing can be addictive. Sometimes it's hard to start, but once I started typing, the ideas would develop at an ever-increasing rate and I gained some insight into my own teaching that I never would have otherwise experienced. During the day, I found myself reflecting about what I would write that night.

3) Even if you don't know what you're going to write about, just start writing. There were a few prompts that left me wondering what I would actually post. However, I felt responsible to write and started with simple ideas. Those simple ideas inevitably led to topics about which I had a lot to say, and I found myself writing more than I initially envisioned. For me, writing is kind of like my early morning runs. Once I get myself out of bed and onto the treadmill, I'm happy to be there. It's the "getting there" that's challenging.

4) It's hard to know which posts your readers will connect with. There were a handful of posts I cared very deeply about and for which the writing process was very emotional. There was this post, in which I almost slipped into "look at how awesome my classroom is" and thankfully backpedaled into sharing a more honest reflection. Or this post, probably my most open writing so far, in which I talk about the guilt I constantly feel from the conflict between my teacher-self and my personal-self. I expected that I would receive a lot of feedback on these ideas. Most of the time, I was wrong. The posts that had the most readers were often those that were less personal to me.

Honestly, I'm feeling somewhat relieved that the blogging challenge is over, and I have some more freedom at night again! However, I'm thankful that I participated in the experience. I know that it has made me more a more confident writer. I don't think I'll struggle with choosing topics to blog about as much anymore, and I'll blog more regularly. A post a day is a little to much for me, so I'm planning on one post per week. I'm also hoping to continue to grow in my courage and to post more personal writing throughout the year.

Thank you, TeachThought, for helping me to refine my voice and become a more reflective teacher!