I really didn't mind looking at the projects and offering suggestions. I do this kind of thing all the time. What I did mind was the fact we were asked to operate within the framework of something called a "tuning protocol." Are people paid money to come up with such stuff? Is there too much time on some people's hands? Why do we need to operate with a formalized structure to offer simple feedback?
We were asked to view samples of projects and then respond, using categories of "warm" and "cool" feedback. Perhaps you think I am getting too old for this, but I would have had the same reaction twenty years ago. Life is too short for such nonsense. We are adults. We are capable of a normal conversation. I trust my students enough to carry on a normal conversation. Our comments do not need to be guided into artificial categories. We can discuss and digest issues in polite, scholarly terms.
I asked what was on my mind, "Why can't we just have a normal conversation? Why do we have to use artificial terms to shape our discussion?" We all respect one another. I hate to be the bearer of dissonance, but I found this format disrespectful of our professionalism--although I know it was not intended as such. Do you sense by now that I am fully out of tune with this "protocol"?
My colleague on the left pointed out that my feedback was "cool." And I had to laugh. He was right--except given that as parents we both live in the world of Disney, it might better have been called Frozen--minus the literal bolts of ice.
The discussion continued and I contributed feedback at several points, as I am trained to do as a teacher, and as I might do as any caring and sentient human being. I will offer anyone who asks, any suggestions I might think helpful, but I refuse to be boxed in by the latest gimmicks of ed. reform. If you choose to label this post or my comments as cool/cold feedback, please do so, but don't forget to put on your muffs!