# data[].attributes.headline
Breaking Down to Rebuild: Redefining the Innovative Classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Breaking Down to Rebuild: Redefining the Innovative Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, I've been talking to other school districts about our iPad program and the process by which we began to integrate these devices. At each meeting, I've been avidly referring to the SAMR model, an innovation continuum developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. This model describes the various levels of your technology innovation: Substitution > Augmentation > Modification > Redefinition. Think of it as the Bloom's Taxonomy of innovation. The highest level, redefinition, is of course our goal. However the question becomes - how does one redefine a classroom?

My next suggestion has been met with mixed reactions. I tell everyone that what we've realized seems so simple yet so scary at the same time: to rebuild, one must first do some demolition. By this I mean, you have to be willing to set aside, even discard, your previous understandings of what assessment, differentiation and instruction look like, sound like and feel like. You have to be willing to start over with the new building materials available: i.e., iPads. Instead of trying to insert iPads into an already-existing structure, you must start over and rebuild a structure that utilizes the iPads in the most effective way - to redefine the way your classroom functions.

To illustrate this, I show the following graphic I created explaining my understanding of SAMR. Note that the substitution bubble is the largest, yet still does not outweigh the redefinition bubble. This is meant to demonstrate that while you may create 10, 20 even 30 lessons on the substitution level, their sum effect on your students' learning can still be less than that of 1 lesson on the redefinition level.

As an example I go back to my argument about apps. Content apps, like Rocket Math or Math Ninja, while very engaging only address a handful (if not only a single) set of standards. Once your student has mastered that standard, they only serve as practice. Even then, data collection from these apps is limited and the level of student cognition is often low. Consider then, a creation app like ShowMe. This app can be used to address a wide range of standards from math to science to literacy - and will engage students at the highest level of Bloom's Taxonomy - creation. Relating this back to SAMR - the content apps are all substituting or augmenting pencil and paper learning. A creation app such as ShowMe is redefining teaching and learning. Thus one redefined lesson outweighing dozens of substitution or augmentation lessons.

While the concept may seem simple, the execution is anything but. Teachers need to be inspired, then supported, then supported some more. It is frightening to be risking not only your comfort, but your students' success on something you've never tried. I always recommend that school leaders begin by taking their teachers to visit schools who are doing this well- who have already made the journey through the SAMR model - or are currently doing so.

After your team has been inspired to take a sledgehammer to their proverbial classrooms and start anew, school leaders must be ready to help the teachers pick up the pieces and support them in rebuilding a new, more innovative classroom. Frequent and relevant professional development, release time to plan and fostering active learning communities are a few of the supports that have helped me to be successful in my first year of redefining my classroom.

While this may seem a daunting task no matter the hat you wear: district leader, school leader, coach, classroom teacher - consider the reward at the end of the day. Consider what redefining your classrooms will mean to the students who learn in them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking Down to Rebuild: Redefining the Innovative Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, I've been talking to other school districts about our iPad program and the process by which we began to integrate these devices. At each meeting, I've been avidly referring to the SAMR model, an innovation continuum developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura.

# data[].attributes.headline
CODING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE: NECESSARY COURSES IN 21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS

# data[].attributes.subject
CODING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE: NECESSARY COURSES IN 21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Coding and computer science continue to grow in popularity and seen as a necessary skill - for everyone, not just techies and white males."
Fueled by projected computer and information technology job growth of 4.4 million jobs from 2014 to 2024, the call for students to take computer science courses with coding included has been growing the past few years.
"By 2020, more than 50 percent of STEM jobs are projected to be in computer science-related fields. If current trends continue, 1.4 million computer science-related jobs will be available over the next ten years, but only 400,000 computer science graduates will be added with the skills to apply for those jobs. (Source)"
In 2013, the non-profit Code.org announced "a nationwide campaign calling on every K-12 student in America to join an 'Hour of Code.' The initiative asked schools, teachers, and parents across the country to help introduce more than 10 million students of all ages to computer programming during Computer Science Education Week. As of June 29 of this year, over 250 million have participated (Hour of Code).

Notwithstanding the success of Hour of Code, some catching-up on the importance of computer science is in play. In the U.S. last year, a Gallup study commissioned by Google found that 90% of parents view computer science "a good use of school resources," while "fewer than 8% of administrators believe parents demand is high." A report released last May by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation asserts that "computer science education is only just beginning to gain traction in U.S. school systems" and calls for expanded access. Will schools listen?

Despite the disconnect in understanding its importance and the call for expanded access to computer science, the success of Hour of Code and the Obama administration's " Computer Science for All" initiative, as well as spiking needs for crucial technology skills, has caught the attention of educators and policymakers alike.

In other policy areas, as of June 2016, " 30 states count computer science toward graduation requirements" But, math teachers question the policy's wisdom. Further, a major hurdle arises. Who will teach computer science courses, as half of the states "have not invested in properly training teachers to teach computer science," according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. In addition, many have not created licensure for the role.

Some schools are branching out beyond the traditional computer science course. Keep a keen eye on the progressive Beaver County Day School in Brookline, Massachusetts. This school teaches coding in all classes.

And, if every job will be technical, Harvard Business School has caught the coding bug for "last year 94 MBA students opted to take" an introduction to programming elective, and the school hosts the Code Club to help students keep their technology skills sharp.
BAD NEWS: BIAS STILL BLOCKS
While coding and computer science surge ahead, do bias and stereotyping play a role in inhibiting girls, students of color, and ethnic minorities from participating? According to the White House, the answer is unfortunately yes.

In 2015, girls represented only 22 percent and underrepresented minorities only 13 percent of the approximately 50,000 students who took the Advanced Placement Computer Science (AP-CS) exam nationally. In 10 states fewer than 10 high school girls took AP-CS-in 23 states, fewer than 10 African American students took the AP-CS, with none taking it in nine of those states. (Source)

The 2015 CODE2040 report Want to Fix Diversity at Your Company? outlines numerous obstacles that young Black and Latinos face in the technology space, including "women of color and African-American men are "most likely to drop out of CS and tech." The report also offers recommendations for building diversity in the technology industry, including awareness.

Other efforts are underway to help girls and children of color overcome the computer science gap by participating in boot camps, certification programs, and hackathons, such as Black Girls Code and CompuGirls.

If you believe in 21st Century learning for all, it is important that you think about how computer science courses and coding can come into your curriculum. First grade is not too early to throw out some of the obsolete curricula that have little meaning for today's students and little value as they get college and career ready.

What is happening in your school and community to further inclusive computer science education? What are you doing?

Emily Vickery is a learning architect, speaker, consultant and English teacher based in Pensacola, Florida. She has taught technology and ELA courses in public and independent middle and high schools. A former research fellow at Teaching Tolerance (Southern Poverty Law Center), she is a frequent presenter on digital learning topics and a co-author of Teaching 2030: What We Must Do for Our Students & Our Public Schools, Now and in the Future. Learn more about Emily's work at her Digital CV page.

NEXT: A Two Part Series about Maker Education and Media Literacy
A Marriage Made in Digital Heaven
Let us know what you think- Leave a Comment!

(to be approved by administrator)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coding and Computer Science: Necessary Courses in 21st Century Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Coding and computer science continue to grow in popularity and seen as a necessary skill - for everyone, not just techies and white males." Fueled by projected computer and information technology job growth of 4.4 million jobs from 2014 to 2024, the call for students to take computer science courses with coding included has been growing the past few years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Four years ago my colleague John Larmer and I co-authored for Edutopia a widely discussed blog in which we debated the risks and benefits of allowing our children to play video games. I of course took the benefit side.

Nothing I've learned in the intervening years has changed my original position. Time affirms that we must, smartly and safely, give all children the experiences and knowledge they need to become digitally literate. We also must equip them with the tools to become producers of media and not just uncritical consumers of what flashes before their eyes.

This topic and process has been the focus of P21's blog series in August.

I enjoyed the way Jim Bellanca opened the discussion, writing of a mentor who shared this advice: "It's in the eyes. Just look at their eyes. You will tell how engaged students are. Blank eyes. Closed eyelids. That's bad. Bright eyes. Open eyes. That's it. Look in the eyes."

It is commonly remarked that refugees vote with their feet. I offer a corollary: Learners vote with their attention span. I see this every night at home, when my sons begin homework. When challenged by a rigorous and relevant project, my son Christian will spend hours working single-mindedly on the task before him. It need not involve a screen, but it often does. But give him or his brother Timothy busy work - let the dawdling begin.

I was struck as well this month by the comments of Naomi Boyer, who focused on the optimized learning that occurs when a student connects with other humans. Ideally, that connection occurs within a community of learners, virtual or analog.

Technology may be the great facilitator, perhaps even the great equalizer, when our goal becomes personalized learning. But as Boyer points out, "The balance of nurturing the learning needs of the individual with the benefit of interchange and critique is a delicate dance that can actually be composed through the instructional design, technology tools selected, and educational systems."

A philosophical discussion focused on digital literacy pleases the technologist that lurks within most educators, but eventually we have to turn to practicalities. Which tools do we use and which outcomes do we wish to achieve? And how do we do this without becoming distracted by the shiny object that tech so often appears to be?

Jennifer Pieratt writes of her fondness for infographics and labels them a tool for Deeper Learning. She makes a persuasive argument when she writes that the process of creating an infographic requires students to find, curate and evaluate significant information, connect it to the real-world, and then communicate this understanding in a digestible format for a specific purpose and audience.

That sounds complicated - until you've seen second-graders create digital storybooks, program robots, and speak persuasively to audiences comprised of knowledgeable adults. To see this type of classroom in action, watch this video case study of P21 Exemplar Hopewell Elementary School in rural Trinity, N.C.

So, how soon do we begin this work? At what age or grade level? Nichole Santangelo a teacher at P21 Exemplar Rancho Minerva Middle School near San Diego, has designed a digital art class in which students are intentionally given an opportunity to learn other important workforce skills that can transfer across career paths. Students don't need to select a career when they are 12, but they do need to enhance the skills that will allow them to experience success in college, career and life.

Jim Bentley provides a coda to the discussion. He focuses on the power of technology to enhance one of the most important features of 21st century learning: reflection. Learning matters when we reflect upon outcome and process. As Jim explains, "we must reorient students to the fact that authentic learning necessitates reflection and is both recursive and iterative."
David Ross, P21's Chief Strategy Officer, oversees all of P21's programs, which span the entire 21st Century Learning Continuum, and its growing state support services. David created and managed the PBL World Conference, and co-authored the Project Based Learning Starter Kit, during his time at the Buck Institute for Education. Ross is a frequent and popular speaker and workshop facilitator at national and international conferences. Follow David on Twitter @davidPBLross
Let us know what you think- Leave a Comment!

(to be approved by administrator)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four years ago my colleague John Larmer and I co-authored for Edutopia a widely discussed blog in which we debated the risks and benefits of allowing our children to play video games. I of course took the benefit side. Nothing I've learned in the intervening years has changed my original position.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I first started teaching, I ran a "4 x 4 classroom." My students read four "big" books a year (one per quarter), and they wrote four "big" papers a year (one per quarter). Four big books and four big papers-a 4 x 4 classroom.

At the time this made sense to me. It took a week or two to teach students how to write a specific essay. They took another week or two to move their papers completely through the writing process. Then it took me an additional three weeks to read and comment on 180 papers. (While students were waiting for their papers, I shifted the focus in the classroom to the core work we were reading). By the time I eventually returned the essays, we were into the next quarter and it was time to start thinking about the next big paper.

The same pacing held true when I taught core novels and plays. I took a week to prepare my students for the reading of Book X. We then spent six weeks reading the work, stopping frequently to make sure students were analyzing it to death. Then we spent a couple of weeks revisiting the work via numerous "beyond" activities. By the time students finished these culminating activities, we were into the next quarter and it was time to start reading our next core work

Years later, I have come to understand the severe limitations of the 4 x 4 approach. The central reason why 4 x 4 doesn't work can be summed up in one word: "volume." Volume matters a great deal and, simply put, students stuck in 4 x 4 paradigms do not read and write enough over the course of the school year to significantly improve. A 4 x 4 approach ensures adequate progress will not occur.

As I write this post, I am three weeks away from the end of another school year-a year in which I have spent a lot of time and energy breaking free of the 4 x 4 mold. Considering the importance of volume leads me to think about my students' reading and writing journeys this year. Below is a list of the reading and writing tasks they have completed:
Reading

In-depth study of three core works: All Quiet on the Western Front, Hamlet and 1984

An in-depth study of The 9/11 Commission Report

Various other books and articles on 9/11

Book club books (self-selected from a list)

Four (or more) self-selected recreational reading books

An Article of the Week (every week)

Numerous articles, maps, graphs, charts, infographics, speeches, and political cartoons that were woven throughout the curriculum

Writing

Weekly Article of the Week reflections. Students wrote 30-plus of these, each one page in length.

Weekly pieces in their Writer's Notebooks. All of these topics and genres were self-selected by the students and shared in their writing groups each week. (We did this for half a year.)

An inform/explain essay (students chose the topics)

Multiple narrative essays (students chose the topics)

Poems

A literary analysis essay on All Quiet on the Western Front (students chose the topics)

An essay that connected Hamlet to the real world (students chose the topics)

An argument paper after reading 1984 (student chose the arguments)

An historical investigation into 9/11. The average paper was 22 pages. The shortest paper was 12 pages; the longest was 48 pages.

Numerous reflections spun from classroom discussions and from video (YouTube)

On-demand writings

Am I completely satisfied with this reading and writing output? No. On the reading side, for example, I want my students to have more choice when it comes to book club selections. (This is a budget hurdle; I am working on clearing it.) I am moving toward what I have deemed a 20/80 approach-20% reading of whole-class, core works; 80% reading of extended works, book club selections, and independent reading choices (for more on this, see Chapter 8 of my new book, In the Best Interest of Students). In regards to writing, I also want to build in more choice as well, perhaps moving toward a 20/80 split there as well (20% teacher-generated topics; 80% student-generated topics).

Though I am not completely satisfied with my students' reading and writing output, I can say without hesitancy that the young men and women about to leave my class have written and have read much more than my former students who were once mired in a 4 x 4 approach. My classes are moving in the right direction. Volume is increasing.

Here are two factors that have helped me to turn up my students' volume this year:
First, I recognized the importance of choice.
Looking at my students' reading this year, there where times they had no choice, times where they had limited choice, and there were times they had wide-open choice:

No Choice - The class read three major core works together (see above).

Limited Choice - In the 9/11 unit of study, for example, students were presented with numerous books on the topic and chose the titles they wanted to read. In book club settings, students were given a choice between eight different titles and they selected the book they wanted to read (Instead of picking from a list, I would love to have wide-open choice in book clubs, but budgetary limits and school bureaucracy prohibit this. Again, I am working on this).

Wide-Open Choice - Students independently read a number of self-selected books.

These three types of reading-no choice, limited choice, wide-open choice-were found on the writing side as well:

No Choice - The entire class wrote a 9/11 paper.

Limited Choice - My students have just finished reading 1984, and I asked them "to write an argument under the umbrella of 1984." Some students wrote arguments within the four corners of the book (e.g. "The central theme of 1984 is..."). Others wrote arguments outside the four corners of the book (e.g. "1984 remains valuable to the modern reader because..."). Whether they remained inside or outside the book, students created and answered their own prompts.

In some papers, I blended the level of choice. For their 9/11 papers, for example, the first half of those essays were dedicated to informing the reader of both the prelude and of the events of the day; in the second half of the paper students generated their own arguments and answered them (e.g. "Has the Patriot Act gone too far?"). I call these "50/50 papers"-half assigned, half choice.

Wide-Open Choice - My students do a lot of writing in their writer's notebooks, and they generate almost all of this writing (topics and genres).

One thing is certain: when students are given choice-whether limited or wide open-they read and write more.
Second, I recognized that grading everything slows my students' reading and writing growth.
Recently, Nancie Atwell received the first Global Teaching Prize (and the $1 million award that accompanies it). This award nicely coincided with the release of her third edition of In the Middle, arguably the most influential book ever published regarding the teaching of language arts. It is interesting that in this newest edition Atwell states:

I have never graded individual pieces of writing. Growth in writing is slow. It's seldom straightforward, and it varies tremendously among young writers. It also happens on a wide array of fronts, as writers learn to generate, experiment, plan, select, question, draft, read themselves, anticipate, organize, craft, assess, review, revise, format, spell, punctuate, edit, and proofread. One piece of writing can never provide an accurate picture of a student's abilities; rather, it represents a step in a writer's growth-and not always a step forward, as new techniques, forms, or genres can overload any writer of any age (300).

This bears repeating and should be shouted from the rooftops of every school in the land: The teacher who was recently recognized as the best teacher in the world has not graded an essay in 40 years. Atwell's students demonstrate remarkable writing growth, but let us not forget that her students' growth occurred without a single essay being graded. Grading does not turn students into better writers. What makes Atwell's students better writers? The same things that make our students better writers: Modeling. Conferring. Choice. And lots of writing.

The volume of writing is the key ingredient. If I provide good modeling, but my kids do not write much, they will not grow. If I confer with them, but they do not write much, my students will not grow. If I provide a lot of choice, but they do not write much, my students will not grow. Modeling, conferring, and choice are critical to growth, but if my students are not writing a lot, these factors become irrelevant.

In my school system, I am required to score essays, and I imagine this may true for you as well (Atwell runs her own school and gets to create her own rules). But let's not lose sight of the lesson Atwell teaches us here: Students should be writing way more than a teacher can grade (I have a goal of at least a 4:1 ratio). When teachers grade everything, the writing pace of the classroom slows down. Volume suffers. It is only when students begin writing (and reading) more than the teacher can grade that they approach the volume necessary to spur significant growth.
Moving Beyond 4 x 4
As this school year winds down, I cannot shake the feeling that despite the progress in my classroom, my students are still not reading and writing enough (especially considering the deficiencies some of them have). My thoughts are already turning to next year's classes and, as I approach summer, I am already wrestling with some big questions: How can I build more choice into the curriculum? When and where can I provide more modeling? How can I build in more time to confer? What else can I do to increase the volume of my students' reading and writing? And most importantly, what else can I do to move beyond the 4 x 4 approach?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Moving Beyond the 4 x 4 Classroom — Kelly Gallagher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Moving Beyond the 4 x 4 Classroom ...looking back at this past school year as I worked to increase the volume of reading and writing in my classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The lack of autonomy in schools today is saddening. The standardization of our assessments has led to a narrowing of our curriculum and instruction. This is happening in schools where even the leaders are giving permission to teachers to explore their passions and to innovate in their instructional approaches.

This is why we are seeing so many initiatives popping up in education today that allow for more choice. The following two instructional approaches - Makerspaces and Genius Hour - are possible pathways a teacher or school leader might take in order to instill a climate of choice in the school house. These are initiatives I have been a part of in our school from the ground up. The effects have been nothing short of inspiring.
Makerspaces
A makerspace is a DIY, passion-driven learning environment where the focus on creation versus consumption. They can be located in an empty classroom, the library media center, or wherever creativity and innovation can be encouraged. Technology should definitely be included within a makerspace, but it is not required at a level you might assume. I have learned through different trainings and resources that the focus and the culture of a school largely drives how the makerspace is utilized in a building.

Our makerspace inhabits an empty classroom, due to declining enrollment in our blue-collar city. This initiative was spurred by the results from a BrightBytes survey all staff and students took previously. While we had quality access to modern resources, we weren't always using them to promote critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication. These are the four tenets for a 21st century learning environment.

Students were involved from the get go in selecting what was needed for this space. While I had initially budgeted for a lot of technology through a local grant application, the students surprised me by electing for better furniture in which to explore their passions and wonderings. We purchased an inclinable table, ergonomic chairs, and mobile desks. 4th graders were even involved in putting this equipment together when it arrived.

Before the room was even ready, teachers and students started utilizing our makerspace. Our focus as a school is on the reading-writing connection. This has been evident in the projects that have transpired. One teacher partnered with a local organization to work with students and their families to build bookshelves for the texts they take home from school and book fairs. The 4th graders who helped in the planning of the space are writing and developing a multimedia advertisement to collect t-shirts to make dog toys for our local humane society.

What I have discovered with this experience is it is sometimes not enough for leaders to say they will support something innovative. At times we have to help build what we want and envision.
Genius Hour
Denise Krebs and Gallit Zvi, authors of The Genius Hour Guidebook: Fostering Passion, Wonder, and Inquiry in the Classroom (MiddleWeb/Routledge, 2015), describe this concept as "a time when students can develop their own inquiry-based projects around their passions and take ownership of their work".

In a 2nd grade classroom, a teacher is exploring the effect of choice on student engagement. She found a slice of time at the end of each day for genius hour to be facilitated (she integrated her content studies and writing instruction). She started this experience by teaching students how to ask questions that could not be answered by searching on Google. Once students discovered two or three questions to explore, the teacher explained the inquiry process that other professionals use in their work. Using these steps, the students got started.

One small group wanted to find out what was the best degree of slope for designing a zip line for a fixed distance. They took string, toys, and other materials to create prototypes for their trials. The only technology needed was a computer to upload pictures of their progress and process into their digital portfolios via FreshGrade (www.freshgrade.com).

The preliminary results from this teacher's classroom research have been promising. One student, who receives special education services for behaviors, has decreased his need to take a break from the classroom by 71% from fall to spring. When the teacher asked him why he thought this was happening, he replied, "I really want that time to tinker."
The Choices We Make
A static approach to improving the conditions in dynamic environments such as classrooms has not brought about the change that some people had hoped for. Squeezing out autonomy in the name of accountability has a track record for failure. Why not trust the professionals who work directly with our students to have some latitude in how the school experience should be designed, with learners in mind? The observations we have made in our school leads us to believe that a little bit of choice in our learning can go a long way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The lack of autonomy in schools today is saddening. The standardization of our assessments has led to a narrowing of our curriculum and instruction. This is happening in schools where even the leaders are giving permission to teachers to explore their passions and to innovate in their instructional approaches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edutopia is a free source of information, inspiration, and practical strategies for learning and teaching in preK-12 education. We are published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.