Another year is in the books, and I found myself reflecting back on this school year and thinking about the patterns that kept showing up throughout Room 103. Some lessons fade immediately, while others still stick in your head because you remember the conversations students had, the moments where they struggled through an idea, or the days where the room just felt different.
The classroom slowly became more collaborative, more discussion-driven, and more focused on students making sense of ideas instead of just collecting information. Students spent more time talking through evidence, defending claims, revising thinking, and trying to organize complicated ideas together.
At the same time, reflecting on the year also made me realize there are still some things I need to improve moving forward. Some parts of this year worked really well. Other parts showed me where I still need to grow.
Building Thinking Classrooms Changed the Culture of the Room
If there was one thing that probably shaped Room 103 more than anything else this year, it was Building Thinking Classrooms.
The whiteboards completely changed the feel of the classroom. Students were constantly moving, discussing, comparing ideas, revising answers, and building thinking together. The room stopped feeling like a place where students waited for me to confirm whether something was right or wrong. Instead, students started looking at each other’s ideas and trying to figure things out collaboratively.
That shift showed up all year long. It happened during abolitionist comparisons when students debated who had the greatest impact and defended their reasoning with evidence. It happened during Number Mania activities where students used data and statistics to support bigger historical claims. It happened during hexagonal thinking when students argued over which events or ideas represented the biggest tests of the Constitution.
The biggest thing BTC did was make thinking public. Students could physically see ideas developing around the room. They could compare their reasoning with other groups, borrow evidence, challenge each other’s thinking, and refine their own ideas in real time. The conversations became better because students were surrounded by thinking instead of isolated from it.
I also think BTC naturally changed assessment. The classroom became less about quietly completing work and more about defending ideas publicly. Students had to explain themselves. They had to justify connections. They had to support arguments. Those are the kinds of skills that feel more important now than simply memorizing information for a test.






Ignite Talks and Snorkl Changed How I Think About Assessment
One of the biggest instructional shifts for me this year was thinking differently about assessment, especially in a world where AI can generate answers instantly.
The Ignite Talk over the Constitution and early republic unit really reinforced this for me. Students had to organize ideas, explain historical concepts verbally, connect evidence to claims, and communicate their understanding out loud. AI could support preparation and revision, but it could not do the actual thinking for them.
What I liked about using Snorkl alongside writing and discussion activities was how immediate the feedback became. Students no longer had to wait days to find out whether their reasoning made sense. They could revise while the learning was still fresh.
The goal was never to make work easier with AI. The goal was to make feedback faster and revision more meaningful. Students still had to defend ideas, explain evidence, and make sense of historical concepts themselves.
One of my favorite moments all year came during the Cincinnati inquiry when several students asked me to open a Snorkl because they wanted additional feedback on their writing and analysis. That stuck with me because students usually do not ask for more feedback unless they actually care about improving the work.
This year reinforced something I keep thinking about more and more. Assessment cannot just be about recall anymore. Students need opportunities to explain ideas, revise reasoning, communicate verbally, collaborate, and build arguments using evidence. Those skills are much harder to fake, and they also happen to matter far more outside of school.



The Cincinnati Inquiry Unit Became the Strongest Unit of the Year
Out of everything we did this year, the Cincinnati inquiry unit probably became the most meaningful.
Part of that was because it was local history. Students recognized roads, places, and landmarks they had actually seen before. History stopped feeling like something that only happened somewhere else. But the bigger reason the unit worked was because students had to wrestle with contradiction the entire time.
The compelling question asked: “How was Cincinnati a city caught between two worlds before the Civil War?”
That question carried the entire unit because there was never a clean or simple answer. Students explored how Cincinnati represented freedom for some people while still being deeply tied to racism, violence, and systems connected to slavery. They examined the Ohio River as both a symbol of hope and a very real dividing line between free and slave states. They studied Porkopolis, economic growth, abolitionists, anti-abolitionists, and the Cincinnati riots while constantly revisiting the idea that free did not automatically mean equal.
The unit also slowed students down intellectually in a way I really liked. Instead of racing through content, students spent time analyzing evidence, comparing perspectives, discussing tensions, revising ideas, and building understanding piece by piece. The one-pager summative assessments ended up being some of the best work students produced all year because students were not simply repeating information back to me. They were organizing meaning visually and verbally while trying to explain the contradictions within the city itself.
That unit reminded me that inquiry works best when students are trying to make sense of something complicated instead of hunting for a single correct answer.




What I Need to Improve Next Year
As much as I liked many parts of this year, reflecting back also made several things stand out that I need to improve moving forward.
The first is pacing.
Throughout the year, I constantly found myself fighting against time. Shortened classes. Assemblies. Constant schedule changes. Chromebook sign-ins taking forever. Transitions getting interrupted. Some days it felt like half the battle was simply getting everybody logged in and ready to go before losing another chunk of class time.
At the same time, if I am being real about it, I also wish I could have stacked even more EduProtocols together throughout the year. I like tempo in the classroom. I like momentum. I like students constantly shifting between reading, discussing, writing, analyzing, creating, and reflecting while staying connected to the same larger idea or question. Some of my favorite lessons this year were the ones where students moved through multiple structures within the same class period because the energy stayed high and the thinking kept evolving.
That balance is something I am still trying to figure out.
I do not think the answer is slowing everything down completely. I think the answer is being more intentional with where students need time to process and where the lesson benefits from keeping the pace moving. Some moments need discussion and reflection. Other moments benefit from quick transitions, fast reps, and momentum.
Next year, I want to get better at finding that balance between tempo and processing time. I still want the classroom to feel active and layered, but I also want students having enough time to wrestle with ideas instead of feeling like we always have to move to the next thing.
The second thing I need to improve is being more intentional with how I introduce EduProtocols throughout the year.
This year, students eventually became very comfortable with structures like Thick Slides, Thin Slides, Number Mania, CyberSandwich, Frayer Models, Hexagonal Thinking, and 2xCER. By the second half of the year, students understood the expectations, transitions became smoother, and the protocols started disappearing into the thinking itself instead of becoming the focus of the lesson.
But looking back, I think I could do a much better job intentionally sequencing and introducing those structures from the very beginning of the year.
At times, I introduced protocols because they fit the lesson instead of thinking long term about how they connected together across the entire school year. Next year, I want a clearer progression. I want students building confidence with certain structures early so more complicated thinking routines later in the year feel natural instead of brand new.
I also want students understanding why we are using the structures, not just how to complete them. The goal has never been to do EduProtocols just to say we used an EduProtocol. The goal is helping students organize thinking, communicate ideas, collaborate effectively, and reduce cognitive overload so they can focus on the actual learning.
When I look back at Room 103 this year, the best moments were almost never the moments where students were simply getting the right answer. The best moments were when students argued, revised, questioned, connected ideas, defended claims, and struggled through complicated thinking together.







































































