**1. Introduction**

The public education system has always struggled to keep pace in the changing world. In the twenty-first century, as technology creates change at a faster pace than ever before, education battles to remain relevant. In such an environment, with no one right way to design schools, some teachers are *hacking*—that is, acting innovatively—in the public K-12 system.

A few presuppositions guided this research: (a) The world has changed and the public education system should change accordingly, (b) there is no single way to design schools in the

> © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

twenty-first century, (c) teachers should change the public K–12 education by creating disruptive innovation in pedagogy, and (d) teacher education should play an important role in preparing teachers to lead the educational revolution.

the literature addressed *obstacles* to change in the public education system; [12–14] this study focused on *opportunities* to change and learn from teachers' success stories. As such, this chapter addresses the research questions: *What are the characteristics and circumstances of teachers who hack the pedagogy in their classrooms? What lessons for teacher education can be adopted from* 

Preparing Educational Hackers

103

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77036

Answering the research questions required understanding of the complex experience of innovative teachers that qualitative research methods provide. Questionnaires were used as a preinterview screening for participation criteria and to obtain background information prior to the interviews regarding participants' higher education, professional experience, teaching certifications, and current work. However, semi-structured interviews were the main data collection tool. A university internal review board approved all research procedures, includ-

The study participants were eight public school teachers from Massachusetts who met all selection criteria, including more than 1 year experience in the profession and working in the classroom at the time of the study. Most significantly, all participants met the criterion for demonstrated pedagogic innovation. They had explored new ways to teach or incorporate nontraditional methods such as innovative class design, project-based learning (PBL), new assessment tools, interdisciplinary perspective, or technology integration into their teaching. These innovative actions and pedagogical explorations were individual efforts and not part of a broader reform. For the final criterion, all participants perceived the experience as successful. The sample was diverse, with participant teachers from a variety of school environments,

The interviews took place in the participants' workplace (schools), lasted 60–90 minutes each, and were audio recorded. Following the interviews and the transcription process, I uploaded the data to NVivo software to support data analysis. Adaptive grounded theory inspired the analysis, and I approached the data with no prior coding or categories and with an open mind regarding potential findings. I coded each transcript and added codes as needed. I read each transcription several times, immersed in the data, then coded, re-coded and arranged the codes in thematic groups. For example, I grouped codes regarding time, space, and support under the theme, *resources*. Further, I conducted progressive analyses such as text searches,

matrix coding, and word frequency using the software to look for additional findings.

habits of teachers who act as hackers identified in the findings.

The results showed recurring notions connected to teachers as hackers, their professional identities, the ways they act, and their common characteristics. **Figure 1** lists the skills and

ing consent forms, questionnaires, and interview questions.

subjects, professional backgrounds, ages, and years of teaching experience.

*teachers who hack?*

**2.1. Method**

**2. Teachers as hackers**

**2.2. Results and discussion**

Several terms, such as leaders or change agents, have been used to describe teachers who take initiative and change their teaching practices. When the term leadership is applied to schools, it most often refers to teachers who accept additional formal roles, such as mentoring new teachers or leading team meetings [1, 2]. Another frequently used term, teachers as change agents, represents teachers who influence others in the organization through their actions [3]. I present a new term, *teachers as hackers*, to describe the actions of teachers in the K–12 public system who reform and act innovatively in their practice without such formalized leadership or administrative role.

The term hacker often suggests someone who seeks and exploits weaknesses in a computer system or network. During the past decades, the term has had meanings both negative referring to criminal activity—and positive, in the sense of using playful cleverness to achieve a goal. In other words, "hacking is simply taking something—like an object or idea—and changing it to fit one's own need," ([4], p. 1). Along with the positive meanings comes the term *hacker culture*, which combines excellence, playfulness, cleverness, and exploration in performed activities [5].

In this positive context, teachers' innovative behavior that has the power to reform the public education system can be described as hacking schools. Hackers tend to find weaknesses, create solutions using existing resources, and collaborate with others. They are passionate professionals, enjoying what they do [6]. Thus, this notion of hacking can relate to teachers who continually look for ways to reach their pedagogical goals and act accordingly, and are playful and passionate about their work.

This chapter discusses a qualitative research aimed at examining the characteristics and conditions under which teachers hack their classroom pedagogy to create disruptive innovation in the public education system, [7] and emphasizes the study's implications for teacher education. The study's recommendations can help policymakers and higher education leaders transform teacher education programs to better prepare teachers to reform the twenty-first century public school system.

Teacher education has become a central concern nationally and internationally as many countries pay increased attention to teacher quality and preparation [8–11]. In the context of this chapter, *teacher education* refers to the teacher preparation that occurs before teachers enter the workforce. This may include traditional four-year college preparation, as well as alternative programs inside or outside higher education institutions. It can be a program for novices or for career changers. Being innovative in teaching regards introducing new practices or methods of teaching, assessment, or communication. The innovation usually includes risk-taking and entrepreneurship on the teachers' part, meaning it is innovative for the teachers individually or in their environment.

The goal of the research discussed in this chapter was to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the experience of public school teachers who act innovatively in their classrooms and broaden understanding of innovative teachers in public schools [7]. Abundant material in the literature addressed *obstacles* to change in the public education system; [12–14] this study focused on *opportunities* to change and learn from teachers' success stories. As such, this chapter addresses the research questions: *What are the characteristics and circumstances of teachers who hack the pedagogy in their classrooms? What lessons for teacher education can be adopted from teachers who hack?*
