Students at the Center: The Ultimate Instructional Renovation
Ms. Williams sat at her computer in the front corner of the room with her instructional coach, Emily. “We’ve been working together in Math, but I’d like to explore a little more with Religion, if that’s ok with you,” Emily began.
“I was just observed in Religion class and [I’m worried that the lesson] was boring. It’s hard, because all [students] want to do is talk! I used to have them do skits about what they just read, but I’m not sure they were really learning anything. And 8th grade couldn’t handle it.”
“Let’s talk about your lessons,” Emily responded. “Walk me through your typical plan.”
Ms. Williams, like many teachers, grappled with the question of how to engage students in learning the core curriculum of a specific subject area. This commonly results in a larger conversation around “student engagement”. When discussing student engagement in the classroom, one must think about its connection to the emergence of student-centered learning (Bransford et al., 1999), or SCL. Rather than accepting engagement as compliance, educators must shift their instructional design away from the traditional teacher-centered environment to one “during which students generate learning opportunities and reconstruct knowledge dynamically” (Lee & Hannafin, 2016, p. 708). When educators hone in on the relationship between engagement and student learning in their classrooms they often find themselves making extensive shifts in their pedagogical design.
The case study explores how changes in instructional design can facilitate greater student engagement and learning. These pedagogical shifts were a result of the direct coaching of specific instructional methods and techniques. This case study connects to Educate Theoretical Framework focused on the core tenets and perspectives on learners and learning. Specifically, Educate’s commitment to supporting educators in designing curriculum and enhancing teaching. Educate is dedicated to learner-centered environments (Bransford et al., 1999) that include practices and curricula that lead to real student learning outcomes.
