Balancing Structure and Flexibility in the Classroom

In my first year of teaching, I was bursting with ideas: group work, games, collaborative learning... So, I introduced grammar to my Year 7s using puzzles and peer activities. I was sure they’d love it. They didn’t. They were confused. I was frustrated. Eventually, I paused, inquired from colleagues, rethought my approach and delivered a clear, step-by-step lesson on sentence structure: direct instruction, plain and simple. Something clicked. Suddenly, they got it. Their writing improved. Their confidence soared. That moment taught me that there is nothing wrong with being explicit and structured. As educators, our craft is shaped by a repertoire of instructional strategies, each with its own strengths and purpose. 1. Direct instruction is our go-to when clarity and structure are key. It’s explicit, teacher-led and perfect for introducing new concepts or skills that require precision and sequence. 2. Indirect instruction thrives on curiosity. Here, students explore, hypothesize and draw conclusions, often through inquiry-based activities that build deeper understanding and critical thinking. 3. Interactive instruction is all about dialogue and collaboration. Whether through debates, group projects or peer teaching, students learn from one another while practicing communication and negotiation. 4. Experiential learning takes education off the page and into the real world. Fieldwork, simulations and experiments allow students to ‘do’ rather than just ‘listen’, leading to meaningful, retained learning. 5. Independent study cultivates autonomy and self-discipline. From guided research to personal projects, it empowers students to take ownership of their learning journeys. The best classrooms blend these approaches seamlessly, flexing to meet students where they are and stretching them toward where they can go. What’s a moment that reminded you of the power of clear teaching? How do you balance these strategies in your teaching practice? #ZippysClassroom #MakeTeachingGreat #InstructionalStrategies #TeacherReflections

Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) is when a general education teacher and a special education teacher work together in the same classroom to meet the needs of all learners, including students with disabilities. This model promotes equity by ensuring every student has access to grade-level content with appropriate supports. The six co-teaching models allow flexibility in instructional delivery, helping teachers differentiate effectively and create an engaging learning environment. Students benefit from multiple perspectives, more opportunities for individualized support, and interactive, hands-on activities that make learning meaningful. Below are examples of what each co-teaching model looks like in practice: 1. One Teach, One Observe What it looks like: One teacher delivers a lesson while the other observes student engagement, behavior, or skill use. Example: During a math lesson on fractions, one teacher instructs while the other takes notes on which students raise their hands, struggle with answers, or disengage. Later, the data is used to adjust instruction and groupings. 2. One Teach, One Assist What it looks like: One teacher leads whole-class instruction, while the other circulates to support individuals. Example: During a writing assignment, one teacher explains the prompt and models brainstorming. Meanwhile, the co-teacher walks around helping students who need help organizing their thoughts, ensuring no one is left behind. 3. Parallel Teaching What it looks like: The class is split into two groups, and both teachers teach the same content simultaneously. Example: During a reading comprehension lesson, the class is divided. Both teachers work with smaller groups to analyze a text, making sure every student has the chance to participate and engage in discussions. 4. Station Teaching What it looks like: Teachers manage different stations, and students rotate through them. Example: In a science unit on ecosystems, one teacher runs a hands-on station with a terrarium, the other facilitates a reading station with informational texts, and a third station includes independent digital research. Students rotate, experiencing learning in different ways. 5. Alternative Teaching What it looks like: One teacher works with a small group for targeted instruction, while the other leads the rest of the class. Example: During a social studies lesson, one teacher provides extra support to a small group struggling with map skills, while the other teacher leads the rest of the class in analyzing primary source documents. 6. Team Teaching What it looks like: Both teachers lead instruction equally and interactively. Example: In a debate on renewable vs. nonrenewable energy, both teachers take turns modeling arguments, guiding students, and facilitating group discussions. Students see co-teaching in action as a collaborative model. #CoTeachingInAction

I'd like to share a really common leadership dilemma when schools start working with Project-Based Learning: A leadership team decided that PBL is the best thing ever. It makes sense for their students, their goals as a school. Some leaders have shared this with their staff and they also think it's a great idea! 🎈 We are all excited and ready to move forward. Always, no matter how "on-board" people are, they ask: "What is expected of us?" In the most well-meaning way, we see many leaders opt for freedom to let their staff decide what makes sense. If people are inspired and excited, shouldn't autonomy be the way forward? Our experience though, points to a different need. In a process of implementing Project-Based Learning, there is certainly a need for autonomy and freedom. But there is also such thing as too much. We've seen this lead to teachers feeling overwhelmed, not sure where to start, spending hours discussing practicalities without really diving into the pedagogical practice, continually asking "is this good enough?" and getting frustrated with a lack of clarity around what is expected of them in the process. Instead, we are advocating that leadership teams choose some clear "frames" to start with. A way for their staff to work with PBL in an experimental, yet safe way. The frames can (and should) change over time, using the experiences and input from staff as they experiment more. Examples of these frames can be: ✨ Number of weeks for a project ✨ Shared project period(s) ✨ Number of projects for the year ✨ Planning tools used ✨ Shared processes (for planning, evaluation, tools for kids) ✨ Whole school events (like shared Exhibition of Learning) While some teachers have felt these frames restrictive at first, many have reflected with us on the importance of having some of these decisions taken for them. And that it's given them more time and energy to focus on what really matters: ...planning and facilitating great learning experiences with their students. (By the way, kids have the same need for clear frames, especially when they're starting to work with PBL. We love this great video by Jeffrey Robin that explains this balance in the classroom: https://lnkd.in/evRD6e4W) Thinking about getting started with PBL? Let's chat. info@imagineif.dk

Teaching without a spine is chaos. Teaching without flexibility is tyranny. Most teachers either bend too much… or not at all. One leads to confusion. The other leads to resentment. Balance is key. And balance comes from being both flexible and intentional. 💡 Flexibility means adapting to the moment, listening to your students, and allowing them the space to explore—even if it means they might stumble along the way. It’s about stepping back and letting different perspectives shape the learning experience, even when you think you have a better solution. That’s where humility and trust come into play. That’s how growth happens. 💡 Intentionality means you don’t just react—you lead. You steer the ship, make decisions with purpose, and ensure that what happens in your learning environment actually serves a goal. It’s the difference between “going with the flow” and “guiding the flow where it needs to go”. The problem? Most educators default to one or the other. ✔ Some are so flexible that they lose structure. Learners drift. No direction. No growth. ✔ Others are so intentional that they suffocate learning. No creativity. No autonomy. No joy. The best educators? They balance both. ✅ They know when to let go—and when to hold firm. ✅ They know when to listen—and when to lead. ✅ They know when to let learners find their own way—and when to step in and say, “This is the way.” If you get this balance right, learners thrive. If you don’t, you’re either chaos in a classroom or a dictator with a lesson plan. So ask yourself: 👉 Are you giving too much control away and hoping things work out? 👉 Or are you micromanaging every move and calling it “high expectations”? 👉 How are you actively balancing flexibility and intentionality in your teaching? Drop your thoughts in the comments—what’s worked for you?

What if your syllabus started with a conversation instead of a contract? This Faculty Focus article explores something that feels especially relevant right now: co-creating classroom norms with students — not to give up structure, but to build shared ownership of the learning experience. Students thrive when they understand: - The why behind the work - The expectations (and flexibility) around participation - That their voices shape the journey, not just the outcome At CapSource we see this every day in our project-based programs. When students help define the rules of engagement — whether it’s in a consulting sprint, strategy challenge, or product ideation lab — their buy-in and breakthroughs come faster. Because engaged learning isn’t something you “deliver” — it’s something you build with your students. What’s one norm or principle you’ve successfully co-created with your learners? #EngagedLearning #CoCreation #CapSource #ExperientialLearning #HigherEd #ClassroomCulture #TeachingStrategies #StudentVoice 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gBgG3ByS