Give Them the Structure, Then Let Them Go: A Reflection on Constructivist Teaching

In my doctoral course, EDD828: Organizational Theory and Change, my group recently led a synchronous class discussion focused on structural functionalism and its relationship to equity in educational organizations. Our responsibility was to move beyond simply explaining the theory. We had to teach the core ideas, connect them to educational institutions, and then create an activity that gave the rest of the cohort an opportunity to work through those ideas and concepts. 

One of the central ideas we explored was the difference between changing an organizational structure and creating programs that help people function within a structure that remains largely unchanged. We used the metaphor of a “bandage” to make that tension visible. In our facilitation, we looked at examples such as one-time trainings, equity-focused positions without meaningful authority, and other interventions that may respond to a real problem while leaving the deeper structures of power, policy, resources, or accountability intact. Simply put, a bandage program is any structure created to manage or support people who do not fit a norm, rather than a structure that changes the norm itself. We contrasted those with more structural responses, such as reallocating resources or changing the policies and evaluation systems that shape how an institution actually operates.

For a class activity, we wanted the cohort to do more than generate a list of examples. Groups were asked to identify organizational “bandages,” choose images that represented them, and then use those images as a starting point for explaining what deeper organizational norm or problem the bandage might be patching around. The work created in the breakout rooms then became the basis for the larger class conversation once we all returned back to the main room. That visual element was especially important to me. Images can communicate interpretation before anyone says a word. Two people can look at the same institutional program and see something completely different depending on their professional experiences, personal histories, and assumptions about what organizations are supposed to do. Structural functionalism can seem orderly when described theoretically, but applying it to actual institutions makes things much messier. That was exactly where I hoped the activity would take us.

What I Learned from Leading

Leading this discussion reinforced something I already know from being both an instructional designer and an adjunct faculty: sometimes simple works really well. My main role was building the Google Site and designing the group activity. The ID part of my brain wanted it to be completely frictionless. No accounts, no logins, no new technology to figure out. Click the link, open the Google Slides, and go. The technology needed to facilitate the learning, not get in the way of it. I am also a very creative and visual person, so I wanted to give everyone some room to be creative too. Instead of just asking groups to explain a “bandage,” I wanted them to find an image and let that image speak before they explained it. Something that simple can actually say a lot about how someone sees a program, what they think it is doing, and what larger structural problem it might be patching over.

I was also probably the person in the group most comfortable with a little structured chaos. We obviously needed directions, timing, and a plan, but I was not interested in controlling where every conversation went. My attitude was basically: give them the structure and then let them go. Upon retrospect, this really reflects my educational worldview as a constructivist. I strongly believe we make sense of what we are learning through our own experiences, perceptions, and worldview, so I think there has to be room for learners to bring their own voice into the process. That was really what this activity was built to do. I gave them the structure, but I wanted to see what they considered a bandage, what image they chose to represent it, and how they made sense of it. I was not looking for everyone to come back with the same answers. I wanted to see where their thinking took us.

What the Cohort’s Discussion Revealed That I Did Not Anticipate

I actually expected people to disagree. Structural functionalism gets messy once you start applying it to real organizations. Something one person sees as a bandage might be a critical support to someone else. I hoped we would get some of that disagreement. What I did not anticipate was how quickly the conversation would get to the deeper question of why some of these programs need to exist in the first place. That was much more interesting than simply deciding whether something counted as a bandage.

It reminded me of a Technology and Society class I taught where I made what was supposed to be a quick point about AI. I said that AI does not have to be perfect to disrupt a job or industry; it just has to become better than humans at enough of the work. The class erupted into this huge debate. My lesson plan went completely out the window that day, and that unplanned debate became one of the best memories I have in teaching. It also taught me how important it is to pivot when teaching if the moment calls for it. Sometimes you prepare the learning experience, something catches fire that you did not expect, and then something magical blooms.

What I Would Do Differently and What I Would Keep

I would absolutely keep the Google Site, the visual activity, and the simplicity of it. I loved that people could just click a link and immediately start creating something. If I had more time, I would probably make it even more fun. We started class in Week 1 and presented in Week 3, so there was not a lot of time to sit with the idea and really play with it. I would have loved to use AI to help me build some kind of game or more interactive experience around structural functionalism.

Overall, this was a great group, and I was really happy with how everything came together. I loved the group slides, I was happy with how the group activity worked, and I especially loved how lively the conversations became. That was exactly the kind of energy I was hoping for. If I changed anything, it would only be to see how much further I could push the creativity with more time.