Overview
As part of a broader RethinkEd platform rebuild, nearly 2,000 lesson modules were created by restructuring unified, multi-part lessons so that each component could stand alone and be delivered independently. I worked on improving the Lesson Plan page – the primary interface through which teachers access and deliver that content – to better align with how educators actually prepare, teach, and assign lessons.
This case study spans two phases. The first was an internal advocacy effort: working within significant product constraints to improve an experience whose core interaction model had largely been established before the content team was meaningfully involved. The second is an independent redesign exploring the workflow problems we weren't able to solve before launch.
Challenge
A better content model created new experience problems
The legacy platform separated lesson overview, instruction, teaching mode, and supporting materials across multiple destinations. The rebuild aimed to create a more integrated experience while introducing a modular content model that allowed individual lesson components to be delivered independently.
[VISUAL: Legacy Lesson Overview]The legacy experience was fragmented. Lesson overview, instruction, and supporting materials lived across separate destinations.
The proposed rebuild solved real problems. It brought lesson instructions and supporting materials into the same view and made the curriculum's Learn → Practice → Dive Deeper structure visible.
But by the time the content team was brought into the process, foundational decisions about the Lesson Plan page's interaction model had largely been made.
[VISUAL: Original rebuild proposal]A more integrated experience introduced new questions. Bringing instructions and materials together solved some of the legacy fragmentation, while the new modular architecture created new workflow and content-design challenges.
The content team included former classroom educators who understood firsthand how teachers prepare and run lessons – and who had direct knowledge of how each material in the library was written and intended to be used. We identified issues ranging from visual hierarchy and content formatting to questions about the underlying authoring model and teacher workflow.
Substantial changes to the flow, however, were no longer in scope.
I was eventually given access to the existing Figma file and worked within that structure to improve what I could while continuing to advocate for needs that extended beyond the visual layer.
Working within the constrained flow
[VISUAL: My constrained iteration, annotated]I designed around the content, not just the sample screen. Knowing how lessons varied in practice helped me improve hierarchy, consistency, and flexibility within an interaction model I couldn't substantially change.
The interaction model was largely fixed, but the interface still needed to accommodate the realities of the content inside it.
I redesigned the lesson header around actual content variability: objectives and essential questions needed room to grow, while vocabulary needed dedicated space for lessons containing several terms. I simplified decorative elements that felt more appropriate to student-facing content than a teacher workspace, and reused established interface patterns where the underlying information behaved similarly – including treating module duration like the filterable lesson metadata it already was.
I also removed interactions that asked teachers for information the system already knew. A lesson already has an assigned grade, for example, so requiring a teacher to select that grade again before viewing standards introduced a decision the platform could make automatically.
Other needs couldn't be solved through interface styling alone.
[VISUAL: "Beyond the interface" graphic]Some interface problems started upstream. Linking materials contextually, structuring preparation requirements, and accommodating variable content required changes to components and the authoring model, not just the Lesson Plan screen.
We proposed linking named materials directly from the instructional text where teachers encountered them. We asked for a dedicated, optional “You will need:” field in the authoring system so preparation requirements could appear predictably when relevant rather than being manually entered and formatted inside every module. We advocated for cleaner instructional formatting and more flexible proportions between lesson content and a Materials column that often contained only one or two resources.
Those requests exposed a larger issue: some teacher-facing experience problems originated upstream, in how content was structured and authored.
my Role
I contributed as a design lead focused on teacher experience, content structure, and workflow clarity.
Reviewed early Lesson Plan concepts through the lens of real curriculum structure and classroom use.
Iterated within the established product direction to improve hierarchy, readability, consistency, and content flexibility.
Collaborated with former educators through facilitated working sessions to ground feedback in classroom experience.
Identified needs that extended beyond the interface into component behavior, content modeling, and the authoring experience.
Advocated for improvements across preparation, teaching, and assignment contexts despite being scoped primarily to a single page.
Spent significant time working directly in the platform's authoring tools to build and QA the modularized lesson library ahead of launch.
Conducted a post-launch audit to document remaining experience gaps.
Returned to those unresolved problems independently to explore a more complete redesign.
My curriculum background gave me visibility into both sides of the experience. I understood how teachers would encounter the finished lesson, but I had also spent significant time working inside the system used to build it. I knew how content was authored, structured, maintained, and ultimately translated into the teacher-facing interface.
That made it possible to identify problems that weren't visible from the UI alone.
What Shipped
The rebuild initially launched with materials opening in a modal, allowing teachers to preview a resource while retaining the Lesson Plan page underneath. That behavior was later changed so materials opened in a separate player page.
The change introduced a more significant context-loss problem: every time a teacher opens a material, they leave the lesson entirely. Returning means navigating back and reorienting to where they were.
[VISUAL: Current live page + annotated audit]The post-launch audit separated surface issues from structural ones. Some problems could be improved through interface changes; others traced back to navigation, interaction, and the underlying content model.
The post-launch audit also surfaced broader problems that couldn't be resolved through incremental visual changes alone.
The modular structure introduced an unresolved question of scope. A teacher might be working through the full My Emotions lesson across several days, or they might only be running the Practice module today. Yet lesson-level and module-level actions didn't clearly communicate what would be presented, printed, or assigned.
The page also offered little control over information density. Whether a teacher was evaluating a lesson for the first time or returning to grab one familiar resource, the same modules and information remained exposed.
The audit documented those gaps and created a record of what still needed to be solved.
This independent redesign is a continuation of that work.
Reframing the Page
hierarchy was useful, and placing materials alongside the module that used them created a meaningful relationship between instruction and resources.
I didn't want to replace that content model.
I wanted to change what teachers could do within it.
The central shift was from treating the Lesson Plan page primarily as a display of lesson content to treating it as a flexible teacher workspace – one that could support evaluation, preparation, live teaching, and resource access without prescribing a single way teachers had to move through the lesson.
[VISUAL: Full independent redesign]The lesson becomes a workspace. I preserved the existing lesson → module → material structure while redesigning how teachers move through, reveal, and work with the content inside it.
Design Strategy
Design for Teacher Workflow, Not System Architecture
Teachers interact with lessons in fundamentally different ways – and the variables shaping that interaction go well beyond preference.
A teacher prepping a lesson for themselves has different needs than one preparing it for a colleague who will be running it cold. A teacher with a projector and no student devices will use materials differently than one in a 1:1 classroom. Someone who has taught a lesson three times moves through it differently than someone who picked it up yesterday. Even time changes the workflow: planning during a prep period is different from checking a lesson on a phone at 7am the day of.
Teachers also arrive with different goals. Some are evaluating whether to use a lesson at all. Some are preparing to teach it live from the page. Some are printing materials and won't return once class starts. Others are assigning content digitally.
Without data showing which patterns were most common, optimizing around one assumed workflow risked solving for some teachers at the expense of others. I grounded the redesign in what I did know: how the curriculum and materials were designed to function, facilitated sessions with former educators, and teacher feedback that had made its way back to the content team.
The goal wasn't to prescribe one ideal workflow. It was to create an interface capable of supporting several.
Keep Materials in Context
The existing page already placed materials alongside the module in which they were used – a relationship worth preserving. But that relationship stopped at proximity.
In the live product, accessing a material takes the teacher away from the lesson entirely.
[VISUAL: Inline material preview + Expand state]Materials stay connected to the instructions that use them. Teachers can preview and compare resources without leaving the lesson, keeping instructional context visible throughout preparation.
I turned the Materials column from a list of destinations into an interactive part of the lesson workspace.
Selecting a material expands a preview inline while the corresponding instructions remain visible beside it. Multiple resources can remain open simultaneously, allowing a teacher to reference student materials, facilitator resources, and activity instructions together rather than repeatedly navigating between them.
The inline preview provides enough information for quick identification and assessment. When a closer look is needed, an Expand action provides a larger view.
[VISUAL: Hover/Expand detail]More detail when it's needed. Inline previews support quick assessment, while Expand provides a closer view without making it the default.
A modal would be an improvement over the current separate-page behavior, but it still treats the lesson and material as views to toggle between. A fixed preview panel preserves more context, but limits teachers to one material at a time and either compresses or covers the instructional content.
Inline expansion allows the lesson and its resources to function together.
Use Progressive Disclosure Without Hiding Structure
Teachers come to the Lesson Plan page at different stages of familiarity. Someone evaluating a lesson for the first time may need to explore nearly everything; a returning teacher may only need today's activity and one resource.
The interface should support both without requiring separate modes.
[VISUAL: Collapsed module → open module → material preview → expanded material]Teachers choose how much detail they need. A first-time user can explore the full lesson, while a returning teacher can collapse familiar content and move directly to the resource they need.
The lesson's overall structure remains visible for orientation, while modules can collapse independently. Within each module, material names remain scannable until a teacher chooses to preview them. Supporting resources and standards remain available without competing with the primary teaching flow.
This creates progressive levels of detail:
Lesson → Module → Material → Expanded Material
Teachers can expose as much or as little of that hierarchy as their current task requires.
Define Delivery Scope Before Designing It
Modular lessons introduce another unresolved question: what level should delivery actions operate at?
Some materials can only be printed, some are digital-only, and some support either format. At the same time, a teacher may want to assign an entire lesson or only the module they're teaching that day.
I considered whether Print, Assign, and Present should move to the module or material level, but doing so without evidence about teacher delivery patterns risked replacing one ambiguity with another.
For this iteration, I preserved the existing lesson-level actions and treated delivery scope as a question requiring further research rather than designing toward an assumption.
Design Outcomes
Preserved lesson context
Materials can be previewed and compared without navigating away from the lesson or losing the corresponding instructional steps.
Reduced unnecessary information load
Modules and secondary content can collapse when they aren't relevant to the teacher's current task.
Created progressive levels of detail
Teachers can move from lesson overview to module, material preview, and expanded resource while maintaining orientation.
Preserved useful parts of the existing architecture
The redesign maintains the lesson → module → material hierarchy and the relationship between instructional content and its supporting resources rather than introducing an entirely new content model.
Made uncertainty explicit
Lesson-level delivery actions remain intentionally unchanged until teacher behavior can inform whether module- or material-level controls would reduce or increase complexity.
What I'd Validate Next
This redesign intentionally leaves some questions unresolved because I didn't have access to the behavioral data or direct teacher research needed to answer them responsibly.
I'd focus validation on three areas:
How do teachers scope their work?
When do teachers think in terms of an entire lesson versus an individual module, and what does that mean for Print, Assign, and Present?
Does contextual preview reduce navigation friction?
Can teachers identify, compare, and prepare the materials they need without losing orientation?
How much information do teachers need at different stages of familiarity?
How do first-time and returning teachers use module collapse, material previews, related resources, and standards differently?
I'd pair moderated usability sessions with product analytics around material opens, module expansion, navigation behavior, and delivery actions. That would provide evidence not only about whether teachers can use the design, but about how the interaction model fits into actual preparation and teaching patterns.
Reflection
This project changed shape several times – and that's part of what makes it meaningful to me.
The first phase required working within constraints I didn't choose, advocating for teachers and curriculum needs in a process where foundational product decisions had already been made, and recognizing when seemingly small interface problems originated much deeper in the system.
The second phase gave me the opportunity to return to those problems with fewer constraints.
My curriculum experience fundamentally shaped both. Spending time not only designing curriculum but authoring, modularizing, uploading, QAing, and maintaining it taught me something I've carried into my design work: knowing how content is created and knowing how it is used leads to better product decisions.
Understanding what a module is, why a facilitator resource exists separately from a student resource, how preparation requirements get entered into the system, and how those pieces eventually surface for a teacher allowed me to reason about the experience as a connected system rather than a collection of screens.
Designing for teachers also means acknowledging time pressure, fragmented attention, and the cumulative cognitive load of a job that already asks a lot. It means resisting the urge to add features and instead asking what the interface can get out of the way.
Clarity isn't just a usability goal. It's a signal of respect. Experiences that preserve context and support orientation leave educators with more attention for the work the product exists to support – teaching.