## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Highly structured teacher-directed instruction**: Clear explanation, demonstration, and guided practice with systematic feedback > - **Bottom-up approach**: Teach discrete knowledge and skills before integrating into coherent whole > - **Effective for all learners**: Works across all year groups and ability levels, with stronger effects for disadvantaged students ## Definition **Explicit Teaching**: A highly structured, teacher-directed approach involving clear explanation, systematic demonstration, and guided practice based on Cognitive Load Theory and constructivist learning principles, making learning visible, systematic, and accessible to all students. ## Overview Explicit teaching is a structured, teacher-directed instructional approach involving clear explanation, systematic demonstration, and guided practice with feedback, followed by gradual release to independence. Research shows it is a consistently effective instructional method (Rosenshine, 2012; Stockard et al., 2018). The approach is based on Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al., 2019) and constructivist learning principles (Anderson, 1977). Explicit teaching differs from passive lecturing or rote drill through systematic and active instruction. ## Connected To [[Knowledge-Based Curriculum]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Worked Examples]] | [[Practice]] | [[Prior Knowledge]] | [[Check For Understanding]] | [[Feedback]] | [[Part-whole approach]] | [[Scaffolding]] | [[I Do]] | [[We Do]] | [[Making Expert Thinking Visible]] | [[Implementation Fidelity]] --- ## What explicit teaching involves Explicit teaching is a comprehensive instructional approach, not a collection of isolated techniques. Several components distinguish it from other approaches. ### Five essential communications Teachers must communicate five essential elements to students. These are defining characteristics, not optional enhancements: **1. Why they are learning something** Students need to understand the purpose and relevance of new learning: - How does this connect to what they already know? - Why does this matter for their understanding or future learning? - Where will they use this knowledge or skill? This activates [[Prior Knowledge|prior knowledge]] and helps students see where new learning fits (Dochy et al., 1999). **2. How it connects to prior knowledge** Explicit teaching makes connections transparent rather than assuming students will see them: - "Remember when we learnt about fractions? This builds on that..." - "This is similar to the method we used for... but with an important difference..." - "You already know how to... we're extending that skill to..." New knowledge integrates with existing [[Schema|schemas]] for transfer to long-term memory (Anderson, 1977; Bartlett, 1932). **3. What they are expected to do** Success criteria must be clear and specific: - Exactly what task or learning is expected - What constitutes successful completion - What quality looks like when achieved Vague expectations ("understand fractions," "improve writing") leave students guessing. Explicit criteria ("add fractions with different denominators," "write topic sentences containing the main idea") provide clear targets. **4. How to do it step-by-step** Systematic demonstration of procedures and methods is the core of explicit teaching: - Breaking complex skills into manageable steps - Demonstrating each component clearly - Showing worked examples with explanations - Making expert thinking visible to novices The demonstration reveals the thinking process that experts use automatically but novices must learn consciously. **5. What it looks like when mastered** Students need models of successful performance: - Exemplars showing quality work - Comparison of stronger and weaker examples - Clear indicators of mastery versus partial understanding Students use these models to develop accurate self-assessment and understand what they're working toward. ### The systematic process: I do, we do, you do Explicit teaching follows a structured progression from full teacher support to student independence. **[[I Do]]: teacher demonstration**: - Teacher models the complete skill or procedure - Thinking aloud to make cognitive processes visible - Using [[Worked Examples]] showing step-by-step solutions - Students observe and listen, not yet attempting themselves **[[We Do]]: guided practice**: - Teacher and students work through problems together - Heavy scaffolding and support with immediate feedback - Multiple opportunities with gradually reducing support - [[Check For Understanding|Checking for understanding]] continuously **You do: independent practice**: - Students apply learning independently - Teacher monitors and provides targeted support - [[Practice|Practice]] designed to build fluency - Assessment to confirm learning has occurred This gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) aligns with [[Cognitive Load Theory]] (Sweller et al., 2019). Students don't attempt complex tasks before building necessary schemas. ## Theoretical foundation ### Constructivist perspective A common misconception is that explicit teaching contradicts constructivism because teachers tell students information rather than letting them discover it. Explicit teaching is authentic constructivism; students actively construct knowledge through guided instruction rather than passive absorption. When teachers explain concepts explicitly: - Students actively process the information in working memory - They integrate new content with existing schemas from long-term memory - They construct new understanding through this integration - The construction is active and cognitive, even if the instruction is teacher-directed The construction occurs in students' minds during guided instruction, not through unguided discovery. Requiring novices to discover content they lack schemas for prevents construction because [[Cognitive Load Theory|working memory overload]] stops the transfer to long-term memory. Students construct understanding through systematic guidance that respects cognitive architecture. ### Cognitive load theory Explicit teaching aligns with cognitive science findings on learning. With only 4-item capacity in working memory (Cowan, 2001), learning complex skills requires breaking content into manageable chunks, teaching components separately before integration, ensuring prerequisites are automated to reduce load, and providing worked examples that reduce cognitive burden (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). Explicit teaching does this systematically. The [[Expertise Reversal Effect]] shows that novices benefit from extensive guidance whilst experts need less (Kalyuga et al., 2003). Explicit teaching provides heavy guidance when building initial schemas (I do, we do), gradual reduction as competence develops, and independent application once schemas are robust (you do). Discovery works for applying learnt skills, not for learning new ones. New knowledge integrates with existing schemas, so instruction must assess and secure prerequisite knowledge, present new content in connected ways, provide sufficient practice for schema automation, and build from simple to complex. Explicit teaching's structured approach ensures this occurs. ### Bottom-up methodology Explicit teaching uses a bottom-up approach: teaching discrete knowledge and skills before integrating them into coherent wholes. This contrasts with discovery-based approaches that begin with complex scenarios. When students lack schemas for content, presenting complex integrated scenarios overwhelms working memory. They must process too many novel elements simultaneously. Bottom-up sequencing teaches individual components to fluency first, allows schema development for each component, integrates components once foundations are automated, and respects working memory capacity throughout. Bottom-up doesn't mean teaching disconnected fragments. Teachers make connections explicit throughout. The difference is timing: integration occurs after components exist, not whilst students are still building them. Beginning with complex problems violates cognitive load principles. Novices spend working memory on means-end analysis (trying approaches, checking if they're getting closer, backtracking) rather than learning the component skills (Sweller et al., 1983). ## Common misconceptions about explicit teaching Several persistent misconceptions undermine understanding and implementation of explicit teaching. ### "Explicit teaching means passive lecturing" Some assume that teachers talk at students who passively receive information. Effective explicit teaching requires active student engagement throughout. During I do, students actively process explanations in working memory, integrating with prior knowledge and constructing understanding of concepts being taught. During we do, students actively practise with support, receive feedback, explain reasoning, and demonstrate understanding through responses. During you do, students actively apply learning, solve problems, practise skills, and consolidate understanding through application. A teacher at the front explaining doesn't automatically constitute explicit teaching. The quality of explanation, the systematic checking for understanding, the structured practice opportunities, and the gradual release of responsibility distinguish explicit teaching from lecturing. ### 'Just-in-time explicit teaching' Some assume that brief explanations during discovery activities constitute explicit teaching. Explicit teaching is a comprehensive system incorporating planning and instruction over short, medium, and long term, *not* isolated instructional moments. This comprehensive system includes coherent curriculum design with clear knowledge progressions, systematic skill development across units and years, sequenced learning building on prior knowledge, coordinated assessment and feedback systems, and consistent instructional approaches school-wide. Providing mini-lectures when students get stuck during discovery tasks occurs after cognitive overload has already damaged learning. This addresses symptoms (current confusion) not causes (inadequate prior knowledge or poor sequencing), leaves students dependent on teacher rescue rather than building independent capability, and violates cognitive load principles by teaching under difficult conditions. Explicit teaching plans instruction to prevent confusion, builds schemas systematically, and creates conditions for successful independent learning. ### 'Explicit teaching works only for some students' Some assume that gifted learners need discovery methods whilst only struggling students benefit from explicit teaching. All students benefit from explicit teaching practices, though they progress through the gradual release at different rates. Studies show explicit teaching benefits students across ability levels (Stockard et al., 2018). Gifted learners benefit from worked examples (Sweller & Cooper, 1985), clear explanations, and systematic skill development. They need fewer examples, faster progression, and quicker movement to independence. They still benefit from explicit teaching of complex new content in their zone of proximal development. Denying gifted students systematic instruction assumes they can discover everything independently. This wastes their time on inefficient learning methods, leaves gaps in foundational understanding that emerge later, and fails to develop their full potential. Within explicit teaching, teachers adjust pacing and support level, not the approach itself. All students need clear explanations, appropriate practice, and gradual release to independence. ### 'Explicit teaching prevents critical thinking' Some assume that directly teaching knowledge and skills produces students who can only follow procedures without understanding. Explicit teaching provides the knowledge foundation required for critical thinking. Critical thinking requires domain knowledge. Domain knowledge enables recognising patterns, evaluating arguments, and generating solutions (Chi et al., 1981). Generic 'critical thinking skills' divorced from content don't exist or transfer (Willingham, 2007). Experts think critically because they possess extensive domain knowledge (Chi et al., 1981). Explicit teaching develops thinking by building robust knowledge schemas that enable analysis, making expert thinking visible so students learn how to think in the domain, providing practice applying knowledge to complex problems, and developing automated foundational skills that free working memory for higher-order thinking. Attempting to teach 'critical thinking' to novices lacking domain knowledge produces opinion-sharing rather than informed reasoning. This wastes time on processes students cannot execute effectively and creates an illusion of sophistication whilst leaving students with weak knowledge foundations. ## Implementation requirements Explicit teaching cannot function in isolation. It requires supporting conditions to achieve effectiveness. ### Curriculum foundation Explicit teaching requires a coherent, knowledge-based curriculum: well-sequenced with clear learning progressions, knowledge made explicit at each stage, appropriate pacing building systematically, and clear prerequisite relationships identified. Without coherent curriculum, even skilled explicit teaching cannot overcome poor content sequencing or unclear learning goals. The curriculum must focus on [[Knowledge-Based Curriculum|explicit subject knowledge]] at each stage, teach skills through knowledge rather than in isolation, build schemas that enable complex thinking, and recognise that skills development requires knowledge foundation. ### Teacher expertise Teachers cannot explicitly teach what they don't understand. Deep subject knowledge enables effective explanation, pedagogical content knowledge guides how to teach it, and understanding common misconceptions and effective representations is necessary for student learning. Effective instructional skills include clear explanation techniques, systematic demonstration methods, effective questioning and checking for understanding, providing clear actionable feedback, and managing gradual release of responsibility. Positive relationships enable productive correction and challenge. A warm, demanding approach sets high expectations with support. ### Classroom culture Established routines minimise disruption. Clear expectations enable focus on learning. Positive environment supports risk-taking and error correction. [[Culture of Error]] makes mistakes valuable learning opportunities. Students participate throughout instruction. [[Check For Understanding]] ensures all students respond, not just volunteers. Questions are targeted to assess representative understanding and guided practice provides extensive response opportunities. Teachers believe that all students can learn with appropriate instruction, match challenge to developing capability, provide support to enable success, and refuse to accept 'I can't' whilst providing pathways to 'I can'. ## Explicit teaching across different content types The fundamental approach remains consistent, but explicit teaching adapts to different types of learning. ### Teaching procedures and skills For clearly defined procedures (solving equations, writing topic sentences, scientific method), the teacher demonstrates the complete procedure with a worked example, thinks aloud to reveal decision-making, shows multiple examples highlighting key features, and addresses common errors proactively. Guided practice provides immediate feedback, gradual complexity increase, multiple opportunities with reducing support, and continuous checking for understanding. Independent practice builds fluency, varied applications develop flexibility, and assessment confirms mastery. ### Teaching concepts and understanding For conceptual understanding (democracy, photosynthesis, justice, multiplication), the teacher defines the concept clearly with precise language, provides multiple examples and non-examples, shows varied representations, and connects to existing knowledge explicitly. Students generate examples with guidance, classify instances with feedback, explain the concept in their own words, and apply to new situations with support. Independent work involves classification and application, explanation to demonstrate understanding, and transfer to novel contexts. ### Teaching complex problem-solving For multi-step problem-solving (extended writing, scientific investigation, mathematical problem-solving), the teacher models the complete process including how to analyse the problem, how to select appropriate strategies, how to monitor progress, and how to evaluate solutions. Guided problem-solving involves teacher and students collaborating, explicit discussion of strategy selection, continuous checking of understanding, and immediate error correction. Independent problem-solving decreases complexity initially, builds to full independence, develops self-monitoring and evaluation, and assesses both process and product. ## Common implementation challenges Understanding explicit teaching doesn't guarantee effective implementation. Several challenges commonly arise. ### Maintaining appropriate pace Teachers often move too quickly through I do and we do, reaching you do before students are ready. Time pressure from curriculum demands, overestimating student understanding based on confident volunteers, and underestimating prerequisite complexity due to Curse of Knowledge cause this. Teachers should check understanding with all students, not just volunteers, use success rates to guide pacing (80% or more before progressing), accept that building foundations takes time, and recognise that moving to you do too early wastes more time than building foundations properly. ### Balancing guidance and independence Providing too much support creates learnt helplessness whilst too little causes cognitive overload. Difficulty judging student schema development, fear of students struggling, and pressure to move through content quickly cause this. Teachers should use systematic checking for understanding to guide support level, fade scaffolding based on evidence rather than assumptions, accept that struggle within capability builds learning but overload prevents it, and recognise that appropriate challenge feels difficult but achievable. ### Making thinking visible Teachers often demonstrate procedures without revealing the thinking behind them. Expert teachers have automated the thinking, making it invisible to themselves. They focus on correct answers rather than cognitive processes and underestimate what students need to understand. Teachers should think aloud deliberately during demonstrations, make decision points explicit ('I chose this because...'), explain why methods work rather than just how, and address common misconceptions proactively. ### Checking understanding effectively Teachers often assume understanding based on inadequate evidence (volunteers answering, nodding, apparent attention). Teachers have limited checking techniques and interpret compliance as comprehension. Teachers should use mini-whiteboards for universal response, target questions to a range of students, require explanation rather than just answers, and accept that understanding takes time to develop. ## Explicit teaching and other instructional approaches Explicit teaching doesn't exist in isolation. How it relates to other approaches clarifies its role. ### Discovery learning In discovery learning, students encounter problems or scenarios, discover patterns and principles through exploration, and construct understanding through this discovery process. Discovery works when applying already-learnt knowledge to new situations, for learners with strong prerequisite schemas. Discovery fails when teaching new content to novices. It violates cognitive load principles, wastes time, and leaves learning to chance. Research on minimally guided instruction approaches (discovery learning, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning) shows they are less effective than direct instruction for novices (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Working memory limitations make it difficult for novices to simultaneously search for solutions, process information, and learn new content. Discovery approaches may work for experts who have sufficient prior knowledge to guide their exploration, but novices lack the cognitive structures necessary to benefit from minimal guidance. Decades of research on problem-solving, schema acquisition, and cognitive load support this conclusion. Explicit teaching teaches new content explicitly and provides discovery-like applications once schemas are robust. Instruction should be adapted to learner expertise: novices benefit from explicit instruction including worked examples, scaffolding, and guidance; as students develop expertise, guidance can gradually decrease. The research does not oppose active learning but challenges the assumption that students should discover knowledge for themselves without instructional support (Kirschner et al., 2006). ### Inquiry-based learning In inquiry-based learning, students generate questions, investigate, and develop understanding through investigation process. Inquiry works for developing research skills, applying existing knowledge to new questions, and working with students who have strong content foundations. Inquiry fails when teaching foundational content. Students cannot generate productive questions about content they don't understand. Explicit teaching builds knowledge foundations explicitly and uses inquiry for extending and applying that knowledge. ### Differentiation Explicit teaching provides the framework whilst differentiation adjusts implementation. Teachers vary pacing based on schema development, adjust support level during we do, provide varied practice complexity, and use flexible grouping for targeted instruction. The approach itself doesn't change: clear explanation, systematic demonstration, guided practice, and gradual release to independence remain constant. ## Rosenshine's principles of instruction Rosenshine (2012) synthesised research on teacher effectiveness and cognitive science into ten instructional principles that support student learning, particularly for well-defined knowledge and skills. **1. Begin with short review of previous learning**: Daily review of prerequisite content, reviewing homework, and reteaching when necessary. This is especially important for procedural skills building on prior knowledge. **2. Present new material in small steps**: Provide clear, detailed instructions and model procedures. Present only small amounts of new material at one time to avoid overwhelming working memory. Check for understanding after each step. **3. Ask many questions and check all responses**: Questions ensure students process material, provide retrieval practice, and help identify knowledge gaps. Teachers check understanding across all students, not just volunteers. **4. Provide models**: Worked examples prove highly effective. Model the problem-solving process whilst thinking aloud, not just showing answers. Use varied examples to highlight key features. **5. Guide student practice**: Maintain high success rates (80% or above) during guided practice through extensive questioning and immediate error correction. Continue until students demonstrate fluency. **6. Check for student understanding**: Monitor continuously during guided practice by obtaining responses from all students. Prepare specific questions beforehand that probe understanding rather than just recall. **7. Obtain high success rate**: Students should achieve 80% or higher accuracy during guided practice. High success rates build confidence and prevent embedding misconceptions through repeated errors. **8. Provide scaffolds for difficult tasks**: Use temporary supports like think-alouds, checklists, and cue cards. Model difficult steps explicitly. Break complex tasks into smaller components. Anticipate common errors. **9. Require and monitor independent practice**: Extensive practice leads to automaticity. Distribute practice over time rather than massing it in single sessions. Continue practice even after apparent mastery to ensure retention. **10. Engage in weekly and monthly review**: Systematic review of previously learnt material strengthens retention. Distributed practice over time proves more effective than cramming. Provides opportunities to reteach as needed. These principles converge with cognitive science findings on memory, attention, and learning. The structured approach respects working memory limitations whilst building robust long-term schemas (Rosenshine, 2012). ## Research evidence Decades of research support explicit teaching's effectiveness. ### Meta-analyses and effect sizes Hattie (2009) found an effect size of 0.59 for direct instruction, well above average educational interventions. Stockard et al. (2018) conducted comprehensive meta-analysis of Direct Instruction studies and found effect sizes ranging from 0.42 to 0.68 across different outcome measures. This research builds on extensive process-product studies from the 1950s to 1980s examining teaching practices and student outcomes (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). The consistent finding is that structured, teacher-directed instruction outperforms less structured approaches for teaching new content (Rosenshine, 2012). ### Achievement data NSW students reporting structured lessons and clear learning objectives achieve higher numeracy scores (NSW Department of Education, 2017). Australian students experiencing explicit teaching practices, especially teacher guidance and support, demonstrate higher reading achievement (Thomson et al., 2016). High-performing systems commonly feature explicit teaching as the primary instructional approach (OECD, 2016). ### Direct Instruction: a specific implementation model Direct Instruction (capitalised to distinguish from generic direct teaching) is a specific instructional model developed by Siegfried Engelmann based on explicit, systematic teaching of academic skills (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982). The model rests on two assumptions: learners perceive qualities, and they generalise based on sameness of qualities. Engelmann's philosophy held that no child cannot be taught, and that low performers need faster-paced instruction (not slower) to catch up to peers. The model follows specific principles that operationalise explicit teaching research: **Clear communication of learning objectives**: Students know exactly what they will learn and why it matters. This focus eliminates ambiguity and directs attention to essential content. **Systematic sequencing of content**: Skills and knowledge are ordered carefully to ensure prerequisites precede new learning. Each step builds logically on previous learning. **Explicit teaching of strategies and concepts**: Teachers demonstrate and explain procedures clearly rather than expecting students to infer them. Nothing is left to chance or assumption. **High levels of student engagement**: The model requires frequent student responses (often every 10-15 seconds during initial teaching) to maintain attention and allow immediate feedback. This differs from passive listening. **Immediate corrective feedback**: Teachers address errors immediately before they embed in schemas. Correction is specific and leads directly to correct responses. **Mastery of each step before progressing**: Students achieve fluency with current content before moving forward. This prevents knowledge gaps that compound later. **Seven communication conventions** (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991) specify how to make instruction unambiguous: 1. **Scripted presentations**: Use consistent wording for similar tasks. Learners generalise based on sameness of qualities, so similar content needs similar language. 2. **Rapid pacing**: Present instruction quickly to maintain attention and improve performance. Slow pacing allows minds to wander. 3. **Unison responses**: Students respond together simultaneously after tasks presented to the group. This maintains engagement and allows checking for understanding. 4. **Clear signals**: Use unequivocal signals indicating exactly when students should respond. This prevents some students initiating responses that others copy. 5. **Individual turns**: After group responses, give individual turns to gather information about each student's understanding. 6. **Error correction procedures**: Learning is not errorless. Anticipate common errors and specify precise correction steps. Address mistakes immediately. 7. **Positive reinforcement**: Reinforce good performance through praise, challenges, exhortations, and expressed amazement over student accomplishment. Students enjoy material when reinforced for hard work. The three-stage process (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966) involves: Stage 1 - introducing new content based on previously mastered knowledge with continuous assessment; Stage 2 - fast-paced scripted presentation designed to elicit only one interpretation, reinforced with examples and non-examples; Stage 3 - extensive practice with immediate feedback, beginning with teacher-directed whole-class unison responses, moving to individual responses, then independent practice. Research shows consistent positive effects on student achievement, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with learning difficulties (Engelmann et al., 1988; Stockard et al., 2018). The approach emphasises the importance of careful instructional design, not just teacher enthusiasm or subject knowledge. Whilst sometimes criticised as rigid, Direct Instruction represents an application of cognitive science principles to instructional design, demonstrating that systematic, well-designed instruction can produce substantial learning gains. ### Equity evidence Disadvantaged students benefit more from explicit teaching (Rosenshine, 2012; Stockard et al., 2018). Explicit teaching doesn't rely on background knowledge from home. It makes all necessary knowledge explicit rather than assumed, provides systematic instruction for students who may not receive it elsewhere, and reduces achievement gaps rather than widening them (Engelmann et al., 1988). Whilst all students benefit, disadvantaged students benefit disproportionately. Explicit teaching is an equity strategy (Archer & Hughes, 2011). ## Conclusion Explicit teaching is a consistently effective instructional approach because it aligns with how students learn. The approach rests on theoretical foundations: authentic constructivism showing that students actively build knowledge through guided instruction, cognitive load theory showing that working memory limitations demand systematic teaching, and schema theory showing that novices and experts need different approaches. These are practical realities that determine whether students learn successfully. Misconceptions persist: confusing explicit teaching with passive lecturing, believing it prevents critical thinking, assuming gifted students don't benefit, expecting brief explanations during discovery to substitute for systematic instruction. The five essential communications, the I do/we do/you do progression, and the comprehensive system extending beyond individual lessons clarify why these misconceptions are incorrect. Implementation requires more than understanding the approach. It demands coherent curriculum, teacher expertise, supportive classroom culture, and willingness to address common challenges around pacing, support level, making thinking visible, and checking understanding effectively. The evidence is clear: explicit teaching works. It works for students across ability levels, though it benefits those from disadvantaged backgrounds more. It works across subjects and age levels. It works because it respects how learning occurs. For teachers committed to ensuring all students learn successfully, explicit teaching provides a reliable pathway. > [!tip] Implications for Teaching > > - **Communicate the five essentials** clearly: why, how it connects, what to do, how to do it, what success looks like > - **Follow I do/we do/you do progression** systematically, not rushing to independence before foundations are secure > - **Check understanding with all students** throughout, not just confident volunteers > - **Make expert thinking visible** through think-alouds and explicit decision-making during demonstrations > - **Provide extensive guided practice** with immediate feedback before expecting independent success > - **Build on automated prior knowledge**: assess prerequisites and teach gaps before new content > - **Recognise explicit teaching works for all students** across ability levels, adjusting pace and support but not fundamental approach ## References Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), *Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge* (pp. 415-431). Lawrence Erlbaum. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). *Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching*. Guilford Press. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). *Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology*. Cambridge University Press. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. *Cognitive Science*, 5(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. *Review of Educational Research*, 69(2), 145-186. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069002145 Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). *Theory of instruction: Principles and applications*. Irvington Publishers. Engelmann, S., Becker, W. C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). The Direct Instruction follow through model: Design and outcomes. *Education and Treatment of Children*, 11(4), 303-317. Hattie, J. (2009). *Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement*. Routledge. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. *Educational Psychologist*, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 NSW Department of Education. (2017). *Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation: Effective explicit teaching* [Research report]. https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/educational-data/cese OECD. (2016). *PISA 2015 results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools*. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. *Contemporary Educational Psychology*, 8(3), 317-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19, 39. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), *Handbook of research on teaching* (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). Macmillan. Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. *Review of Educational Research*, 88(4), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919 Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. *Cognition and Instruction*, 2(1), 59-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 112(4), 639-661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.112.4.639 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Underwood, C. (2016). *PISA 2015: A first look at Australia's results*. Australian Council for Educational Research. Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? *American Educator*, 31(2), 8-19.