## Key ideas > [!abstract] Core concepts > > - **Structured teacher-directed instruction**: Explanation, demonstration, and guided practice with feedback > - **Bottom-up approach**: Teach discrete knowledge and skills before integrating them > - **Effective across ability levels**: Benefits most students, with stronger effects for disadvantaged learners ## Definition **Explicit Teaching**: A structured, teacher-directed approach involving explanation, demonstration, and guided practice. Based on Cognitive Load Theory and constructivist learning principles. ## Overview Explicit teaching is a structured, teacher-directed approach. The teacher explains, demonstrates, and guides practice with feedback, then gradually releases students to independence. Rosenshine (2012) and Stockard et al. (2018) found it effective across settings. The approach draws on Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al., 2019) and constructivist learning principles (Anderson, 1977). It differs from lecturing or rote drill because instruction is systematic and students are active throughout. ## 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 ### Five essential communications Teachers communicate five things to students: ### 1. Why they are learning something Students need to understand purpose. How does this connect to what they already know? Where will they use it? This activates [[Prior Knowledge|prior knowledge]] and helps students locate new learning within existing knowledge (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..." or "This is similar to the method we used for... but with an important difference." 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 specific. Vague expectations ("understand fractions", "improve writing") leave students guessing. Explicit criteria ("add fractions with different denominators", "write topic sentences containing the main idea") give clear targets. ### 4. How to do it step-by-step The teacher breaks complex skills into manageable steps, demonstrates each component, shows worked examples with explanations, and makes expert thinking visible. The demonstration reveals thinking 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, and indicators of mastery versus partial understanding. These models help students develop accurate self-assessment. ### I do, we do, you do Explicit teaching follows a progression from full teacher support to independence. ### I do: teacher demonstration The teacher models the complete skill or procedure, thinking aloud to make cognitive processes visible and using [[Worked Examples]] with step-by-step solutions. Students observe and listen. ### We do: guided practice Teacher and students work through problems together. Scaffolding is heavy at first, with immediate feedback and [[Check For Understanding|continuous checking for understanding]]. Support reduces gradually over multiple opportunities. ### You do: independent practice Students apply learning independently. The teacher monitors and provides targeted support. [[Practice]] builds fluency, and assessment confirms learning. This gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) aligns with [[Cognitive Load Theory]] (Sweller et al., 2019). Students build necessary schemas before attempting complex tasks alone. ## Theoretical foundation ### Constructivist perspective A common misconception is that explicit teaching contradicts constructivism because teachers tell students information. But when teachers explain concepts explicitly, students actively process the information in working memory, integrate new content with existing schemas, and construct new understanding through this integration. The construction is cognitive and active even when instruction is teacher-directed. The key distinction is that construction occurs during guided instruction. Requiring novices to discover content they lack schemas for prevents construction because [[Cognitive Load Theory|working memory overload]] blocks transfer to long-term memory. ### Cognitive load theory Working memory holds about four items (Cowan, 2001). Learning complex skills therefore requires breaking content into manageable chunks, teaching components before integration, automating prerequisites to reduce load, and providing worked examples (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). 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), reduces guidance as competence develops, and allows independent application once schemas are strong (you do). Discovery works for applying learnt skills but not for learning new ones. New knowledge integrates with existing schemas, so instruction must assess prerequisite knowledge, present new content in connected ways, and provide sufficient practice for automation. Explicit teaching's structured approach does this. ### Bottom-up methodology Explicit teaching uses a bottom-up approach: teaching discrete knowledge and skills before integrating them. This contrasts with discovery-based approaches that begin with complex scenarios. When students lack schemas, complex integrated scenarios overwhelm working memory. Too many novel elements compete for processing. Bottom-up sequencing teaches individual components to fluency, allows schema development for each, then integrates once foundations are automated. This does not 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 forces novices to spend working memory on means-end analysis rather than learning component skills (Sweller et al., 1983). ## Common misconceptions ### "Explicit teaching means passive lecturing" A teacher at the front explaining does not automatically constitute explicit teaching. During I do, students actively process explanations in working memory, integrating with prior knowledge. During we do, they practise with support, receive feedback, and explain reasoning. During you do, they apply learning and solve problems independently. The quality of explanation, the checking for understanding, the practice opportunities, and the gradual release distinguish explicit teaching from lecturing. ### "Just-in-time explicit teaching" Brief explanations during discovery activities are not explicit teaching. Explicit teaching is a system: coherent curriculum design with clear knowledge progressions, skill development across units and years, sequenced learning building on prior knowledge, and coordinated assessment and feedback. Providing mini-lectures when students get stuck during discovery tasks occurs after cognitive overload has already damaged learning. It addresses symptoms (current confusion) rather than causes (inadequate prior knowledge or poor sequencing). Explicit teaching plans instruction to prevent confusion and builds schemas before they are needed. ### "Explicit teaching works only for some students" Stockard et al. (2018) found explicit teaching benefits students across ability levels. Gifted learners benefit from worked examples (Sweller & Cooper, 1985), clear explanations, and systematic skill development. They need fewer examples and faster progression, but they still benefit from explicit teaching of complex new content in their zone of proximal development. Teachers adjust pacing and support level, not the approach. ### "Explicit teaching prevents critical thinking" Critical thinking requires domain knowledge. Domain knowledge enables recognising patterns and evaluating arguments (Chi et al., 1981). Generic "critical thinking skills" divorced from content do not transfer (Willingham, 2007). Experts think critically because they have extensive domain knowledge. Explicit teaching builds knowledge schemas that enable analysis, makes expert thinking visible so students learn how to think in the domain, and provides practice applying knowledge to complex problems. Automated foundational skills free working memory for higher-order thinking. Teaching "critical thinking" to novices lacking domain knowledge produces opinion-sharing rather than informed reasoning. ## Implementation requirements ### Curriculum foundation Explicit teaching requires a coherent, knowledge-based curriculum. Content must be well-sequenced with clear learning progressions and prerequisite relationships identified. Without this, even skilled teaching cannot overcome poor sequencing or unclear learning goals. The curriculum must focus on [[Knowledge-Based Curriculum|explicit subject knowledge]] at each stage and teach skills through knowledge rather than in isolation. ### Teacher expertise Teachers cannot explicitly teach what they do not understand. Deep subject knowledge enables effective explanation. Pedagogical content knowledge guides how to teach it. Understanding common misconceptions is necessary for anticipating student difficulty. Instructional skills include clear explanation, questioning, checking for understanding, providing actionable feedback, and managing the gradual release of responsibility. Positive relationships enable productive correction. A warm, demanding approach sets high expectations with support. ### Classroom culture Established routines minimise disruption. Clear expectations enable focus on learning. [[Culture of Error]] makes mistakes valuable learning opportunities. [[Check for Understanding]] ensures all students respond, not just volunteers. Questions target representative understanding. Guided practice provides extensive response opportunities. Teachers match challenge to developing capability and refuse to accept "I can't" whilst providing pathways to "I can". ## Explicit teaching across content types ### 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, and shows multiple examples highlighting key features. Guided practice provides immediate feedback with gradual complexity increase. Independent practice builds fluency and assessment confirms mastery. ### Concepts and understanding For conceptual understanding (democracy, photosynthesis, multiplication), the teacher defines the concept with precise language, provides examples and non-examples, shows varied representations, and connects to existing knowledge. Students generate examples with guidance, classify instances with feedback, and explain the concept in their own words. Independent work involves classification, application, and transfer to new contexts. ### Complex problem-solving For multi-step problem-solving (extended writing, scientific investigation, mathematical problem-solving), the teacher models the complete process: how to analyse the problem, select strategies, monitor progress, and evaluate solutions. Guided problem-solving involves teacher and students collaborating with explicit discussion of strategy selection. Independent problem-solving starts with reduced complexity and builds to full independence. ## Common implementation challenges ### Pacing Teachers often move too quickly through I do and we do, reaching you do before students are ready. Curriculum time pressure, overestimating understanding based on confident volunteers, and the [[Curse of Knowledge]] cause this. Checking understanding with all students and using success rates (80% or more before progressing) helps. Moving to you do too early wastes more time than building foundations properly. ### Balancing guidance and independence Too much support creates learnt helplessness. Too little causes cognitive overload. Teachers should fade scaffolding based on evidence from checking for understanding, not assumptions. Struggle within capability builds learning; overload prevents it. ### Making thinking visible Teachers often demonstrate procedures without revealing the thinking behind them. Expert teachers have automated their thinking, making it invisible even to themselves. Thinking aloud deliberately, making decision points explicit ("I chose this because..."), and explaining why methods work (not just how) addresses this. ### Checking understanding Teachers often assume understanding based on volunteers answering, nodding, or apparent attention. Mini-whiteboards allow universal response. Targeted questions to a range of students, requiring explanation rather than just answers, give better evidence of understanding. ## Other instructional approaches ### Discovery learning In discovery learning, students encounter problems, discover patterns through exploration, and construct understanding through the process. Discovery works when applying already-learnt knowledge to new situations, for learners with strong prerequisite schemas. It fails when teaching new content to novices because it violates cognitive load principles (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Working memory limitations make it difficult for novices to simultaneously search for solutions, process information, and learn new content. Experts have sufficient prior knowledge to guide exploration, but novices lack the cognitive structures to benefit from minimal guidance. Explicit teaching teaches new content first and provides discovery-like applications once schemas are strong. The research does not oppose active learning but challenges the assumption that students should discover knowledge without instructional support (Kirschner et al., 2006). ### Inquiry-based learning In inquiry-based learning, students generate questions, investigate, and develop understanding through investigation. Inquiry works for developing research skills and applying existing knowledge to new questions. It fails when teaching foundational content because students cannot generate productive questions about content they do not understand. Explicit teaching builds the knowledge foundations first and uses inquiry for extending and applying that knowledge. ### Differentiation Explicit teaching provides the framework. Differentiation adjusts implementation: varying pacing based on schema development, adjusting support during we do, providing varied practice complexity, and using flexible grouping. The approach does not change. Explanation, demonstration, guided practice, and gradual release remain constant. ## Rosenshine's principles of instruction Rosenshine (2012) synthesised research on teacher effectiveness and cognitive science into ten principles for student learning. ### 1. Begin with short review of previous learning Review prerequisite content daily, review homework, reteach when necessary. Procedural skills building on prior knowledge require particular attention. ### 2. Present new material in small steps Give clear instructions and model procedures. Present small amounts at a 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 identify gaps. Check understanding across all students. ### 4. Provide models Worked examples are effective. Model the problem-solving process whilst thinking aloud. Use varied examples to highlight key features. ### 5. Guide student practice Maintain high success rates (80% or above) through extensive questioning and immediate error correction. Continue until students demonstrate fluency. ### 6. Check for student understanding Monitor during guided practice by obtaining responses from all students. Prepare specific questions 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. ### 8. Provide scaffolds for difficult tasks Use temporary supports like think-alouds, checklists, and cue cards. Model difficult steps. Break complex tasks into smaller components. ### 9. Require and monitor independent practice Extensive practice leads to automaticity. Distribute practice over time rather than massing it. Continue practice even after apparent mastery. ### 10. Engage in weekly and monthly review Review strengthens retention. Distributed practice over time is more effective than cramming. Reteach as needed. These principles align with cognitive science findings on memory and attention (Rosenshine, 2012). ## Research evidence ### Meta-analyses Hattie (2009) found an effect size of 0.59 for direct instruction, above average for educational interventions. Stockard et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of Direct Instruction studies and found effect sizes from 0.42 to 0.68 across outcome measures. This builds on process-product studies from the 1950s to 1980s examining teaching practices and student outcomes (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). Structured, teacher-directed instruction outperformed less structured approaches for teaching new content (Rosenshine, 2012). ### Achievement data NSW students reporting structured lessons and clear learning objectives achieved higher numeracy scores (NSW Department of Education, 2017). Australian students experiencing explicit teaching practices demonstrated higher reading achievement (Thomson et al., 2016). High-performing systems commonly use explicit teaching as the primary instructional approach (OECD, 2016). ### Direct Instruction: a specific model Direct Instruction (capitalised to distinguish from generic direct teaching) is a specific model developed by Siegfried Engelmann based on 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 held that no child cannot be taught, and that low performers need faster-paced instruction to catch up. The model follows specific principles: ### Clear communication of learning objectives Students know what they will learn and why. This eliminates ambiguity and directs attention to essential content. ### Systematic sequencing Skills and knowledge are ordered so prerequisites precede new learning. Each step builds on the previous one. ### Explicit teaching of strategies and concepts Teachers demonstrate and explain procedures rather than expecting students to infer them. ### High levels of student engagement The model requires frequent responses (often every 10-15 seconds during initial teaching) to maintain attention and allow immediate feedback. ### Immediate corrective feedback Teachers address errors immediately before they embed in schemas. Correction is specific and leads to correct responses. ### Mastery 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: Consistent wording for similar tasks. Learners generalise based on sameness of qualities, so similar content needs similar language. 2. Rapid pacing: Quick instruction maintains attention. Slow pacing allows minds to wander. 3. Unison responses: Students respond together after tasks presented to the group. This maintains engagement and allows checking for understanding. 4. Clear signals: Unequivocal signals indicate when students should respond, preventing some students initiating responses that others copy. 5. Individual turns: After group responses, individual turns gather information about each student's understanding. 6. Error correction procedures: Anticipate common errors and specify correction steps. Address mistakes immediately. 7. Positive reinforcement: Reinforce good performance through praise and expressed amazement over student accomplishment. Students enjoy material when reinforced for hard work. The three-stage process (Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966): Stage 1 introduces new content based on previously mastered knowledge with continuous assessment. Stage 2 uses fast-paced scripted presentation designed to elicit only one interpretation, reinforced with examples and non-examples. Stage 3 provides extensive practice with immediate feedback, beginning with whole-class unison responses, moving to individual responses, then independent practice. Engelmann et al. (1988) and Stockard et al. (2018) found positive effects on student achievement, with stronger effects for disadvantaged students and those with learning difficulties. The approach emphasises careful instructional design over teacher enthusiasm or subject knowledge alone. Whilst sometimes criticised as rigid, Direct Instruction applies cognitive science principles to instructional design. ### Equity evidence Disadvantaged students benefit more from explicit teaching (Rosenshine, 2012; Stockard et al., 2018). The approach makes all necessary knowledge explicit rather than assuming background knowledge from home. It provides systematic instruction for students who may not receive it elsewhere and reduces achievement gaps (Engelmann et al., 1988). Archer and Hughes (2011) describe explicit teaching as an equity strategy. ## Conclusion Students construct knowledge through guided instruction; working memory limitations require systematic teaching, and novices need different approaches from experts. Implementation requires a coherent curriculum, teacher expertise, and supportive classroom culture. The approach benefits students across ability levels and subjects, with stronger effects for disadvantaged students. > [!tip] Implications for teaching > > - Communicate the five essentials: why, how it connects, what to do, how to do it, what success looks like > - Follow I do/we do/you do, not rushing to independence before foundations are secure > - Check understanding with all students, not just confident volunteers > - Make expert thinking visible through think-alouds and explicit decision-making > - Provide extensive guided practice with immediate feedback before expecting independent success > - Assess prerequisites and teach gaps before new content > - Adjust pace and support level across ability levels, not the 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.