A STEP FORWARD – OR BACK?
Brian Ambrosio explores the new focus on ‘explicit teaching’ in Australia and returns to the timeless debate about ‘what is the best way to teach’.
Expected outcomes
What are the key outcomes required from schools and education systems in 2025? Strong academic results? IT savvy? Analytical skills? Effective communication and emotional intelligence? Resilience & Grit? The list is endless and there is so much pressure on teachers and schools ‘to perform’.
There are, of course, many approaches as to how these outcomes could be achieved. The International Baccalaureate’s focus on transdisciplinary, inquiry-based learning is familiar to many. Finland emphasises students as independent learners with great success over the years, Montessori schools use a child-centred approach with hands-on learning and home school practice utilising technology is a growing trend.
In Australia, several education districts / states are now placing a stronger emphasis on the idea of ‘explicit teaching’.
What is explicit teaching?
The Australian Council for Education Research (ACER) defines Explicit Instruction as: “clearly explaining and effectively demonstrating what students need to learn” by breaking learning down down into manageable learning outcomes.
The ACER research suggests that explicit instruction leads to less cognitive overload compared to approaches such as Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching’
According to the ACER:
“Learning can suffer, and it can be harder to move information to long-term memory, if people are presented with more information than working memory can contain”
And
“Studies conducted across various locations suggest that explicit instruction has a positive impact on student achievement in mathematics, reading, spelling, problem solving and science.”
While this higher level of focus on explicit teaching in the classroom may be an effective way of improving academic outcomes, is the way that it is being implemented in some schools actually preventing the very acquisition of the skills and knowledge it is meant to develop?
One approach to implementation
‘Explicit teaching’ has been implemented in various school groups in Victoria and New South Wales, and a number of school districts in these states have opted for a ‘one size fits all’ interpretation of the approach.
This extreme approach includes the use of prescribed PowerPoint presentations complete with scripts that all teachers must follow.
This has led to frustration among some teachers, who see the system as rigid to the point where many teachers are feeling disempowered.
Feedback based on informal primary research from some teachers includes:
“Teachers and students are reliant on PowerPoint instruction. The lessons are very scripted and there’s not much room for differentiation.”
“I see the boredom and loss of focus with students when teachers are teaching to a script with PowerPoint slides. This can go on for between 20 minutes to an hour at a time!! That’s a long time for kids to maintain focus, especially in kindergarten.”
“If students are always being told exactly what to do, step by step, without room for creativity, curiosity or independent thinking, they will become passive learners”
“Behaviour issues are on the rise with increasing hyperactivity, growing lack of focus and self-regulation.
“A student put up his had to contribute a story to what the teacher was presenting and was told there was no time to hear his feedback, as they have to get through the slides”
A second approach
Other education jurisdictions are implementing an increased focus on explicit teaching with guidance and sample lesson plans to support teachers rather than prescription. Informal feedback from a group of these teachers is rather different:
“I am not focusing my energy on developing the resources, but rather I am spending more time understanding the curriculum and tailoring the pre-designed resources to meet the needs of the learners in my classroom”
“Teachers are now more focussed on using lesson objectives and success criteria. The direct, teacher- led instruction with clear explanations of concepts leads to guided practice and independent work.”
So, should we be using ‘explicit teaching’ in our classrooms?
What’s required from our schooling system?
Let’s return to some of the core skills required for graduates from a schooling system. Feedback from a wide range of employers in a recent report from the World Economic Forum identified 5 key core skills they are seeking from employees.
- Analytical thinking
- Resilience, flexibility and agility
- Leadership and social influence
- Creative thinking
- Motivation and self-awareness
Will an increased focus on teacher centred, scripted teaching, have a positive impact on the development of these critical skills? It seems unlikely.
However, there is a good argument for having ‘explicit teaching’ as part of the teaching tool kit, if it is delivered in the right way, and uses the kind of advice found on the ACER website properly.
Finding a balance
It is understandable why education authorities would want to focus on teaching methodologies that ‘work’, particularly when literacy and numeracy results are not what they should be.
But is the scripted version of explicit teaching counter-productive? It may superficially improve test scores, but will students develop the necessary range of skills they will need for the second quarter of the 21st Century? How much are they enjoying the learning process and will they actually be able to retain and apply their knowledge with understanding under a scripted regime?
Michael Fullan, in his article Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (2011) warned that Australia was going down the wrong path by using test results as a ‘primary driver’ to reward or punish schools and teachers.
On the other hand, if learning depends solely on an open-ended inquiry approach, is the acquisition of core skills and knowledge at risk?
A question of balance
If we are to address the holistic needs of a child, surely we return to a balanced approach for our pedagogy, one which facilitates:
- Academic attainment
- The joy of learning
- Critical thinking
- Collaborative learning and communication skills
- Resilience & Grit
- Connecting with others through empathy and compromise
Continuous professional development that includes the latest research and empowers teachers to identify what is best for the holistic development of their students is (as it has always been?) a good compromise and ‘explicit instruction’ as described by the ACER would indeed be a legitimate tool in the box.
And this approach would also align with Michael Fullan’s important drivers for change:
- The intrinsic motivation of teachers and students
- Engaging educators and students in continuous improvement of instruction and learning
- Inspiring collective teamwork
Brian Ambrosio is a Senior Education Consultant with Consilium Education and resides in the picturesque town of Cotacachi, Ecuador.
Further reading:
Explicit Instruction, 2024, AERO (Australian Education Research Organisation), https://www.edresearch.edu.au/summaries-explainers/explainers/explicit-instruction
Fullan, M, 2011, Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform, CSE, Centre for Strategic Education
Future of Jobs report 2025, World Economic Forum, Insight Report, January 2025
Korbey Holly, 2025, Why US schools have fallen in love with scripted lessons, https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-reading-comprehension-classroom/
National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 2024, Overall apprentice & trainee completion rates down in 2023, https://www.ncver.edu.au/news-and-events/media-releases/overall-apprentice-and-trainee-completion-rates-down-in-2023
