Teaching That Sticks: The Case for Explicit Instruction

Virtually everyone agrees that some form of explicit instruction is necessary. Disagreements arise primarily over when to use it, how much to use, and with whom. Due in large part to the influence of constructivist teaching philosophies, many educators mistakenly believe that explicit instruction should be delayed until later in a lesson or provided only when students appear to be struggling. In this article, I argue that explicit instruction is not something teachers should merely sprinkle into their lessons occasionally, nor should it be viewed as a strategy reserved for moments of confusion. By clarifying what explicit instruction is, explaining its grounding in cognitive science, and exploring its complementary relationship with implicit learning, I aim to show how an explicit approach to teaching can transform classroom practice and lead to stronger, more durable learning outcomes for more students.

What is explicit instruction exactly?

The defining feature of explicit instruction, according to Sweller et al. (2024), is that “for novice learners, concepts are fully explained, and procedures are fully modeled before learners are asked to apply those concepts or procedures” (p. 2, emphasis added). In other words, instruction begins with clear explanations and purposeful modeling, not assumption or guesswork. Hughes et al. (2017) add that explicit instruction also “promotes active student engagement by requiring frequent and varied responses followed by appropriate affirmative and corrective feedback, and assists long-term retention through use of purposeful practice strategies” (p. 143). Taken together, these definitions illustrate that explicit instruction is not simply about telling—it’s about building solid understanding through clear modeling, guided practice, feedback, and purposeful review that help knowledge stick.

These defining features stand in sharp contrast to popular instructional approaches such as problem-based learning and inquiry learning, which often delay or omit the direct teaching of essential concepts and skills, leaving students to infer meaning through a more open-ended process of trial and error. Despite the continued popularity of these less guided approaches in K–12 settings, a substantial body of rigorous empirical research consistently points to fully guided, explicit instruction as the more effective pedagogical approach (see Clark, Kirshner, & Sweller, 2006 for a concise yet compelling explanation of the superiority of direct, explicit instruction over minimally guided methods). To better understand why explicit instruction produces stronger learning outcomes across a broader range of students, it’s necessary to take a brief detour into the field of cognitive science.

Explicit Instruction and Cognitive Science

Learning happens when a change occurs in a learner’s long-term memory. For such change to take place, the learner must first attend to the new information and then temporarily process or manipulate it within working memory. A key insight from cognitive science is that working memory is severely limited in capacity—it can hold and process only about four novel pieces of information at a time (Cowan, 2001). When instructional demands exceed this limit, working memory becomes overloaded, and meaningful learning is unlikely to occur.

The good news is that long-term memory, unlike working memory, is effectively limitless. Experts in any given field can solve problems and perform complex tasks with apparent ease precisely because they have stored vast amounts of domain-specific knowledge in long-term memory (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1979; Reynolds & Rush, 2017). This knowledge is not stored as disconnected facts but is organized into coherent frameworks—what cognitive psychologists refer to as schemas—that enable experts to recognize patterns, make inferences, and apply knowledge efficiently.

What does this have to do with explicit instruction?

Unlike experts, novice learners—virtually all elementary school students fall into this category—lack richly developed schemas in their long-term memories to support new learning. Their existing schemas are often sparse, incomplete, or even partially incorrect.  Consequently, novices possess less background knowledge to draw upon when encountering new concepts or skills, making them far more susceptible to cognitive overload when presented with too much novel information at once. This challenge is even greater for Multilingual Learners, whose working memories must manage not only new content but also the additional cognitive load of processing that content through a language they are still acquiring.

A key instructional implication from all this cognitive science talk is that most new learning teachers expect novices to acquire should be explicitly presented, clearly modeled, and appropriately chunked to reduce the demands on working memory. This is not to suggest that there is never a place for open-ended problem-solving tasks. Such activities certainly can be included within the instructional design of a curriculum. However, Sweller et al. would maintain, and we agree, that “if such tasks form part of a sequence of explicit instruction, they would follow explanation and modelling by the instructor” (p. 2). This sequence aligns with the guidance-fading effect, a well-documented phenomenon in which instructional supports are systematically reduced as learners gain proficiency within a particular skill or domain. In other words, explicit guidance is not the end goal but the necessary starting point from which independence and expertise can develop.

By this point, it should be evident that equating explicit instruction with extended teacher lecturing or passive learning is a misconception. In reality, effective explicit instruction is defined by more engagement from students, not less. A hallmark of explicit instruction is the frequent use of checks for understanding which, when implemented well, generate continual teacher–student and student–student interactions. In other words, effective explicit instruction produces a high participation ratio, with all students actively thinking, responding, and practicing throughout the lesson.

Moreover, because explicit instruction follows a clear I Do–We Do–You Do structure, strategically chunks new information to reduce cognitive load, and incorporates regular cumulative review, it enables greater participation from students who might otherwise remain silent or disengaged during less structured, minimally guided lessons. When concepts are clearly modeled, and cognitive demands are appropriately managed, more learners have the opportunity—and the confidence—to engage successfully.

What about implicit learning?

Critics of explicit instructional approaches often point out that much of what students learn occurs implicitly—without their conscious awareness. Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that learners acquire far more knowledge and skill than what is explicitly taught. For example, some researchers estimate that beginning in third grade, students must learn the meanings of 2,000 to 3,000 new words each year (Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Because explicitly teaching every one of these words is impractical, implicit learning through extensive reading and rich exposure to oral language plays a vital role in helping students develop the breadth of vocabulary necessary for proficient reading.

However, acknowledging the important role implicit learning plays in vocabulary development does not make explicit instruction unnecessary or secondary. Research on vocabulary acquisition indicates that explicitly teaching high-leverage words complements implicit modes of learning and results in greater overall vocabulary growth (Carlisle, 2010; Wolter & Helms, 2015). For example, when students are explicitly taught the word prediction by analyzing its morphemes—or meaningful parts—(pre- meaning “before,” dict meaning “to say,” and -ion indicating “the act of”), they are better equipped to infer the meanings of related words such as diction or dictator when encountering them in text.

Similar patterns—showing how explicit instruction complements implicit learning—have been demonstrated across other domains of literacy and language development, including the acquisition of foundational reading skills (Compton et al., 2014) and grammar and syntax (Norris & Ortega, 2001). In sum, far from playing second fiddle to implicit forms of learning, explicit instruction provides an essential foundation upon which learners can build and extend their knowledge implicitly. 

To illustrate how these principles take shape in practice, the following examples show what explicit instruction looks like when applied to key areas of literacy development. In future posts, I will explore how these same principles can be enacted across other subject areas as well.

In foundational literacy instruction, the characteristics of explicit instruction are often enacted concretely through a systematic sequence of steps:

1. Build on prior learning. Effective explanations typically begin with what students already know. For example, when teaching a new phoneme–grapheme correspondence such as /k/ spelled –ck, the teacher begins by reminding students that the letters c and k both represent /k/, and introduces –ck as another grapheme for the same sound.

   
   

2. Provide a clear explanation. The teacher explicitly defines a digraph as two letters that together represent one sound, and explains that –ck is used only at the end of a word, following a short vowel.

   
   

3. Give concrete examples. Words such as rock and luck illustrate the rule in action.

   
   

4. Review articulation. The teacher models the place and manner of articulation for /k/: the tongue moves toward the back of the mouth, and because the throat does not vibrate, it is an unvoiced sound.

   
   

5. Engage students in purposeful practice. Learners read and write words and sentences with the –ck pattern as a whole class, in small groups, and independently.

   
   

6. Provide cumulative review. In subsequent lessons, the /k/–ck correspondence is revisited through reading and spelling in isolation, within words, in sentences, and in connected text.

The same principles of clarity, modeling, and purposeful practice that strengthen foundational skills instruction also apply to vocabulary development. For example, an evidence-based vocabulary routine can be used to deepen word knowledge and promote active engagement. Each day, students should be explicitly taught high-leverage words that are essential for comprehending the text. The routine typically includes the following steps:

1. Model pronunciation. The teacher pronounces the word clearly, and students repeat it. The teacher may also analyze the word phonologically by segmenting or blending the phonemes or syllables within the word.

   
   

2. Teach meaning and form. The teacher offers a student-friendly definition, states the part of speech, and highlights any relevant morphemes (e.g., prefixes, suffixes, roots). Spelling features may be analyzed here depending on the grade level, and variants of the word should be introduced so students see how it functions in different grammatical contexts. Visuals, gestures, and cognates may be included here for MLLs if applicable.

   
   

3. Contextualize the word. The teacher models the word in multiple contexts to illustrate its range of use and meaning.

   
   

4. Engage students in active processing. Learners identify synonyms and antonyms (when applicable), answer yes/no or this/that questions related to the word’s meaning, and use the word in a sentence with a partner based on a teacher-provided prompt.

   
   

5. Reinforce and review. Across the unit, students encounter structured opportunities to recall the word’s meaning and apply it in authentic speech and writing.

Explicit instruction also plays a vital role in writing, where clarity, modeling, and structured practice help students move from sentence-level control to more sophisticated composition. Hallmarks of explicit writing instruction include the following practices:

1. Use rubrics to set expectations. Clear, concrete rubrics help students understand what proficient writing looks like and how their work will be evaluated.

   
   

2. Model with exemplars. Teachers display and analyze high-quality writing to highlight key word-, sentence-, and discourse-level features across genres.

   
   

3. Incorporate non-exemplars. Showing below-grade-level samples allows students to “revise up,” practicing how to transform weaker writing into stronger, more effective text.

   
   

4. Teach sentence-level skills. Educators provide explicit instruction in constructing academic sentences through techniques such as sentence combining, sentence expansion, and the use of kernel sentences (see Hochman & Wexler’s book The Writing Revolution 2.0 for more on this). Developing a strong grasp of what constitutes a well-formed academic sentence provides students with the foundation needed to grow into proficient, confident writers.

Recap

As this article has shown, explicit instruction is firmly grounded in cognitive science and supported by a strong body of research demonstrating its effectiveness. As such at Principia Learning, we believe it’s essential for educators to understand the following principles regarding explicit instruction:

1.  What explicit instruction is–and what it is not.

   1. What it is: Explicit instruction means that “concepts are fully explained, and procedures are fully modeled before learners are asked to apply those concepts or procedures” (Sweller et al., 2024). This approach does not preclude open-ended, problem-based activities; rather, it ensures that such activities occur after students have been explicitly taught and modeled the concepts and skills needed to complete them successfully.

   2. What it is not: Explicit instruction is not synonymous with lecturing or passive learning. On the contrary, it is characterized by high levels of student engagement, frequent checks for understanding, and abundant opportunities for guided and independent practice.

2. Evidence of effectiveness

When directly and rigorously compared with less explicit, minimally guided teaching approaches, explicit instruction has been shown to be consistently more effective in promoting learning and retention (Clark, Kirshner, & Sweller, 2006). 

3. Cognitive foundations

Because working memory capacity is extremely limited, new information should be presented explicitly to novice learners to reduce cognitive load and enhance long-term retention. As students’ knowledge and skills grow, instructional supports should be gradually withdrawn—an approach aligned with the guidance-fading effect.

4. Complementarity with implicit learning

Explicit teaching complements implicit learning across multiple dimensions of literacy development—including foundational reading skills, vocabulary growth, and the acquisition of grammar and syntax. Explicit instruction can help lay the groundwork for more implicit forms of learning, allowing students to extend and apply their knowledge more independently over time.

In sum, explicit instruction is not only effective—it is equitable. By making the learning process visible, structured, and responsive, educators create the conditions for all students, regardless of background or language proficiency, to access, internalize, and ultimately own the knowledge and skills necessary for success in school and beyond.

References

Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1979). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2

Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (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

Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Elleman, A. M., & Steacy, L. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.836200

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922

Hochman, J. C., Wexler, N., Maloney, K., & Lemov, D. (2024). The Writing Revolution 2.0: A guide to advancing thinking through writing in all subjects and grades. Jossey-Bass. 

Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Thompson D’Amato, R., & Schumaker, J. B. (2017). The effects of a systematic and explicit instructional routine on students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12136

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 51(Supplement 1), 157–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00019.x

Reynolds, T., & Rush, L.S. (2017). Disciplinary literacy in English language arts: Exploring the social and problem-based nature of literary reading and reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 53-71. 

Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sweller, J., Zhang, L., Ashman, G., Cobern, W., & Kirschner, P. A. (2024). Response to De Jong et al.’s (2023) paper “Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction.” Educational Research Review, 100584.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584

Wolter, J. A., & Helms, A. (2015). Exploring morphological awareness interventions with kindergarteners who are at risk for reading difficulty. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46(4), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0063