Explicit Instruction

Before beginning this post, I scanned old posts to see what I have already written about explicit instruction.  I was surprised to see just a few, with these two rising to the top:  A Formula for Reading Success and A Trifecta in the Sciences.  It was a quick scan, so perhaps there are a few more hanging out in the archives!

On Wednesday night of this past week, Angie Hanlin graciously gave of her time and expertise, yet again, for The Reading League Iowa.  She expertly shared her insights about explicit instruction in a Zoom sponsored by Zaner-Bloser and hosted by The Reading League Iowa.  If you are not yet familiar with Angie Hanlin’s work, she is one to keep close tabs on!  She has a website featuring her consulting business, she hosts a podcast, she has co-authored the (must read) book It’s Possible, and she has authored another book to be released later this year.

Angie reminded attendees that explicit instruction “leaves nothing to chance” and that it “removes the guess work” for students.  Explicit instruction is often misunderstood as dry, boring, and relies solely on lecture.  It is anything but.

Explicit instruction is comprised of two critical parts:  Design and Delivery.  The error that teachers make when engaging in explicit instruction is ignoring the critical importance of designing instruction:  we must first carefully plan for explicit instruction before attempting to deliver it.  I continue to struggle to understand why lesson planning has, by and large, become a thing of the past.  Coaching conversations with teachers often include general conversations about planning, but it is increasingly rare to engage in conversations about the nitty-gritty of lesson planning.  And to commit to those plans by writing them down?  It’s a rarity.

The most common reason given for not committing to a lesson plan is that things rarely go as planned so we need to be prepared to go where the lesson – and student responses – take us.  Although flexibility is essential, losing sight of the lesson intention is detrimental to student learning.   Afterall, as Anita Archer reminds us, the goal of explicit instruction is learning.

In Wednesday night’s session, Hanlin reminded attendees that explicit instruction has an effect size of 0.63, according to John Hattie.  That’s a big darn deal!  Why?  Hattie and colleagues have identified 0.4 as the “hinge point” for educational practices:  it is at 0.4 that a practice results in a year’s growth.  In Hattie’s words, from his book Visible Learning:

“The effect size of 0.40 sets a level where the effects of innovation enhance achievement in such a way that we can notice real-world differences, and this should be a benchmark of such real-world change.”

Hold the phone.  If an effect size of 0.40 = one year’s growth and is where we set the bar, then an effect size of 0.63 = growth of a year-and-a-half.  That, my friends, is a no-brainer.  Explicit instruction, with all of its components, absolutely tips the scales in favor of student learning.

How do I know if I am “doing” explicit instruction?  I have designed lessons that I will deliver at a perky pace with the following components (as shared by Hanlin with reference to Anita Archer and Charles Hughes):

• Learning Intention
• Success Criteria
• Build commitment and engagement
• Modeling, input, and check for understanding
• Guided Practice
• Closure
• Independent Practice

Explicit instruction is a far cry from straight teacher-lecture.  Explicit instruction lets students in on 1) What they are learning 2) Why they are learning it and 3) How they will know if they learned it.  Explicit instruction requires frequent student responses.  According to Zach Groshell in his (must-read!) book, Just Tell Them:

“In the highly successful Direct Instruction (DI) programs, the rule of thumb is that students should be responding at a rate of around 9-12 responses per minute (achieved largely through choral response) during the early stages of acquiring a new skill.”

Wowza!  This is a loud and clear message to (nearly) eliminate the practice of asking students to raise their hands to respond to a question.  When we do so, we are allowing one student to respond, rather than all students to respond.  As Anita Archer reminds us:

This practice is especially effective when the expected responses are short and intended for basic recall.  Groshell reminds us:

“As the complexity of the material increases and the responses shift to being more individual and elaborative…the response rate will concomitantly decrease.“

There are many techniques for soliciting responses from all students, allowing teachers to do frequent checks for understanding.  Choosing the technique can be determined by the complexity of the expected response.  Nathaniel Swain, in his (must read!) book Harnessing the Science of Learning lists many of the same techniques that Hanlin shares:

• Pair Shares (Turn & Talks)
• Mini-whiteboard Responses
• Cold Call Answering
• Choral Responses
• Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down
• Think, Pair, Share
• Think, Pair, Write

The days of flying-by-the-seat-of-our-pants when teaching can be left in the dust.  There is a clear path for achieving high levels of learning for all, paved by some education greats.