by Dr Ragnar Purje
There is currently a significant level of discussion in education journals and the general media about how important and extremely valuable explicit teaching is (from an educational and pedagogical perspective) for developing and advancing skills and knowledge. However, before what is taking place now, a great deal of research has informed and presented evidence of the immense pedagogical and educational value of explicit teaching.
For example, in 2010, Liz Fynes-Clinton, citing research undertaken in 2009 by Geoff Masters (2009), reported that “[e]xplicit teaching is essential if students are to develop the thinking, reasoning and reflective skills and habits of mind that will enable them to manipulate information and ideas in order to solve problems, make informed decisions and form new understandings.”
Further to this, Fynes-Clinton also emphasised that the explicit teaching process aimed to enhance student skills, knowledge, and educational prospects; equally, explicit teaching was crucial in developing a student’s intellectual abilities. The argument was that this would then enable the students to hopefully gain a deeper comprehension of their studies. This potential dual focus on skill development and associated deep understanding of what is being studied most certainly underscores the significant academic and overall learning benefits of explicit instruction.
Adding to this, the research by John Sweller (1988) and also that of Ruth Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller (2006), these independent and yet (in terms of information), associated studies, reported that the explicit teaching process (which was also presented with worked-example practices), was an excellent specific step-by-step teaching tool (both for teaching and for learning. Added to this, the explicit teaching and the worked-example method of instruction, in terms of educational benefits, the explicit method of teaching was considered to be a valid, reliable and, most certainly, a robust, systematic teacher-directed process; where the participants learned how to perform and solve problems efficiently.
In his work, Daniel Coyle (2009) reported that the explicit teaching and the worked-examples process assisted the participants in developing cognitive abilities associated with their attention to detail competencies. Furthermore, Coyle argued that attention to detail plays a vital role in sporting and academic success.
The value of explicit teaching was also endorsed by Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer in 1997. In this, van Merriënboer argued that explicit teaching was an excellent method of passing on information, assisting participants with their learning and helping them develop a more profound knowledge and understanding of the subjects they were studying.
In addition to this, the combined research of the above maintains that explicit teaching also eventually leads to the situation where the participants, in this explicit teaching process, eventually advance in their knowledge to be able to develop and advance in the process of what could be referred to as advanced independent intellectual thinking potential.
This is the process of creative high-order thinking and critical thinking. Critical thinking, according to Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (1987), is a rigorous and skilful method of actively using, examining, combining, and assessing information collected or produced through observation, experience, contemplation, logic, or dialogue to help advance objective knowledge and associated skills that complement this knowledge.
Scriven and Paul also suggested that critical thinking, at its best, was founded on universal intellectual standards that go beyond the boundaries of specific subjects: it requires clarity, exactness, sharpness, steadiness, pertinence, solid proof, valid arguments, thoroughness, comprehensiveness, and impartiality.
Advancing this further, Van Merriënboer (1997) and Eng Leong Lim and Dennis W. Moore (2002) point out that evidence exists that suggests explicit teaching and the worked-example method of explanation not only lead to fewer errors but also tend to reduce the time and effort needed for the learner to grasp what is being taught.
In addition, Anita Archer and Charles Hughes (2011), citing Barak Rosenhine (1986), describe explicit teaching as “a systematic method of teaching with an emphasis on proceeding in small steps, checking for student understanding, and achieving active and successful participation by all students.”
All of these provide the means to help students develop into confident, autonomous, and successful self-managing students. According to Anita Woolfolk and also Ken Purnell, this relationship between student autonomy, motivation, self-management and their successful academic self-directed effort and engagement tends “to hold through from first grade through to graduate school,” and from school to careers.
Dr Ragnar Purje is the author of Responsibility Theory® and an Adjunct Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at CQUniversity.