Is explicit instruction in opposition to or detrimental to the development of learner agency? Should we instead be focused on inquiry? Teachers and principals constantly pose these questions to me.
Did you know that according to a 2009 study by John Hattie, explicit instruction can improve student performance by up to 23%? However, at the same time, a study by Barron & Darling-Hammond demonstrated that inquiry-based learning boosts critical thinking and engagement by 20%
So which one is truly better for our students? And which do I recommend to my clients? That's what we're here to find out.
The Faceoff: Explicit Instruction and Inquiry Learning
We're going to explore two popular and controversial methods—Explicit Instruction and Inquiry Learning. These approaches shape how we teach and learn, but which one leads to better outcomes in the classroom?
The debate between the two has divided educators for years. Explicit Instruction, where teachers demonstrate concepts and skills, is seen by many as efficient and structured. It’s proven to help students grasp concrete skills quickly, like learning multiplication tables or following a scientific procedure.
On the other side, Inquiry Learning emphasizes student-led exploration and critical thinking, inviting learners to ask questions and seek their own answers. It’s a clear way to spark curiosity and engagement (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008).
The question is: Which method works best? Should teachers use the explicit approach or embrace inquiry for deeper learning?
Let’s break down the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
The Pros and Cons of Explicit Instruction
Explicit Instruction is all about teacher-directed learning. It's structured, step-by-step, and works exceptionally well in certain contexts. In martial arts, for example, the instructor demonstrates a move, then practices it with the student, and finally the student practices with peers.
This method is clear and focused and ensures that every student masters essential skills. Research by Hattie (2009) supports this, showing that explicit teaching has an effect size of 0.57, meaning it’s highly effective in delivering visible learning outcomes.
However, it can be limiting. For example, you can not explicitly instruct thinking, and so much of the curriculum is centred around critical concepts, essential understandings and individual perspectives that need to be cultivated in the learner.
Additionally, when we teach in isolated chunks, the content can feel disconnected, lacking context or purpose. It can also take agency away from a learner, leaving little room for creativity or critical thinking. If used exclusively, it risks turning education into a rigid, prescriptive process.
This brings up a valid critique often referred to as the "pedagogy of oppression" (Freire, 1970), where students passively absorb scripted information without actively engaging in the learning process and without choice.
The Pros and Cons of Inquiry Learning
Inquiry Learning flips the script on all this, allowing students the freedom to explore. It’s highly engaging and works well for deeper, conceptual learning. Think about a complex topic like examining the impact of federation on First Nations people. Here, inquiry allows students to dive into multiple perspectives, develop their own questions, and connect historical facts to broader social contexts (Wells, 2001).
But there’s a downside too. With inquiry, there’s always a risk that students might miss key content in their search for big answers. The connection between the inquiry focus and necessary skills isn’t always clear.
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) argue that without proper guidance, inquiry can lead to gaps in knowledge and uneven learning outcomes.
So, Which is Better?
Here’s where things get interesting—the fact is, neither method is inherently better.
But why do we have to choose just one? This is a duality mindset of opposites, and it can be rigid and limiting.
Think of it like peanut butter and jam. Sure, you could eat them separately with a spoon, but when you put them together in a sandwich, the result is something much greater (and tastier).
It’s like trying to ride a bike with only one wheel—technically possible, but so much more effective with two. Or consider music: a melody on its own is beautiful, and so are harmonies, but when you put them together, you create something richer and more complete.
Life is full of examples where things work better together, so why should teaching methods be any different?
The magic happens when we blend the two. A case study from Australia’s STEM initiatives shows that when inquiry-based projects are supported by moments of explicit instruction, students perform better across the board (Australian Government, 2019).
Inquiry gives them the context and purpose to stay motivated, while explicit instruction ensures they acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed. In this harmonious demonstration of teaching, each has a part to play, and each supports the other.
In my work with schools, I use a series of Agency Learning Models. These resources are designed to gradually move responsibility for the learning from the teacher, and empower the learner. My learning models use both methods with purpose and intention.
If you ask a carpenter whether a screwdriver or a hammer is the best tool, the immediate response would be that it depends on the job. This should be our approach to instruction as well—using the right tool at the right time for the right job.
Imagine a classroom where the skeleton of the unit is built on cross-curricular challenges in Humanities or Science and explicit instruction comes in at the right time to teach specific skills—like analyzing data or writing a structured essay. This blended approach combines the best of both worlds. It provides depth, relevance, and engagement while ensuring students don’t miss essential content.
So, what’s the takeaway? It’s not about choosing between Explicit Instruction or Inquiry Learning—it’s about knowing when to use each. By blending them together, we create learning experiences that are both structured and meaningful, preparing students for success.
References
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Edutopia.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
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.
Wells, G. (2001). Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching through inquiry. Teachers College Press.
Australian Government (2019). STEM education in the classroom: Case studies in Australian schools.