Explicit instruction gains renewed backing as evidence shows its crucial role in pupil learning

A new essay highlights the growing support for explicit instruction as a core teaching method, backed by research showing its effectiveness in improving academic achievement and critical thinking, especially for struggling pupils.

A new essay for the American Enterprise Institute and researchED has brought renewed attention to a long-running argument in education: that explicit instruction is not a last resort, but a central tool for helping pupils learn. In the piece, Zach Groshell says the article gathers together the case he has been making for years, from the training that initially pushed him away from direct teaching to the research that later persuaded him he had been mistaken.

At the heart of the argument is a challenge to some of the most persistent assumptions in teacher education. Groshell says he takes on the claim that explicit instruction is little more than a teacher lecturing at the front of the room, and rejects the idea that it suppresses independent thought. Research on critical thinking suggests the opposite. A study published in ScienceDirect found that adolescents taught through explicit instruction made stronger gains in critical thinking than those taught implicitly, with clearer, more systematic teaching linked to better decision-making and problem-solving.

The essay also returns to Project Follow Through, the enormous US education study that has become a touchstone for advocates of Direct Instruction. According to summaries from Arthur Academy and the National Institute for Direct Instruction, the project assessed a wide range of models across hundreds of communities and tens of thousands of children, and Direct Instruction emerged as the most effective approach for academic achievement. Those sources say it also produced gains in self-esteem, undercutting the familiar criticism that tightly structured teaching is somehow damaging to pupils’ confidence.

That line of evidence is reinforced by later research. A meta-analysis in the journal Educational Psychology Review examined 328 studies over roughly 50 years and found that Direct Instruction had a statistically significant positive effect across reading, maths and language, while also improving self-esteem and teacher perceptions. Another overview from the National Institute for Direct Instruction argues that the method’s strength lies in its systematic design: lessons are carefully sequenced, efficient and based on how children learn.

Groshell’s conclusion is aimed most directly at pupils who can least afford weak teaching. He argues that children described as struggling, low-attaining or at risk are often the ones most harmed by open-ended approaches that leave too much to chance. For him, explicit instruction should not be treated as a remedial add-on once things have gone wrong. It should be the default from the start.