Yes, Tell Them. But Don't "Just TEll Them."

Direct and explicit instruction are roaring back.  Big city school districts like San Francisco and Atlanta have launched "Back To Basics" initiatives - which, as I've written, are inevitable about every 10 years - of which direct and explicit instruction are central components.  Many other districts are, no doubt, in that phase of the The Rise and Fall of Anything New, as well.

Chances are that if you're not already in the midst of an explicit teaching initiative, you will be soon.

New books on the topic of explicit teaching are being cited and circulated as well, the most popular of which seems to be Just Tell Them by Zach Gronshell.

In addition to good advice on how to do certain elements of how to do explicit teaching well, Gronshell's book also devotes considerable space and condescension to the idea that, if you do anything other than explicit teaching at any point in a child's educational career, you're wasting everyone's time and doing them a massive disservice.  It isn't enough to teach explicitly, I gleaned from Just Tell Them; any time spent doing otherwise, Gronshell would have us believe, is the reason we have at-risk students (p. 97) and is motivated by "the devil on your shoulder" (p. 98).

Forego other teaching practices, and "... just freaking tell them," (p. 98) Gronshell says to close his book.

Yikes.

Contrary to what you might think, seeing as the last 50 or so posts I've written have been about a different instructional philosophy, I think explicit teaching can be great. It is a tool that comes out of my instructional toolbox often, and I'm doing some professional development on improving my skills with it right now, too.  I'm learning a lot and it is paying off for my students.

I, and every teacher, "tell them" often.

But Just Tell Them?

Do we remember nothing from past "back to basics" cycles?

​It seems that we may not.  So allow me to elaborate a bit.  Here are ten things to know when whatever version of a "back to basics," explicit teaching, or ​Just Tell Them initiative comes your way.

1. TO Learn, Students Have to DO​ SOmething

I do a lot of professional reading, and one of my "Mount Rushmore" educational texts is a blog post by Jennifer Gonzalez called To Learn, Students Have to Do Something.  Educational ideas come and go, they rise and they fall, and Gonzalez's piece is an excellent cautionary tale from the last time that "Just Telling Them" was in vogue.  I hope you'll read it.

As explicit teaching comes roaring back, I think it is important to remember that there was a perfectly good reason it went out of vogue the last time, and Gonzalez's personal case study here offers a stark reminder of how ineffective and misery-inducing explicit teaching can be when done poorly.

To learn, students have to do something.

It's great to tell them, but not so great to Just Tell Them.
​

Yes, I told her about the structures and features of plant cells.  Jennifer Gonzalez, however, taught me that To Learn, Students Have to Do Something, so I didn't Just Tell Her.
​

2. Explicit Teaching Boasts First of Efficiency

When it comes to learning "biologically secondary" information - which is to say, the things like math and geography that we are not programmed by evolution to learn through existence as a human alone - there are two ways to do so:

1. ​Figuring things out through exploration or trial and error (problem solving, in some capacity)
2. Having another human who knows it tell it to you (explicit teaching)

To hear the experts from whom I got this wording, start at timestamp 17:10 in this podcast episode.  The full episode is very good, and it gives a lot of wonderful context about learning, evolution, and cognitive science.

Admittedly, I've also cherry-picked this time stamp.  One of the theses of the full episode is that problem solving is a waste of time and that explicit teaching is all that actually happens in the real world.  If you listen a couple minutes past my starting timestamp, you'll hear the idea that, basically, once one singular human has figured something out, there's basically no point in any other human figuring it out for him or herself.  The first human should "Just Tell Everybody."

But the example used - one of a car mechanic - betrays that thesis.  Would you rather have a car mechanic who "figures out" how to fix your car, the speaker asks us?  Or would you rather just have one who knows how to fix it because someone has "Just Told Him or Her"?  The example is provided with the insinuation that the second one is clearly better.

But is it always?

Sure, if I have a flat tire, I'd rather have somebody who has "Just Been Told" how to fix the flat.

But most of the time, when my car needs fixing, I also need my mechanic to figure out what's wrong.  When my car stopped running on the highway a few weeks ago, there were a host of possible reasons why, and there was no one to "Just Tell My Mechanic" what the problem was, nor how many parts were contributing to the issue, nor whether those parts needed replacement or repair.

I needed both problem solving and the expertise to fix it.

​As the experts in the podcast say, there are two ways people learn - problem solving and transfer of knowledge.  And as they say, transfer of knowledge is much more efficient.
​
​I don't know anyone who would disagree that that having someone "Just Tell You" something is faster than figuring it out for yourself.
​

But is speed the only variable that matters?

​It is certainly a major one.  In the age of pacing guides, end-of-year testing, and ever growing non-academic time commitments in schools, how we choose to allocate our instructional time is one of the most important factors in our overall effectiveness.  For me, discerning whether a given class or lesson is the time and the place for a deep, memorable, give-life-to-the-content, problem-solving experience, or one to Just Tell Them is an ongoing negotiation.

It's hard.
​

Admittedly, would have been faster to "Just Tell Them" how volume is measured and what it represents.  But is speed the only variable that matters?
​

And "Just Telling Them" everything takes away that challenge entirely. Taking one entire mode of learning off the table gives teachers one less decision to make, which is one of the reasons I think its popularity gets recycled every decade.  It also comes with a built in justification for making that decision - it's efficient.  If I "Just Tell Them," I can tell them the most stuff in the limited amount of time I have.

And if I tell them the most, they're learning the most.

It's a valid perspective, and not one I would fault a teacher for holding.

If there are two ways humans learn, however, and both have meaningful benefits, it also isn't crazy to hold a perspective that aims to reap the rewards of balancing both.

Or, that it's great to tell them, but not always so great to Just Tell Them.
​

3. This Round of "Back To Basics" comes With A Condescending Flair

This time around, it isn't enough to laud the merits of explicit teaching.  It's also mandatory, apparently, to condescend to everyone while you do.  Just Tell Them is condescending.  The podcast I linked above is, too.  I recently had to respond to a condescending, pro-explicit teaching op-ed, as well. 

I'm not sure what the motivation is, but the explicit teaching experts don't just want to persuade you that their way is best; they want you to feel like a nefarious, sociopathic monster if you've ever so much as considered employing a single other instructional framework at any time in your career.

This round of "back to basics," apparently, demands instructional purity.  It really isn't enough to tell them, you'll see, hear and read.  No.   If you care about the kids, you must Just Tell Them. 
​

Evidence, apparently, that I don't care about him, as I did more than Just Tell Him how small of a difference thousandths make when comparing  decimal values.

4. Explicit Teaching and Cognitive Science Aren't The Same Thing

Every book I've read, workshop I've attended, and podcast I've listened to in this wave of explicit teaching has included a lesson on cognitive science, too.

Which is good!  Aligning instruction with what we know about learning is important.

What isn't so good is the tendency to equate explicit teaching and cognitive science, which means to claim:

• If you're doing explicit teaching, you're aligned with cognitive science, and
• If you want to align with cognitive science, you have to do explicit teaching

Both points there are patently false.

​First, like any other instructional framework or structure, explicit teaching only aligns with cognitive science if we are careful to make sure that it does.  It only works if done with fidelity.  It isn't cognitive science on its own.

​
Second, other instructional philosophies or frameworks are in harmony with cognitive science, too.  Direct instruction doesn't have the monopoly on alignment that Gronshell or the rest of the condescending explicit teaching purity police will tell you that it does.  I wrote an opus on the alignment of another instructional framework last summer, for example.

If you want to reap the benefits of cognitive science (and you should), yes, you can tell them.  But you can't - and don't have to - Just Tell Them.
​

"I was told these two things would be in perfect alignment."

5. Cognitive Science Isn't The Only Learning THeory

After breaking the bad news that explicit teaching isn't the exclusive way to align instruction with cognitive science, I now bring the even worse news that cognitive science isn't even the exclusive perspective on learning.  There are other learning theories, too!

And instinctively, you know this.

Cognitively informed explicit teaching isn't how you learned to drive.  It isn't how you made sense of the New York City subway system.  It isn't how you learned to be a better spouse, chose your political ideology, or learned to walk.  It isn't how J.D. Salinger learned to write The Cather In the Rye, nor how I learned to appreciate it as a masterpiece when I read it last month.

Explicit teaching isn't necessarily cognitive science.

Cognitive Science isn't necessarily explicit teaching.

Learning isn't necessarily cognitive science.

You've learned a lot in your life.  Much of it by someone telling you.  But Just Telling You?  Definitely not.  There are other routes to learning, too.
​​

One of my favorite series of pictures from many years ago.  Rather than Just Telling Them how to make a cloud in a bottle, I told them that it was possible and challenged them to figure out how for themselves.  They worked in groups for a while (top), before eventually convening as a class to share ideas when nobody could figure it out (middle). Not aligned with cognitive science, but lots of (very memorable) learning still took place.
​

6. The Research Says That Explicit teaching Is Better.  And That it Isn't.

When the explicit teaching initiative makes it to you, I can assure you that it will come with administrators and presenters sanctimoniously telling you that "the research says explicit teaching is better."  

What they won't tell you is that the research also says that it isn't.

They'll Just Tell You the research findings that support their own perspective

They'll also spare you the context of that research when they do.  For example, this explicit instruction promoter tells you that a "core study" found that students learn better from explicit instruction.  What he doesn't tell you is:

• the core study was limited to one group of kids learning one thing
• what the explicit teaching was compared to
• that the outcomes of both methods were equally good on two of three outcomes
• that the effect size in the one domain where explicit teaching did outperform was pretty small
• that there was no reason to think the results were generalizable to all learning in all contexts​

Most people who tell you what "the research says" haven't even read the actual research, much less have they learned how research works.
​

A car salesman trying to sell you a car is going to tell you all the things that makes his or her car great.  Other cars have great features, too, but you're not going to hear about those from someone trying to pursuade you to buy theirs.   

People selling you an instructional framework do the same.  Theirs is the only "car" they want you to buy, so they'll Just Tell You the outcomes of the studies that support their ideas. It isn't enough to buy a car - just buy mine.  And "according to the research," it isn't enough to tell them, get ready to be told, - Just Tell Them.
​

"If you look at the research - or at least the research I've chosen to share with you - I think you'll agree that I've made my point in spectacular fashion."

7. Failing to "Just Tell Them" is Not The REason We Have at-Risk Students

To conclude Just Tell Them, Gronshell implies that teachers' use of instructional frameworks other than explicit teaching is the reason we have "so called at-risk students" (p. 97).

It isn't.

Poverty and inequality are.

Shame on him.
​

8. Explicit teaching has a steeper Forgetting Curve

No matter what instructional framework is used, kids are going to forget things they've learned.  In my writing about Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics, I've written, and written again, and written again that - as it would be for any other instructional framework - a retrieval practice plan to combat forgetting is essential.

In Teach Like A Champion 3.0, Doug Lemov offers us this "forgetting curve" to remind us just how quickly and predictably students forget what they learn.
​

According to the forgetting curve, without intervention, we can expect students to forget half of what we teach them within the hour, about 60% by the next day, and about 80% by the next week.

This is anecdotal - purely my own experience - but I find that the forgetting curve is "steeper" when I use explicit teaching than it is with Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics or other, more problem-solving, experiential instructional structures.

I would imagine that this makes intuitive sense to most readers.  As I said above, cognitive scientists would tell us that there are two ways people learn - problem-solving and being told.  I would imagine, that for most of us, we have the experience that we're more likely to forget what we're told than what we figure out.  That's my experience in the classroom as well.

That doesn't deter me from using explicit instruction often.  Forgetting is normal and natural, as I said, in any instructional framework.  I'm going to have a plan to combat that forgetting either way.  But I do find that I have to do more memory management following explicit teaching, no matter how well I design it according to the details and principles that make it work.

Said differently, when I tell them, I absolutely can't Just Tell Them.

(Gronshell, I might note, makes no mention of forgetting or retrieval practice in his book.)
​

9. Like Other Instructional Methods, Explicit Teaching Only Works if It is Done Well

The reason other instructional frameworks rise and fall isn't that the frameworks themselves can't produce great learning, but rather that they don't get done with fidelity, usually because they get forced upon huge numbers of teachers who don't want anything to do with them once they become "initiatives." 

Like any instructional framework, explicit teaching only works if it is done well.  For all I've been critical of the tone and title of Gronshell's book, the advice he gives for doing explicit teaching well is largely excellent.  If you're going to Just Tell Them, carefully implementing Gronshell's detailed techniques will make your explicit teaching more effective.

But.

​That's also true for almost any other instructional framework that has risen and fallen.  Most teachers who read the books or go to the workshops on how to instruct in a way that is new to them just take away a few key points, implement the framework poorly, and then blame the framework they've improperly implemented for the poor results that follow.

I cannot stress this enough.

Explicit teaching - like anything else - only works if it is done properly and if it is done well.  Given that it has gone out of favor before, I think we have sufficient reason to believe that teachers are likely to underestimate and misapply explicit teaching.

And a great way to encourage teachers to underestimate and misapply it is to imply that "Just Telling Them" is all there is to explicit teaching.  The bulk of Gronshell's book shows us that explicit teaching takes excruciatingly careful planning and implementation, and then he undermines it all when he closes the book saying "...just freaking tell them" (p. 98.) and gives it the title he gave it.

"Telling them" - if it includes all the details required to make it aligned with cognitive science and true, genuine explicit teaching - is great. Just Telling Them is not.
​

After all this effort to demonstrate how small each subsequent decimal place gets, I'm sure they went home and said "we just cut up some 3x5 cards."

10. Direct Instruction Has Fallen Out of Favor Before

Explicit teaching - by its various names - has been around for a long time.  As it comes roaring back into favor, I think it important to remember that it has fallen out of favor before. 

More than once, I'd speculate.

Opponents of explicit teaching will tell you that it fell out of favor because it doesn't engage students, it is boring, and it doesn't work very well.

They're wrong.

Proponents of explicit teaching will tell you that it fell out of favor for ideological and political reasons even though it has an unblemished track record of effectiveness.

They're wrong, too.

It came and went for the same reason everything comes and goes in education - it was proclaimed to be the cure for all educational ills, it was forced upon the unwilling, and it was implemented without fidelity on a large scale.  It's a pattern I've affectionately named The Rise and Fall of Anything New.

Done poorly, explicit teaching becomes learning without doing anything.  It becomes "write this down and go study it at home."  It becomes science with no experiments, reading with no discussions, and social sciences that are anything but social.

Done poorly, explicit teaching becomes just telling.

And being done poorly is what makes things fall out of favor and get outlawed - literally - in schools.  

If we Just Tell them, we may lose the right to keep telling them in the future.
​

How to Prepare

The best way to be ready for an explicit teaching initiative is to be ready to implement explicit teaching well.  Even if it is never forced upon you as an all-encompassing instructional cure-all, chances are it is an instructional framework you already use often.  It is for me, and the learning I've done to improve my skills with it recently have really paid off big time.

The best resource I've been exposed to by far is Teach Like A Champion's two-hour The Principles of Direct Instruction webinar.  They have it offered monthly for the rest of the school year, and I would imagine they'll continue to offer it beyond that.  I can't stress enough how much I've learned from it, and how much more effective and enjoyable my explicit teaching is as a result.

Gronshell's book, if you can stand the condescension, has great advice in it, genuinely.  For all I resent his tone and his title, the content is outstanding.  Another great book is Do I Have Your Attention by Blake Harvard.  I haven't read them, but the seminal works on explicit teaching from its past swings of pendulum seem to be Explicit Teaching by Archer and Hughes and Principles of Instruction by Barak Rosenshine.  I skimmed the major headings of each in writing this post and I like what I saw.  Specifically for explicitly teaching reading, The Teach Like A Champion Guide to the Science of Reading has been transformative for several outstanding teachers I know.

Books tend to have a "here's how you should do it" lean to them, whereas blogs tend to have a "here's how I do it" perspective, which can be a more palatable learning experience for some.  I don't follow any blogs that exclusively focus on explicit instruction, but some for which it is at least a major recurring topic are from Ollie Lovell, Craig Barton, and Dylan Kane.   

If you can recommend any other great sources, please leave them in the comments and I'll be sure to add them!

To conclude, I've made the assertion that even though Gronshell's book on explicit teaching is very good, there is a real danger that many will come away remembering just the conclusion and the title as a sufficient takeaway.  As such, I've made sure that my title makes the point that I wanted this (very long) post to make, and I'll make it in my conclusion as well.

Yes. Teach explicitly.

Yes. Tell them.

But don't Just Tell Them.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it! 

Want to make sure you never miss a new post?  Subscribe below for email notifications of new content.

Want to read more right now?  You're in luck - this is my 108th post! You can browse past posts by category:

• ​Building A Thinking Classroom
• Leaning Into The Science and Engineering Practices
• Classroom Practices
• Classroom Stories
• Ideas and Opinions
• Pandemic-Related Issues

Want to contribute to the conversation?  Or do you have an idea for a future post?  Leave a comment below!