Explicit instruction and inquiry learning both produce strong outcomes. Research shows explicit boosts performance, while inquiry boosts critical thinking and engagement.
Explicit instruction is structured and effective for building concrete skills. But it can limit agency, creativity, and deeper conceptual understanding if used alone.
Inquiry learning fosters exploration, perspective-taking, and deep thinking. But without guidance, students can miss essential content or skills.
Neither method is “better” in isolation. Treating them as opposites creates a rigid, unhelpful binary.
The real power is in blending both approaches. Explicit instruction provides clarity, while inquiry provides context, purpose, and engagement.
Research supports blended models. Guided inquiry with targeted explicit teaching leads to stronger and more consistent learning outcomes.
Great teaching uses the right method at the right time. Like choosing tools, the approach depends on the learning goal.
Blended learning builds depth, relevance, and skill mastery. Offering structure and student agency to prepare learners for real success.
Transcript
Did you know that, according to a 2009 study by Hattie, explicit instruction can improve student performance by up to 23%?
However, at the same time, a study by Barron and 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? Let's find out.
Today, I'm diving into two popular and seemingly opposing methods—explicit instruction and inquiry learning.
These approaches shape how we teach and learn, but which one actually leads to better outcomes in the classroom?
The debate between the two has divided educators for years. Explicit instruction, where teachers are clearly demonstrating 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.
But on the other hand, inquiry learning emphasises student-led exploration and critical thinking, inviting students to ask questions and to seek their own answers. It's a clear way to spark curiosity and engagement, so the question really is, which method works best?
Should teachers use explicit, or should they embrace inquiry for deeper learning? Let's break down the strengths and the weaknesses of each method.
Explicit instruction is all about teacher-directed learning. It's structured, it's step-by-step, and it works exceptionally well in certain contexts.
In martial arts, for example, the instructor demonstrates a move, then practices it with the student, and then finally the student practices with peers. This method is clear, it's focused, and it ensures that every student masters essential skills.
Research by John Hattie in 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 cannot explicitly instruct thinking. And so much of the curriculum is centered 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 very disconnected, lacking context or even purpose. It also removes agency completely from students, leaving little to no room for creativity or critical thinking. And if used exclusively, it risks turning education into a rigid, prescriptive process.
This brings up a very valid critique often referred to as the pedagogy of oppression, where students passively absorb scripted information without actively engaging in the learning process and with pretty much no choice.
Now, inquiry learning flips the script on this, giving 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. Now here, according to a 2001 study, inquiry allows students to dive deep into multiple perspectives, develop their own questions, and connect historical facts to broader social contexts.
But there's a downside too. With inquiry, there's always the risk that students might miss key content in their search for big answers. The connection between inquiry focus and the necessary skills isn't always clear.
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark in 2006 argued that without proper guidance, inquiry can lead to gaps in knowledge and uneven learning outcomes.
Now here's where things get really interesting—Neither method is inherently better.
But why do we have to only choose one?
This is a binary or duality mindset of opposites, and it can be pretty 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 pretty great.
It's like riding a bike with only one wheel. Technically, yes, it's possible, but so much more effective with two.
Life is full of examples where things work better together. Why should teaching be any different?
The magic happens when we blend the two. A 2019 case study from the Australian government focusing on Australia's STEM initiatives shows that when inquiry-based projects are supported by moments of explicit instruction, students perform better across the board. Inquiry gives them the context and purpose to stay motivated, while explicit instruction, strategically applied, ensures that they acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed.
In my work with schools, I use a series of agency learning models 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.
For example, if you ask a carpenter, "Is a screwdriver or a hammer the better tool?", the immediate response would be ... well, it depends on the job.
But this should be our approach as well—to use the right tool at the right time for the right job.
So 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 develops depth, relevance, and engagement, while ensuring students don't miss essential content.
So what's the key takeaway? It's not about choosing between explicit instruction or inquiry learning. It's about knowing when to use each. And by blending them together, we create learning experiences that are both structured and meaningful, preparing students for success.