On explicit teaching and student behaviour

There are some pretty convincing links!

Order and flourishing: Photo by lan deng on Unsplash

Things have been a bit quiet on this Substack of late. I’ve been recording my imminent (I promise!) podcast with Dr Nathaniel Swain, and working on my PhD research. Many words have been written, just not on this Substack!

I’ve decided to translate some of the findings from my literature review here because quite frankly, they’re fascinating! I’ve finally found a topic that will stimulate my interest for up to six years—the relationship between explicit teaching and non-academic outcomes.

I get a little tired of hearing teachers and leaders say that “academics aren’t everything.” It’s not just pious, it’s misguided. Education predicts so many life outcomes, and by education, I don’t mean a fabricated score on the human quality of “curiosity” or something equally inane.

Sneak Preview - Chalk Dust

It’s also a great example of a luxury belief: I’m quite sure that those particular teachers making claims to holistic education would be horribly unhappy if their own child performed poorly in reading or mathematics and their complaints were met with the old chestnut, “I educate the whole person.” As it turns out, explicit teaching appears to satisfy the needs of the “whole person” anyway.

But this piece is going to focus on one particular non-academic outcome, and that’s student behaviour. This little investigation of mine started from a string of anecdotal accounts: several school leaders reported to me that after they implemented explicit instruction, behaviour issues in their classrooms almost evaporated. I’ve done some digging and I have some thoughts about why.

First, why should we care? Well, it’s linked to student achievement (Hattie, 2010; Wang et al., 1993). In Australia, 30% of teachers say that they lose “a lot” of learning time due to persistent disruption (OECD, 2019). Research by the Grattan Institute (Hunter & Sonnemann, 2022) pointed to complex student needs and disruptive behaviour as obstacles to great quality lesson preparation.

Most Australian teachers have received some kind of training in behaviour management as part of their university study, but only around half feel prepared to deal with disruptive behaviour (OECD, 2019). It’s a major stressor for teachers, contributing to burnout and ultimately teachers’ intentions to leave the profession (Collie, 2021, 2023; Parliament of Australia, 2023). We should be worried about this.

Here’s where explicit teaching might come in. Its structured, predictable approach and participation norms might actually help with behaviour. Think of it this way: participation routines—like turn-taking, choral responses, and transitions—often co-occur and could even stand in for some behavioural routines. Together, they build predictability and order, creating a classroom environment that prevents problems before they start (see Marzano et al., 2003; and Brophy, 2006 for more).

Despite the way the media sometimes portrays schools, most teachers aren’t facing constant student aggression or violence. What they face daily is low-level, persistent disruption—students talking out of turn, drifting off task, or distracting others (Beaman et al., 2007). These behaviours are far more common than outright defiance, and they interfere with teaching just the same. They’re especially prevalent after the transition to secondary school (Angus et al., 2010), perhaps because students encounter big changes in structure and consistency between classrooms.

Only a small proportion of students—around 8%—are openly uncooperative. But about 20% are quietly disengaged, and another 12% engage in regular low-level disruption. Disengagement is a bigger problem than it looks. It’s a key predictor of underperformance—almost as much as more overt behavioural issues. Longitudinal research by Angus et al., 2010, and co-authored by the legendary Dr Tim McDonald, is illuminating.

So, what does successful classroom management actually look like? And how does it align with what we might see in an explicit classroom?

It rests on three pillars: (a) managerial preparation: organising effective lessons in advance, which includes curriculum planning; (b) discipline: rules, consequences, and clear expectations; and (c) instructional methods, especially those that command attention and encourage participation (Wilks, 1996; Brophy, 2006; Marzano et al., 2003). Explicit teaching comes under number three and is what I like to think of as preventative medicine.

While some management strategies, like moving closer to misbehaving students or using firm verbal reminders, don’t seem directly related to instruction (Hattie, 2010), many high-impact strategies align closely with explicit teaching. Teacher dominance, for example, is strongly predictive of student achievement (d = 0.87; Hattie, 2010), and is a core feature of teacher-directed classrooms. Structured environments help prevent disruption before it starts (Brophy, 2006).

High participation strategies like cold-calling and choral responses aren’t just useful, they’re equitable and inclusive (Marzano & Marzano, 2003). There’s no hiding and no opting out. Explicit teaching provides multiple opportunities for teachers to praise and encourage, developing safety and student feelings of competence. When routines are clear, transitions are smooth, and expectations are high, behaviour often takes care of itself.

Interestingly, students often prefer to be taught by teachers who take charge (Marzano & Marzano, 2003). A structured classroom doesn’t mean an impersonal one. Rosenshine (1978) found that teachers who maintained a strong academic focus also came across as warm, cooperative, and even “convivial.” They praised students frequently, kept an eye on behaviour, and prevented issues before they escalated.

In short, structure and warmth aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go together. Classrooms featuring highly structured and explicit methods tend to be good for learning and good for relationships. Agree, disagree or build?

---

Related—from the archive

On the transformative power of teaching first

On things that are better together

On invisible pedagogy

---

Works cited and consulted

Angus, M. J., McDonald, T., Ormond, C., Rybarcyk, R., Taylor, A., & Winterton, A. (2010). Trajectories of classroom behaviour and academic progress: A study of student engagement with learning. Edith Cowan University. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/7000

Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007). Recent Research on Troublesome Classroom Behaviour: A Review. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1030011200025586

Brophy, J. (2006). Observational Research on Generic Aspects of Classroom Teaching. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 755–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Collie, R. J. (2021). A multilevel examination of teachers’ occupational commitment: The roles of job resources and disruptive student behavior. Social Psychology of Education, 24(2), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09617-y

Collie, R. J. (2023). Job demands and resources, teachers’ subjective vitality, and turnover intentions: An examination during COVID-19. Educational Psychology, 43(5), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2036323

Collie, R. J., Granziera, H., Martin, A. J., Burns, E. C., & Holliman, A. J. (2020). Adaptability among science teachers in schools: A multi-nation examination of its role in school outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103148

Hattie, J. (2010). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (Reprinted). Routledge.

Hunter, J., & Sonnemann, J. (2022). Making time for great teaching: How better government policy can help. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Making-time-for-great-teaching-how-better-government-policy-can-help-Grattan-Report.pdf

Joseph, L. M., Alber‐Morgan, S., & Neef, N. (2016). Applying behaviour analytic procedures to effectively teach literacy skills in the classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 53(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21883

Kollerová, L., Květon, P., Zábrodská, K., & Janošová, P. (2023). Teacher exhaustion: The effects of disruptive student behaviors, victimization by workplace bullying, and social support from colleagues. Social Psychology of Education, 26(4), 885–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09779-x

Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The Key to Classroom Management. ASCD, 61(1). https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-key-to-classroom-management

Marzano, R. J., Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en

Parliament of Australia. (2023). The issue of increasing disruption in Australian school classrooms (Australia) [Text]. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/DASC/Interim_Report/Chapter_2_-_Impact_on_teachers

Rosenshine, B. (1978). Academic Engaged Time, Content Covered, and Direct Instruction. Journal of Education, 160(3), 38–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205747816000304

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.

Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L. J., & Underwood, C. (2017). PISA 2015: Reporting Australia’s results. Australian Council for Educational Research.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170546

Wilks, R. (1996). Classroom Management in Primary Schools: A Review of the Literature. Behaviour Change, 13(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0813483900003922