I agree with this, and I also agree with the evidence presented. As much as I value explicit instruction, I think an 80/20 approach is often the most practical way to think about it.
One thing I would add is that we tend to both over-identify students as “gifted” and then respond by teaching in ways that actually frustrate them. Even advanced learners still benefit from elements of direct instruction, not complete autonomy or purely problem-based approaches.
The more important point, though, is that these decisions have to live at the classroom level. Instruction should be responsive, based on what teachers are seeing through assessment and day-to-day work with students. There is also a group dynamic to consider—if instruction is adjusted too heavily for one student, it can come at the expense of everyone else.
This is why strong classroom teachers matter so much. They are the ones in the best position to make informed, real-time decisions about what will actually support the students in front of them.
Perhaps it’s simplistic, but way back in the eighties, one of my primary school teachers used to put what she called an “Early Bird” question on the board, literally for those of us who finished early and wanted to tackle something more complicated by ourselves.
Extension work I guess. The option was there for everyone.
Truly gifted students - who were few and far between - skipped grades…
When doing daily reviews, I always have in my back pocket a way to extend students while the others are working away. There is no reason why I can be doing this during an We Do or You Do whole class question.
We only thought would be how to do this well without affecting the attention that the rest of the class have on the task.
This is such a thoughtful and honest reflection on what it really means to engage with the science of learning—holding strong positions, but remaining open to refinement. What stands out is the nuance: not abandoning explicit instruction, but recognising that sequencing might flex under certain conditions, particularly for learners with higher prior knowledge. The tension you highlight feels very real for classroom teachers—balancing what works for most with what might better serve some, without tipping into unmanageable complexity. That idea of an “80/20” model, with tightly controlled moments of problem-solving, feels like a pragmatic middle ground that respects both the evidence and the realities of the classroom.
This well thought out discussion raises so many important points that we should all take note of. There is no single formula for good teaching. The best teacher is the one who has an understanding of many pedagogies and is willing to adapt to the group needs at different times. Sometimes we need to be explicit, sometimes we need to have enquiry. The enquiry may need to be guided, the explicit teaching may need to be less rigid. As Rebecca reminds us balance is at the core of good teaching.
This article highlights the tension between explicit instruction and problem-solving for gifted learners. Evidence shows explicit teaching is usually most effective, though short, structured problem-solving can benefit high-prior-knowledge students. The challenge is balancing both without overloading learners.
I agree with this, and I also agree with the evidence presented. As much as I value explicit instruction, I think an 80/20 approach is often the most practical way to think about it.
One thing I would add is that we tend to both over-identify students as “gifted” and then respond by teaching in ways that actually frustrate them. Even advanced learners still benefit from elements of direct instruction, not complete autonomy or purely problem-based approaches.
The more important point, though, is that these decisions have to live at the classroom level. Instruction should be responsive, based on what teachers are seeing through assessment and day-to-day work with students. There is also a group dynamic to consider—if instruction is adjusted too heavily for one student, it can come at the expense of everyone else.
This is why strong classroom teachers matter so much. They are the ones in the best position to make informed, real-time decisions about what will actually support the students in front of them.
I agree with everything you have said.
Perhaps it’s simplistic, but way back in the eighties, one of my primary school teachers used to put what she called an “Early Bird” question on the board, literally for those of us who finished early and wanted to tackle something more complicated by ourselves.
Extension work I guess. The option was there for everyone.
Truly gifted students - who were few and far between - skipped grades…
I really like this idea.
When doing daily reviews, I always have in my back pocket a way to extend students while the others are working away. There is no reason why I can be doing this during an We Do or You Do whole class question.
We only thought would be how to do this well without affecting the attention that the rest of the class have on the task.
This is such a thoughtful and honest reflection on what it really means to engage with the science of learning—holding strong positions, but remaining open to refinement. What stands out is the nuance: not abandoning explicit instruction, but recognising that sequencing might flex under certain conditions, particularly for learners with higher prior knowledge. The tension you highlight feels very real for classroom teachers—balancing what works for most with what might better serve some, without tipping into unmanageable complexity. That idea of an “80/20” model, with tightly controlled moments of problem-solving, feels like a pragmatic middle ground that respects both the evidence and the realities of the classroom.
Thanks Carla.
Oh, the joy of reading that somebody is willing to say "it depends."
Haha well it’s at least worth a brief experiment in the classroom now and again!
https://toprightleadingandlearning.substack.com/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2lo6de
This well thought out discussion raises so many important points that we should all take note of. There is no single formula for good teaching. The best teacher is the one who has an understanding of many pedagogies and is willing to adapt to the group needs at different times. Sometimes we need to be explicit, sometimes we need to have enquiry. The enquiry may need to be guided, the explicit teaching may need to be less rigid. As Rebecca reminds us balance is at the core of good teaching.
This article highlights the tension between explicit instruction and problem-solving for gifted learners. Evidence shows explicit teaching is usually most effective, though short, structured problem-solving can benefit high-prior-knowledge students. The challenge is balancing both without overloading learners.