Our problem of practice at Georges Hall PS focuses on both explicit instruction and students being engaged and self-directed. CESE in "What Works Best: Evidence-based practices to help improve NSW student performance" defines explicit instruction as:
Explicit instruction involves teaching students the content and skills to be learned using clear, unambiguous language. Teacher modelling and teacher guidance is followed by scheduled opportunities for practice. Student/ teacher interaction is high.
Explicit instruction is also systematic: there is a carefully planned sequence of teaching that is constructed in a logical sequence from simple to complex objectives, commencing from the point at which students are already competent.
This may sound simple - but it implies that teachers are able to plan a logical sequence of objectives. And that teachers know the starting point in the learning for each student. My question is: will the logical sequence be the same for each student? In a multi-faceted skill such as reading, students may very well appear to be at the same "level", but may have a very different profile of skills. How do we follow the "logical sequence" which still challenging and engaging all students?
What do you think? What is your big question about explicit instruction or student self-direction?