Explicit Instruction As An Intervention - Literature Review Part 2
This is the second of three posts on my action research paper: Explicit Instruction as an Intervention for Fourth-Grade Students Scoring Below Basic on Benchmark Testing in Mathematics
Literature Review - Part 2 (Currently reading)
Explicit instruction in practice
Long, Bouck, and Jaubow (2021) list four components of explicit instruction in a specific sequence: 1) advanced organizer, 2) modeling, 3) guided practice, and 4) independent practice.
First, the teachers provide an advanced organizer that explains the learning target or objective.
Then, the teacher models by explicitly showing students how to solve a problem utilizing think-aloud and step-by-step instruction. Next, students work through guided practice problems while the teacher prompts as needed and provides feedback on strategies and accuracy.
Lastly, the students engage in independent practice without support from their teacher.
The structure of the lesson sequence is important because one of the goals of explicit instruction is to reduce cognitive load for students, freeing up space to learn new content. Nani Restati Siregar (2021) states that excessive load reduces working memory capacity. If a student does not have the prior knowledge needed to do the math without being told how to do it, their working memory may be limited, and they may struggle to solve problems or process new information. In contrast, Gerzel-Short and Heden (2022) state that explicit instruction allows teachers to help students build a foundation for more challenging math problem-solving.
Prior research on explicit instruction
Explicit instruction is a systematic approach to delivering content; however, several ways exist to implement it in the classroom. One of the more popular methods is the Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA) approach. Margaret M. Flores and Vanessa M. Hinton (2022) found that the CRA approach to explicit instruction benefited students with emotional and behavior disorders.
The CRA approach may be better for students with emotional and behavior disorders because of its interactive nature. Students receive manipulatives in the form of counters, place value blocks, and other tools to make learning more hands-on and interactive. Next, the representational model breaks down the math with visual models. These visual models provide necessary context to improve conceptual understanding. Finally, the abstract method often incorporates an algorithm or set of rules to solve a problem. Combined, these three teacher-led instructional elements worked together to improve understanding.
In a 2019 study, Greg Ashman, Slava Kalyuga, and John Sweller found that explicit instruction, followed by problem-solving, was superior to achieving targeted learning outcomes than the problem-based approach, where explicit instruction follows inquiry learning. The researchers noted that explicit instruction likely reduced cognitive load, allowing students to store new information in their long-term memory. This study, along with several similar studies, used science as the tested subject matter. While their findings further the conversation, more research must be done, specifically in mathematics, to determine if explicit instruction is an effective and appropriate intervention.
Drawbacks of explicit instruction
Although explicit instruction is an evidence-based approach with proven instructional outcomes, the practice has potential drawbacks and has drawn criticisms from proponents of inquiry-based and discovery learning approaches. Jennifer Krawer and Marissa Steinberg (2019) note that one of the problems with explicit instruction is its focus on mastering fundamental skills, leaving less time to address complex math applications like problem-solving skills. This is important to note because inquiry-based learning methods provide time for students to approach problems from a student-centered perspective. This may lead to better learning outcomes because students must rely on and build on prior knowledge to learn a new concept. Inquiry-based learning methods center on student voice and promote student engagement.
References
Ashman, G., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2019). Problem-solving or Explicit Instruction: Which Should Go First When Element Interactivity Is High? Educational Psychology Review, 229–247.
Doabler, C. T., & Fien, H. (2013). Explicit Mathematics Instruction: What Teachers Can Do for Teaching Students With Mathematics Difficulties. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(5), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451212473151
Evaluation, research, and Accountability. The School District of Philadelphia. (2023). https://www.philasd.org/era/pssa-pasa-information/
Gerzel-Short, L., & Hedin, L. (2021). Purposeful use of high-leverage practices to teach number sense. Intervention in School and Clinic, 57(3), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211014839
Hinton, V., & Flores, M. (2022). Concrete-representational-abstract–integrated as a tier 2 instruction to teach addition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 41(3), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/87568705221075756
Illustrative mathematics Im K–5 math: Im Demo. Illustrative Mathematics IM K–5 Math | IM Demo. (2021). https://curriculum.illustrativemathematics.org/k5/curriculum.html
Johnson, N. C., Franke, M. L., & Turrou, A. C. (2022, October 31). Making competence explicit: Helping students take up opportunities to engage in math together. Teachers College Record.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1358603
Krawec, J., & Steinberg, M. (2019). Inquiry-based instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(2), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.18666/ldmj-2019-v24-i2-9866
Long, H. M., Bouck, E. C., & Jakubow, L. N. (2021). Explicit instruction in mathematics: Considerations for Virtual Learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643421994099
McLesky, J., Barringer, M.-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., & Lewis, T. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children.
PSSA results. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2023). https://www.education.pa.gov/DataAndReporting/Assessments/Pages/PSSA-Results.aspx
Siregar, Nani Restati. (2021). Explicit instruction and executive functioning capacity: A new direction in cognitive load theory. Journal of Education, 203(2), 451–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211033256
Stevens, E. A., Leroux, A. J., Mowbray, M. H., & Lee, G. S. (2022). Evaluating the effects of adding explicit vocabulary instruction to a word-problem schema intervention. Exceptional Children, 89(3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221112290