The Structural Contradiction Between Constructivist Learning and Direct Instruction

Most teachers learn implicitly (if not told explicitly) that good teaching is a balance of direct instruction and student-centered learning. We're encouraged to keep one foot in each world by delivering direct, explicit instruction that simultaneously promotes student-centered learning experiences.

In reality, that advice describes a daily tension in education because the truth is that those two worlds run on different rules.

The first world sees students as empty vessels where knowledge is something students receive. In this world, the teacher explains, models, checks for understanding, and moves on. Coverage matters. Pacing matters. Evidence equals learning. When students struggle, the responsible move is to clarify, reteach, and/or simplify. This world values control, not out of cruelty but out of care. In this world, adults are accountable for their students' learning, so adults must manage the learning process.

The second world sees students as a "seeded vessel" where learning is something students construct through interaction with ideas and experiences. In this world, understanding grows through confusion, exploration, revision, and conversation. Time stretches. Outcomes vary. Evidence looks different from child to child. Struggle isn’t a problem that adults are meant to quickly fix but rather part of the learning process. This world values experiences, questions, and resists the urge to control an individual's learning process.

These two worlds make opposing demands on developing learners.

You see it when a rich discussion starts to wander but the teacher redirects because a district's pacing guide is looming. You feel it when students are exploring different solutions to a particular objective, but the assessment requires students respond in a particular format on a scheduled day. You hear it when you encourage independence then step in because “this needs to be done right.” You watch it when students are given choice then graded for sameness.

And students notice.

They learn quickly whether meaning matters more than compliance, whether thinking is valued or merely tolerated until the “real” instruction begins. When those messages conflict, students don’t choose confusion, they choose safety. They wait. They perform. They ask, “Is this what you want?” not “Does this make sense?”

That’s not a failure of student motivation. It’s a rational human response to mixed signals.

The hardest part for teachers is that this tension isn’t personal, it’s structural. Most schools operate on systems built for fixed pacing, standardized assessments, comparable data. Must of the current education system is built on these foundations and tied directly to state and local funding and comes with logical demands for oversight and accountability to validate the financial public investment. As a result, that first world aligns efficiently with how these systems are designed to operate.

Teachers, meanwhile, are often trained in the language of the second world: agency, engagement, sense-making, growth. Teachers build beautiful learning experiences for students to engage and explore with engaging open-ended questions that spark interest, guided activities that promote collaboration, and time for students to independently explore concepts and skills. All of this undermined, unfortunately, in the final minutes of a lesson, day, or week when every student is demanded to place themselves on a scheduled scale of graded measure where "just enough" is at the top and each subsequent lower level is a degree of failure both teachers and students use to compare how quickly a student can learn any given concept or skill.

The Bottom Line: Trying to live in both worlds at once doesn’t create balance. It creates whiplash. Effective teaching depends entirely on what problem instruction is meant to solve.

Direct, explicit instruction serves as a highly effective practice when students are the ones deciding when they are ready and willing to receive that instruction. That doesn't mean that instruction never happens or that when it does happen learning magically happens because of the teaching was deemed effective due to past experiences with students who learned in response to a particular teaching practice. The false comparison is exposed when we realize that effective teaching practices depend on students' metacognitive and motivational capacities rooted in self-awareness and self-management respective to their developmental stages (i.e. cognitive, psychosocial, moral, conscience, etc.).

Direct, explicit instruction may also serve as a highly effective practice when addressing structural protocols for school-wide health and safety measures. There are often standard operating procedures that are non-negotiable for the sake of addressing the health and safety of humans who are participating in a collective learning environment (e.g. a school).

When these elements of "effective teaching" are conflated with the actual learning process of concepts and skills within a classroom where ideas are taught directly to students as if the schedule of instruction is non-negotiable and failure to comply is a failure of either the teacher or the student, we mistakenly develop a classroom culture where coverage replaces curiosity and compliance is mistaken for competence.

When teachers stop trying to reconcile incompatible logics and start sequencing them intentionally, separating the two worlds, something shifts. Classrooms begin to feel calmer. Students soon begin to understand the value of ownership. Teachers feel less like they’re betraying their instincts just to survive the day.

The problem was never that teachers couldn’t balance these worlds well enough. The problem has always been that teachers were asked to internalize and externalize both worlds at the same time and ignore their instincts that these two worlds are directly contradicting each other.

Greg Mullen

January 18, 2026

General Consult

30min

Book Now