Constructivism? Direct Instruction? Just Tell Me What Works.

I’ve been teaching long enough to see educational philosophies rise, fall, and rise again under new branding. Constructivism. Direct Instruction. Project-Based Learning. Inquiry-Based Everything. I’ve sat through the PDs. Read the books. Tried the strategies. And here’s the honest truth:
Every approach works…until it doesn’t.

If you’re looking for someone to preach from the mountaintop about the “one true way” to teach, you’re in the wrong classroom. But if you want a candid look at what actually works in real-life, noisy, beautifully unpredictable classrooms? Pull up a chair.

Constructivism: “Let the Students Discover!”

The idea: Students build knowledge through exploration, collaboration, and inquiry. The teacher is a guide on the side, not the sage on the stage.

When it works:

• With high-engagement topics

• When students already have some background knowledge

• In small groups with strong classroom norms

• When you’re not secretly trying to meet 12 standards in one lesson

When it flops:

• When kids have no prior knowledge to build from

• When the group dynamics go off the rails (see: glue in hair, group “leader” doing it all)

• When time is tight and clarity is crucial

My verdict:
Constructivism has its place—but if you don’t explicitly teach the basics first, you’re building castles on quicksand. It’s not anti-structure. It’s just a delayed structure. Think of it as enrichment, not introduction.

Direct Instruction: “I’m Teaching. You’re Listening.”

The idea: Clear, teacher-led instruction. Step-by-step modeling. Lots of repetition and practice. It’s what most of us were trained to do before everything got turned into an acronym.

When it works:

• With new, complex content

• When kids need a clear, confident lead

• In classrooms with wide ability ranges

• When students are overwhelmed and need cognitive simplicity

When it flops:

• When overused—hello, glazed eyes and passive learning

• If it’s only lecture with zero interaction

• When the pacing ignores student understanding

My verdict:
Direct instruction is not a dirty word. It’s efficient, it’s clear, and kids often want you to just tell them how to do the thing. But you can’t stay in this lane forever. At some point, they have to drive.

So… What Actually Works?

1. Start with direct instruction. Shift to inquiry.
Teach the skills. Model the thinking. Then release the responsibility. Let them explore after they have tools.

2. Blend approaches depending on the content.
Phonics? Direct.
Analyzing character motivation? Constructivist.
Fractions? Direct, then hands-on.
Writing a persuasive letter to the principal? Project-based with explicit mini-lessons.

3. Know your kids.
Some students thrive when given freedom. Others need scaffolding so solid you could build a bridge with it. You can’t force every child to fit a single model. That’s not pedagogy—it’s laziness.

4. Vary the method, not the outcome.
Your goal is learning. Not loyalty to a philosophy. Use what works, toss what doesn’t, and don’t apologize for being practical.

Final Thoughts

Here’s what 25 years of teaching has taught me:
No approach is magic.
No acronym will fix everything.
And the best strategy is the one that meets the kids in front of you.

So call it what you want. Mix and match. Take the best of all worlds. Because at the end of the day, I’m not here to defend a theory—I’m here to help kids learn. And that, frankly, doesn’t fit in one box.