Explicit Instruction is rightly celebrated for bringing clarity to classrooms.
Lessons are structured. Expectations are clear. Success is modelled and achievable.
For many students—especially those who previously struggled with ambiguity—this clarity is empowering. It builds confidence. It supports success. It helps students perform.
But there’s a trade-off we need to talk about.
Because when we give students clarity at every step, we can quietly take something else away.
We reduce the learner’s need to decide.
The Clarity–Agency Trade-Off
The more we sequence the task, the less the student needs to plan.
The more we model the process, the less they need to problem-solve.
The more we pre-empt mistakes, the less they need to reflect.
Again, this isn’t bad. In fact, it’s essential in the early stages of learning. As Sweller’s work on Cognitive Load reminds us, novice learners need structure to succeed without overwhelming their working memory (Sweller, 1994).
But when we never take the structure away—when we keep doing all the thinking—students become reliant on being led. Not just supported. Directed.
And that’s where agency begins to erode.
You Can’t Give Students Agency
Agency is an outcome, not a pedagogy.
Giving students more voice or more choice doesn’t create agency. It creates permission. And permission is not the same as capability.
Agency isn’t about being allowed to act. It’s about knowing how—and having the capacity—to act meaningfully, particularly in the face of challenge.
That’s why in my work I define agency as having three interrelated components:
- The environment to act
- The will to act
- The power to act
Explicit Instruction often provides the first. It creates a structured, well-sequenced environment for success.
But if we don’t also develop the will and the power, we haven’t developed agency.
We’ve just delayed dependency.
Are Your Students Waiting for the “I Do”?
You can spot the signs of this dependency in many well-run classrooms:
- Students who excel—until the modelling stops.
- Students who follow the steps—but can’t decide when or why to use them.
- Students who complete tasks quickly—but freeze when asked, “What do you think we should do next?”
This isn’t disengagement. It’s over-scaffolding.
The structure has become a ceiling, not a scaffold.
The teacher hasn’t just led the learning. They’ve carried the learner.
Learnership Builds the Power to Act
So how do we ensure our clarity doesn’t come at the cost of capability?
We build Learnership alongside instruction.
In my book Learnership, I define it as the skill of learning itself—the ability to engage with challenge, apply effort strategically, act on feedback, and grow from mistakes. It’s what allows students to stretch beyond the scaffold and build genuine learning capability.
Learnership strengthens the power to act, giving learners the tools to respond when structure fades and challenge increases.
It doesn’t mean abandoning Explicit Instruction.
It means preparing learners for what comes next.
Clarity + Capability = Agency
When Learnership and Explicit Instruction work together, we create something powerful.
We maintain clarity—but we also build adaptability.
We support students—but also teach them how to support themselves.
We reduce cognitive load—but we increase learner capacity.
Agency doesn’t emerge by easing restrictions or handing over control.
It develops when students have the will and the skill to act.
That’s the work. That’s the shift.
Want to Go Deeper?
This blog is part of a larger series exploring the limits of Explicit Instruction—and the missing piece that completes it.
Explicit Instruction Delivers Learning. Learnership Develops Learners.
