This blog is Part 1 of 3.
We’re going to look at a key dichotomy that sits at the heart of teaching and learning, that of facilitation vs instruction.
As we’ll see, both models offer benefits, and both have limitations.
I’ll walk you through each one and, across the three blogs, we’ll look at practical examples of how you can adopt the different roles in your teaching.
Introduction
The two main schools of thought concerning the teacher’s role in the classroom centre on whether they should be a facilitator of learning or an instructor of learners.
The debate over which is best is an old one.
It rests, in part, on a distinction between the two main strands of what teaching and learning is all about.
First, the sense that learning ought to involve the learner as the central subject (facilitation model).
Second, that the teacher, who is in possession of superior knowledge and understanding, should be the focus (instruction model).
This tension has been present in formal education since its inception.
There is no definitive answer.
The question is one of preference as much as anything else.
The one point that we can make definitively is that the extreme of both positions is manifestly unfavourable.
A teacher who does nothing but facilitate will rob learners of the opportunity to learn from their stock of knowledge and understanding.
A teacher who does nothing but instruct will give their learners no chance to develop an independent understanding or to practice skills effectively.
And so, with this point, does my own position become clear.
I would argue that a balance should be sought in all cases.
Where that balance lies for you will depend upon your own vision of what teaching and learning should be, as well as the evidence you elicit about the progress your learners make.
Across this blog and the two that follow, I’ll flesh out this position by presenting an analysis of both facilitation and instruction, as well as explaining why a mixture of the two is preferable, in my experience.
By doing this, I hope to give you a framework through which you can reflect on your own teaching, your wider beliefs about what education should entail and, as a result, come to a decision about how you would like to mix these two pedagogical approaches.
What’s the difference?
We begin with the obvious question.
And to this we can propose a simple answer.
Facilitation sees the teacher setting up situations in which learners can explore ideas and information – through which they can take the lead in their own learning.
Instruction sees the teacher directly instructing learners as regards the learning, taking the leading role themselves and basing this on their own knowledge, understanding and experience.
One way to consider these two approaches is through the concept of a continuum.
Here we find absolute facilitation at one end and total instruction at the other.
In between are the various combinations of approach that any teacher may choose to adopt.
Using a continuum serves to characterise the debate between facilitation and instruction as a discussion about extents.
To what extent should you favour one or the other?
This, for me, is a more pleasing (and realistic) way in which to think than an either/or characterisation.
Such a dualistic shaping serves to posit a false choice, predicated on the notion that you can only choose one or the other.
This perspective, commonly seen in opinion-led pieces on the topic, ignores the reality of teaching.
By this I mean that teaching is a pragmatic business.
We find ourselves faced with a group of learners, possessed of a purpose (to maximise progress) and with a lesson plan in hand that, we hope, will allow us to square the circle.
As we teach the lesson, we respond to what happens.
We adapt and change in accordance with how learners react.
We make use of the range of strategies, activities and techniques we have assembled to try to achieve our purpose based on the reality that greets us.
This is why teaching is pragmatic.
It is also why an either/or debate is never useful.
Effective teachers are not hidebound.
They do not take up a position and stick to it regardless.
They tend to possess guiding principles about what they think learning and teaching is or ought to involve, but they are happy to use various means to achieve their ends.
Thus, for example, an effective teacher may look at a section of the curriculum for which they need to plan a scheme of work, identify certain points at which instruction will be preferable and others where facilitation will be the best course of action.
Then, when they come to teach their lessons, they will be prepared to change their minds, if the evidence in front of them warrants it.
Should you come across an either/or debate surrounding facilitation and instruction I would advise you to discount it.
Choosing one side and ignoring the other will cut you off from a huge range of tools and approaches that otherwise might prove incredibly useful in helping you to achieve your goals.
As with any position, venturing to the extreme will cut you off from benefits to which a more tempered view gives access.
Opting to praise facilitation at the same time as deriding instruction means your learners will never have the benefit of a clear, lucid exemplification of information or ideas about which you have expert knowledge.
Similarly, an outright rejection of facilitation in favour of complete instruction will remove the opportunity for learners to engage with ideas on their own terms and to develop a sense of independence.
Viewed in this light, we can see why a mixed approach is preferable.
It allows the teacher to draw on the strengths of both facilitation and instruction.
At the same time, there is still room for the teacher to make a choice as to which approach they prefer.
For example, a teacher who favours instruction but also understands the benefits of facilitation might split their teaching roughly 70/30 in favour of the former.
Whereas a teacher who feels a natural affinity for facilitation yet also recognises that without instruction major benefits are lost, might opt for a similar split going in the opposite direction.
All this brings us back to the point I made at the start: that it will be for you to decide where your preference lies.
In so doing, you will be able to develop a pragmatic approach that both satisfies your preferences and takes account of the benefits that come from being open to the use of both methods.
To help you in this decision, we’ll look at some of the benefits and drawbacks of each in turn.
The Benefits and Drawbacks of Facilitation
Facilitation is learner-led.
The teacher creates situations in which learners can take the lead.
This sees them driving the learning, rather than the teacher.
Good facilitation relies on a high level of teacher expertise.
This is for two reasons.
First, the teacher must be able to carefully plan a series of activities that allow learners to effectively engage with the content and have their thinking challenged.
Second, the teacher must spend the lesson supporting learners, using various techniques like circulating (moving through the room) and questioning to maximise engagement and tacitly direct the thinking that learners do.
The three greatest benefits of facilitation are as follows.
First, it encourages learners to be active.
By active we do not mean that learners are getting up and moving around the room.
Rather, we mean that they are intellectually active; closely engaged with the learning the teacher has asked them to do.
Second, it encourages the use of higher-order thinking like analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
This is because learners need to interact with whatever material has been presented to achieve the goals set out by the teacher.
Put another way, they need to complete the activities.
With this said, easy or weak activities will make it much harder for learners to successfully engage in higher-order thinking.
Third, the teacher can use their time effectively.
This is because learners are focussed on the learning, rather than the teacher.
Thus, the teacher does not need to remain at the front of the class, holding everyone’s attention.
Instead, they can move through the room and support learners as and when appropriate.
As they do this, they elicit information about learners’ knowledge and understanding, using this to inform the interventions they make.
Clearly, this gives rise to more accurate and more efficient teaching and learning than would otherwise be the case.
On the flipside, we have the three greatest drawbacks of facilitation.
First, poorly constructed facilitation lessons stymie learners’ opportunities to make progress.
For example, if the teacher proposes a series of activities that are too easy for their learners, then disengagement will follow.
For this reason, activities need to be carefully designed to ensure learners face a continued degree of challenge as they work through the material presented to them.
In addition, consideration needs to be given to where the class as a whole are currently at and where different groups of learners are at.
Doing this means the teacher can shape their planning more carefully to ensure it engages and meets the needs of all learners, rather than just some.
Second, not all learners respond positively to being asked to lead their own learning.
Some may find the task difficult.
Others may not like the idea of having to take control.
And some may feel they are being short-changed, turning to the teacher in expectation that the information be presented by them, as in the traditional model.
Third, there are times when facilitation is either inappropriate or counterproductive.
Learners need to be told certain things or simply need to know whether a particular thing is right or wrong.
In maths, for example, the teacher tends to need to show learners how a certain operation works before they can go on and apply it themselves.
Another example comes from English, where direct instruction on punctuation rules prior to active practice is generally preferable to an activity in which learners must do all the work themselves.
These drawbacks illustrate the point that facilitation as an approach tends to run into problems when it is not used sufficiently carefully or when there is content or material that learners are required to know and memorise.
In the first case, the method loses its efficacy.
In the second case, the benefits of the method are far less pronounced and, indeed, pale in comparison to the benefits offered by instruction.
Facilitation is therefore a fantastic approach in certain situations, most notably those when there is much to be gained from giving learners the opportunity to take the lead.
It can be misused but, with practice and attention to detail, will frequently lead to excellent outcomes.
It is often a highly efficient approach, freeing up the teacher’s time and allowing them to be more effective.
Yet it does also require the teacher to do a certain amount of training, or provide a certain level of guidance, to ensure all learners can access the benefits it brings.
Briefly developing the last point, we can note that those learners for whom facilitation might be a turn-off can usually be brought round if the teacher either trains them in how to lead their own learning (giving them the tools they initially lack) or breaks down what they need to do into a series of steps (making the cognitive work expected of them easier to achieve).
In conclusion, outstanding facilitation involves an awareness of the benefits and drawbacks of the approach.
A teacher familiar with these will be able to play up and take advantage of the former while mitigating or avoiding the latter.
In Part 2, will look at instruction.
