Epistemological Humility: Rethinking How We Talk About Direct Instruction

Paradigm does not define method.

Coaches, practitioners and researchers often debate about direct instruction, and often whether it “fits” ecological dynamics, but this debate often confuses behaviours with paradigms. Loren Anderson wrote a nice blog on Substack, essentially making the claim that ecological dynamics (a theory) does not reject direct instruction (a behaviour). And I agree. Direct instruction can be used within an ecological dynamics framework, or any other framework. But it is important to consider why the behaviour would be used, and what the focus of the behaviour is (when it is used within any paradigm).

Before unpacking that, it is important to make another important distinction (one that is often overlooked) between direct instruction as a behaviour, and direct instruction as a theory ¹. This confusion may lead people to defend or attack “direct instruction” without even talking about the same thing. I first came across Rosenshine's principles of instruction (see citation) when I was doing teacher training in the UK, and I think they are incredibly useful and comprehensive for teachers and coaches alike. It highlights that direct instruction (the theory) encompasses much more than direct instruction (the behaviour). This post is not about the theory of instruction, but I would encourage people (coaches and researchers) to check the principles out to potentially consider them in their practice, but also to add more nuance to discussions they may have.

Moving onto direct instruction as a coaching behaviour, it is important to consider why the behaviour would be used and what the focus of the behaviour is, which are intertwined considerations. Direct instruction is an incredibly powerful tool for a coach, and I think that is undeniable. Consider these (direct) instructions from a coach to a player:

• “I want you to keep you elbow high when passing the ball” (rugby)

• “I want you to look for the space in behind the opposition centre-halves” (soccer)

• “Keep your left hip up when your right hand enters the water” (swimming)

• “Watch what the winger does when the ball is on the opposite side” (AFL)

• “When you see their guard open, posture and start to break the grips immediately.” (MMA)

Admittedly, I would not use some myself, particularly the first one. But the focus of each instruction is different, showing how flexible direct instruction is as a coaching tool. A coach could tell an athlete how to move, where to look, what to look for, what to communicate to a teammate. However, from speaking to coaches, I think there is an assumption that direct instruction = telling someone how to move their body. Which, in many cases, it is. Consider the classic basketball shooting technique (key points as per Microsoft Co-Pilot):

• Stance and balance

• Grip and hand placement

• Shooting motion

• Follow through

Absolutely, a coach could instruct an athlete through all of this (and I am sure many do), but in many cases it would (probably) be far from ideal. However, it is not because direct instruction (in this case of how to move the body) is bad, it is more that it is inappropriate for what the learner needs ². Does a learner need to be supported through a task? To be clear, I am not suggesting that every time a learner meets a challenge they should be supported with a direct instruction on how to solve the problem they face. Always stealing the struggle is not what I am advocating for. But the right direct instruction, at the right time, can provide just the right amount of support (scaffold) when needed.

It’s not that direct instruction is bad, it’s that it is often mis-used or inappropriately used. In many cases, coaches attribute poor outcomes to the behaviour itself rather than to poor timing, poor fit, or poor intention. The strength of a(ny) tool is not it the tool itself, but in how it’s used.

Direct instruction in coach development

If we broaden our perspective to coach development, how does direct instruction fit in here? Imagine the same scenario, where the coach provides direct instruction across those same four points for basketball shooting. The coach then allows kids to practice for five minutes. During the first minute, the coach developer instructs the coach to “watch the kids and rate their energy and enthusiasm”. During the last minute, the coach developer instructs the coach to set up a new activity with greater variability, inclusive of opponents, followed by the same initial instruction.

Here, the coach developer has delivered three direct instructions. Twice to direct the coach’s attention to the response of the learners to the different tasks, and once to tell the coach what to do. Direct instruction can be used in many ways, and each way can be impactful. But it is also important to recognize the potential ramifications. A coach developer who only uses or overuses direct instruction to tell coaches how to design practice is likely to create a miserable developmental experience for the coach over time. I’m sure most people have experienced or witnessed the overbearing coach who wants to control everything that his/her group of athletes do. There may be short-term benefits (there may not be), but the long-term ramifications of over-using instruction are likely to be disastrous.

However, a key point I want to get across is the villainization and demonization of direct instruction is not the solution here. My approach would be to support coaches to recognize the strengths, flexibility, and limitations of many coaching behaviours (instruction, questioning, feedback, observation, demonstration, modelling etc.), and support them to have a greater understanding of when and where each behaviour might suit. Undoubtedly a tall order – supporting coaches to be more deliberate and intentional about their decision-making.

Pragmatism as a lens to support coaching/coach development practice

My perspective is that all uses of direct instruction can be effective in some contexts but may be ineffective in others – i.e., recognizing the fallibility and conditionality within coaching practice is key ³. But different perspectives might place a different value on the effectiveness of direct instruction, and each direct instruction on an individual level. Personally, I think it is healthy to have different perspectives.

But when viewing direct instruction (or any other coaching behaviour or tool), I would use pragmatism as a lens. Pragmatism may ask, “What works here, for these people, in this context?” ⁴. Pragmatism has received its fair share of criticism, with claims that it does not support an evidence-based, scientific process. This makes no sense to me. Pragmatism as a paradigm is a perfectly legitimate approach to scientific inquiry ^{5, 6}. Professional judgement and decision-making is an approach to professional practice that has been developed from pragmatism ⁷, but has been utilized from other paradigms, like critical realism ⁸. This too has received heavy criticism, being characterized as a “pick and mix” approach, or that it is overly linear. Again, these arguments do not make sense to me. Describing it pejoratively as “pick and mix” is reflective of not understanding the nuances of PJDM or evaluating one paradigm (pragmatism) through the lens of another that makes a stronger ontological commitment. Professional judgement and decision-making is anything but a linear approach, particularly given the emphasis it places on social and cultural influences ⁹.

To be clear, I think it is important to accept multiple views. There are multiple worldviews that a coach may engage with. From a pragmatic perspective, I view direct instruction as an incredibly powerful and flexible tool. From a behaviorist perspective, it might be considered the most important tool for a coach. From an ecological realist perspective, it might be considered ineffective, especially when the instruction is focused on telling an athlete how to move their body. There are many paradigms that I have not even considered in this (brief) discussion, but it is important to accept different worldviews and embrace the differences that they bring. However, “defending” a stance, like it is a “pet theory” ¹⁰, by breaking another down (often from an uninformed position) is avoiding and demolishing the very thing that could create such rich discussion and learning. The strength of communities of different coaches is in the different worldviews and perspectives they hold.

I advocated the importance of epistemological agility ¹¹ in my last post, and here I will advocate for epistemological humility (if anyone can provide me with a citation for epistemological humility I would be grateful). By epistemological humility, I mean recognising the limits of our own paradigmatic commitments and staying open to insights from other ways of knowing.

References

1.           Rosenshine B. Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American educator 2012; 36: 12.

2.            Bremner N, Sakata N and Cameron L. The outcomes of learner-centred pedagogy: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Development 2022; 94: 102649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102649.

3.            Collins D, Taylor J, Ashford M, et al. It depends coaching – The most fundamental, simple and complex principle or a mere copout? Sports Coaching Review 2022: 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/21640629.2022.2154189.

4.            Lampropoulos GK. Bridging Technical Eclecticism and Theoretical Integration: Assimilative Integration. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration 2001; 11: 5-19. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026672807119.

5.            Giacobbi PR, Poczwardowski A and Hager PF. A Pragmatic Research Philosophy for Applied Sport Psychology. Sport Psychologist 2005; 19: 18-31.

6.            Dewey J. Logic: the theory of inquiry. Oxford, England: Holt, 1938, p.viii, 546-viii, 546.

7.            Abraham A and Collins DM. Professional Judgement and Decision Making in Sport Coaching: To Jump Or Not To Jump. In: 2015.

8.            Muir B and Lyle J. Sport Coach Learning and Professional Development. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2024.

9.            Till K, Muir B, Abraham A, et al. A framework for professional judgement and decision-making in S&C coaching. 2020; March: 7-18.

10.          Matthews CR. Doing Good Social Science. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2025, p.348.

11.          Haider LJ, Hentati-Sundberg J, Giusti M, et al. The undisciplinary journey: early-career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 2018; 13: 191-204. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-017-0445-1.