Way back in 2008, I had a conversation with an internationally renown coach about instruction. His idea was simple, “if you tell them what to do, and they do it, they get better”
It’s a compelling argument that makes sense, and direct instruction remains at of the core of the UK Level 2 cricket coaching badge. It's the established method.
However, even back then a debate had begun about other approaches. It was why the coach and I were having the discussion (he was frustrated by the trend to take a more guiding and questioning approach). In the following years, this debate has fallen into two broad camps who argue ceaselessly on social media. The approaches take different names but are broadly split by how much direct instruction is useful.
Where does this leave the coach who doesn't want to enter the debate or delve into the literature; they just want to do a good job?
Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as sticking to command-based, as the coach told me, or switching totally discovery-based.
While the debate rages on, you can read this short article from Ed Cope and Chris Cushion. It neatly skips the polarising arguments and looks at how there are ways to be adaptable in our approach to direct instruction.
And if that fires you up to look more deeply into direct instruction, you can listen to Ed Cope on the Talent Equation podcast for a longer discussion.