Teaching Is More Than Covering the Curriculum

A Psychological Perspective on Preparation, Pedagogy, Learner Responsibility and What It Actually Means to Teach

Dr. Estienne Cronjé

There is a question I believe we should be asking more frequently in education, particularly when examining academic performance across schools that serve learners from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, operate within the same curriculum and face many of the same contextual challenges. Why do academic outcomes sometimes differ so significantly? Why can two schools situated only a few kilometres apart, serving largely similar communities, produce very different levels of academic achievement? And perhaps more importantly, why can learners within the same school, exposed to the same curriculum and broadly similar resources, experience substantially different academic outcomes depending on the classrooms in which they find themselves?

The answers are undoubtedly complicated. Socioeconomic circumstances matter. Language, parental involvement, previous educational experiences, attendance, learning barriers, school leadership and access to resources all influence academic performance. It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that teaching methodology alone explains differences in achievement, particularly in a country such as South Africa, where historical inequality continues to shape educational opportunity. But acknowledging these realities should not prevent us from examining another variable that operates much closer to the learner’s daily experience: what actually happens during teaching.

In my experience working within education, I have become increasingly interested in the distinction between delivering a curriculum and facilitating learning. These are not necessarily the same thing, although we sometimes speak about them as though they are interchangeable. A teacher may complete the prescribed work, maintain an orderly classroom, administer assessments and submit every required document, yet still have learners who have not adequately understood what was taught. Conversely, an educator may encounter considerable difficulty with a particular group of learners, adjust the teaching approach, revisit misunderstood concepts and ultimately achieve meaningful progress that is not immediately apparent from curriculum coverage records alone.

This raises a question that I think deserves serious professional reflection. If the curriculum has been covered but the learners have not learned, what exactly has been accomplished?

The Difference Between Curriculum, Pedagogy and Methodology

Before examining teaching effectiveness, we need to distinguish between concepts that are frequently used together but describe different aspects of education. The curriculum establishes what learners are expected to know, understand and demonstrate at particular stages of their schooling. It provides the content, progression, learning objectives and assessment expectations around which instruction is organised. Pedagogy concerns the principles and processes through which teaching and learning are understood and facilitated. Teaching methodology refers more specifically to the strategies and techniques an educator uses to help learners engage with, understand, practise and apply the prescribed content.

These distinctions matter because curriculum compliance does not automatically demonstrate pedagogical effectiveness. Two educators may teach precisely the same curriculum while producing very different learning experiences. One may rely heavily on explanation, copying notes and completing exercises. Another may use carefully structured examples, questioning, guided practice, discussion, retrieval activities and regular checks for understanding. Neither approach should be judged simply by whether the classroom appears busy or whether the teacher uses fashionable terminology. The important question is whether the chosen methodology is appropriate to the content, the learners’ existing knowledge and the learning outcomes being pursued.

Educational research has long recognised that effective teaching requires more than subject knowledge. Lee Shulman’s work on pedagogical content knowledge established an important distinction between knowing a subject and knowing how to make that subject understandable to learners. A mathematics teacher may possess excellent mathematical knowledge while struggling to explain a concept in ways that anticipate common misconceptions. A language teacher may understand grammar thoroughly but fail to recognise why learners cannot transfer grammatical knowledge into written expression. Effective teaching requires the educator to understand not only the content itself but also the particular difficulties learners are likely to encounter when attempting to learn it.

This is where methodology becomes a professional responsibility rather than a matter of personal preference. The question is not whether an educator prefers direct instruction, discussion, demonstration, collaborative learning or independent work. It is whether the educator can make an informed judgement about which approach is appropriate, when it should be used, how its effectiveness will be evaluated and what should change when learning does not occur.

A good teacher does not necessarily use one method consistently. Effective teaching requires understanding why a particular method is being used, recognising when it is working and possessing the professional judgement to change direction when it is not.

A Prepared Teacher Must Still Need the Learners

One of the most influential perspectives on classroom preparation that I have encountered came from my father, whose career in education spans more than five decades. During that time, he has served in numerous capacities, including mentor, educator, coach, deputy principal, principal, school owner and rector. His experience has therefore extended beyond the classroom into educational leadership, institutional management, mentorship and the development of both learners and educators. Yet one of the principles he repeatedly emphasised was remarkably simple, and it has remained with me because it challenges something teachers can easily begin taking for granted. He would explain that

“If you can walk into a classroom and deliver your entire lesson without a single learner being present, then you have failed in your preparation as a teacher.”

It is a confronting statement, particularly because most educators would ordinarily associate the ability to deliver a complete lesson without interruption with being thoroughly prepared. But his argument was never about whether the educator knew the content or had organised the lesson properly. It was about whether the preparation had genuinely accounted for the people who were supposed to be learning.

His philosophy was that teaching is fundamentally interactive. The educator does not simply enter a classroom to communicate information while learners receive it. There must be eye contact, conversation, questioning, engagement and opportunities for learners to express what they understand, what they misunderstand and how they are interpreting the material. A learner’s answer should not merely be evaluated as correct or incorrect before the teacher proceeds to the next prepared point. It can become the beginning of a discussion that reveals how that learner arrived at the answer, whether other learners understand the concept differently and whether the class needs to explore something more carefully before continuing.

This requires a level of professional confidence and subject knowledge that is sometimes underestimated. A teacher who knows only the prepared sequence may become uncomfortable when learners introduce unexpected questions or interpretations. The discussion can feel like a deviation from the lesson rather than an opportunity to deepen it. But an educator who genuinely understands the subject and the intended learning outcome can allow the conversation to move beyond the immediate plan, explore the misunderstanding or unexpected perspective, and then guide the class back to “the main road.” The destination has not changed. The route has simply been adjusted because the learners required a different journey to reach it.

There is an important distinction here between allowing learners to participate and allowing learners to influence the learning process. Participation alone may involve answering a question, reading aloud or completing an activity. Meaningful educational interaction requires the teacher to do something with the information that participation produces. If a learner gives an unexpected answer, the educator should be interested in the reasoning behind it. If several learners appear confused, that confusion should influence what happens next. If a learner introduces a relevant question that was not anticipated during preparation, the educator should be capable of recognising whether exploring it will strengthen understanding.

These moments require judgement because not every question warrants a lengthy discussion, and not every departure from the lesson serves the intended objective. The educator must know when to explore, when to clarify, when to challenge and when to return to the planned progression.

This is why lesson preparation cannot be reduced to preparing notes, presentations, activities or explanations. Those elements remain important, but they represent only part of the professional task. A properly prepared educator must also anticipate how learners might respond, which misconceptions may emerge, what questions could reveal understanding and how the lesson can be adapted without sacrificing its academic purpose. Preparation should create the capacity to respond intelligently, rather than merely the confidence to deliver information fluently.

It also requires educators to understand that classroom engagement is not synonymous with entertainment. Learners do not need to be constantly amused, nor must every lesson become an open discussion. Some concepts require explicit explanation, demonstration and sustained individual practice. But even within highly structured instruction, the educator should remain attentive to the learners. Their responses, reasoning, questions, errors and level of understanding must inform the decisions that follow. Eye contact may provide useful cues about attention and confusion, but it cannot replace deliberate checks for understanding, particularly because some learners remain outwardly attentive while struggling internally.

I think my father’s observation ultimately asks educators to reconsider what they believe they are preparing for. Are we preparing to present a lesson, or are we preparing to teach a particular group of learners? The distinction is significant. A presentation can be completed according to plan even when nobody understands it. A meaningful lesson requires the educator to remain responsive to the people for whom the lesson exists.

If the learners could be removed from the classroom without fundamentally changing the teaching process, we should seriously question whether the process was designed around learning in the first place.

A Completed Lesson Is Not Evidence of a Learned Lesson

There is a particular problem in education when administrative completion becomes a substitute for educational evidence. Work schedules are completed. Curriculum trackers are updated. Assessments are administered. Books are marked. Reports are generated. These processes have legitimate purposes because schools require organisation, accountability and consistency. However, they become problematic when they are treated as sufficient evidence that teaching has been effective.

A teacher may report that a particular concept was covered during the second week of the term. The learners may have copied notes, completed an exercise and written an assessment. Yet when the same concept appears several weeks later in a different context, many learners may struggle to recognise or apply it.

Was the concept learned? Perhaps it was understood temporarily but not retained. Perhaps the original assessment relied too heavily on familiar examples. Perhaps the learners could reproduce a procedure without understanding the principles behind it.

Perhaps insufficient opportunities were provided for independent application. Or perhaps the teaching approach did not adequately address the learners’ prior knowledge. These possibilities matter because they require different instructional responses.

Research on learning and memory demonstrates that successful performance during initial instruction does not necessarily predict durable learning. Work on retrieval practice, for example, has shown that actively retrieving information can support longer term retention more effectively than some commonly used study approaches. Similarly, cognitive load theory highlights the importance of how instructional material is structured in relation to learners’ existing knowledge and the demands placed on working memory.

The implication is that teaching cannot be evaluated solely by how smoothly information is presented or how successfully learners complete a task immediately after receiving assistance. We need to know what remains when the assistance is removed. We need to know whether learners can retrieve, explain, transfer and apply what they have learned.

That is a considerably more demanding standard than curriculum coverage.

The Classroom Is Not a One Way Transfer of Information

There is a distinction between explaining something and establishing that it has been understood. A teacher can explain a concept accurately, confidently and enthusiastically without the learners necessarily constructing the intended understanding.

This is not always the teacher’s fault. Learning requires participation, attention, effort and engagement from the learner. But it does mean that the act of explanation cannot be regarded as the completion of the educator’s responsibility.

Teaching requires information to move in both directions. The educator communicates, but also observes. The educator asks questions, but also interprets the answers. The educator provides examples, but also investigates how learners understand those examples. The educator assesses, but also uses the resulting information to make decisions about subsequent instruction.

This is particularly important because learners do not always communicate misunderstanding directly. Some are reluctant to ask questions. Others believe they understand until they attempt independent work. Some become skilled at copying procedures without understanding their underlying logic. Others remain silent because previous classroom experiences have taught them that being wrong is embarrassing.

A teacher who relies exclusively on asking, “Does everybody understand?” may receive very little useful information.

Effective formative assessment requires more deliberate investigation. Learners may need to explain their reasoning, complete short independent tasks, compare approaches, respond to carefully selected questions or demonstrate how they would apply a concept in an unfamiliar situation.

The purpose is not simply to generate more marks. It is to obtain information that changes teaching.

Black and Wiliam’s influential work on formative assessment emphasised the importance of using evidence of learning to inform instructional decisions. This remains a central principle: assessment becomes educationally valuable when it helps teachers and learners understand the gap between current performance and intended learning.

A teacher who discovers widespread misunderstanding but continues with the next section because the work schedule requires it may be administratively compliant while educationally neglecting information that should have influenced instruction. That tension deserves more attention in discussions about school performance.

Why Similar Learners Can Experience Different Academic Outcomes

When academic results differ between schools, socioeconomic circumstances are often among the first explanations considered. In South Africa, this is understandable. Historical inequality, poverty, language barriers, unequal access to educational resources and differences in home learning environments continue to influence academic achievement.

These factors are real and should never be dismissed.

However, they do not explain every difference.

Learners from similar communities may attend different schools and achieve different outcomes. Within the same school, classes may perform differently across subjects. Learners who struggle consistently in one classroom may demonstrate stronger engagement and understanding in another.

These differences should prompt investigation rather than immediate conclusions.

Research examining South African classroom practices and learner performance has demonstrated the relevance of instructional practices to academic outcomes, although the relationship is complex and cannot be separated from broader contextual factors. International research similarly identifies teaching quality, classroom interactions, subject knowledge and instructional decision making as important contributors to learning.

This does not mean that an excellent teacher can eliminate every disadvantage. It means that disadvantage should not become an explanation that prevents us from examining the quality of instruction.

In fact, one could reasonably argue that effective teaching becomes particularly consequential when learners have fewer opportunities to compensate for inadequate instruction outside school. A learner with access to private tutoring, extensive educational resources and substantial academic assistance at home may have additional opportunities to address gaps in understanding. A learner without those resources may depend far more heavily on what happens during the school day.

That increases the importance of classroom teaching rather than diminishing it. If we are serious about educational equity, we cannot concern ourselves only with whether learners have access to classrooms, textbooks and curriculum content. We must also concern ourselves with the quality of the learning opportunities they experience once they are there.

The Difficult Conversation About Learner Responsibility

There is another side to this discussion that I believe must be addressed honestly because conversations about teaching effectiveness can easily become unfair when they imply that every disappointing academic outcome is evidence of poor teaching.

It is not.

Learners have responsibilities. Some learners do not study. Some fail to complete homework. Some attend irregularly, disrupt lessons, ignore instructions or approach their education with little commitment. Some refuse opportunities for additional support. Others may possess the ability to perform considerably better but do not consistently apply the effort required.

These realities cannot simply be explained away through discussions about pedagogy, socioeconomic circumstances or psychological development.

A teacher cannot study on behalf of a learner. An educator cannot practise mathematics for a child outside the classroom, memorise material on their behalf or force meaningful engagement where a learner repeatedly refuses to participate.

As learners mature, responsibility for their own learning should progressively increase. Schools should establish expectations, enforce reasonable consequences and help learners understand the relationship between preparation, behaviour and academic outcomes.

But there is a danger when learner behaviour becomes the first and final explanation for poor results.

“They are lazy. They do not want to study. They are not interested. They have a bad attitude.”

Sometimes these observations may be accurate descriptions of behaviour. But describing behaviour is not necessarily the same as explaining it. If a learner repeatedly fails to prepare, we should address that failure. We should also consider whether the learner understands how to prepare effectively, whether previous gaps make the work increasingly inaccessible, whether the learner has developed an expectation of failure or whether other barriers are interfering with engagement.

Understanding those possibilities does not excuse the behaviour. It allows us to respond more intelligently.

And when an entire class performs poorly, the professional questions should become even more demanding. It is possible that a large proportion of learners genuinely failed to prepare. But it is also possible that instruction, assessment alignment, pacing, previous knowledge or the methods used to check understanding require examination.

If learners demonstrate meaningful engagement and achievement in several subjects but consistently disengage in one classroom, that difference is information worth investigating. It does not automatically prove that the educator is ineffective.

But it should prevent us from concluding that the learners alone explain the outcome.

The responsibility must operate in both directions.

Learners should be held accountable for their effort, conduct and preparation. Educators should be held accountable for the quality of instruction, the appropriateness of their methods and their professional response when learning is not occurring.

These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. In fact, effective education requires both.

Teaching Methodology Must Be Informed by Evidence, Not Fashion

Education has a tendency to move through cycles of preferred teaching approaches. Particular methodologies become fashionable, schools adopt new terminology and educators are sometimes encouraged to replace established practices with approaches presented as more progressive or engaging.

I think we should be cautious about assuming that newer automatically means better. There is a place for direct instruction. There is a place for discussion, collaborative learning, guided discovery, independent practice, practical demonstration and problem solving. The effectiveness of a method depends on the learning objective, the nature of the content, the learners’ existing knowledge and how the method is implemented.

For example, a learner encountering a complex mathematical procedure may benefit from clear explanation and carefully structured worked examples before being expected to solve unfamiliar problems independently. A learner who already understands the foundational procedure may benefit more from increasingly demanding application, independent problem solving and opportunities to explain the reasoning behind different approaches. These are not contradictory teaching philosophies. They are different instructional responses to different learning needs.

Research on cognitive load and worked examples has demonstrated the importance of matching instructional support to learners’ existing knowledge. The level of guidance that benefits a novice may become unnecessary or even less useful as expertise develops.

This has practical consequences for lesson planning.

The question should not be whether a school is committed to one particular teaching method. It should be whether educators possess sufficient professional knowledge to select, implement and adjust methods appropriately.

Teaching methodology should be an exercise in judgement, not loyalty to a fashionable label.

Engagement Is Important, but Activity Is Not Necessarily Learning

Another difficulty arises when active classrooms are automatically interpreted as effective classrooms.

Learners may be busy without learning very much.

They may complete attractive projects, participate in group discussions, produce colourful posters or engage enthusiastically in activities that have limited connection to the intended learning outcome.

Equally, a classroom in which learners are listening carefully to a well structured explanation may involve substantial cognitive engagement even though the observable activity appears limited.

This is why I think schools should be careful about evaluating teaching primarily through appearances.

A lively classroom is not necessarily an effective classroom. A quiet classroom is not necessarily an ineffective classroom.

The educational question is what intellectual work learners are doing and whether that work contributes to the intended learning. Are they reasoning? Are they retrieving knowledge? Are they connecting concepts? Are they identifying errors? Are they applying principles? Are they developing increasingly independent understanding? Or are they simply completing tasks?

The distinction matters because educational activity can become a substitute for educational purpose.

Good methodology should create the conditions for meaningful cognitive engagement rather than merely visible participation.

The Professional Responsibility to Change What Is Not Working

Perhaps one of the most important characteristics of effective teaching is the willingness to reconsider one’s own practice.

That can be uncomfortable. Educators invest considerable time in developing their teaching approaches. Experience creates routines, preferences and professional confidence. There is value in this because teaching expertise develops over time. But experience can also create habits that become difficult to question.

An educator may have explained a particular concept in the same way for fifteen years. That does not automatically mean the explanation is ineffective.

But neither does fifteen years of repetition establish that it is effective. The relevant question remains whether learners are learning.

If evidence repeatedly demonstrates that a particular approach is not producing adequate understanding, professional responsibility requires investigation. Perhaps the explanation needs to change. Perhaps the sequence of concepts should be reconsidered.

Perhaps learners require more guided practice. Perhaps previous knowledge is weaker than anticipated. Perhaps the assessment is measuring something different from what was taught. Changing methodology should not automatically be interpreted as an admission of incompetence. Sometimes it is evidence of competence.

The educator who can recognise an ineffective approach and adjust it demonstrates professional judgement. The educator who continues with the same approach despite repeated evidence of misunderstanding may be protecting familiarity rather than facilitating learning.

This is not an argument for constantly changing methods. It is an argument for remaining responsive to evidence.

What Should Academic Leadership Actually Monitor?

These questions extend beyond individual classrooms.

School leaders, heads of departments and academic management teams have responsibilities that cannot be fulfilled solely through checking lesson plans, work schedules, assessment files and curriculum coverage.

Those processes matter, but they are only part of academic oversight.

If academic leadership is serious about improving teaching and learning, it must also examine instructional practice.

How are educators explaining difficult concepts? How do they identify misconceptions? What happens when learners do not understand? How are assessments used to inform subsequent teaching? Are learners developing independence? Where are particular classes consistently struggling? What practices distinguish educators whose learners demonstrate stronger progress? Can effective approaches be shared across departments?

These questions require classroom observation, professional discussion, analysis of learner work and careful interpretation of assessment evidence.

They also require a school culture in which instructional improvement is taken seriously.

Observation should not become a theatrical exercise in which educators perform an unusually elaborate lesson for management. Nor should every observation be approached primarily as an opportunity to identify fault.

There must be a meaningful developmental component. At the same time, professional accountability cannot disappear behind the language of support. If an educator consistently demonstrates ineffective practice and fails to respond to reasonable developmental assistance, academic leadership has a responsibility to address that.

The purpose of academic oversight is not merely to confirm that teaching occurred. It is to improve the likelihood that learning occurs.

Academic Excellence Requires More Than Completing the Work

Ultimately, I think the responsibility of a school extends beyond ensuring that the curriculum has been delivered.

We should be concerned with what learners know, understand, retain and can do independently as a consequence of their education. That responsibility requires academic standards. It requires meaningful assessment, disciplined learning environments, appropriate learner accountability and educators who understand their subjects. But it also requires teaching methodologies that are informed by evidence, professional reflection and an ongoing willingness to respond to what learners actually demonstrate.

Academic excellence should not be reduced to producing a small group of exceptional examination results while accepting limited progress from everyone else. Nor should it be reduced to ensuring that learners merely achieve the minimum required to progress.

Learners differ in ability, previous knowledge, circumstances, developmental needs and levels of support required. Those differences matter. The educational responsibility is not to pretend that every learner will achieve identical results, but to ensure that each learner receives meaningful opportunities to develop towards their academic capacity while remaining accountable for the effort and engagement required.

That is a demanding responsibility because it requires us to look beyond the convenience of simple explanations. When results disappoint, it is easy to blame learners. It is equally easy to blame teachers. We can blame parents, resources, socioeconomic conditions, the curriculum or the education system itself.

Sometimes those explanations will be justified. Often several will be relevant simultaneously. But a mature educational institution should be capable of investigating academic outcomes without reducing every discussion to either blame or excuse.

The teacher has a responsibility to teach effectively. The learner has a responsibility to learn actively. The school has a responsibility to create and maintain the conditions in which both responsibilities can be fulfilled. And academic leadership has a responsibility to investigate whether those conditions are producing meaningful educational progress.

Perhaps we should therefore reconsider what we mean when we say that a teacher has completed the work.

The curriculum may have been covered. The lesson may have been presented. The notes may have been written. The assessment may have been administered.

But none of those activities, individually or collectively, establishes that learning has occurred.

They establish that opportunities for learning were provided. Whether those opportunities were effective is another question. And that is the question I believe education should become considerably more serious about answering.

Because “I taught it” should not be the end of the professional conversation. It should be the beginning of an investigation into whether it was learned.

References

1. Arends, F., Winnaar, L., & Mosimege, M. (2017). Teacher classroom practices and mathematics performance in South African schools: A reflection on TIMSS 2011. South African Journal of Education, 37(3), Article 1362.

2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

3. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.

4. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775.

5. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.

6. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

7. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292.

8. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Advances in research on worked examples, animations, and cognitive load measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 375–378.