Targeted Practice Over Performance: Meeting Individual Needs Without Creating Unnecessary Workload

The Early Career Framework states that teachers should learn how to... Meet individual needs without creating unnecessary workload, by building in additional practice or removing unnecessary expositions.

In the complex world of teaching, there is a persistent tension between the desire to support every individual learner and the pressing reality of limited time and resources. With rising expectations and increasingly diverse classrooms, it is easy for teachers to fall into the trap of over-planning, over-explaining, and over-working. Yet, effective teaching does not require relentless differentiation or elaborate instruction. Instead, it requires purposeful planning, rooted in sound pedagogy.

One powerful, research-informed way to meet individual needs without adding unnecessary workload is by building in additional practice for consolidation and removing unnecessary exposition from lessons. These two strategies not only improve learning outcomes for all pupils but also reduce teacher fatigue by focusing on what matters most—learning through doing, not excessive telling.

The Pitfall of Over-Explanation

In an effort to be thorough, many teachers fall into the habit of over-explaining concepts. This often stems from a desire to leave no room for misunderstanding or confusion. However, more explanation is not always better. In fact, cognitive science tells us that too much verbal exposition can overload working memory—especially for pupils who are new to a topic or who have additional needs (Sweller, 1988).

According to Cognitive Load Theory, working memory is limited. When we flood pupils with long explanations, abstract detail, or too many instructions at once, we hinder rather than help their ability to process and apply new information (Sweller, Ayres & Kalyuga, 2011). Pupils—especially those with SEND, EAL, or lower prior attainment—benefit far more from short, clear input followed by practice, not a lecture.

This is echoed in Barak Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction (2012), which advocate for concise teacher explanations, followed by guided practice, and regular checks for understanding. The more time pupils spend actively engaging with the material—rather than passively listening—the more likely they are to retain and apply it.

Practice Makes Permanent

Practice is not just for revision—it is central to learning. In their book Powerful Teaching, Agarwal and Bain (2019) argue that learning is strengthened not when pupils are told something, but when they have to retrieve and apply it. This is where practice comes in. When built into lessons effectively, it enables learners to consolidate understanding, develop fluency, and build confidence—all without the teacher having to produce multiple differentiated worksheets or alternative tasks.

Effective practice should be:

• Deliberate: Focused on a specific skill or concept.

• Spaced: Revisited over time, not crammed into a single session.

• Varied: Applied in different contexts to strengthen transfer.

• Guided: With opportunities for feedback and clarification.

For instance, instead of extending a lesson with lengthy exposition on why a method works, teachers can offer multiple opportunities for pupils to use that method in different ways. This could involve paired tasks, scaffolded questions, or quickfire drills that allow for repeated, supported application.

Such practice benefits all learners but is especially effective for pupils who need additional time to master foundational knowledge. Crucially, it also frees the teacher to circulate, observe, and intervene—responding to needs in real time.

Removing the Non-Essential

In the pursuit of engaging, creative lessons, teachers sometimes introduce tangential anecdotes, complex analogies, or dramatic demonstrations that—while entertaining—don’t always support the core learning objective. While there's a place for storytelling and enrichment, we must remember: clarity is inclusive (Sherrington, 2020). For many pupils, particularly those who struggle with language or processing, these diversions can confuse rather than clarify.

This isn’t a call to make lessons dull—it’s a reminder to streamline explanations and remove non-essential elements so that every minute counts. For example:

• Break down explanations into chunks with checks for understanding.

• Use clear, direct language rather than flowery or figurative speech.

• Replace some exposition with models, visuals, or worked examples (Wiliam, 2016).

• Stop explaining when pupils are ready to practise—learning happens during application, not absorption.

Teachers often feel pressure to “perform” during input, but pupils need opportunities to wrestle with content themselves. Removing unnecessary teacher talk makes space for the kind of productive struggle that builds resilience and deep understanding.

Reducing Workload by Relying on Routine

Another advantage of using focused practice rather than over-explanation is that it can be built into routines, which reduce teacher workload over time. Rather than creating multiple resources for different ability groups, teachers can:

• Set up core practice tasks with optional extension questions.

• Use retrieval practice grids or retrieval roulette at the start of every lesson.

• Incorporate low-stakes quizzes or hinge questions to assess understanding.

• Use exit tickets or “do now” routines that revisit key knowledge.

These routines require very little prep once established and give teachers rich information about what pupils need next. More importantly, they shift the responsibility of learning onto pupils, while the teacher becomes a responsive facilitator.

Practice, Not Differentiation, Is the Key to Inclusion

There is a common misconception that “meeting individual needs” means creating bespoke lesson plans or personalised resources. This approach is not only unrealistic—it’s unnecessary. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) stresses that adaptive teaching, not excessive differentiation, is the most effective way to support diverse learners (EEF, 2020).

This means creating a common learning experience with built-in support and challenge—such as scaffolded practice or optional challenge questions—rather than separate materials for each pupil. It also means prioritising tasks that allow pupils to practise and think, rather than passively receive information.

For example, in a Year 9 science lesson on chemical reactions:

• Rather than extending your input with more detail, provide one worked example.

• Then give pupils 10–15 minutes to complete graduated practice tasks, with sentence starters or hints for those who need it.

• Pupils who finish early can attempt challenge questions.

• You can circulate, check for misconceptions, and offer clarification as needed.

This approach supports a wide range of needs—without extra planning.

Conclusion: Teach Less, Practise More

Meeting individual needs doesn’t mean overcomplicating planning or adding workload. Instead, it means being clear about what pupils need to know, giving them time and opportunity to practise it, and removing anything that distracts or detracts from that goal.

By cutting down on unnecessary exposition and increasing focused practice, we give pupils space to engage more actively, think more deeply, and retain knowledge more securely. At the same time, we protect our own time and energy for what really matters—responsive teaching.

In the words of Mary Myatt (2020), “We do children a disservice when we ask them to listen longer than they can.” Let’s empower them to do more with what they hear—and give ourselves permission to say less and teach smarter.

References

• Agarwal, P., & Bain, P. (2019). Powerful Teaching: Unleash the Science of Learning. Jossey-Bass.

• Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (2020). Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools.

• Myatt, M. (2020). Back on Track: Fewer Things, Deeper Learning. John Catt Educational.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.

• Sherrington, T. (2020). Teaching Walkthrus: Five-Step Guides to Instructional Coaching. John Catt Educational.

• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer.

• Wiliam, D. (2016). Leadership for Teacher Learning. Learning Sciences International.