For many years, myself included, we have known what to teach. The curriculum sets that out clearly. The real challenge, where the rubber hits the road, is how we teach it. Each time a curriculum change arrives, and there have been many, teachers are left asking: How do I teach this? What do I say, and when? How do I keep students actively involved? How do I notice, respond, and adjust in the moment, while still keeping the lesson on track?
It is a lot to hold in mind. Instructional routines and lesson scripts are often misunderstood here. Some see them as restrictive, while others see them as supportive. In reality, they are levers that make teaching more manageable, consistent, and effective.
The refreshed New Zealand Curriculum, Te Mātaiaho, is very clear on this point. On page 21 of the English learning area (Years 0–6), explicit teaching is described as “a structured, carefully sequenced approach… broken down into manageable steps, each clearly and concisely explained and modelled by the teacher.” It goes further, stating that explicit teaching requires teacher modelling, guided practice, independent practice, regular checking for understanding, feedback, and multiple opportunities for students to consolidate new learning (Ministry of Education, 2024, p.21). Instructional routines and scripting are what allow teachers to achieve this with clarity and confidence.
Archer and Hughes (2011) describe explicit instruction as systematic, direct, engaging, and success oriented. Their framework rests on four domains: content, design, delivery, and practice, with thirteen elements across them. These elements include selecting critical content, breaking it into chunks, setting goals, reviewing, modelling (“I do”), guiding (“We do”), supporting independence (“You do”), eliciting frequent responses, monitoring, providing feedback, maintaining pace, and ensuring practice. The framework shows us that knowing what to teach is not enough. What matters is the deliberate design of lessons, the quality of delivery, and the opportunities for practice.
Instructional routines and scripting bring these elements to life. They help teachers sequence lessons, say the right things at the right time, and ensure that active participation and feedback are built in. They also create consistency of practice within and between classrooms. When students encounter familiar structures across year levels, they spend less energy working out what is expected of them and more energy learning. For leaders, consistency provides a common language of practice and greater confidence that the curriculum is being implemented as intended.
I have seen both resistance and acceptance of scripting. Some teachers, including leaders, initially resisted its use. It felt unnecessary, or even threatening to their professional identity. But over time, resistance softened as the benefits became clear. Teachers who once disliked scripting began to describe it as an anchor. Beginning teachers valued the confidence it brought. Experienced teachers appreciated how it freed them to focus on their students. The shift was striking. Scripts moved from being seen as restrictive to being embraced as supportive.
This shift is reinforced by research. Archer and Hughes (2011) remind us that explicit instruction is both effective and efficient. Sweller (2020) explains that scaffolds such as scripts reduce cognitive load, enabling teachers to focus on learners rather than lesson logistics. Hammond (2015) shows that when explicit instruction is implemented with fidelity, students’ opportunities to respond increase, engagement rises, and outcomes improve.
The benefits of routines and scripting are now well established. They:
reduce overwhelm by lowering cognitive load (Sweller, 2020)
ensure fidelity to evidence-based lesson design (Hammond, 2015)
free teachers to focus on students rather than worry about what comes next (Archer & Hughes, 2011)
create consistency of practice across classrooms and year levels (Ministry of Education, 2024).
Far from removing personality, routines and scripting provide the platform for teachers to bring their best selves to the classroom.
So where to from here? My encouragement is simple. Reflect on your own perception of routines and scripting. Do they feel restrictive, or do they free you to teach responsively? Talk with colleagues about why they are used in your school and how they connect directly to Te Mātaiaho and the Science of Learning. Try leaning into them in one area of your teaching and notice what changes for you and your learners. For leaders, the challenge is to frame these tools as growth rather than compliance. They build collective clarity and consistency, which is exactly what our curriculum calls for. Use the discussion guide (below) in your kura (school) to facilitate dialogue.
Te Mātaiaho is clear. We are expected to teach explicitly. Instructional routines and scripting are the levers that help us do this well. They bring clarity, consistency, and cognitive freedom into classrooms, allowing us to focus on what matters most, our learners.
So what do you think? Friend or foe?
Discussion Sheet
We’ve created a discussion sheet to support you and your staff in reflecting on the role of instructional routines and scripting when implementing Te Mātaiaho and explicit instruction.
References
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hammond, L. (2015). Teacher-led explicit instruction: A key to student achievement. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 23(1), 4–15.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Ministry of Education. (2024). Te Mātaiaho: The New Zealand Curriculum – English (Years 0–6). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
