Activity Teachers vs. Outcomes Teachers
When I was a young high school teacher, I remember reading an article drawing a distinction between “activity” teachers and “outcome” teachers. Activity teachers were the ones who planned their lessons full of engaging activities, but who didn’t think deeply about the learning outcomes that they’re supposed to be producing in students. Often “activity” teachers were seen as the “star” teachers because their classrooms were neat and orderly, bustling with on‐task students busily building creative projects. There was a steady stream of neat and tidy project working coming home, and kids loved their time in class.
The problem is that you can be a good “activity” teacher without actually producing the desired learning outcomes in your students. It’s possible, common even, for teachers to offer lots of engaging activities that don’t result in students achieving learning outcomes. They might have fun, they might be busy, but if they walk away from the experience without being changed, then the teacher hasn’t done their job.
Of course the “outcomes” teacher across the hall can be a fun “activities” teacher too – these are not mutually exclusive categories – but the “outcomes” teacher never loses sight of the intended learning outcomes of the instructional experience they’re offering. We may incorporate games, acting, drawing, dance, or technology into lessons, but remember that these are just tools serving the ultimate goal of producing kids who know how to write a five‐paragraph essay, apply the quadratic formula, or explain photosynthesis. The fun activity is a failure if the student goes home without having learned the knowledge or skills required by the state to prepare them for the next steps in their learning journey.
Teacher‐centered vs. learner‐centered teaching
This distinction of “activity” vs. “outcomes” teaching is sometimes referred to by another name – “teacher‐centered” vs. “learner‐centered” teaching. In teacher‐centered, the teacher is only thinking of what they will do in their role as the teacher. Their lesson plan may outline what they’ll say in their opening remarks to the kids, specify the instructions of the day’s activity, and collect all the needed materials for a successful project. What it doesn’t address is what is happening in the learner’s mind from moment to moment. A learner‐centered teacher structures the whole learning experience to stimulate learners to engage in specific thinking tasks (using Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs) that correspond to the desired learning outcomes. When judging whether instruction was successful, teacher‐centered teachers might think like “did I successfully get through my planned agenda” rather than “did most students acquire the knowledge or skills we were supposed to be learning today”. In other words, it’s an orientation that over‐emphasizes the surface‐level activities of learning rather than the meaningful changes we’re trying to create in learners’ brains.
Activity vs. Outcomes in Corporate Training
In my current role as an instructional designer at a software company, we train busy salespeople (for whom time is money) to get the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in their role. We need to serve as an advocate for that busy learner, helping them get what they need in the most time‐efficient way possible. We need to conserve and focus their attention so they can upskill and get back to their main work serving customers and earning.
Our stakeholders always ask us to make sure learning is “fun” and “engaging” and “interactive”, but they never ask for learning to genuinely improve learners’ workflows, make their work more effective, efficient, and fun for them. Training initiatives are often designed to be fun and memorable, but only for their surface qualities and not for the enduring learnings we’re trying to impart. Our job as instructional designers is to constantly center our measures of success on the knowledge and skills that learners can do independently after the training event is over. These kinds of learning activities (when done well) are seen as genuinely valuable experiences, not just fun diversions.
Why the Distinction Matters
This distinction is crucial because our core responsibility as educators is to ensure that students achieve meaningful learning outcomes—not just that they are entertained or busy. Engagement and enjoyment are valuable, but they are only effective when they serve the deeper purpose of helping students master essential knowledge and skills. If our lessons are fun but fail to produce real learning, we have missed the mark.
The most effective teachers recognize that activities are tools, not the goal itself. They design engaging experiences that are intentionally aligned with clear learning outcomes, ensuring that every project, game, or discussion moves students closer to mastery. By keeping outcomes at the center of our planning, we make sure that engagement leads to lasting growth and prepares students for their next steps.