I've been teaching dance classes a fair amount lately, especially since I'm teaching this month's series classes with Yossef. One thing I've found is that my rapport with Yossef and the students is a lot different than my rapport when I'm teaching with Reuel.
In general, Reuel is very much a do-er; he likes to have the students "crash and burn" after little explanation, so that they can get the feeling of the move/technique/dance in their bodies and muscle memories. I find that when I'm teaching with him, I'm free to talk much more, because he will make sure that they get enough repetitions in to really nail something down.
By contrast, when I'm teaching with Yossef, we both tend to default towards talking/explaining, so I find myself flipping sides, trying to make sure the students get enough reps in to physically understand what we're trying to teach, and to make sure their muscles don't get cold waiting for us to finish talking :)
I noticed this past weekend that Steven Mitchell tends to not explain at all, instead preferring the students to watch him demonstrate it, then do it themselves (or something close). This is an approach that I think I fall into when I'm teaching by myself--still explaining more so than, say, Steven, but much more of a show-then-do than anything else.
Ideally, I try to balance all three of these approaches when I'm teaching, and I think a good teaching pair can do this while letting each individual stick to more of their strengths. Obviously, each of these things have their benefits, too--a visual learner will not pick things up the same way a student who is kinesthetically inclined will.

Which approach do you prefer, whether teaching or learning? Do you find that you default to one, and which is it? Is your natural teaching method one other than the ones I've listed? I'd love to hear you