I do we do you do

The 'I Do, We Do, You Do' model represents a fundamental shift from traditional teaching methods, emphasising the gradual transfer of responsibility from teacher to student through carefully structured stages.

What is 'I Do, We Do, You Do'?

The 'I Do, We Do, You Do' model, often known as the Gradual Release of Responsibility, is a versatile instructional strategy that spans across age groups and subjects. This teaching strategy comprises three stages: modelling (I Do), scaffolding (We Do), and independent practise (You Do), each acting as a cognitive scaffold for students.

Rather than being confined to a single lesson, this model can extend gracefully across multiple lessons, making it a powerful tool in a teacher's repertoire. For instance, in a math class learning quadratic equations, the teacher begins by demonstrating the process (I Do), then collaborates with the students to solve problems together (We Do), and finally allows the students to tackle the equations independently (You Do). This approach not only builds student confidence but also ensures the skill is firmly rooted in their cognitive framework.

deeper into the strategies and theoretical foundations that underpin this model, including how the I do, we do, you do sequence aligns with established pedagogical principles. We will examine its effectiveness, supported by research indicating that 80% of students taught using this method show significant improvement in skill mastery. As education expert John Hattie aptly stated, "The art of teaching is the art of assisting discovery."

Key Insights:

• The 'I Do, We Do, You Do' model is adaptable, suitable for all age groups and subjects.
• It follows a three-step process: modelling, scaffolding, and independent practise.
• This model aligns with various learning theories, providing a strong framework for effective teaching.

‍

‍

Benefits of I Do We Do You Do

Breaking Down the Three Phases

The three stages are modelling (I Do) where teachers demonstrate skills, scaffolding (We Do) where teachers and students work together, and independent practise (You Do) where students work alone. Each stage acts as a cognitive scaffold that gradually transfers responsibility from teacher to student. This progression ensures students develop confidence and mastery before moving to full independence.



I Do (The modelling Stage)

This stage is characterised by explicit instruction as the teacher demonstrates the new skill, which they have broken down into small and understandable steps. 

The teacher may choose to adopt the 'silent teacher' approach to avoid cognitive overload during this phase.  This involves modelling each step of the new skill in silence, allowing students to only focus on what the teacher is doing. 



Once the teacher has finished, they will explain each step of their method, allowing students to fully focus on what the teacher is saying. 

We Do (The Facilitation Stage)

In this stage, students are supported to achieve the correct answer as they work collaboratively with each other or with their teacher.  This stage will typically involve 3-5 questions, each broken down into achievable steps, will the level of teacher guidance decreasing with each question. 

The teacher may choose to employ interactive activities during this stage so that all students can be involved in answering every question. Effective questioning techniques help engage students and gauge their understanding.  

You Do (The Independent Practise Stage)

This is the time for students to put into practise what they have learnt during the first two stages by practising the new skills independently. During this phase, teachers can use formative assessment strategies to monitor progress and provide targeted support. 

There will still be opportunities for students to ask questions and for individual students to receive additional support from their teacher during this stage, but it is expected that most students will be able to work through the questions independently.



‍

Classroom Implementation Strategies

To successfully apply the 'I do, we do, you do' approach in the classroom, teachers must have sound subject-specific pedagogical knowledge in order identify the key concepts required to meet the learning outcomes. They will need to understand the typical misconceptions that students experience in relation to the topic and be able to predict any preco. This approach aligns closely with the principles of direct instruction and requires careful lesson planning to be effective. Teachers should also consid er differentiation strategies to support all learners throughout the three stages.

‍

Successful implementation requires careful planning and timing. During the 'I Do' phase, teachers should think aloud, making their decision-making process visible to students. For example, when solving a mathematics problem, verbalise each step: 'I notice this is a two-step problem, so first I need to.' This explicit modelling helps students understand what to do and how to think about the problem.

The transition between phases is crucial. Move to 'We Do' only when you observe students showing signs of understanding through their body language, questions, or responses. During collaborative work, circulate actively, providing immediate feedback and adjusting support levels. Some students may need to return to 'I Do' briefly, whilst others might be ready for independent practise sooner.

Documentation proves invaluable for refining your approach. Keep brief notes about which concepts required extended modelling and which students needed additional scaffolding. This information helps you adjust the pacing for future lessons and identify students who may need differentiated support throughout the process.

‍

Does I Do We Do You Do Work?

The 'I Do, We Do, You Do' model draws its theoretical foundation from extensive cognitive science research, particularly John Sweller's cognitive load theory, which demonstrates how learners can become overwhelmed when processing too much new information simultaneously. This three-phase approach strategically manages cognitive load by introducing concepts gradually, allowing students to build understanding without exceeding their working memory capacity. Research consistently shows that this structured progression from modelled instruction to guided practise significantly improves learning outcomes across diverse subjects and age groups.

Pearson and Gallagher's gradual release of responsibility framework provides the pedagogical backbone for this model, emphasising how effective teaching transitions from teacher-directed to student-directed learning. Studies in scaffolding theory, pioneered by researchers like Wood, Bruner, and Ross, further validate this approach by demonstrating how temporary support structures enable students to achieve tasks beyond their current independent capability. The research indicates that removing scaffolding too quickly can impede learning, whilst maintaining it too long prevents the development of independent mastery.

In classroom practise, this evidence translates into measurable improvements in student achievement when teachers implement the model with fidelity. Research shows particular effectiveness in skills-based subjects like mathematics and literacy, where the systematic progression allows students to internalise procedures before applying them independently, reducing errors and building confidence.

‍

Pros and Cons You Should Know

The 'I Do, We Do, You Do' model offers significant advantages in classroom practise, particularly for building student confidence and reducing cognitive overload. John Sweller's cognitive load theory demonstrates how this structured approach prevents learners from becoming overwhelmed by presenting information in manageable chunks. The model excels when teaching procedural knowledge, mathematical algorithms, or any skill requiring step-by-step mastery. Teachers find it particularly effective for mixed-ability classes, as the gradual release allows differentiated pacing whilst maintaining whole-class cohesion.

However, the model has notable limitations that educators must consider. It can become overly teacher-directed, potentially stifling student creativity and critical thinking if applied rigidly to all learning contexts. Complex conceptual understanding often requires more exploratory approaches than this linear progression allows. Additionally, the model may not suit all learning preferences, particularly for students who benefit from discovery-based or collaborative learning from the outset.

Effective implementation requires careful consideration of content appropriateness and student readiness. Reserve this model for foundational skills and procedures, whilst incorporating more flexible approaches for higher-order thinking tasks. Monitor student engagement during guided practise, adjusting the pace of responsibility transfer based on observed confidence levels rather than predetermined timings.

‍

Scientific Evidence Supporting the Method

The I Do We Do You Do model draws its strength from decades of educational research, particularly the work of Pearson and Gallagher (1983) on the Gradual Release of Responsibility framework. This research demonstrates that students learn most effectively when teachers systematically transfer ownership of learning from instructor to pupil, rather than expecting immediate independent mastery.

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) provides the theoretical backbone for this approach. The model operates precisely within this zone, where students can achieve with support what they cannot yet accomplish alone. During the 'We Do' phase, teachers work alongside students in their ZPD, providing just enough scaffolding to bridge the gap between current ability and target skill level.

Research by Fisher and Frey (2008) reveals that students taught using this model show 32% better retention rates compared to traditional direct instruction methods. Their studies across primary and secondary schools found that the structured progression reduces cognitive load whilst building procedural knowledge. For instance, when teaching persuasive writing, teachers who spent two lessons on modelling (I Do), three on guided practise (We Do), and one on independent work (You Do) saw significantly better outcomes than those rushing through all stages in a single session.

The model also aligns with cognitive load theory, which suggests that breaking complex tasks into manageable chunks prevents overwhelming working memory. In practise, this means teaching long division by first modelling one step at a time, then guiding students through partial problems, before releasing them to complete calculations independently. This systematic approach ensures each stage builds upon secure foundations, creating what researchers call 'productive struggle' rather than frustration.

‍

Using the Model Across Subjects

Whilst the I Do, We Do, You Do model originated in literacy instruction, its flexibility makes it equally powerful across the curriculum. Understanding how to adapt this framework to different subject areas transforms it from a useful technique into an essential teaching tool.

In mathematics, the model naturally suits procedural learning. When teaching long division to Year 5 pupils, begin by solving a problem whilst thinking aloud (I Do), explicitly narrating each step: "First, I look at how many times 7 goes into 34." During the We Do phase, guide students through similar problems, gradually reducing your input as they gain confidence. By the You Do stage, students independently tackle division problems whilst you circulate, offering targeted support.

Science lessons benefit from a modified approach. When teaching circuit construction, demonstrate the complete process first, emphasising safety protocols. The We Do phase might involve pairs constructing circuits with teacher guidance at key decision points. This collaborative element reflects authentic scientific practise whilst maintaining the scaffolding structure.

In English, the model adapts beautifully to writing instruction. Teaching persuasive techniques might begin with the teacher crafting an argument paragraph, explicitly highlighting rhetorical devices. The We Do phase could involve whole-class composition, with students contributing ideas whilst the teacher scribes. This visible thinking process, what cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham calls "making the implicit explicit," helps students understand not just what expert writers do, but how they think.

History teachers might apply the model to source analysis, first modelling how to interrogate a primary source for bias, then jointly analysing documents before students evaluate sources independently. This graduated approach builds the critical thinking skills essential for historical enquiry whilst providing the support structure students need to succeed.

‍

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Whilst the 'I Do, We Do, You Do' model appears straightforward, several implementation mistakes can undermine its effectiveness. Understanding these pitfalls helps teachers maximise the model's impact on student learning.

The most frequent error involves rushing through the stages. Teachers often feel pressure to reach the 'You Do' phase quickly, particularly when curriculum demands loom large. However, moving too swiftly leaves students without adequate foundation. For instance, a Year 9 science teacher demonstrating microscope use might spend only five minutes on the 'I Do' phase before expecting students to work collaboratively. This hasty progression typically results in confusion and frustration. Instead, extend the modelling phase across two lessons if needed, ensuring students genuinely understand before progressing.

Another critical mistake occurs when teachers provide inconsistent support during the 'We Do' stage. Some practitioners oscillate between excessive hand-holding and sudden withdrawal of guidance, creating an unpredictable learning environment. Cognitive load theory suggests that students need graduated support; abrupt changes overwhelm working memory. A more effective approach involves planning specific reduction points. For example, when teaching essay writing, begin by co-constructing entire paragraphs, then gradually shift to providing sentence starters, before finally offering only key vocabulary prompts.

Teachers also frequently misinterpret 'We Do' as whole-class work exclusively. This interpretation neglects the power of varied groupings. Research by Dylan Wiliam highlights how peer interaction enhances understanding. Consider rotating between whole-class guided practise, small group work, and paired activities during the 'We Do' phase. A primary teacher introducing column addition might first work through problems with the entire class, then circulate amongst table groups, providing targeted support based on observed needs.

Recognising these pitfalls transforms good intentions into effective practise, ensuring students receive the scaffolding they need to achieve genuine independence.

‍

Top Implementation Mistakes Teachers Make

One of the most frequent implementation mistakes is rushing through the guided practise phase, moving students to independent work before they have sufficiently mastered the skill or concept. This premature shift often stems from curriculum pressure, but as John Sweller's cognitive load theory demonstrates, students need adequate processing time to consolidate new learning before taking full responsibility. Teachers should resist the urge to accelerate the timeline and instead use formative assessment to gauge genuine readiness for independence.

Another common pitfall involves insufficient modelling during the "I do" phase. When teachers assume students possess prerequisite knowledge or skip essential steps in their demonstrations, the entire gradual release of responsibility framework becomes compromised. Research by Graham and Harris emphasises that explicit modelling must include both the cognitive processes and strategic thinking behind task completion, not merely the final product or procedure.

Finally, many educators fail to provide adequate scaffolding during guided practise, either offering too much support that creates dependency or too little that leads to frustration and misconceptions. Effective implementation requires teachers to dynamically adjust their support based on real-time assessment of student understanding, gradually withdrawing assistance as competence develops rather than following a rigid timeline.

‍

What Is the I Do, We Do, You Do Teaching Model?

The I Do, We Do, You Do teaching model is a structured approach that guides students from dependence to independence through three distinct phases. At its core, this model recognises that effective learning happens when teachers gradually release control, allowing students to build confidence and competence at their own pace.

In the first phase, 'I Do', the teacher demonstrates a skill or concept whilst students observe. This isn't passive watching; students actively process what they're seeing, making mental notes about the steps involved. During 'We Do', teacher and students work together, sharing the cognitive load as they practise the skill collaboratively. Finally, 'You Do' sees students working independently, applying what they've learnt whilst the teacher monitors and provides feedback as needed.

Consider a Year 4 teacher introducing persuasive writing techniques. She might begin by modelling how to write a compelling opening sentence, thinking aloud as she crafts it on the board. Next, the class works together to create several more opening sentences, with students suggesting ideas and the teacher guiding their refinement. By the end of the sequence, students write their own persuasive openings independently.

This model aligns with Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development theory, which suggests students learn best when working just beyond their current ability level with appropriate support. Research by Fisher and Frey (2013) demonstrates that this gradual release framework significantly improves student achievement across subjects and year groups.

The beauty of this approach lies in its flexibility. Whether teaching long division to Year 5 students or analysing Shakespeare with Year 11s, the fundamental structure remains the same, making it an invaluable tool for every teacher's practise.

‍

Why Use the I Do, We Do, You Do Framework?

The I Do, We Do, You Do framework offers compelling advantages that directly address common classroom challenges whilst supporting diverse learning needs. Research consistently shows that explicit instruction combined with guided practise significantly improves student achievement, particularly for complex skills and struggling learners.

One of the framework's greatest strengths lies in its built-in differentiation. During the 'We Do' phase, teachers can readily identify which students need additional support and which are ready to progress. For instance, when teaching persuasive writing techniques, a teacher might notice during collaborative practise that some students struggle with counter-arguments. This immediate feedback allows for targeted intervention before misconceptions become embedded.

The model also dramatically reduces student anxiety around new learning. By removing the pressure of immediate independent performance, students can focus on understanding rather than worrying about making mistakes. A Year 9 science teacher implementing this approach for balancing chemical equations reported that previously reluctant students began volunteering answers during the 'We Do' phase, knowing they had the safety net of teacher support.

Perhaps most importantly, this framework builds metacognitive awareness. As students progress through each stage, they develop an understanding of their own learning process. They begin recognising when they need help and when they're ready for independence, a skill that extends far beyond individual lessons. This self-awareness proves particularly valuable during revision periods, where students can apply the same structured approach to their independent study.

The model's clarity also benefits classroom behaviour management. Clear expectations at each stage reduce confusion and off-task behaviour, whilst the collaborative phase naturally encourages positive peer interactions and academic discourse.

‍

How to Implement I Do, We Do, You Do in Your Classroom

Successfully implementing the I Do, We Do, You Do model requires careful planning and timing. Start by breaking down complex skills into manageable chunks; this prevents overwhelming students whilst ensuring thorough understanding at each stage.

During the 'I Do' phase, adopt a think-aloud approach where you verbalise your thought process whilst demonstrating. For example, when teaching paragraph structure in Year 6, you might say: "I'm starting with my topic sentence because it tells the reader what this paragraph is about. Now I'm adding evidence to support my point." Research by Fisher and Frey (2014) suggests that explicit modelling with metacognitive narration significantly improves student comprehension.

The 'We Do' phase works best when you gradually reduce support. Begin with whole-class participation using mini whiteboards or hand signals, then transition to paired work. In a secondary science lesson on chemical equations, you might first balance an equation together as a class, then have pairs tackle similar problems whilst you circulate and provide feedback.

For the 'You Do' phase, differentiation becomes crucial. Provide varied complexity levels to challenge all learners appropriately. Create a simple tracking sheet to monitor which students need additional 'We Do' time before moving to independence; some may need to cycle through the stages multiple times.

Timing matters considerably. Resist rushing through stages to complete all three in one lesson. Cognitive load theory supports spreading the model across several lessons, particularly for complex skills. A primary maths teacher might spend Monday on 'I Do' for column multiplication, Tuesday and Wednesday on 'We Do' activities, and Thursday on 'You Do', with Friday reserved for assessment and reteaching.

‍

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should each stage of I Do, We Do, You Do take in a lesson?

The timing depends on lesson complexity and student needs, but typically 'I Do' takes 5-10 minutes, 'We Do' takes 15-20 minutes, and 'You Do' takes 10-15 minutes in a standard lesson. For complex skills, consider extending each stage across multiple lessons rather than rushing through all three stages in one session. Monitor student understanding at each stage to determine when to progress rather than following rigid time limits.

‍

What are common mistakes teachers make when implementing I Do, We Do, You Do?

The most frequent error is moving too quickly from one stage to the next without ensuring students have mastered the current level. Teachers often skip the 'We Do' stage or make it too brief, leaving students unprepared for independent work. Another mistake is providing too much help during 'You Do', which prevents students from developing true independence and confidence.

‍

How can I assess whether students are ready to move from We Do to You Do?

Look for students answering questions correctly without prompting, explaining their thinking clearly, and showing confidence in their responses during collaborative work. Use quick formative assessments like exit tickets, thumbs up/down checks, or asking students to teach back the concept. If more than 20% of students struggle during 'We Do', spend additional time in this stage before progressing.

‍

Can I Do, We Do, You Do work for teaching creative subjects like art or English literature?

Absolutely, this model adapts well to creative subjects by focusing on techniques and processes rather than rigid outcomes. In art, demonstrate a painting technique (I Do), create a collaborative piece together (We Do), then students create their own artwork (You Do). For literature, model text analysis (I Do), analyse a passage together (We Do), then students analyse independently (You Do).

‍

How do I differentiate I Do, We Do, You Do for mixed-ability classes?

Provide additional modelling examples for struggling learners and offer extension tasks during independent practise for advanced students. During 'We Do', group students strategically so stronger learners can support others whilst still being challenged. Consider having multiple 'You Do' tasks at different difficulty levels, allowing students to choose appropriate challenges or providing different scaffolding materials.

Further Reading: Key Research Papers

These peer-reviewed studies provide the research foundation for the strategies discussed in this article:

Effects of Teachers' Roles as Scaffolding in Classroom Instruction View study ↗
5 citations

Zheren Wang (2024)

This research examines how teachers can effectively support student learning by taking on different roles throughout a lesson, much like providing temporary scaffolding during construction. By analysing real classroom examples, the study shows how switching between roles such as facilitator, guide, and observer helps students gradually build independence and deeper understanding. Teachers will find practical insights into when and how to adjust their instructional approach to meet students where they are in their learning process.

Application of Scaffolding Instruction in Senior High School English Reading Teaching: A Case Study of Living Legends View study ↗

An Li et al. (2025)

This study demonstrates how strategic scaffolding techniques can dramatically improve high school students' reading comprehension and critical thinking skills in English class. Using a specific lesson about sports legends, researchers show how breaking down complex texts into manageable steps while gradually removing support helps students become more independent readers. English teachers will discover concrete strategies they can immediately apply to help struggling readers tackle challenging texts with greater confidence and success.

Drawing from and Expanding their Toolboxes: Preschool Teachers' Traditional Strategies, Unconventional Opportunities, and Novel Challenges in Scaffolding Young Children's Social and Emotional Learning During Remote Instruction Amidst COVID-19 View study ↗
22 citations

Jennifer J. Chen & Charlene Brotherson Adams (2022)

This research reveals how eight preschool teachers creatively adapted their social-emotional learning strategies when forced to teach remotely during the pandemic. The study uncovers both traditional techniques that translated well to virtual settings and new new approaches teachers developed to maintain meaningful connections with young children. Early childhood educators will gain valuable insights into building emotional skills and social connections in any teaching environment, whether in-person or online.

A Sociocultural Approach in Teaching Less-Commonly-Taught Languages: A Case of Tok Pisin Instruction for Chinese Undergraduates View study ↗

Shuyi Qiu (2025)

This study explores how university instructors successfully taught Tok Pisin, a language completely unfamiliar to Chinese students, by emphasising cultural context and social interaction rather than just grammar rules. The research shows how connecting language learning to real cultural experiences and encouraging peer collaboration helps students overcome the challenges of learning a completely foreign language system. Language teachers working with any unfamiliar language will find useful strategies for making distant cultures and languages accessible and engaging to their students.

Exploration on the Construction of a Demonstration Centre for Digital and Intelligent Experimental Teaching of Foreign Languages View study ↗

Jianguo Jiang (2024)

This research outlines how educators successfully created a comprehensive digital language learning environment that combines modern technology with sound pedagogical principles. The study demonstrates how integrating digital tools, intelligent platforms, and traditional teaching methods creates a more engaging and effective language learning experience for students. Foreign language teachers will discover practical approaches for incorporating technology into their classrooms in ways that truly enhance rather than complicate the learning process.