## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Atomisation**: Break complex tasks into smallest meaningful units before teaching > - **I Do, We Do, You Do**: Systematic progression from demonstration to independence > - **Responsive Teaching**: Adjust pace and depth based on student understanding signals ## Definition **Explicit Teaching Learning Episode**: A structured lesson framework that systematically builds understanding through demonstration, guided practice, and independent application. ## Overview The I Do, We Do, You Do framework moves students from observation to independent mastery through three phases: teacher demonstration (I Do), collaborative practice (We Do), and individual application (You Do). The framework requires atomisation (breaking complex learning into the smallest meaningful teaching units before instruction begins). When teachers teach multi-step procedures without atomisation, they overwhelm working memory and create confusion. When they atomise effectively and apply the I Do/We Do/You Do sequence to each component, students build secure understanding progressively. Throughout this process, responsive teaching (reading student signals and adjusting pace, depth, and support) ensures the framework serves actual student needs rather than predetermined pacing guides. ## Connected To [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Practice]] --- ## The learning episode framework The three phases create a systematic progression from teacher-led demonstration to student independence, with each phase serving a distinct purpose in the learning process. ## Phase 1: I Do (demonstration) During the I Do phase, the teacher models the complete process whilst students observe. The teacher demonstrates the full skill or concept, using think-aloud to reveal invisible processes. Students watch and listen without participating. Multiple examples showing variation help students understand the boundaries and applications of the concept. ## Phase 2: We Do (guided practice) Students participate with teacher support during the We Do phase. The teacher and students work together (gradual release of responsibility as students demonstrate readiness). Immediate feedback and correction prevent misconceptions from becoming entrenched. Multiple practice opportunities allow students to build fluency before independence. Choral responses work well for factual content, whilst guided questioning suits problem-solving tasks. Shared construction of examples helps students see the thinking process. Error correction becomes a learning opportunity rather than a failure, building metacognitive awareness. ## Phase 3: You Do (independent practice) Students apply learning independently during the You Do phase, working without teacher support. This phase assesses understanding and consolidates learning through application of newly learnt skills. High success rates (80% or higher initially) indicate readiness for independent work. Complexity increases gradually as students demonstrate mastery. Distributed practice over time strengthens retention. Connections to prior learning support transfer and integration of knowledge. ## Essential pre-planning: atomisation Atomisation means breaking down complex learning into the smallest meaningful teaching units before beginning instruction. Teachers must first identify what students must ultimately do. Next, they determine what discrete skills are needed to accomplish that task. Checking for prerequisite knowledge prevents gaps in understanding. The components must be ordered logically, typically moving from simple to complex or concrete to abstract. Finally, teachers plan how each piece will be taught through separate lesson episodes. Common atomisation problems include breaking tasks into chunks that are too large (resulting in student confusion and cognitive overload), too small (creating fragmented understanding), or poorly sequenced (leaving gaps in understanding). When teachers fail to teach explicit links between components, students struggle to connect the pieces into a coherent whole. When teaching persuasive paragraph writing, teachers might identify the ultimate target as writing a complete persuasive paragraph. The discrete components include topic sentences, evidence, explanation, and conclusions. Prerequisites include sentence structure and knowledge of persuasive techniques. The logical sequence moves from simple sentence construction through individual components before combining them. Each component receives its own lesson episode with full I Do/We Do/You Do treatment. ## Responsive teaching during episodes Teachers must monitor understanding continuously and adjust their instruction based on student signals. Quick, confident responses indicate readiness to proceed. Students asking extension questions, accurately completing guided practice, and showing engaged body language all suggest the pace suits their needs. Hesitant or delayed responses suggest teachers should slow down. Some confusion in guided practice, mixed success rates, and students asking clarifying questions indicate the need for more support or examples before progressing. Incorrect or absent responses, widespread confusion, low success in guided practice, and frustrated body language require stopping and re-teaching. The atomisation may be too large, the examples may be unclear, or students may lack prerequisite knowledge. When content proves too easy, teachers increase complexity, move faster, or add extensions. When content proves too hard, they re-atomise into smaller chunks, add more examples, or slow the pace. When students show mixed levels of understanding, teachers differentiate practice or provide choice in application tasks. ## Common implementation errors Skipping atomisation leaves students confused during I Do (unable to follow the demonstration because too many new elements appear simultaneously). Teachers must always break down complex tasks before teaching them. Poor example selection (choosing examples that hide processes or repeat the same elements) prevents students from seeing variation. Teachers should choose varied, clear examples that reveal rather than obscure the thinking process. Rushing through components creates insecure foundations that collapse when students attempt independent work. Teachers must allow time for mastery of each atomic element. Conversely, over-explaining when students demonstrate secure understanding wastes instructional time. Teachers must read student signals and adjust accordingly. Under-explaining when students show confusion allows misconceptions to persist. Teachers should respond to confusion immediately with re-teaching or re-atomisation. Inconsistent routines create management issues that interfere with learning. Establishing clear procedures for transitions between I Do, We Do, and You Do helps students focus on content rather than logistics. Failing to plan for distributed practice across time leads to knowledge decay. Teachers must plan for revisiting and applying skills beyond the initial learning episode. Ignoring exit ticket data means missing learning gaps that could inform the next lesson. Teachers should use assessment information to guide subsequent instruction. ## References Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). *Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching*. Guilford Press. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. *Review of Educational Research*, 70(2), 181-214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181 Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. *Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice*, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. *Cognitive Science*, 13(2), 145-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. *Review of Educational Research*, 69(2), 145-186. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069002145 Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. *Contemporary Educational Psychology*, 8(3), 317-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19, 39. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 Wilson, J. M., Marcotte, K., Neuman, Y., Crnovrsanin, N., Siebert-Evenstone, A. L., Swiecki, Z., & Shaffer, D. W. (2019). The predictive role of students' responses to feedback in online learning. *Journal of Educational Computing Research*, 57(6), 1489-1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118794930