## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Expert thinking made visible**: Model complete procedures whilst narrating decision-making processes > - **30-second rule**: Well-atomised content should flow smoothly in approximately 30 seconds > - **Fragile attention**: The focused atmosphere is easily disrupted; eliminate unnecessary elements ## Definition **I Do**: The demonstration phase where teachers model complete procedures while making expert thinking visible to students through clear narration and systematic presentation (Rosenshine, 2012). ## Connected To [[Worked Examples]] | [[Atomisation]] | [[We Do]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Explicit Teaching Learning Episode]] --- ## Purpose and positioning The I Do phase shows students the complete procedure they need to learn whilst making invisible expert thinking processes visible (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008). This involves strategic modelling where every word and action teaches. Four factors distinguish effective I Do from ineffective demonstration. All atoms must be previously taught and assessed, so students focus on how familiar pieces combine rather than learning new elements. Clear narration that verbalises decision-making processes makes expert thinking visible (Chi et al., 1989). Well-prepared content should flow in approximately 30 seconds, maintaining attention without overload (Clark et al., 2012). Finally, a focused atmosphere requires eliminating distractions and interruptions that would disrupt student concentration. When these factors align, I Do proceeds efficiently and students see exactly what they need to do. ## Core teaching approaches **Standard narrated explanation** forms the foundation of I Do. The teacher sets up the problem clearly, works through it step-by-step (Atkinson et al., 2000), and narrates decision points explicitly: "I'm choosing to... because..." (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008). Connecting back to previously taught atoms ("Remember, we said...") grounds the new procedure in familiar knowledge. Periodic checks for listening ("What did I do first?... Tom?") maintain engagement without breaking the flow. This approach focuses on why decisions are made, references previously taught atoms, keeps language clear and concise, and maintains steady logical progression. **The Assume They Can Do It approach** works when students have a strong foundation but need to see how familiar pieces combine. The teacher signals this with language like "I know you can all do this, so I'll go quickly", works through at normal expert pace with minimal explanation of familiar steps, and focuses only on new combinations or applications. This method builds student confidence, uses time efficiently, and emphasises capability. **Checks for listening** maintain engagement without disrupting explanation flow. Rather than waiting until the end, teachers ask periodic questions during demonstration ("What operation should I use next?... Emma?"), use pauses to increase thinking time, and focus questions on attention rather than novel content. This creates continuous narrative flow whilst maintaining engagement. **The silent teacher approach** involves modelling the procedure completely in silence, allowing students to watch with full attention, before following up with verbal explanation or checks for listening. This method emphasises movements and writing by eliminating other sensory input, eliminates noise and creates a focused atmosphere, and allows students to think about what they observe. Silence should be followed with verbal explanation (silence alone is insufficient for learning; Chi et al., 1989). **Turn and talk rehearsal** works well for complex procedures requiring multiple steps. Students silently think through each step (20 seconds), then work in pairs with clear instructions (person closest to door goes first, switching roles when the teacher claps). This provides active processing of the demonstration, creates peer explanation opportunities, allows verbal rehearsal of procedures, and prepares students for independent application. ## Preparation and setup Effective I Do requires careful pre-teaching preparation. Atomisation must be complete, with all prerequisite knowledge assessed and secured through earlier lessons. Students should answer prerequisite questions with 80% or higher accuracy. New atoms should be taught separately before combining them into procedures, and individual atoms should be secure before integration. Examples should be chosen to avoid repeated elements, with clear, general examples that reveal the process. Finally, language should be planned by scripting key narration points and rehearsing the explanation aloud before the lesson. Board setup supports the demonstration. The working space should be clean with a clear area for demonstration. Keep reminders of previously taught atoms visible for students to reference. Arrange all materials in a logical layout that supports smooth flow. Ensure all students have clear sight lines (positioning matters for learning from demonstration). ## Integration with learning episode I Do sits at a precise point within the broader explicit teaching sequence. Before I Do, all prerequisite knowledge must be assessed and secured through atomisation, with new atoms taught separately using appropriate methods. Students should be ready to see familiar pieces combined in new ways. During I Do itself, the teacher provides a clear demonstration of the complete procedure with expert thinking made visible through narration, focusing on how familiar elements combine whilst maintaining engagement without breaking the demonstration flow. After I Do, there should be a seamless transition to We Do guided practice, with step-by-step assessment of understanding to check that the demonstration was effective. The teacher then builds a bridge to independent work, using student performance to inform responsive teaching decisions. ## Common mistakes to avoid Co-construction (asking students to figure out novel procedures) undermines I Do's purpose. The teacher must demonstrate whilst students observe without being asked to contribute to the problem-solving process during this phase. Lecturing with long explanations without engagement checks confuses I Do with traditional instruction. Demonstrations should be concise and focused, with periodic checks for understanding. Hybrid approaches that mix explanation with premature understanding checks blur the distinction between I Do and We Do phases. These phases serve different purposes and should remain separate. Over-explanation, where teachers try to cover too much in a single demonstration, exceeds cognitive capacity. Focus should remain on one main procedure rather than attempting to address multiple related ideas simultaneously. Poor preparation (not planning explanation language in advance) results in unclear or rambling demonstrations. Teachers should script and rehearse key narration points before the lesson. Attention breakers in the form of unnecessary movements or interruptions shatter the focused atmosphere that I Do requires. All distracting elements should be eliminated. ## Troubleshooting guide If I Do takes too long (beyond 2 minutes), several adjustments help. First, check whether prerequisite atoms are truly secure (confusion about foundations extends the demonstration). Simplify the example by choosing a less complex demonstration. Focus narration by eliminating unnecessary explanation and keeping to core decision points. If atoms are missing entirely, pre-teach them separately rather than trying to cover them during I Do. If students seem confused during or after the demonstration, slow down and reduce the pace of presentation. Increase narration to make expert thinking more visible, around decision points. Verify that prerequisite atoms are secure through quick checks. If problems persist, use a simpler example that requires fewer steps or less complex reasoning. If student attention wanders during I Do, eliminate distractions by removing visual or auditory interruptions. Add engagement through brief checks for listening that don't break the demonstration flow. Improve positioning to ensure all students can see clearly. Sometimes quickening the pace helps maintain attention (moving efficiently through the demonstration prevents mind-wandering). --- **Preparation strategy**: Write bullet points of exactly what you'll say. Rehearse explanations aloud. The investment in preparation pays dividends in classroom clarity. **Attention to detail**: The focused atmosphere at the start of I Do is easily disrupted. Any unnecessary movement, word, or visual element can break students' concentration and derail the explanation. ## References 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 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 Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). *Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load*. Wiley. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. *Educational Psychologist*, 43(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420