## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Critical bridge**: First question students answer after worked example - bridges teacher explanation and independent practice > - **Step-by-step assessment**: Break multi-step problems into individual steps for precise diagnosis using mini-whiteboards > - **80% rule response**: Adjust scaffolding based on success rates to ensure understanding before independence ## Definition **We Do**: The guided practice phase where students complete problems collaboratively with teacher support, providing crucial evidence about whether the I Do demonstration was understood (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Rosenshine, 2012). ## Connected To [[I Do]] | [[Practice]] | [[Mini-Whiteboards]] | [[Worked Examples]] | [[Responsive Teaching]] | [[Scaffolding]] --- ## Purpose and positioning The We Do phase answers one question: did students understand the I Do demonstration? This check must happen before moving to independent work, not after students struggle in silence. We Do bridges watching and doing, providing immediate assessment of explanation after I Do and preparation for independent practice before consolidation. Without this bridge, students struggle in silence during practice, and the jump from demonstration to independence is too large. Under-utilising guided practice is a common teaching mistake (Rosenshine, 2012; Archer & Hughes, 2011). The jump from expert demonstration to independent performance is too large without this guided step. Teachers who skip or rush We Do discover the problem only when students fail during independent practice, which is too late for efficient intervention. ## Question selection principles The We Do must test the same skill as the I Do but still require genuine thinking, not just pattern matching. Questions that are too similar to I Do allow students to succeed through memorisation rather than understanding; better questions change numbers or context whilst keeping the same concept. Questions that are too different from I Do introduce new complexity not covered in the demonstration; better questions test only the demonstrated skill. Questions with the same pattern encourage pattern matching without concept understanding; better questions vary surface features whilst keeping deep structure the same. The Goldilocks principle applies: just right difficulty tests the concept without additional complications. ## Step-by-step assessment strategy Complete solutions on mini-whiteboards have problems. Teachers cannot identify where in the process students went wrong, there is too much information to process quickly (Lemov, 2015), opportunities for intervention are missed, and diagnosing issues is difficult. A step-by-step process addresses these problems. Teachers ask students to write their first step on mini-whiteboards, focusing on a single element. Teachers then assess by scanning for understanding, respond by addressing issues or confirming and continuing, model by writing the correct step on the board as a reference, and repeat for each subsequent step to build understanding. This approach provides diagnosis of where students struggle, multiple success points as students experience success at each step, support to address misconceptions immediately, and confidence building as success at each stage motivates continuation. ## The tick trick implementation The tick trick ensures students maintain proper working-out format during independent practice. During a second We Do, students complete the problem entirely in books to practise proper format. The teacher then models the solution, awarding ticks for each correct step to show expected working. Students swap books to verify tick allocation, providing a peer learning opportunity. The student with the most ticks followed the modelled method most closely. This approach rewards method rather than answers, encourages clear step-by-step solutions, allows students to see alternative approaches, and links back to teacher demonstration. Three types of questions work in sequence. What If questions change minimal elements from the previous example, with students told to change as little of their working as possible, focusing attention on features and their effects. Reset questions introduce multiple changes, all previously encountered, with students cleaning mini-whiteboards for a fresh start, testing ability to handle varied scenarios. Extension questions introduce novel elements in a low-stakes environment whilst pushing boundaries. If fewer than 80% of students are correct at any point, teachers should stop and support struggling students whilst others move to consolidation (Wilson et al., 2019; Rosenshine, 2012). How far the class progresses determines consolidation difficulty level. For complex procedures, teachers can use What If questions more heavily to avoid requiring students to start from scratch each time. ## Responsive teaching during We Do When more than 80% of students are correct, teachers should confirm the answer, provide a quick model of seven seconds or less, and move to the next question. When fewer than 80% are correct, teachers should model a clear explanation, reference common wrong answers where helpful, use a follow-up question to recheck understanding, and move on regardless of follow-up success, noting for later review. Advance preparation helps. Each original question and follow-up should be on separate slides. Follow-ups should be pre-planned rather than created in the moment. Teachers can use example-problem pairs as an option to show both together with scaffolding. ## Board setup and presentation Students need the I Do as a reference during We Do. A side-by-side layout with I Do on the left and We Do on the right allows both to be visible simultaneously so students can compare approaches. Teachers should not show We Do until I Do is complete, preventing attention splitting during explanation and maintaining focus on demonstration. ## Implementation guidelines Mini-whiteboards should be used consistently. They allow teachers to see every student's response (Black & Wiliam, 1998), enable quick assessment and response cycles, create low-stakes environments where students are less afraid of mistakes, and support partner discussions. Board management requires having clean space ready for modelling, writing working clearly during responses, and keeping key steps visible throughout. Time management requires a brisk pace without dwelling on questions most students understand, efficient confirmation when understanding is secure, and strategic investment of time where students actually struggle. ## Common mistakes to avoid Skipping We Do entirely causes students to struggle in independent practice; teachers should always include guided practice. Combined I Do and We Do creates confusion between explanation and assessment; phases should be kept separate. Poor question choice tests wrong skills or complexity; teachers should apply the Goldilocks principle. Using a single question only misses sequence building opportunities; teachers should use multiple We Do types. Ignoring the 80% rule means moving on despite widespread confusion; teachers should respond to data appropriately. Unprepared follow-ups create weak questions on the spot; teachers should pre-plan follow-up questions. ## References Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). *Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching*. Guilford Press. 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 Lemov, D. (2015). *Teach like a champion 2.0: 62 techniques that put students on the path to college*. Jossey-Bass. 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. Wilson, K., Landa, S., & Bryant, A. (2019). The 85% rule for optimal learning. *Nature Communications*, 10, 4646. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12552-4