Key ideas
Core concepts
- Complex tasks are broken into the smallest meaningful units (atomisation) before any teaching begins, then each unit is taught through the I Do, We Do, You Do sequence from demonstration to independence.
- Teachers read student signals throughout and adjust pace, depth, and support rather than following a predetermined script.
An explicit teaching learning episode is a structured lesson framework that builds understanding through demonstration, guided practice, and independent application. The I Do, We Do, You Do sequence moves students from observation to independent mastery: the teacher demonstrates (I Do), the class practises together (We Do), and students apply the skill alone (You Do). Before any of this, the teacher atomises the content, breaking complex learning into the smallest meaningful teaching units. Multi-step procedures taught without atomisation overwhelm working memory and create confusion. Throughout the episode, responsive teaching (reading student signals and adjusting pace, depth, and support) keeps the framework serving actual student needs rather than a predetermined pacing guide.
Connected to
Explicit Teaching | Cognitive Load Theory | Practice
Atomisation before teaching
Atomisation means breaking down complex learning into the smallest meaningful teaching units before instruction begins. The teacher first identifies what students must ultimately do, then determines the discrete skills that task requires. Checking for prerequisite knowledge prevents gaps. The components are then ordered logically, usually from simple to complex or concrete to abstract, and each piece is planned as its own lesson episode.
Atomisation can go wrong in several ways. Chunks that are too large confuse students and overload working memory. Chunks that are too small fragment understanding. Poor sequencing leaves gaps. And if the teacher never teaches the links between components, students cannot connect the pieces into a coherent whole.
For persuasive paragraph writing, the ultimate target is a complete persuasive paragraph. The discrete components are topic sentences, evidence, explanation, and conclusions. Prerequisites include sentence structure and knowledge of persuasive techniques. The sequence moves from simple sentence construction through the individual components before combining them, and each component gets its own lesson episode with the full I Do/We Do/You Do treatment.
The three phases
I do
The teacher models the complete process whilst students observe. Think-aloud reveals the invisible parts of the process. Students watch and listen without participating. Multiple examples showing variation help students understand the boundaries and applications of the concept.
We do
Students participate with teacher support. Teacher and class work together, with responsibility released gradually as students demonstrate readiness. Immediate feedback and correction stop misconceptions becoming entrenched, and repeated practice opportunities build fluency before independence. Choral responses suit factual content; guided questioning suits problem-solving tasks. Constructing examples together lets students see the thinking process, and error correction becomes a learning opportunity that builds metacognitive awareness rather than a failure.
You do
Students apply the learning independently, without teacher support. This phase assesses understanding and consolidates learning through application. High success rates (80% or higher initially) indicate readiness for independent work. Complexity increases as students demonstrate mastery, distributed practice over time strengthens retention, and connections to prior learning support transfer.
Reading student signals
Teachers monitor understanding continuously and adjust instruction accordingly. Quick, confident responses indicate readiness to proceed. Extension questions, accurate guided practice, and engaged body language suggest the pace suits students’ needs.
Hesitant or delayed responses mean slow down. Some confusion in guided practice, mixed success rates, and clarifying questions call for more support or more 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 unclear, or prerequisite knowledge missing.
When content is too easy, teachers increase complexity, move faster, or add extensions. When it is too hard, they re-atomise into smaller chunks, add examples, or slow the pace. Mixed levels of understanding call for differentiated practice or choice in application tasks.
Where episodes go wrong
Skipping atomisation leaves students unable to follow the I Do demonstration because too many new elements appear at once. Poor example selection, examples that hide processes or repeat the same elements, stops students seeing variation; examples should reveal the thinking process, not obscure it.
Pacing errors run in both directions. Rushing through components creates insecure foundations that collapse in independent work, so each atomic element needs time to reach mastery. Over-explaining when students already show secure understanding wastes instructional time, and under-explaining when they show confusion lets misconceptions persist. In each case the remedy is the same: read the signals and respond, re-teaching or re-atomising as needed.
Some errors sit outside the episode itself. Inconsistent routines create management issues that interfere with learning, so clear procedures for transitions between I Do, We Do, and You Do help students focus on content rather than logistics. Failing to plan distributed practice across time leads to knowledge decay; skills need revisiting beyond the initial episode. Ignoring exit ticket data means missing learning gaps that could inform the next lesson, so assessment information should 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