Key Ideas
Core concepts
- I Do is the demonstration phase: the teacher models the complete procedure whilst narrating the decision-making, so expert thinking becomes visible to students.
- Well-atomised content should flow in roughly 30 seconds, and the focused atmosphere is fragile, so anything unnecessary (movement, words, visuals) gets cut.
Definition
I Do: The demonstration phase where teachers model complete procedures whilst 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
The I Do phase shows students the complete procedure they need to learn whilst making invisible expert thinking processes visible (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008). Every word and action teaches.
Four factors separate 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 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). And the atmosphere must stay focused, free of distractions and interruptions that would break student concentration. When these factors align, I Do proceeds efficiently and students see exactly what they need to do.
Ways to run the demonstration
In a standard narrated explanation, 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. The narration explains why decisions are made, references previously taught atoms, keeps language concise, and progresses steadily.
The “assume they can do it” variant suits students with a strong foundation who 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 at normal expert pace with minimal explanation of familiar steps, and dwells only on new combinations or applications. This builds confidence and saves time.
Checks for listening keep students engaged without disrupting the explanation. Rather than waiting until the end, the teacher asks brief questions during the demonstration (“What operation should I use next?… Emma?”), pauses to increase thinking time, and aims the questions at attention rather than novel content. The narrative stays continuous.
The silent teacher approach models the procedure completely in silence, letting students watch with full attention, then follows up with verbal explanation or checks for listening. Silence strips away other sensory input so students attend to the movements and writing, and it creates a focused atmosphere. Silence alone is insufficient for learning, so verbal explanation must follow (Chi et al., 1989).
Turn and talk rehearsal works well for complex, multi-step procedures. 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). Students actively process the demonstration, explain to a peer, rehearse the procedure verbally, and arrive better prepared for independent application.
Preparation
Effective I Do starts before the lesson. 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 avoid repeated elements: clear, general examples that reveal the process. Language should be planned by scripting key narration points and rehearsing the explanation aloud. A practical method is to write bullet points of exactly what you will say and rehearse them aloud; the preparation improves classroom clarity.
Board setup supports the demonstration. Keep the working space clean with a clear area for demonstration, and keep reminders of previously taught atoms visible for students to reference. Arrange materials in a logical layout that supports smooth flow, and check that all students have clear sight lines (positioning matters for learning from demonstration).
Place in the learning episode
I Do sits at a precise point in the explicit teaching sequence. Before it, all prerequisite knowledge must be assessed and secured through atomisation, with new atoms taught separately using appropriate methods, so students are ready to see familiar pieces combined in new ways. During it, the teacher demonstrates the complete procedure with expert thinking made visible through narration, focusing on how familiar elements combine whilst keeping engagement without breaking the flow. Afterwards comes a seamless transition to We Do guided practice, with step-by-step assessment of understanding to check that the demonstration worked, then a bridge to independent work, using student performance to inform responsive teaching decisions.
Pitfalls
Co-construction (asking students to figure out novel procedures) undermines I Do’s purpose. The teacher demonstrates whilst students observe; they are not asked to contribute to the problem-solving during this phase.
Lecturing, 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 line between I Do and We Do; the phases serve different purposes and should stay separate.
Over-explanation, covering too much in a single demonstration, exceeds cognitive capacity. Stick to one main procedure rather than several related ideas at once. Poor preparation (not planning explanation language in advance) produces unclear or rambling demonstrations; script and rehearse key narration points before the lesson. Attention breakers, unnecessary movements or interruptions, shatter the focused atmosphere: the start of I Do is easily disrupted, and any needless movement, word, or visual element can break students’ concentration and derail the explanation.
Troubleshooting
If I Do takes too long (beyond 2 minutes), check whether prerequisite atoms are genuinely secure, since confusion about foundations extends the demonstration. Simplify the example, and trim narration to core decision points. If atoms are missing entirely, pre-teach them separately rather than covering them during I Do.
If students seem confused during or after the demonstration, slow down, and increase narration around decision points to make expert thinking more visible. Verify prerequisite atoms through quick checks. If problems persist, use a simpler example with fewer steps or less complex reasoning.
If attention wanders, remove visual or auditory distractions, add brief checks for listening that do not break the flow, and improve positioning so all students can see clearly. Sometimes quickening the pace helps: moving efficiently through the demonstration prevents mind-wandering.
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