Fisher & Frey's Gradual Release of Responsibility (commonly known as the "I Do - We Do - You Do" model) is a mainstay in many K-12 classrooms where students take on more independence after teacher-led instruction and guided practice; however, when executed poorly, there can be accidental results. Mathematics education researcher Peter Liljedahl claims that "mimicking" can unintentionally occur when using this model and lesson structure to teach math with little opportunity for successful student engagement in thinking, problem-solving, and perseverance with new and novel tasks. It's not that the "I Do - We Do - You Do" model is broken, though. After all, this trusted model applies in many contexts of learning something new, whether it's academic, a hobby, or a new skill. The pitfall in math classrooms, however, is when students are allowed (or even encouraged) to play a passive role in the learning process and never experience rich mathematical tasks or problem-solving opportunities beyond the teacher-presented example problems and similar practice exercises. 

Here is what a common understanding of the "I Do - We Do - You Do" model looks like for a typical math lesson with little student responsibility, idea generation, or thinking at the beginning of a lesson or series of lessons. As the lessons progress, students assume more responsibility in the learning process once equipped with knowledge and experiences to perform tasks independently:

Instead of discounting the "I Do - We Do - You Do" model (only because effective direct instruction that includes student thinking and ideas is helpful for students in learning math), how about adapting it by changing the entry point? Instead of beginning a lesson with teacher-led direct instruction, how might we begin the lesson with a task that taps students' prior knowledge and asks them to make sense and persevere with a new problem (Standard for Mathematical Practice #1)? Then, how might we use student ideas and student work to facilitate meaningful mathematical discourse (using a Think-Pair-Share model) to bring the ideas together and capture the collective "rough draft" thinking of the class (Standard for Mathematical Practice #3)? Finally, how might we formally synthesize and wrap up the task as a transition to the learning goals of the lesson with students already primed for the new learning?

Here's what the adapted model could look like with this new entry point and sequence:

Too often, we are faced with false choices and "either/or" propositions; rather, this adaption of the Gradual Release of Responsibility model embraces a "yes, and..." mindset by bringing together many elements of evidence-based instruction that serves all students in learning mathematics. It's about matching and balancing the right instructional strategies (i.e. direct instruction, productive struggle, cooperative learning, independent work, etc.) with the right tasks in a learning progression.

Want to read more about the idea of flipping "I Do - We Do - You Do" into "You Do - We Do - I Do" in math? Consult this ASCD article or this article by Mike Flynn. Also check out the December 2023 NCTM President's Message on Balanced Instructional Strategies in the Math Classroom.