Explicit Instruction Sequence Builder (I Do / We Do / You Do)

Build a complete explicit instruction sequence from teacher modelling through guided practice to independent work. Use when teaching new skills, procedures, or concepts through direct instruction.

What it does

Generates a complete gradual release of responsibility sequence for teaching a specific skill: a scripted "I Do" (teacher models with think-aloud), a structured "We Do" (guided practice with teacher-student interaction), and a designed "You Do" (independent practice with monitoring points). The output includes checking-for-understanding moments at each transition and a timing guide. AI is specifically valuable here because effective explicit instruction requires the teacher to make invisible expert thinking visible — breaking down a skill they perform automatically into discrete, teachable steps with articulated reasoning. This decomposition of expert performance is cognitively demanding and is where most explicit instruction falls short.

The evidence behind it

Rosenshine (2012) synthesised decades of research into ten Principles of Instruction, with explicit instruction at the core: begin with a short review, present new material in small steps with practice after each step, provide models, guide student practice, check for understanding, and obtain a high success rate. Pearson & Gallagher (1983) formalised the gradual release of responsibility model — the teacher begins by carrying all cognitive load (I Do), progressively shares it with students (We Do), then transfers it entirely (You Do). Archer & Hughes (2011) operationalised explicit instruction for practitioners, emphasising that the "I Do" phase must include not just demonstration but articulation of the decision-making process — students need to hear why each step is taken, not just see it done. Hattie (2009) found direct instruction has an effect size of 0.59, consistently among the highest-impact teaching approaches. Engelmann & Carnine (1982) established that the sequence and structure of examples in explicit instruction dramatically affects learning — examples must be carefully selected to highlight critical features and minimise ambiguity.

Sources

• Rosenshine (2012) — Principles of Instruction: research-based strategies that all teachers should know
• Pearson & Gallagher (1983) — The instruction of reading comprehension (gradual release of responsibility model)
• Archer & Hughes (2011) — Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching
• Hattie (2009) — Visible Learning: direct instruction effect size 0.59
• Engelmann & Carnine (1982) — Theory of Instruction: principles and applications

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

• skill_to_teach — The specific skill or concept to be taught through explicit instruction
• student_level — Age/year group and prior knowledge level
• lesson_time — Available lesson time in minutes
• common_misconceptions (optional) — Known misconceptions or errors students make with this skill
• student_profiles (optional) — From context engine: ability range, EAL needs, SEND profiles
• prior_knowledge (optional) — What students already know that this builds on
• success_criteria (optional) — From context engine: how success will be measured

Known limitations

1. Explicit instruction is most effective for skills with identifiable steps and clear success criteria. Writing an analytical topic sentence can be decomposed into steps. Creative writing, open-ended problem-solving, and tasks with multiple valid approaches are less suited to rigid I Do / We Do / You Do sequences. For open-ended tasks, the modelling phase should show the decision-making process, not a single "correct" approach.

1. The quality of the I Do phase depends entirely on the teacher's ability to articulate their thinking. The script provides a model, but the teacher must deliver it in their own voice and adapt to their students' responses. A robotically read script is worse than a slightly less polished but authentic think-aloud. Teachers should rehearse the think-aloud, not read it.

1. There is a risk of over-scaffolding in the We Do phase. If the teacher does too much and students contribute too little, the "guided practice" becomes a second demonstration. The interaction plan specifies where students take over, but teachers must resist the urge to jump in when students hesitate — productive struggle during We Do is appropriate as long as the success rate stays above 80%.

Pairs well with