“Should math teachers use I Do, We Do, You Do?” Why this Debate Keeps Missing the Point

Jan 11

At any given time, you will hear some variation of this debate in math professional development:

"Don't use I Do, We Do, You Do in math class."

"Gradual Release of Responsibility kills sense-making."

"Math instruction should always be constructivist."

There are blog posts, YouTube videos, Twitter threads, and entire conference sessions arguing every angle of this debate. Some make compelling theoretical points, but most miss what math instruction looks like in practice. The truth is, the use of “I do-We do-You do”, also known as Gradual Release, is not entirely the problem. The problem is blindly using a single instructional approach across all situations and contexts. The solution is not to ban instructional approaches; it's to develop the discernment and flexibility to know what kind of mathematical thinking your students need, and match your instructional approach to that purpose.

Mathematics Is Not a Monolithic Learning Experience

In Virginia, our five Mathematical Process Goals state that students need to solve problems, reason mathematically, communicate with precision, make connections across ideas, and use multiple representations to solve problems. If we think of grade-level curriculum as “what we teach”, we can think of the Mathematical Process Goals as “how we teach”. This means that for students to gain grade-level mastery, time and consideration must be given to pairing each curriculum standard with at least one corresponding Mathematical Process Goal.

For example, when planning to teach concepts that require students to make sense of problems, instructional approaches might include opportunities for productive struggle. Teachers who approach these lessons with explanation-first instruction undercut students' ability to make sense for themselves.

So when we ask, "Should teachers use gradual release or constructivist approaches in math?" We're asking the wrong question.

The better question is: What kind of mathematical thinking is required, and what instructional approach best supports that thinking?

Why the "Ban Gradual Release" Argument Falls Short

Let me be clear: Many of the critiques about using gradual release in math instruction are valid. When gradual release is the default approach, it often positions the teacher as the sole mathematical authority and teaches students to mimic rather than reason.

These are real problems. I've seen them. You've probably seen them too.

But here's where banning gradual release falls short: It assumes all mathematical thinking should be supported in the same way for all students, and that isn't true. High-quality math lessons require students to engage in different kinds of cognitive work at any given moment. Sometimes students need extended time to explore and construct understanding. Sometimes they benefit from seeing how mathematical thinking looks and sounds. Sometimes they need both in the same lesson. For this reason, we can not totally abandon model-first approaches in math classrooms. We must consider what is being modeled and why:

Are you modeling procedural steps? Or are you modeling mathematical reasoning?

Are you explaining what to do? Or are you modeling metacognitive strategies that show how mathematicians think?

This distinction determines the appropriateness.

Instead of asking math teachers to pick a single instructional approach and use it everywhere, we need to help them develop instructional discernment. When we align our instructional approach to the specific content and process goals students will engage with, we diminish the need to debate instructional theories and begin making decisions rooted in how students actually learn mathematics.

Aligning Instructional Approach to Mathematical Process Goals

Here's what this looks like in practice.

Reasoning Mathematically

Reasoning mathematically requires students to justify their thinking, use prior knowledge in a new context, and make sense of relationships. Here's where strategic modeling can be powerful. The key is to model the thinking behind solving problems. Many students have never heard what a mathematical justification sounds like and may not know what it means to validate, confirm, and/or justify their answers.

This is where the "I do" section of gradual release can enhance student thinking. Not so we can proceduralize their thinking, but to model mathematical reasoning so they can produce it themselves.

What this looks like in a middle school classroom:

A teacher asks her 8th-grade math students to justify why the sum of two rational numbers is always rational.

Flexible Approach: Use Modeling to Increase the Zone of Proximal Development

Use a metacognitive strategy such as “Think-Aloud” to model one example of constructing a justification. Be sure to name the reasoning moves:
"I'm using the definition of rational numbers here. Notice how I'm showing that the sum fits that definition."
Present a related claim and provide students with time to construct their own justifications. Encourage the use of counterexamples.
Provide feedback on both the correctness of their conclusion and the logic of their reasoning.

Mathematical Problem Solving

For students to become mathematical problem solvers, they must have opportunities to test strategies and revise their thinking. Gradual release approaches like “I do, We do, You do” prevent these opportunities. When modeling comes first in this practice, we show students the pathway before they've had a chance to find their own.

What this looks like in a middle school classroom:

A 7th-grade teacher poses this problem: "A rectangular garden has a perimeter of 48 feet. What are all the possible dimensions if the length and width are whole numbers?"

Default Approach: Gradual Release

Show students how to set up the equation first, then ask them to "practice" with similar problems.

Flexible Approach: Exploration First

Present the problem and have students work in small groups before any whole-class discussion.

While students work, circulate the room to observe without correcting, and take notes of any common errors.
Highlight multiple solution paths (including incomplete paths) by allowing students to share their work.
The whole-class discussion is used to compare strategies, address common errors, and clear misconceptions.

Communicating Mathematically

Mathematical communication requires students to use precise mathematical language and vocabulary, as well as to convey the meaning of mathematical notation. The "I do" section of gradual release is appropriate for this practice as well, as students benefit from seeing how mathematicians communicate ideas with precision.

What this looks like in a middle school classroom:

A 6th-grade class is learning to describe the relationship between two quantities using ratio notation.

Flexible Approach: Blended Explorations and Modeling

Students first explore equivalent ratios using concrete manipulatives, such as snap cubes or square tiles, while using their own language to create comparison statements.
After the exploration, the whole group discussion is used to model precise mathematical language: "When I say 'for every 3 cups of flour, there are 2 cups of sugar,' I'm describing a ratio of 3 to 2. Notice how I specify the order and the quantities."
Present a related context for students to practice using their own explanations.
Provide feedback on the correctness of the notation without over-correcting informal language.

Making Mathematical Connections

To make mathematical connections, students must notice relationships among ideas, make generalizations from patterns, and connect algorithms to underlying concepts. Premature explanation is the fastest way to shut down this practice. When we tell students the connection before they've had a chance to see it themselves, we rob them of the cognitive work that makes the connection meaningful.

What this looks like in a middle school classroom:

Building on their understanding of integers, a 7th-grade class is exploring how fractions, decimals, and percents extend to negative rational numbers.

Flexible Approach: Learner-Centered with Teacher Facilitation

Write different forms of the same negative fraction on the board.
Say, "All of these represent the same relationship. How is that possible?"
Teachers should circulate the room to capture student responses and justifications.
Group students with different solution paths and ask them to compare their thinking: "How did you prove they're the same? What did you notice?"
During the whole class discussion, highlight the connections students discovered and formalize the mathematical language without introducing new ideas that students didn't surface.

Using Mathematical Representations

Students must understand that representations of mathematical ideas are an essential part of learning, doing, and communicating mathematics. Students need ample time to explore the strengths and limitations of specific representations. They need to understand that representations allow you to both communicate ideas and make sense of math. This is where the CRA approach (Concrete-Representational-Abstract) shines.

What this looks like in a middle school classroom:

An 8th-grade class is learning to solve multi-step equations.

Flexible Approach: Blended Exploration and Model Metacognition:

Students use Algebra Tiles to explore how to draw representations of equations with integers.
After the allotted time, students compare and contrast equations with integer coefficients to those with rational number coefficients.
They explore multiple ways to represent each equation and discover why tile-based representations are limited when working with rational coefficients.
The teacher uses a think-aloud strategy to demonstrate how to decide which representation to use for different problem types.
Students then make their own representational choices and justify them.

So What About “I do-We do-You do” in Math Instruction?

Here's the honest answer: Gradual Release is not a learning theory. It's a delivery structure. On its own, gradual release doesn't guarantee sense-making, but it doesn't prevent it either. The danger comes when we use it as a default without asking: Will this approach enhance or stifle the thinking this lesson requires?

When gradual release is used indiscriminately, it releases tasks, not cognitive responsibility.

When gradual release is used intentionally, it can support entry into mathematical reasoning and model habits of mind, not just algorithms.

The framework itself is neutral. What matters is whether it aligns with the mathematical practice you're trying to develop.

Math Teachers:

You don't need permission to be intentional. You need language to explain why you're teaching the way you are.

Before planning a lesson, ask yourself:

Which Mathematical Process Goal(s) are the priority in this lesson?
What kind of thinking does that practice require?
What instructional approach best supports that thinking?

No more all-or-nothing mindset. It's about flexibly matching your instructional approach to the lesson's purpose, so that every teaching decision prioritizes student reasoning.

Use the self-assessment below to help guide your thinking.

Administrators and Coaches:

If you're conducting class observations for math teachers, shift your focus from identifying the instructional approach to assessing whether it supports mathematical thinking.

When you see a teacher modeling, determine whether students are observing to mimic or to make sense of the math.
When you see a teacher facilitating exploration, determine whether the student's struggle is productive or if the students are spinning without support.

This will help you shift your feedback from evaluating behavior to supporting teachers in developing instructional discernment. And that makes all the difference.

If you need support crafting feedback that aligns observations with mathematical thinking, I'd love to help! The Math Feedback Reset is explicitly designed for principals, assistant principals. and coaches who want to provide high-quality math-specific observation feedback without being content experts themselves.

The Bottom Line:

Math instruction isn't about choosing sides in a pedagogy war. It's about matching instructional approaches to mathematical purposes.

That is the basis for better math teaching.

And our students, especially our middle schoolers who are building the foundation for higher-level mathematical thinking, deserve nothing less.