I Do We Do You Do Template Part 1 I Do We Do You Do Observat

I Do We Do You Do Templatepart 1 I Do We Do You Do Observationdes

Describe the literacy standards-based concept that was introduced. Direct Instruction I DO Guided Practice WE DO Independent Work YOU DO Materials/Resources What differentiation was applied during the lesson to accommodate students? What were the gaps identified during the lesson observation? Part 2: Teacher Collaboration Notes Part 3: Reflection © 2017 Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The I Do, We Do, You Do instructional framework is a widely adopted model in literacy education aimed at scaffolding student learning through gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the student (Fisher & Frey, 2008). This approach enhances comprehension, skill acquisition, and independence, especially within standards-based literacy instruction. The current lesson observation focused on implementing this framework effectively while emphasizing literacy standards aligned with grade-level expectations.

Part 1: Description of the Literacy Standards-Based Concept

The literacy standards-based concept introduced during the lesson centered on comprehension strategies aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for Reading: Literature and Informational Texts. Specifically, the lesson focused on developing students' abilities to identify main ideas and supporting details, analyze character development, and infer themes within texts. The instructional design incorporated direct instruction on these standards, guiding students to understand expectations through explicit explanations and modeling.

The teacher began with a clear demonstration of identifying main ideas in a paragraph, articulating each step aloud—this was the "I Do" phase. The guided practice involved students collectively analyzing a short text, under teacher supervision, to pinpoint main ideas and details—representing the "We Do" phase. Finally, students applied their understanding independently by completing related comprehension exercises, embodying the "You Do" phase.

Materials and Resources

Materials used included a variety of texts—both literature and informational—published comprehension worksheets, and anchor charts illustrating strategies for identifying main ideas. Digital tools, such as interactive whiteboards and online reading platforms, supported engagement and scaffolding. These resources facilitated differentiated instruction within the lesson.

Differentiation to Accommodate Students

Differentiation strategies in the lesson included providing texts at varying reading levels to meet diverse student needs, offering visual aids and graphic organizers to scaffold understanding, and incorporating flexible grouping for targeted small-group instruction. Additionally, during independent work, students received differentiated tasks based on their readiness levels, with some working on extended inference activities and others focusing on main idea identification.

The teacher also employed formative assessments during the lesson, such as quick checks and targeted questioning, to adjust pacing and support as needed. These strategies ensured that all students had equitable opportunities to engage with the standards and demonstrate their understanding.

Gaps Identified During Observation

Despite well-structured instruction, gaps emerged related to student engagement and independent application. Some students hesitated to apply strategies without direct teacher prompts, indicating a need for more practice and confidence-building exercises. Moreover, differentiated tasks were not always aligned with individual proficiency levels, leading to some students experiencing difficulty or boredom. Time management also constrained the opportunity for extended independent work, limiting mastery of skills for some learners.

Part 2: Teacher Collaboration Notes

Collaboration discussions among teachers highlighted the necessity for ongoing formative assessments to better tailor differentiation. Teachers recognized the importance of explicitly teaching self-monitoring strategies to empower students during independent tasks. Planning sessions emphasized integrating technology tools more effectively to provide personalized feedback and collaborative learning opportunities. Teachers agreed that future lessons should incorporate more structured opportunities for students to reflect on their understanding and self-assess progress toward standards.

Part 3: Reflection

The lesson exemplified the effectiveness of the gradual release model in literacy instruction, fostering student independence and engagement with standards-based concepts. Observations pointed to strengths such as clear modeling and strategic use of resources, which supported diverse learners. However, the identified gaps underscore the need for enhanced formative assessment practices, targeted differentiation, and scaffolding opportunities to promote deeper comprehension and confidence among all students.

Reflecting on this lesson emphasizes the importance of continuous professional development in instructional differentiation and formative assessment techniques. Teachers must refine their skills to recognize individual student needs promptly and adjust instruction accordingly. Additionally, fostering a classroom environment where students feel comfortable taking ownership of their learning will be crucial in translating these instructional strategies into sustained literacy growth.

Conclusion

Implementing the I Do, We Do, You Do framework aligned with literacy standards proves effective in guiding students to meet grade-level expectations in comprehension. Through thoughtful planning, resource utilization, and ongoing reflection, educators can address instructional gaps and enhance student learning outcomes. Future focus should include increased emphasis on formative assessments, differentiated instruction, and student self-regulation strategies to foster independent, standards-aligned literacy development.

References

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Improving Adolescent Literacy: Strategies for Teaching Middle and High School Students. Pearson Education.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.

Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. S. (2014). Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior Problems. Pearson.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. ASCD.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Gordon, M., & Bathgate, M. (2011). Evidence-Based Practices for Reading Instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 55-75.

National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction.

Allington, R. L. (2011). What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. Pearson Education.