ResearchEd Birmingham session: Front-Loaded Feedback and the 'I do, We do, You do'

So today I attended the excellent ResearchEd Birmingham event and re-delivered the session I ran at the ResearchEd National conference in September 2025 about the idea of front-loading opportunities for feedback into questions and tasks so that pupils have the opportunity to get feedback directly from the task about their approaches, and to force them to make their thinking more visible - which has prompted me to create my latest website www.front-loaded-feedback.co.uk. The slides for this presentation are linked at the bottom of the blog.

During the session I had alluded to some thinking about the 'I do, We do, You do' model of instruction related to the question at the bottom of this slide:

I had planned to expand on this thinking towards the end of the session, but due to time constraints I was unable to  - so I thought for clarity and posterity I would include it here.

I tend to think about most maths learning episodes (a distinction I draw as the 'lesson' is clearly not a useful unit of time in relation to securing learning) as going through through roughly four phases as we attempt to move learners through a continuum from novice to developing greater expertise. These phases are summarised in a slide I used in other sessions:

In the first phase learners have little-to-no knowledge of the concept of process that we are introducing, and so they benefit most of exemplification and modelling - any practice attempted in this phase will likely be unsuccessful.

In the second phase learners have (the exemplification and modelling) gained some inflexible knowledge of the concept or process. Practice in this phase is likely to be error prone, particularly if it strays too far from what learners have seen during the exemplification/modelling. This is the phase where guided practice is required, with learners still requiring significant support and immediate feedback on their attempts. This is where I see front-loaded feedback questions and tasks as having real value.

The third phase is one in which knowledge is moving from inflexible towards flexible, but the goal of practice now to expand beyond the the initial modelling to open other broader knowledge of the concept or process in order to target key elements of the structure of the concept or process and push learners beyond the comfort of what was initially modelled or exemplified. This is the phase where procedural and conceptual variation in questions and tasks are likely to be most prevalent and useful (although, depending on what is being taught, these could feature in all phases of learning). In this phase of deliberate practice we are still likely to see errors, and so immediate or near-immediate feedback is still a clear requirement. 

However, for me, the reason for the errors and the feedback required as a result is subtly different to the guided practice phase. In guided practice, errors happen because learners are still on shaky ground with what was initially introduced, and so feedback needs to identify and focus on what learners haven't quite grasped from the initial instruction and correct that. In the deliberate practice phase, learners should already be confident in mimicry - being able to do what they were originally shown to do or identify what they were taught to identify - but the errors now come when trying to extend that thinking, going down wrong paths or under-/over-generalising certain properties. The feedback here needs to highlight where thinking needs to change for learners to be able to move forward. A simple example of the distinction here is learners being shown how to solve the simple linear equation 3x + 2 = 8, and then being asked to solve the equations 4x + 5 = 13 and 4x - 5 = 13. The first equation of these two is structurally identical to the one modelled and should be part of guided practice. Any errors arising from this can be tackled by directing attention back to the initial modelling or worked example, and either highlighting (or asking pupils to reflect on) where their approach has differed from the approach given. The second requires a deviation from what was modelled; it requires learners to adapt from the modelling (assuming the teacher hasn't modelled a specific example of this structure beforehand) and so might be considered useful as part of deliberate practice. 

Depending on the complexity of the concept or process, guided practice might be as small as one question or might be several questions. It might involve front-loaded feedback, the use of mini-whiteboards or multiple-choice questions with immediate feedback, and/or backwards faded examples like those on Dave Taylor's excellent website (this is, of course, not an exhaustive list).

Whilst the deliberate practice phase might include something like increasingly difficult questions (another of Dave's websites), completion tables or similar - still completed on mini-whiteboards or otherwise monitored carefully so feedback and support can be given when needed.

The independent application phase only then comes once pupils have gained that high success rate (a la Rosenshine) in the deliberate practice phase - once learner thinking around the concept or idea is more secure and misconceptions arising from this and the guided practice phase have been dealt with. It will further stretch pupils by bringing in contexts, interleaving and/or interweaving other concepts or processes with the current one, or in general asking for wider applications of the knowledge studied.

The issue I have with the 'I Do, We Do, You Do' instructional approach is that, if we accept that learners will need to go through these, or similar phases, on their journey towards developing expertise, then this model seems overly simplistic to capture the range and nuance of practice opportunities that pupils need to engage with to develop the necessary expertise. I see and hear about teachers treating the 'You Do' as part of the independent practice, where it is, at best, the first in what should be a series of questions in the deliberate practice phase and more likely still part of guided practice. Alternatively, I see and hear about teachers moving straight into questions that might be considered more suitable in the deliberate practice phase, during the 'We Do', requiring learners to engage with adaptations before they have even got to grips with the concept or process as exemplified/modelled. And this is not to mention that the very approach of 'I Do, We Do, You Do' can be seen to imply teaching of process (several stages of doing things), which is clearly not applicable when teaching concepts (where comparing examples and non-examples are generally more suitable) or facts like a full turn is made up of 360 degrees (where repetition and reframing through choral response or similar might be more beneficial).

To me, there is a real danger that focusing on a structure like this without the conceptual underpinning of what different stages of practice are trying to achieve means that the practice that learners are offered will not lead to them developing the expertise we want them to develop.

For those reading who were in my session - you can probably understand why I didn't feel I had time to get into this in the session! If you have read through all of this to get to the slides (or skipped to the end to get to them) then your patience is rewarded here.

ResearchEd National Conference 2025

The first Saturday in September has become a somewhat annual tradition for me to take down to Parliament Hill School in London for the ResearchEd National Conference. This year I was joined by two of my fellow National Education Leads; Ash Morris, who leads secondary science; and Sarah Hutson-Dean, who leads primary science, who I am delighted have contributed their experience to this blog as well.

Me, Ash and Sarah meet in London

Like many others, we started the day in the session with Professor Becky Francis CBE, hoping to maybe get a few advance insights into what might be reported when the Curriculum and Assessment review lands at some point before Christmas. I don’t think there was anything that isn’t already in the public domain, but there were some interesting points made, including the results of the 2024 parents survey indicating that the majority of parents think that the attention given to both core and “non-traditional” subjects is about right in schools, and that academic subjects featured in the top five list of things that parents and pupils at KS4 would like to spend more time on (alongside employment and interview skills, creative thinking and problem solving projects, digital skills, and finance and budgeting). Professor Francis did confirm that the review will examine GCSE volume and time spent in examinations, look at how to facilitate greater choice of subjects whilst maintaining the breadth of curriculum offer that is a key strength of our curriculum. Another key issue the review is looking at is disadvantage, where gaps are still significant, with a commitment to ensuring that “every young person can see themselves in the curriculum, and that it challenges discrimination and extends horizons”. Climate science, digital literacy and financial education were also mentioned as being needed to help young people navigate the opportunities and challenges they would face in the future. Professor Francis echoed the detail of the interim report when she highlighted there was a lot to celebrate about our education system, and many things that we do very well, and so “evolution not revolution” was what the review was looking to achieve.

After this it was my time for my own session on front-loaded feedback in maths, which I gave to a surprisingly large audience (given the other speakers on at the same time). The session seemed to go down well (I got top ratings from everyone that filled in the feedback form) and people coming to see me later to say that they had enjoyed it. 

Me in presenter mode!

Of course, the test for any session is whether people make use of it afterwards, so if you were there and you do incorporate the ideas then please let me know!

Oracy and literacy have been big on the agenda in recent months, so I decided to go and listen to Sarah Davies’ talk on using oracy to support literacy fluency in the next session. Hearing about Sarah’s journey after taking responsibility for literacy in her deputy head role was fascinating, and her commitment to ensuring that each child was treated as an individual and received the right pathway of intervention for them was inspiring. She rightly pointed out that if kids are not able to access exam papers, then all the content knowledge in the world won’t help them – and I was surprised to see maths exams being quite high up in the literacy demands (third only to English and Geography). One thing that Sarah shared that really resonated with me was a conversation she had with one of her staff members about why their top performing pupils were not able to secure places in top universities despite their excellent academic record, because they did not possess the oracy skills necessary to do well at the interview stage – something that would clearly hamper them well beyond applying for universities.

From Sarah Davies’ presentation

During this session, Sarah and Ash were back in the sports hall for the session by Peps McCrea and Dr Jen Barker. Here are Sarah’s thoughts on the session:

Peps McCrea and Dr. Jen Barker shared a powerful message: inclusive teaching is effective teaching. With educational outcomes declining and many teachers feeling underprepared to support children with SEND, they unpacked five drivers of system failure. Yet their talk was full of hope. They reminded us that how we learn is far more similar than different. Our shared cognitive architecture means we all benefit from strategies that secure attention, provide high-quality feedback, and establish strong routines. By designing lessons to be as accessible as possible for the widest range of pupils, and keeping adaptations minimal so every child engages with the same learning, we can lift outcomes without sidelining teachers. Practical strategies like highlighting key sections of text, chunking information with guiding questions, using choral responses, encouraging pair talk, and making the most of mini-whiteboards showed how small, thoughtful choices can have a big impact!

Sarah (with Ash) followed this up by listening to Professor Rob Coe talking about teacher expertise, and said:

Dr. Rob Coe’s session was a brilliant reminder of just how much teachers matter. He showed us that the impact of great teaching goes way beyond test scores, shaping students’ chances in life and even their wellbeing. So what sets great teachers apart? It’s a mix of deep subject knowledge, clear explanations, strong routines, supportive relationships, and lessons that really make students think. Rob shared the ‘Great Teaching Toolkit,’ which breaks this down into four areas: knowing your content, creating a positive and motivating environment, managing the classroom so learning time is maximised, and designing tasks that stretch thinking. One point that really stuck was that just clocking up years in the classroom does not guarantee expertise. Without the right feedback and focus, we can plateau. His challenge to schools was clear: if we want teachers and pupils to keep thriving, professional growth has to be a priority.

After a gorgeous lunch in the speakers lounge and a trip round to the farmer’s market, it was time for the afternoon sessions. The buzz recently with my fellow Twinkl National Education Leads has been around the recently released writing framework so I was very interested to go along to Clare Sealey’s session talking about it. Clare shared some great advice from her work on the sector panel and what the writing framework does and does not mean schools need to consider or do.

 

Whilst I was hearing all about the writing framework, Sarah and Ash were delving into the world of adaptive teaching and its links to cognitive science. Here is what Ash had to say about the session:

The standout session of the day for me was delivered by Jade Pearce, Trust Head of Education for Affinity Learning Partnership, on ‘Adaptive Teaching x Cognitive Science.’ Having always been passionate about the science of learning and committed to teaching in an evidence-informed way, I expected to leave with reassurance that my practice was on the right track. Instead, I came away with fresh ideas and practical adaptations, particularly around the ‘I do, we do, you do’ model for introducing new content, as well as approaches to questioning. Rather than relying solely on questions to check for listening or recall, the session highlighted different styles of questioning and their purposes, which added real depth to my thinking.

The final session I attended was led by Adam Robbins, unpacking the overly simplistic ideas that seem to exist in areas of the profession about motivation, particularly the idea that extrinsic motivation is a “bad thing”, and autonomy being absolutely necessary for motivation. Adam pointed out that there are plenty of times that people are motivated by extrinsic factors over which they have no control, but that these don’t necessarily lead to lack of intrinsic motivation, before unpacking the research that shows that there are levels of extrinsic motivation that tend to come with maturity as well as how extrinsic factors such as competence and relatedness can “fill the gaps” when intrinsic motivation might be lacking. A simple example is marking pupil, which has to be done (low autonomy) but that teachers might be motivated to do because they think it will make them more able to support pupils (competence) or because it feeds into a wider department plan that they are committed to (relatedness).

Outside of the sessions, it was great to catch up with old friends and colleagues like Kat Howard, Kris Boulton, Mark Lehain and David Faram. This is part of what keeps me coming back to ResearchEd; the combination of hearing about things that are really working for people in schools, insight into the latest thinking that might impact education, and the chance to touch base and interact with people who care about education as much as I do just cannot be beaten!

Ash agreed that it was a great day, saying:

Aside from the sessions themselves, it was inspiring to be surrounded by so many dedicated and passionate people, all giving up their Saturday in the name of research! A personal highlight was spending time with my colleagues, Pete and Sarah, and enjoying some excellent Greek food from the nearby farmers’ market at lunchtime, with Pete leading the way.

Conceptualising Maths Pre-Session Blog

The most common complaint levied against learning mathematics is that it is parcelled up into discrete methods that have to be memorised and wheeled out when required. What is worse, that also means one has to memorise when every method is required!

Instead, what if we taught what unifies these methods and when it is required? I am talking, of course, about the mathematical concept from which the method arises. I have long advocated that maths teachers should switch their focus from “teaching to do” to “teaching about”. If we teach about mathematical ideas, the structures that underpin them, how these structures interact with each other and how the structure allows us to make sense of how associated procedures do what they do, then learners of mathematics have the ability to recognise when certain procedures are useful as well as how to carry them out. What is more, they are in a position to adapt and improvise for new problems and to select methods appropriate to the situation.

So, what does this look like. Let us take the concept of “perpendicular” as an example. Consider this line segment. 

What does a line segment that is perpendicular look like? We might choose to have pupils use a protractor to begin with to draw a perpendicular from either end (or not) but we would want pupils to recognise and understand that a perpendicular would have to go two squares right and three squares down (or conversely two squares left and 3 squares). But more importantly we would want pupils to see that this is because the distances that are horizontal become vertical for a perpendicular, and vice versa. Understanding this structure allows pupils much more flexibility to work with perpendiculars. For example, we should now confidently be able to ask pupils about which of these are squares:

Of course, this understanding will eventually be built upon to include perpendicular gradients and perpendicular vectors. But importantly, those are both clearly part of the same structure as this idea. Once 2-D vectors are introduced using the  notation, it is exactly the same thought process that allows us to see that a perpendicular vector is , and that another is . When we understand gradient as the vertical change for a unit horizontal change, we can see that that the perpendicular gradient will become a unit vertical change for a horizontal change that is the negative of the previous vertical change (or, more succinctly, the perpendicular to a gradient of m is ). There is no new mathematical structure in the concept of “perpendicular”; the new mathematics is simply how this concept ‘fits’ when we combine it with the concept of “vector” or the concept of “gradient”.

If I could give one piece of advice to any maths teachers (new or experienced) it would be to think about what the mathematical concept is that they want their pupils to learn about, think about all the different concepts they might have to use it with, and then teach it in a way that means it is recognisably the same concept every time pupils encounter it.

Session for NW3 Maths Hub in Liverpool

On Thursday 30th January I had the privilege of leading a session for the NW3 Maths hub around making sense of maths concepts. There was some very positive feedback following the event both through the feedback forms and from Twitter.

The link to download the presentation from the evening is here.

My #VisibleMaths tour!

Over the Leicestershire half term I went on quite a tour around Britain, talking about some of the ideas from my book #VisibleMaths. Starting in Peterborough on the first Saturday for the always fantastic Complete Mathematics Conference (#mathsconf), I was speaking about threading an idea through the curriculum in a coherent manner - in this case the idea of factorisation.

From there I had a couple of days at home before travelling up to North Yorkshire on Tuesday ready for working with teachers from the Esk Valley Alliance. We had a good time looking at addition, subtraction and division using representations. I particularly enjoyed this trip because my fiancee Rowan came with me and we had a lovely night away and a bit of time in York together.

A day off on Thursday was then the lead in to my really busy time. A short hop across to Birmingham on Friday lunch time for a session with maths teachers from Niksham High School, which was followed by jumping straight on a train to get down to Farnham ready for the excellent ResearchEd Surrey. Many people have commented that this ResearchEd was one of the best local versions for planning and organisation, and I must say I agree! I did a morning session there focusing on the idea of addition and how, with just two ways of making sense of what it means to add, all additions from Y1 to Y12 work in the same way (which was also mentioned in my latest TES blog). The session went down very well, and it was great to then spend the day listening to others talking about education.

Having arrived back in Leicestershire at 11pm on Saturday night, one week after my tour of England started, I then had the thrilling experience of my first ever trip to Scotland on Sunday and Monday. I must admit the sights walking out of Edinburgh Waverley station were simply breathtaking - I am not generally one to take photos of my surroundings, but even I had to capture some of those amazing visages.

The tour finished with my biggest ever audience - a little over 200 Scottish teachers of maths as part of the South East Improvement Collaborative joint INSET day. Having looked at the importance of making sense in different ways (using one of my favourite games!) we looked at making sense of addition and subtraction, and useful models for both of these operations.

A lot of people have suggested they would find a copy of the presentations helpful, so here they are:

Complete Maths Conference Peterborough (Saturday 12th October)

Esk Valley Alliance (Wednesday 16th October)

Niksham High School (Friday 18th October)

ResearchEd Surrey (Saturday 19th October)

SEIC INSET day (Monday 21st October)