A Guide to Meaningful Instruction: Rethinking the Gradual Release of Responsibility
This is an excerpt from my upcoming book: Meaningful and Relevant: Engaging Learners In An Era of Distraction.
You’ve probably heard of the “Gradual Release of Responsibility” Model. If not, you’ve at least been shown the cliff notes version: “I do, we do, you do”.
The term "Gradual Release of Responsibility" (GRR) and its associated process in education were coined and developed by P. David Pearson and Margaret Gallagher in 1983. These researchers from the University of Illinois introduced this concept in a report that has since become widely influential in the field of education.
Pearson and Gallagher's model was loosely based on the ideas of Russian educational theorist Lev Vygotsky. They envisioned an instructional approach that would transition from explicit modeling and instruction by the teacher to guided practice, and eventually to activities that incrementally positioned students as independent learners.
The goal and focus of their model is to transfer the responsibility of learning from mentor (teacher) to mentee (student). This transfer of responsibility takes place over various timeframes, such as a day, a week, or even a semester, depending on the complexity of the task and the needs of the learners.
There have been many adaptations of GRR over the years, and entire books written about using it in various subjects and contexts.
I love how Sunday Cummins and Julie Web break down the Gradual Release of Responsibility in their blog, “Letting Go Is Messy”, with a focus on teachers being active in every phase of GRR:
From Literary Coaches Julie Webb and Sunday Cummins blog post on Middleweb.
When thinking about meaningful instruction, this model supports a few key areas I’d like to explore, and then expand on.
First, it serves as a useful structure for developing critical thinking skills. It does this in five specific areas:
Scaffolded Learning
Metacognitive Development
Cognitive Load Shifting
Diverse Thinking Opportunities
Real-World Application
Each of these could have their own entire chapter, but let’s break it down as simply as possible.
Scaffolded Learning
The GRR model scaffolds the learning process, allowing students to build critical thinking skills incrementally:
In the initial "I Do" phase, teachers model critical thinking processes, demonstrating how to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information.
During the "We Do" phase, students practice these skills with guidance, developing their ability to think critically under supervision.
The "You Do Together" phase encourages collaborative critical thinking, where students learn from peers and refine their analytical skills.
Finally, in the "You Do" phase, students independently apply critical thinking strategies, solidifying their skills, and ultimately receiving feedback from the teacher to help guide their next steps.
Metacognitive Development
The GRR approach promotes metacognition, a crucial component of critical thinking:
Students learn to ask themselves important questions like "What am I trying to accomplish?" and "What strategies am I using?"
This self-reflection helps students become more aware of their thinking processes, enabling them to apply critical thinking skills more effectively across various contexts.
Cognitive Load Shifting
As the responsibility gradually shifts from teacher to student, the cognitive load also transitions:
This shift challenges students to engage more deeply with the material, encouraging them to think critically rather than passively receive information.
The process helps students develop the ability to apply learned strategies to new and unique situations, a key aspect of critical thinking.
Diverse Thinking Opportunities
The GRR model provides multiple opportunities for students to engage in different types of critical thinking:
During collaborative learning phases, students are exposed to diverse perspectives, prompting them to evaluate and synthesize various viewpoints.
Independent practice allows students to apply critical thinking skills in novel contexts, reinforcing their ability to think analytically and creatively.
Real-World Application
By gradually increasing student autonomy, the GRR model prepares learners to think critically in real-world scenarios:
Students develop the confidence to tackle complex problems independently, a crucial skill for critical thinking beyond the classroom.
The model encourages students to make intelligent decisions about how to improve their performance, both individually and as part of a group.
In a world of artificial intelligence and distraction, learners thrive in a GRR type-structure because it scaffolds the transfer of learning, thinking and doing (and allows for teachers to use technology with purpose in each of the stages).
Yet, I’ve always seen GRR as a less of a one-way street, and more of a wheel. The stages are all interconnected, and we need a more nuanced view of what this instructional model looks like.
Rethinking The Wheel of Responsibility
There was a moment when this model clicked for me as a teacher, and it did not happen in a classroom.
I’ve been coaching football and lacrosse for over 20 years. It is by far, my favorite part of teaching, and I’ve learned so much from being a coach. My second year coaching football, we had an amazing team of athletes, but they were struggling to remember plays and/or run plays without constant penalties.
Around this same time, I was finishing my Master’s in Global and International Education. It was a challenging program, and one class in particular was taking a lot of my time. Most of my complaints about this class were that we never had enough time to ask questions and work through the content. It felt rushed. Constant new material, followed by checks for understanding (in either quiz or test formats), followed by more new material. I was exhausted.
A month into the season, I was having a conversation with our two quarterbacks. The starting QB nodded his head every time I brought something up, talked about an issue, and always followed with a “yes, coach”. The back-up QB, who I thought was often aloof, said to me during this particular conversation: “Coach, maybe we need to watch some film. The guys know the plays. But, with all the new plays, they are getting confused. I know Jimmy (the starting QB) understands it, but most of us aren’t there yet…”.
I left that conversation a bit angry. I probably shouldn’t have been, but I had spent so much time going over plays, and having position coaches go over their responsibilities and assignments, that I could not for the life of me figure out why they were struggling.
That following week two things happened. First, I had a film session with our football team. We watched our first game together, analyzing, asking questions, calling on players for their perspective, and taking the time to see what the underlying issues were.
Second, I had a conference with my graduate school professor. I was able to ask questions, get some guidance, and he was able to share that he had heard that the course was moving way too fast for some folks and he was going to do his best to slow it down as needed.
On my drive home, it clicked. I was spending so much time as a coach in the “I do” and “You do” phases of teaching and learning. My players needed the instruction, but they also needed space to transfer their learning in a setting other than the game. The film session, and subsequent practices focused more on the guided “We do” and the collaborative “Ya’ll do together” than before.
It clicked because of how much better I felt about my grad class once I had conferenced with my professor. Seeing it through the lens of a learner, made me realize what I was missing as a coach in the beginning of that season.
The phases of GRR felt more like a wheel as a coach (and learner) than a full linear process. There were times we were in two phases at the same-time, bouncing back and forth. And after my players performed in the game with a combination of “Collaborative” and “You do”, we always followed with a focused film session where we gave feedback as the experts in the room.
Meaningful Instruction Includes All Four Phases
The key here in my adaptation into a Venn diagram, is the overlap and role of the instructor to be a presence in all four phases.
The learning process does not end when the student is at the independent phase. Instead, it shifts back to the teacher to give feedback and serve as an assessor.
In the same way, the instruction can move back and forth between phases as needed. This again depends on understanding the transfer of responsibility, and when we need to pull back to help students ultimately “get it” before moving forward.
Here’s the kicker: Engagement can happen in all four of the phases, as long as the process focuses on meaningful and relevant practices.
All four phases can also be boring, uninspiring, and feel like the “game of school” if students are led to jump through hoops with no meaningful content or relevant connections.
The standards may be the same, but there is nothing standardized about the learning experiences students have based on the intentional design of the wheel of responsibility.
We get to choose which of these experiences happen based on our choices in curriculum, resources, assignments, and performance tasks.
Meaningful curriculum leads to a relevant learning experience.
Relevant resources lead to meaningful discussions.
Meaningful assignments lead to deeper thinking.
Relevant performance tasks lead to authentic problem-solving.
The transfer of responsibility can move fluidly through focused, guided, collaborative, and independent phases, but we are able to impact what that experience entails through our roles as teacher, coach, and leader.
