💡 The Big Idea
Most of us have had this moment.
You model something clearly at the front of the room. The explanation flows, the worked example looks great, and the whiteboard work has been spot on. You send them off to work feeling quietly hopeful… then you start circulating and realise what’s ending up in the books looks nothing like what you just did.
On the board: a neat example, laid out cleanly, well spaced, each step visible.
In the books: numbers wandering across the page, writing squeezed into odd corners, conjunctions missing and task formats that don’t quite line up with what you showed.
They have seen it, and they may have even understood it in the context of your input, but the context has changed just enough to make the knowledge transfer hard.
From a cognitive science angle, that gap matters. When the model and the task don’t quite match, children are forced to spend precious working memory figuring out things that are different from what they saw you do - where to start, how to lay it out, and what kind of answer is expected. For novices, especially, that extra load can be a significant factor that blocks success.
It is a bit like giving someone driving lessons on a quiet straight road, then sending them to take their test at a busy roundabout and being surprised when it doesn’t go to plan.
That is what this post is all about.
👀 A Closer Look
When the model and the task don’t match
On the surface, “I’ll model it, then you try” sounds perfectly reasonable. First we show them how to do it; then they try to do it. Then they try to do it. The problem creeps in when the example and the task quietly drift apart.
We model a calculation on a big whiteboard with clean lines and plenty of space, then ask children to repeat it on tiny squares in their books.
We craft a beautiful sentence on a projected slide, then send them off to squeeze their own version underneath three other tasks on a photocopied worksheet.
We demonstrate one style of comprehension question, then hand them a sheet full of completely different style questions.
For confident learners, they can often bridge that gap. For everyone else, it creates what Sweller would call extra “extraneous load” – mental effort that doesn’t actually move the learning on. The structure they saw does not quite map onto the structure they now have to use.
If modelling is meant to be a worked example, a concrete, visible version of what good looks like, then the thing they watch needs to resemble, as closely as we can manage, the thing they will actually do next.
Same surface, same structure
One of the easiest wins is simply to match the surface.
If you want children working on squared paper, model on squared paper.
If you want joined handwriting on lined paper, model on lined paper.
If you want dates, titles and learning outcomes set out a particular way, show that exact layout, under the visualiser, in a real book.
It sounds basic, but it makes the task feel more familiar before they have even started. The page layout becomes part of the scaffold. Children are not wasting time wondering “Where do I put this?” or “Do I start here or there?” because they have literally just seen you do it.
Under a visualiser, this is straightforward, but even a slide can be made to resemble a student's book.
Over time, this is not just about neatness. It is about using the page as part of the thinking space. In other posts, I have talked about the extended mind, the external memory field, handwriting and how layouts are all ways children offload and organise their thinking. Modelling how to lay out the work on a page is modelling the thinking too.
Thinking aloud about where things go
We often use Think Aloud to explain why we chose a strategy or a word. We can extend exactly the same idea to the way we use the page.
“I’m choosing this method because it will be more efficient.”
“I’m picking this word because it makes the character sound afraid.”
What we perhaps also need to extend this to is thinking aloud about spatial decisions:
“I’m starting over here so I have space underneath for my calculations.”
“I’m keeping my digits lined up in the middle of the squares so the ones stays under the ones column”
“I’m leaving a line before my next paragraph to show the reader I’m moving to a new idea.”
Those tiny comments do an important job. They tie together what we are doing with how we are organising it on the page. Children start to see that the layout is not cosmetic. It is part of the thinking.
In metacognitive terms, we’re modelling how an expert uses the page deliberately, not just how they get the answer.
Matching the question types and the moves
The next blocker to a strong handover is when we model one really clear example, then give children ten problems that all look and feel different. Or we solve a lovely, rich reasoning problem together, then hand them a set of questions that require them to do something different. The moves they have just watched do not line up with the moves they now need to make.
A more helpful approach is to treat the model as a direct rehearsal for what comes next. If the independent task is:
“Explain why…” questions in maths, the model should include an “Explain why…” question.
interpreting a tricky bar chart, the model should involve a similarly tricky bar chart.
If we want children to include a specific sentence type, we need examples and models of these to show them
The worked example effect in the research is clear. Novices benefit when they see a fully worked version of the exact kind of problem they will soon tackle, with the steps made explicit. Once they have a few successful reps under their belt, then we can sensibly vary the format, increase complexity, or remove some of the support.
Match the cognitive moves in the model to the cognitive moves in the task.
I Do, We Do, You Do…the same thing
Building on the previous point. The same applies to the I Do, We Do, You Do structure. It is meant to be a gradual release of responsibility, not three separate tasks bolted together.
Too often I see the following:
I Do this style of question,
We Do a slightly different style,
You Do something completely different again.
A more useful version looks more like:
I Do one example of today’s task, in the exact layout pupils will use, narrating the key decisions.
We Do another one or two together, still in the same format, with pupils contributing more of the thinking and perhaps practising in a semi-permanent space, such as on a whiteboard
You Do further examples that are close cousins of what we have just done with the same structure independently.
The task stays broadly the same. What changes is the level of support.
That consistency is what reduces cognitive load. Children do not have to keep re-learning the rules of the game every five minutes. They can focus their effort on the thinking – the calculation, the inference, the sentence construction – because the way the task is structured and the strategies needed to be successful are similar to what has been modelled and practised.
⭐ WAGOLL+: The Primary Playbook
If you like this post, you’ll love the Primary Playbook for WAGOLL+ members – an ever-growing, primary-specific bank of one-page routines (Do Now, Learning Outcomes, To Knows, I Do–We Do–You Do, Hinge Questions, Show Me, Live Marking, Exit Tickets and more), each with a clear Why, What, and How to do it tomorrow plus KS1/KS2 tweaks.
All yours for just £2.50 a month.
Replicating is a scaffold; it doesn’t need to be forever
I can already hear the pushback.
“If your model looks too much like the task, aren’t you just giving them the answer?”
“Isn’t that spoon-feeding?”
“Where’s the challenge if the I Do, and You Do look the same?”
Honestly, I think that misses the point.
If the model is genuinely challenging, then the work is challenging. All we’re doing by aligning the model and the task is removing the guesswork around how to get started and what it should look like. We’re not lowering the bar; we are modelling a bar that has been set exceptionally high and helping children reach it.
In Primary, most of the challenge gap isn’t about raw difficulty, where children are given an unfamiliar task and challenged to guess how to complete it. It’s about clarity. Our most confident pupils can often bridge a messy handover and make that jump. They can look at a lovely model on the board, then a totally different task in their book, and still work out how to transfer it. Our less confident pupils can’t. When the I Do and the You Do are too far apart, we’re not stretching the high attainers – we’re creating extra hurdles for everyone else.
That’s where replicating comes in. It’s a scaffold. As pupils gain confidence and fluency, they should start to take more control. That’s part of becoming an expert learner. But early on, most children benefit from something solid to follow.
Just as you wouldn’t hand a novice cook a fridge full of ingredients and say “improvise”, it makes little sense to hand novice learners unfamiliar challenges and watch them struggle. First, we show them a reliable recipe. Then we rehearse that recipe a few times, pretty closely, before asking them to have a go on their own.
🧠 The Bits That Stick
✅ The way we lay out our models isn’t cosmetic; it shapes how easily pupils can transfer what they see into their own books.
✅ Matching the surface and structure – same paper, same layout, same question type – cuts down unnecessary cognitive load and makes the handover smoother.
✅ Thinking aloud about where things go on the page helps children see layout as part of the thinking, not just tidiness.
✅ I Do, We Do, You Do works best when it is “same task, fading support”, not three different tasks in quick succession.
In a bit,
Coops 😎
