LISTEN NOW HERE…

WATCH NOW…

One of the most frequent questions we hear from district and school math leaders is:

“How do I convince math educators to shift from always using the Gradual Release model to lessons that begin with rich math tasks?”

This episode is inspired by a recent conversation with a district leader guiding a math task force. While some colleagues leaned on the Gradual Release of Responsibility model—“I do, we do, you do”—she wanted to prioritize curiosity, problem solving, and mathematical reasoning up front. The tension? Research on direct instruction, particularly Hattie’s work, is often misinterpreted as a call to always begin math lessons with direct modeling.

This is not about replacing direct instruction in math class with inquiry. It’s about designing math lessons where fluency, reasoning, communication, and conceptual understanding all have a place—and where students begin with reasoning and end with precision.

Listeners will hear: 

• Why problem-based lessons and Gradual Release are not an either/or choice

• How the math three-part lesson (Minds-On, Action, Consolidation) positions explicit teaching strategically

• What the research really says about direct vs. dialogic instruction from John Hattie.

• Why starting with student sense-making deepens conceptual understanding and retention.

Attention District Math Leaders:

Not sure what matters most when designing math improvement plans? Take this assessment and get a free customized report: https://makemathmoments.com/grow/ 

Ready to design your math improvement plan with guidance, support and using structure? Learn how to follow our 4 stage process. https://growyourmathprogram.com 

Looking to supplement your curriculum with problem based lessons and units? Make Math Moments Problem Based Lessons & Units

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Yvette Lehman: Sometimes things happen to us, John, that are super, I don’t know, it’s like, I’m always surprised when there’s connections that happen. Last week we recorded an episode on Monday around that question that I got at PD, remember, where the teacher was basically saying, you know, I’m already doing this and it’s working really well, convince me to change. And then we actually got an email follow-up from one of our district partners, I think just after we recorded that episode, basically saying something similar in the sense of,

I’m trying to support change in my district, but I’m getting some resistance from some of my stakeholders and they’re referencing this research. They’re saying, know, they’re debating direct instruction versus what they’re calling discovery. And they’re using John Hattie’s work kind of to defend like, we don’t want to go to discovery. And I think that we want to make it super clear to our listeners. Neither do we.

Jon Orr: Yeah. Yeah, no. And I think the question, you know, it was specifically about battling back the gradual release of responsibility. It’s like, like we, I don’t want to switch. I’m trying to like convince people that we should be teaching through problem-based tasks or teaching through curiosity first to generate questioning, to generate problem solving, and then pivot towards more direct instruction. And, and this person was like, everyone is saying,

look, we’ve been making a strong push for the last number of years towards gradual release. The I do, we do, you do model. Like this is the math playbook from a long time ago, right? This is what we know works. And they’re saying, look, we’re relying on Hattie’s work here that says we have a strong effect size. It beats over this, it beats over this. It’s like, wanna, we’re using this to defend and cherry pick some of the results here that says like, that’s actually really good.

Why should we then switch to this type of of lesson style for tier one instruction? If if say, Hattie saying we’ve got a strong or a larger effect size than some of these other things that you’re talking about. so yeah, she’s like saying help like like what research can we can we use here? What what evidence can we say like actually teaching through problem based tasks or teaching through that type thing? is something we should be recommending or maybe it’s not. Maybe we’ve been going about this wrong.

Yvette Lehman: Well, and I thought that it was actually perfect that the debate was leveraging Hattie’s work because we’re obviously Hattie fans. And I’m well versed in visible learning only because I, and I think I actually shared this on one of our podcasts that when we were introduced to learning goals and success criteria here in Ontario, this was the book study that our school chose to do around metacognition, which has a really high effect size as well.

And so what we often don’t hear about in this debate, right, where we’re talking about direct instruction versus what people describe as inquiry or discovery is no one’s talking necessarily or I don’t often use people using the term dialogic instruction, which when I went back to revisit visible learning and read through some of the chapters, I was like, dialogic instruction, think really captures what NCTM is trying to describe through the eight effective teaching practices, what our

tasks or approach reflect, which is this opportunity for students to engage in a rich task and co-construct understanding through opportunities to talk with each other, talk with the teacher, have you know mathematical debates and arrive at conjectures, but what makes it not discovery at all is that the teacher has a very very clear plan.

And like Tati talks about teacher clarity as well as being one of the biggest impacts on student outcomes. And it’s like when a teacher is designing a lesson that leans into dialogic instruction, which is rooted in, of course, discourse and opportunities for students to talk and debate and co-construct a shared understanding, the teacher has the roadmap from the start of where we need to go. They have that clarity around what is the learning outcome that we’re hoping to achieve in today’s lesson.

Jon Orr: Mm-hmm. And you know, and I think you’ve articulated that really, really well is that that dialogic instruction isn’t just a willy-nilly, let’s throw this out there and see where the kids go. That’s not, and I think oftentimes when we, and we’ve talked about this on the podcast over the years, is that it is very precise. It is very.

you know, learning goal specific of what we’re trying to achieve. And that’s the part that we want to make clear, you know, is is that it isn’t it isn’t just like, let’s pose a throw a problem up and see where all the students go and where they go today might be something I wasn’t planning for. And and I think that’s where this diet, you know, the dialogic instruction actually is is like a great way to phrase this and structure what we’re trying to accomplish and what say the research, you know, from NCTM, you know, from

from the five practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions, even Peter’s work with building thinking classrooms. It’s all following, say, dialogic instruction versus or over direct instruction because we’re engaging students in thinking first and also critical discussion prior to, direct instruction. And I think that’s really captured. Talk to me about the effect sizes then.

Like because the effect size of direct instruction is like, this is a little higher, like 0.59 is the direct, you know, the effect size that Hattie will quote for direct instruction, which may be higher than some of these other pieces that we’re relying on or other folks are saying, well, look, we’re comparing them, but then talk to me about the dialogic effect size.

Yvette Lehman: Yeah, so dialogic instruction has an effect size of 0.82, which is pretty high. Like when you look at some of the other higher ones, it’s like student self-assessment, metacognition, teacher clarity, they’re all up in this, the same range of effect size. What I thought was really interesting though, that was, I don’t wanna say new learning for me, but it affirmed my understanding is if you read the section on dialogic instruction in visible learning, they talk about two types of tasks.

Have you read this before, John? It’s like there’s like type one and type two. Yeah, so type one is essentially when you give students a task to like initiate understanding. So I’m picturing like even the units that we write or some of the units we’ve engaged in like Cathy Fosnows units where it’s like the initial task is to almost like set the context, set the scenario. It’s leveraging background knowledge. And so sometimes people will argue, you know, I can’t just give them a task if I haven’t taught them.

yet. But it’s like that first task is really to like initiate new learning. And it should bridge between previous experience, background knowledge, and where we’re going on this journey. So initial task is type one. And then they talk about type two tasks, which is where now we’re deepening our understanding. What’s really interesting is what happens in between type one and type two? Probably some direct instruction.

And like that’s what the book also talks about is that we said this and that’s why I said like this teed us up perfectly coming off of our last Monday episode where it’s like it’s not neither or like it’s like we are definitely there are places for direct instruction within our math block. That direct instruction might come in the consolidation on day one where it’s like at the end of students grappling with the problem they’re going to then

you know, receive some direct instruction that’s scaffolded, that’s sequenced, that’s modeled, that leads into some purposeful practice. But then they’re gonna have an opportunity to go into a type two task where they’re now taking that new learning and they’re applying it in a new and novel way. But again, you know, the research that they were referencing, this meta-analysis by Hai says that when students grapple, and this is actually echoed also in NCTM’s principles to actions, like,

the learning has a better chance of sticking if students are the ones who are grappling versus just like a sit and get, you know? And so I thought that it was great that this was, think, I mean, lucky for us, I guess, that when we got this email that was basically saying like, help, you know, I’m getting some resistance from some of my stakeholders. They’re referencing this particular research. They’re saying that direct instruction is a more powerful move for teachers.

I love that in the chapter it really shares this idea that we shared on our last episode, which is we’re not talking about, then like what they actually say is that great teachers do both. Great teachers know that there’s a place for dialogic instruction where students are talking and grappling and problem solving and sharing ideas and coming to a shared understanding and making their own conjectures. There’s a place for that. There’s also a place for some direct instruction where the…

the teaching is very structured and it’s very sequenced and it’s going to be lead to practice. Like there’s a place for that. And I also, you know, you know this, I think that the gradual release model does live somewhere in the tiered approach. Like there are some times where in a tier three environment where I might rely on an I do, we do, you do, because I’m trying to really consolidate a particular skill with a group of students. but it wouldn’t be our go-to approach for tier one instruction. Right.

Jon Orr: Initially, Initially. So it’s like when, because when I think about that consolidate phase in say the five practices or the connect phase in the five practices is like what do I want them to actually take away here and what is that skill now that I really want to reinforce and that might be a great place for that. used to, in the past we’ve called it tying it up with a bow and there’s a lot of times as you get to the end of a lesson, a problem based lesson, you don’t tie it up with a bow, then you’re leaving kids.

you know, they’re walking out the door going, I’m not sure exactly like we had maybe, hey, it was more engaging today than previous years. But I’m not sure exactly what math we did here or what that what we’re really suspected to do next. And I think that’s to me, that’s where I say that directness comes in to say this is this is the learning goal here at by the end or by the middle. Like I, it often reminds me of the flow, you know, like, like keeping kids in flow is a master skill.

because if we’re gonna start with problem-based lessons, it’s like, is now the time for me to do a little bit of direct instruction to keep them in flow? And then we can come back and do a little bit more thinking or problem solving and then keep them in flow again and pull people together and have, those moments where we’re saying, like, I’m gonna do this and I’m gonna model this based off some of the experiences that we’ve now shared and then I’m gonna ask you to go do it.

and then I’m gonna be walking around and supporting at that point. That’s the idea that I think about where you interject, but it’s like the master skill comes from knowing when to do that. I think experience can help with that. Solid understanding of the math you’re teaching is gonna help with that. And both of those things combined make the master teacher.

Yvette Lehman: I feel like for our listeners, if they’re finding that they are also getting this resistance, and I think we mentioned that last time, like I don’t think our listeners are the ones that are saying, you you’re promoting discovery and it has an effect size of, you know, 0.27. I think that generally our audiences probably has adopted a task-based approach. I would imagine many have. If not though, like if you are listening and you’re thinking, I’m just not sure.

I definitely think going in and reading, there’s a table in visible learning where they look at direct instruction and dialogic instruction side by side. And they talk about the distinction between the two approaches to instruction. And again, not saying that, you know, yes, effect size is higher for dialogic instruction, but that there’s a place for both within a comprehensive math block, but really to deeply understand how they’re different and how dialogic instruction is not discovery where you were just throwing out a task and

hoping for the best and not providing any support to students. I think that table’s helpful just to gain clarity around what it is. And maybe I think it’s helpful for us and our listeners to say like, this is what we’re talking about. Like we’re talking about giving students an opportunity through intentional prompts, through the use of five practices, through that really well-planned facilitation of a task for them to construct a shared understanding and to uncover some of these conjectures.

So I think that’s like the first part is if you’ve never read about dialogic instruction, you are, you know, trying to make sense of what this looks like, sounds like that’s a great place to start for you. Or if you’re also like our, the email we receive getting some resistance, maybe from your principal or from your colleagues and they’re saying, you know, direct instruction is the way to go. This is the research around it. Maybe that’s a place for you to go as well, just to say like, Hey, have you read about dialogic instruction?

Jon Orr: Mm-hmm. Yeah Yeah, yeah, and I think I think what we’re talking about here, too Is one of the three pieces that we need what we’re trying to convince, you know or shift I’ve shared this many times here on the podcast which is the the analogy or the or the metaphor if you think about the elephant the rider in the the woods or the path way which Which is from the book switch from Chip and Dan Heath which is like how to change when change is hard and and we’re all

often when we get this question about I’m trying to do this, I’m trying to make shifts in instruction, shifts in mindset, shifts in the way that we’re from towards this new way of thinking about things. What we’re talking about here really is helping direct the rider. The rider is that logic part of our brain that says, what is a rider? What is that like?

that person who’s controlling the elephant, which if I’m gonna go down this pathway, in this jungle, we wanna go there altogether on this nice pathway, the rider is the person that’s like, this makes sense to go down that pathway. And if you’re going to go down the pathway, which is change and shifting, then you need to direct the rider, you need to motivate that elephant, and you need to make sure the path is clear. But so when we’re talking about data, and we’re talking about

evidence, and we’re talking about research, I often think like that’s, that’s an important part to help direct that rider, we like we have to make it clear that there, this makes sense to go down here. And there’s you’re not the first one to go down this pathway. There’s there is a proven pathway to go down and it is better in the long term. And so when we talk about Hattie’s research, we’re talking about the five practices, we talk about NCDM principles action, if you’re if your call to action today is to go read from

that those sources, then what you’re doing is you’re gathering evidence to direct riders. Don’t forget that the bigger part here is to motivate the elephant. this person who so reached out to us as district partner, she’s now gathering evidence to say I’ve got now my support to direct the rider, but I also have to make sure that I’m motivating the elephant, which is alleviating the fears of doing the thing that makes sense. know, like the elephant is the bigger piece here, right?

If you’re going to try to go down this pathway in the jungle and the rider’s like, I want to go down that pathway and it makes sense to do it, but the elephant’s like, I don’t want to go down there because it’s scary. Then you’re not going down there. So the other part of say motivating the elephant is trying to provide the experience and what does it look like, sound like to do these types of things. So back in the world of say, dialogic instruction is how many times or how often have we really given a clear picture.

to our educators what that looks like, what that sounds like, making sure that it’s like this is safe to go down here. These are the pieces that you’re gonna be battling. Where’s that support? Like all of these kind of add up and when the more you can do that, the more you can provide actual glimpses of lessons that follow dialogic instruction, then you’re increasing the confidence and the motivation that the elephant can go down that pathway. Because the rider, you can have all the evidence you want.

but the rider has to still say, the elephant still has to go like, that makes, like, let’s go because I feel confident to do it.

Yvette Lehman: Okay, so I’m gonna summarize by saying two things. There’s research out there. If we want to, and I don’t even wanna say the word defend, but it’s like if we want to share that there’s evidence to suggest that this is an effective approach to math instruction, it’s a worthwhile endeavor. Like this is a change that’s worth making. We have the research to back it and we’ve given you some ideas of where to find that research.

The second thing you said is that if we have some educators around us, or maybe it’s our principal, maybe it’s a coach that we’re working with who just are not on the same page yet, they’re not seeing the value in taking this risk or making this shift. What you’re saying is they need to experience it for themselves. And so what does that look like? And I’m thinking, if I’m a classroom teacher, what does that look like? In my mind, if I’m a classroom teacher listening right now,

And I’m like, yes, a task-based approach. I’m living it. I’m breathing it. My kids are doing it. There’s high engagement. They’re constructing understanding. They’re asking questions. They’re debating. Then our call to action for you is to open your door. Invite people in to see that happening. And I know that’s sometimes scary for us, especially if what we’re doing is different than what the person down the hall is doing. But if we can invite our principal into our classroom.

and say, you know, I’m going to be doing a lesson tomorrow. It’s a task-based lesson. I’d love for you to come in and just watch students. It’s not about you. It’s about what the kids are doing. Like, what are the students in your classroom doing when you’re engaging in this type of instruction? Maybe you have a colleague who has opportunity during a prep period to come in and observe and just really trying to create those opportunities for shared experiences.

whether that’s actually engaging them as students, which may not be possible if you’re a classroom teacher, but what you can do as a classroom teacher is open your door to others so that they can experience this.

Jon Orr: Love it. Right. Yeah. Now that’s a that’s a that’s a great call to action specifically for our listeners. Now if I’m a coach then it’s saying like who are those bright spots that I can lean on. Like who could I say encouraged to open their door and then bring more folks through those types of lessons or how do I model that in a district you know a pull out PD sessions like like the more we can open in the eyes to educators to see that and I want to reinforce here.

that it is not a this or that. See where, like, you’re even giving them the prompt to say, when you come into this lesson, I want you to watch to see where direct instruction happens and where it doesn’t. And then let’s debrief after, because you’re going to see it. If we’re doing this well, you’re going to see it. So the question is, where do you see it and where does it make sense to see it based off what we’re trying to achieve?

in our goals for our school, our goals for our district, our goals for mathematics as a whole. So look out, be on the lookout for it can actually like spark those discussions to say like, right, let’s not have this or that.

Yvette Lehman: I like that you said that because that was going to be my closing statement. Just to, you know, I feel like on social media, I see this debate a lot. I mentioned in a previous one, you know, we’re in multiple Facebook groups who kind of live on both sides of this debate. But I think that this particular research reminds us that it’s not a debate. You know, really effective teachers are going to engage in both.

There is a time and place for dialogic instruction that is more student centered, that’s task based, where students are at the center of the learning experience and they’re co-constructing through dialogue and reciprocal talk. And then there’s going to be times where teachers provide very explicit instruction with sequencing, scaffolding, purposeful practice to reinforce big ideas that emerge through that task. And we would never argue.

that we shouldn’t be doing direct instruction or explicit instruction. We would never argue that, you know, we shouldn’t position students as problem solvers. We shouldn’t create the experience where they own the learning and they are at the center of grappling with problems and constructing understanding because we know the research suggests that’s gonna lead to greater retention.

Jon Orr: Well said, well said. You know, and when I think about the district partner leader who reached out to us with this particular email, you know, they’re in the beginning stages of developing what they want their vision for math instruction to be at their district level to trickle into their schools and to create the, you know, this cohesive movement of where we’re trying to go for better math, you know, better math instruction, better achievement for our students. And

And we’re so glad that she reached out to us because we get to kind of help her navigate this land. that’s that’s what we do on a regular basis when we’re supporting our district partners in developing their visions, developing their goals, developing their objectives with the focus zones. What are the measurables look like? That’s what our district improvement or school improvement planning is is all about. If you want a second look or even just a kickstart of where you’re trying to go with goals and school improvement.

reach out to us over at makemathmoments.com forward slash district, makemathmoments.com forward slash district and we’d be glad to hop on a call with you just to talk about what next steps, what are you planning for this year, what are you planning for what this year could look like so that you have some actionable things to kind of move forward with this year and into next year.

Thanks For Listening

• Book a Math Mentoring Moment
• Apply to be a Featured Interview Guest
• Leave a note in the comment section below.
• Share this show on Twitter, or Facebook.

To help out the show:

• Leave an honest review on iTunes. Your ratings and reviews really help and we read each one.
• Subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, and Spotify.