We have long argued that quality instructional experiences that improve student learning can be organized around a gradual release of responsibility (GRR) instructional framework (Fisher & Frey, 2021). Here, we build on that foundation by showing how aspects of GRR can be used not only in sequence, but also simultaneously—allowing teachers to respond flexibly to student needs and keep all learners engaged. Our interpretation of GRR includes four distinct aspects:
- Collaborative learning: Students engage in structured peer-to-peer dialogue using academic vocabulary to explain, clarify, and negotiate meaning, deepening comprehension and strengthening conceptual understanding.
- Focused instruction: The teacher assumes a direct role, explicitly modeling concepts, processes, and skills while activating students’ relevant background knowledge and interests.
- Guided instruction: Teachers scaffold students’ understanding through questions, prompts, cues, and explanations—actively addressing student errors and misconceptions without simply telling them what to think.
- Independent learning: Students practice what they have learned through purposeful, aligned application that builds automaticity, supports transfer of learning, and allows students opportunities to demonstrate increased proficiency.
What We Know Works
These four aspects of the GRR framework can be used in any order to accomplish learning goals. They are not phases that must be implemented in a lock-step fashion, but rather options that can be used recursively and cyclically in response to student needs.
Additionally, there are hundreds of instructional strategies that fit into these four aspects. For over a decade, we’ve invited educators to identify effective routines that fall outside this framework—and none have. The framework doesn’t prescribe one right way to teach; it organizes the wide range of strategies teachers can choose from.
In this way, the four aspects capture major moves that teachers can take to increase students’ learning. For example, during focused instruction, teachers could use worked examples, exemplars, direct instruction, modeling, think alouds, demonstrations, lectures, and many other tools to provide students with the input (or new learning) they need when they need it. This input does not have to occur at the outset of the lesson and may be provided in response to a trend that the teacher notices as students are collaborating with their peers.
Similarly, there are many ways students can meaningfully interact with their peers, including partner conversations, jigsaws, reciprocal teaching, opinion stations, numbered heads together, or gallery walks. The learning intention should guide the selection of instructional strategies, and teachers should monitor students’ learning and adjust strategies if needed.
GRR can be used not only in sequence, but also simultaneously—allowing teachers to respond flexibly to student needs and keep all learners engaged.
What Else Is Possible with GRR
What we have not yet emphasized is that these moves can occur simultaneously during a lesson. There are times in which the whole class is engaged in one aspect, as might be the case when a teacher is providing direct instruction or when all the students are collaborating in a Socratic Seminar. At other times, the teacher can intentionally integrate multiple aspects of the GRR framework by having different students do different types of learning simultaneously—for example, some working independently, others collaborating with peers, and others receiving guidance from the teacher. This flexible use of the framework still aligns to the same learning goals, just in a more fluid and responsive way.
In contrast to whole-class instruction, which engages all students in the same task, this approach differentiates the learning experience—and does so without lowering expectations. As Rubie-Davies and Hattie (2024) note, teachers with low expectations see differentiation as assigning different activities to different groups of students, whereas teachers with high expectations consider differentiation as offering multiple ways for students to attain the same success criteria. For example, some students might explore a concept using manipulatives, while others write explanations or engage in peer discussion—but all are working toward the same learning goal. The GRR framework supports this approach by organizing the learning experiences students need to be successful.
In the video that accompanies this column, middle school math teacher Lacey Dake Phillips from Tulsa, Oklahoma, engages her students in several aspects of the GRR simultaneously. Students are working independently, collaboratively, and with their teacher at the same time so that all of them can accomplish the learning goal, which focuses on transformations of shapes in geometry.
Structure Meets Flexibility
Our interpretation of the Gradual Release of Responsibility instructional framework is a flexible planning tool designed to support teachers in building students’ competence and confidence. We do not believe that there is a required sequence of the aspects of this framework. We know that there are hundreds of strategies that can be used in these aspects to foster learning. And we know that there are times in which the teacher intentionally integrates several aspects of the framework at the same time. The goal is student learning, which requires both advance planning and responsiveness during the lesson.
Video Reflection: Structures of GRR
After watching the video, consider the following questions for reflection or discussion with your colleagues.
1. How does the teacher establish routines for students to seek help?
2. What moves does the teacher use in her discussion with the two students?
3. What does each aspect of the GRR look like in this classroom?
