  |
|
|
|
|
||
|
               |
|
|
LEARNING TEAMS FINDINGS:
Day Three Wokingham 1st November 2007
YEAR 1 This technique had been used in Literacy and DT. Children were very good at identifying the bad example. The visual impact was important for young children and it improved their presentation. One teacher used the technique in art with self portraits, which improved the language used by the children to describe the criteria. Overall, children are taking more care and the work is of higher quality as a result of this technique. They are also less afraid to attempt a task because they are much clearer about expectations. There was a particular issue about children with EAL, especially those who were very new to the country. These children saw the teacher talking about the lower quality piece and copied that, thinking it was what the teacher wanted! YEAR 2 The importance of having anonymous pieces when 2 pieces are being compared was reiterated. It was also felt that making it up yourself can be more productive in making sure all the points you want covered are going to come up. The impact of this technique on children’s learning was that children could generate success criteria. They are very focused and have internalised the success criteria. It was felt that this is a short, snappy way of showing good practice. In PE a good strategy of comparing good with not good was to ask a high achiever in PE to deliberately do something poor. It was also possible to use the teacher or TA in this way. The technique stops children worrying, makes them more focused and promotes high self-esteem. One teacher described a lesson on connectives where one piece had lots of ‘and’ connectives while the other had a full range. Because the poor piece was longer, children first assumed it was the better piece but eventually saw the effect of the connectives. This experience made the teacher realise exactly where they were in their understanding of the concept and what seemed to matter to them. This technique is accessible for all learners. YEARS 2/3 This technique has led to embedded success criteria – posters are no longer necessary. One teacher showed children a good and not so good example of an Egyptian war painting, kept from last year. This time, all paintings were successful. The impact has been that children are more successful with higher levels of attainment. They can recognise their own achievement. Children appear to remember the features of good work for longer periods. YEARS 3/4 One teacher found that at first children focused on secretarial skills when comparing the 2 pieces. This made her question how explicit they were being about marking criteria. The technique enables children to generate the success criteria. It was found to be successful to start by showing 2 pieces with a stark contrast, then gradually showing pieces in which the gap was smaller and the differences more subtle. Instead of good and bad, some teachers were showing good and excellent work, especially where for some children, trying to do ‘bad’ work was their attention seeking aim! YEARS 5/6 The technique was having a huge impact on the quality of work. Children had clearer expectations; there was more discussion and better use of language. One teacher described how, in the context of ‘The Highwayman’ poem, children produced ‘amazing’ work after seeing a good and not so good example of writing from one of the character’s points of view. One child, with severe behaviour difficulties, was particularly successful and wrote more than he had ever written before, with rare enthusiasm. Teacher believe that demonstrating quality is one aspect of the success of this technique, but also the whole picture of what the final piece might look like removes the mystery of the task. Another teacher used the technique summatively, by showing a Level 4 and a Level 5 piece of writing, which was also very successful. A teacher who had been sure that children would copy was amazed that this did not happen, a point reiterated by all members of the team. Seeing good work seems to inspire children to be creative rather than copy. One teacher told how she made the mistake of showing a good and not so good letter, signing the good with a child’s name and signing the not so good with her own name. The class immediately assumed that her letter must be best!
2. On-the-spot modelling of ‘Success & Improvement’ during the lesson (‘Integrated feedback’) YEAR 1 Teachers felt that this technique was a challenge with younger children because many of them cannot read each other’s work. Art work worked well for peer assessment. One teacher using pink highlighting for success and green for ‘growth’ or improvement models this first with her marking, but they can soon take this on themselves. One green and 2 pinks was found to be most successful. Teachers felt that stopping in the middle of the lesson to review their work in this way refocused and refreshed children. The end result appears to be more quality but less quantity with children looking more closely at their work
YEAR 2 A range of varying results emerged from the use of this technique. Teachers felt that it worked better to start very slowly and simply and said it had taken till the end of the year for children to master self and peer assessment. Children of this age are not very skilled at rereading their work, but this technique makes them learn to do this. Their skills at redrafting are now improved and everybody’s self esteem is boosted because by the end of a lesson everyone’s work has improved. In mathematics children are now able to identify why something is wrong or right, identifying the success criteria. Children are much more focused on identifying improvements in someone else’s work than their own. Verbalising success and improvement is very powerful for them. YEARS 2/3 Teachers had asked a child at random to work on the laptop at the beginning of the lesson, so that that work could be easily projected. One lower achiever wrote an adjective for the first time after the whole class success and improvement modelling. Teachers agreed that the marking strategy needs time for children to use and it is important that all teachers follow the same approach. Children are motivated to improve as a result of the technique and they all realise that there is nothing wrong with needing to improve. There are now fewer children saying they have finished their work after the first attempt. YEARS 3/4 One school is using ‘pink to make you think’ and ‘green for go’ for success and improvement. There is now greater quality than quantity. It has worked well when the teacher is the scribe for a group, where there is no visualiser. Another strategy has been to ask a child for their best sentence, to write it on the board and ask for improvements from the class. One teacher described an ICT lesson in the ICT suite in which graphics were linked with pointillism in art. This was saved into a shared drive and then projected onto the smart board. The teacher showed one piece after another to be critiques for success and improvement. The analysis led to a flurry of positive activity in improving their own work. The teacher deliberately chose children’s work where the child was not perceived to be good at art. This elevated their self esteem. YEARS 5/6 The technique redirects the lesson and lifts it, allowing children to refocus. One teacher had used the strategy successfully with football skills in PE and found that children could readily make on the spot improvements. It was suggested that mathematics activities might need to be shortened in order to fit in the success and improvement time.
3. Further Developments of techniques from Day 2 YEAR 1 Planning is now more focused. Some subjects are more of a challenge when trying to separate the learning objective from the context. Marking is easier because of the specific focus. Children are learning transferable skills. Children know why they are learning. Success criteria get easier the more you do it. We are all now much clearer about what we want from children. Children and teachers are more focused and everyone knows what to do. There is now more child talk and less teacher talk in lessons. No hands up is working well and the random choice with lolly sticks also works well. Everyone is thinking and on task, because they never know who will be chosen next.
YEAR 2 Separating the learning objective from the context has completely changed planning, as teachers now start with learning objectives. Children are now more skilled at generating success criteria although it still needs to be modelled. Plans now start lessons with a good question and questions are now used to get the children talking. Talking partners is now embedded and all children are actively involved.
YEARS 2/3 Children are now transferring skills across the curriculum and are clearer about what they are learning. They are now becoming lifelong learners as a result of this, so lessons can be extended rather than revisited. Talk partners have made things inclusive and there is a speaking and listening culture. Children can now more easily generate success criteria. Children all know what to do. All children are engaged when questions are asked and there is now a culture of it being OK not to know. YEARS 3/4 Now that teachers are separating learning objectives from the context, they can see how unclear their previous learning objectives were. Learning objectives are now learning focused and lessons are more exact. They now stay focused and on the point. Teachers now only write a title instead of learning objectives on children’s work. Lessons are more focused because of success criteria and children now know what they are working towards. This leads to higher expectations and to higher self-esteem. All children can achieve. Teachers can now accept less quantity as long as the quality is good. As a result of talking partners there is more effective speaking and listening happening. It is very inclusive, everyone has to participate. All children have to be ready to contribute or give feedback and most children like to talk! Children are talking more than teachers and thinking more than before as a result. YEARS 5/6 Separating the learning objective from the context is now much easier. Children are clearer about what they are learning and teachers are clearer about how they are going to teach. Children are better at generating success criteria and self/peer marking using the success criteria. Talking partners have been established from day 1 and made a successful start to the year.
4. Developing a learning culture
YEAR 1 Children are more supportive of one another. There is now less panic and a realisation that the partner is there to help. It is very positive, and everyone is willing to have a go with their work. There is an ‘I can’ ethos. YEAR 2 There is now more focus, enthusiasm, open environment, all involved, confidence, better listening and shared responsibility. YEARS 2/3 There is now a culture to improve rather than competition. All children are working to improve together. Children have ownership over their learning and are more actively involved in their learning. Behaviour has improved and there is an increase in maturity. Children are more willing to share views and take risks. YEARS 3/4 The culture of learning is more inclusive, higher expectations, greater self-esteem, an emphasis on pupil learning not teacher delivery, a shift towards process not just getting to the end, more evaluative, increased engagement and motivation. There is a buzz! YEARS 5/6 The whole class is now moving on as a coherent unit-supporting one another. Children have more ownership and are more motivated in their learning.
|
 |