3. Integrated feedback

Foundation Stage/Year 1

Cowes

Reception teachers had worked with children in groups or 1 to 1. Focusing on one aspect only had taken a lot of time.

One teacher of Y1 uses tickled pink and green for growth to mark children’s work.  Another found it difficult to decide when to stop tom randomly choose someone’s work because the children work at such different speeds.

Another Y1 teacher had started working with groups of 4 which had been very positive as the teacher needs to initiate the talk to get peer assessment going.

A Y1 teacher had used the visualiser in the middle of the lesson to randomly choose one child’s work for discussion, very successfully.

One teacher stopped a PE lesson to all look at one child’s skills, the class then copied the child then said what they had liked the best about his actions.

Herts

At foundation stage adults are giving children feedback through their oral interventions.  Years 1 and 2 have trialled using random work for group or class analysis and found that children’s ideas about self assessment have been developed.  A Y1 teacher had children in groups doing drama.  The class then watched one group and gave improvement comments then went off to improve their own. This worked well and led to improved performances.

Hull

Teachers with Reception classes worked with small groups so there was no need for a visualiser.  The teacher used the success criteria to ask children what they liked and what could be improved.  Children are working faster and are more likely to keep on task.  All teachers used the lollysticks approach for children to hold up their work.

One teacher described how she had pupil generated success criteria pasted in the role play area which she talked about when she joined in with them.  They were able to review the success criteria after the event and add more things on.

Nantwich

Teachers said that verbal feedback is more appropriate for this age group.

One teacher had used traffic lights for children to peer mark against success criteria and found it focused children, motivated them and helped them understand the point and value of marking.
(NB. Doing this mid lesson will be of greater value than at the end, while there is still time for improvement to be made. SC)

Teachers agreed that ‘cooperative learning’ structures were useful for peer marking, (e.g. Moving round the classroom, stop, identify something from that work that met one of the success criteria.)

Essex

Children need to be trained gradually to be able to have their work shown randomly on a visualiser, first using anonymous work to go through the success and improvement process.  To begin with some children are nervous that they will make and show mistakes, so the culture has to make clear that everyone makes mistakes.

Children now understand why work is marked, through the modeling of real pieces. They are also less likely to feel ‘stuck’.

Some teachers have stopped ability grouping and have children working with their talk partner for some lessons.

One school had conflict with OFSTED, who said they would like to see target setting at ends of sessions.

Cowes

Most teachers had asked children to mark their work in pairs cooperatively. The point was made that children need to be trained to know how to do this.

Using a visualiser to stop and look at one child’s work after 15 minutes has led to children working faster.  Peer marking and quality feedback takes time.

One teacher who worked in a Y3 class with no success criteria, talk partners or visualiser was amazed at the difference it made using these techniques with the class.

Herts

All teachers agreed that the visualiser was a vital tool.

Children reading back their own writing was sometimes difficult and any negative feedback could affect children’s confidence.  When a high achiever was chosen there was a perception that they must have done everything right.  This reinforces the fact that we need to look for ‘best bits and bits we like the best’ as a starting point for this process.  There were some issues with children copying directly from the analysed pieces.

Overall marking is reduced as much more feedback happens within lessons.  Next year one school is beginning children writing only on the right hand side of the book.

Hull

Teachers had been asking children to peer mark at the beginning of the next lesson after teacher marking, but had realised this takes hours to mark and are now concentrating on what happens during the lesson. ‘3 stars and a wish’ was questioned as the best method (one star, one wish might be better but the main thing is that children should improve their work together rather than swapping work and having to be the teacher making suggestions – a much harder skill and more appropriate for older children SC).

Teachers liked the lollystiocks for choosing whose work would be shown.  One child who is always dreaming had his name chosen and was very proud, with subsequent better concentration. Lower achievers have their self esteem boosted because the other children find positive things about their work.  Children prefer the immediate feedback.

Nantwich

One teacher had found that children were using rubbers instead of improving by crossing out, inserting etc.

A variety of strategies had been used: whole class improvement of one child’s work, self and peer marking, writing and improving on individual whiteboards.  Children were now able to make improvements and were rereading their work more readily.  All children were feeling valued through this process.

It was agreed that it is important to choose a child’s work at random to be projected and marked.

Tameside

In one class talk partners rehearse their writing together as an oral rehearsal while the partner scribes. These are enlarged and one analysed by the class.

In another, children generate success criteria together, they write, then the teacher photocopies their work and the next day they discuss their work with their talk partner and make improvements.  Children write their own comment at the end of their work.  Teachers agreed that this is most successful if focused around one of the success criteria.

It was also felt that this needs to be a whole school approach for maximum impact.

Teachers found that Year 2 children involved in various improvement strategies, such as two stars and a wish, improving sentences books and improving one child’s work together were more proud of their work, putting in more effort and focusing on the positive achievements in their work.  When any child’s work can be chosen randomly for analysis children work harder and are eager for their work to be chosen.

Year 3/4

Essex

Teachers agreed that this approach is time consuming and needs a flexible approach.  Children need to become accepting of criticism of others.

Using the random lollysticks approach means that all children engage in the task.  They are more motivated because the task is broken up so it is less daunting.

So far teachers felt it was most useful in the writing process. Lower achievers were able to see that they had achieved something, just as the higher achievers had.  One teacher had used children to train other children in marking their own work for success and improvement.

Cowes

Teachers found that children were motivated and secure having work shown and analysed under the visualiser.  They support one another and spur each other on to improve their own work after the class analysis. 

Herts

The special school teachers had found having a small group at the same level then coming together at the end of the lesson to use traffic lights had made the children more honest about their achievements.

Other teachers had asked children to swap books and colour code where the success criteria had been included.

Another teacher had children self assessing at the end of the week and deciding how their work could be improved.

Hull

Children’s confidence is improved by analysing one child’s work on the visualiser, but it was agreed that the teacher has to word things carefully, to help children who are feeling negative about their work.  One lower achiever was anxious about her work being shown.

Nantwich

Teachers agreed that peer marking mid lesson led to good improvements within the session.  Some teachers were worried about taking work at random (in case it was not full enough) but agreed that the techniques had worked.  There was seen to be a clear link with the ‘growth mindset’ in demonstrating that anyone’s work can be shown and improved.  One teacher, who stopped the children after 5 minutes to take one child’s work at random said more work was completed in that 5 minutes than had ever been completed before!

The visualiser was now being used automatically by one teacher, with children increasingly suggesting when it should be used.

Children had per marked against success criteria developed as a result of comparing two graphs.  The teacher described their work as ‘massively improved’.  They knew what was expected of them.

One teacher who tried ‘tickled pink’ and ‘green for growth’ found it hard for children to do unless their focus was only ONE of the success criteria.  It was seen as time consuming to train children.

Another teacher got children to read out their partner’s opening sentence then for both children to improve their sentences together. By stopping and reviewing children produced a piece of work of higher quality than they would have before.
 
Tameside

Teachers who had experimented with randomly choosing one child’s work mid lesson for class analysis said that the feedback was immediate so more effective than feedback left for several days.  The random choice was debated because the work sometimes does not include aspects of the criterion in hand, but other teachers said you can just pull out another child’s work and so on until you get the emphasis you want.

The technique had a positive impact on subsequent work. Children were motivated to have their name chosen and lower achievers especially tried hard with their writing. There were increased expectations by teachers and children and there is a growing appreciation of the effort involved as well as the finished product.  One child said ‘Don’t show my work – it’s rubbish’ and worked harder as a result of that self criticism.

Year 5/6

Essex

Teachers agree that the visualiser was essential in being able to show work there and then, but felt the approach was so powerful there needed to be strategies to work around the problems:

• Photocopying onto A3 for pairs to peer assess cooperatively for each piece
• Swapping work and marking independently (much harder)
• Teacher and child marking together

Teachers felt that time needed to be allocated for self and peer assessment to be done properly and agreed that this approach links with so many other aspects of formative assessment, such as success criteria and questioning. The technique can be used effectively across the subjects.  Peer marking needs to be focused on one success criterion to avoid comments on surface features all the time. One school introduced traffic light colours for peer marking (see if you can improve the bit underlined in amber).

Knowing that any one can be chosen randomly has improved standards.  Children check their work more carefully knowing that others might see it.

One teacher drew up a class contract with the children for appropriate ways of giving feedback to a partner.

Using codes for marking (e.g. TP = talk partner discussed/SM= self marked etc.) and/or colour coding helped develop a whole school approach.

Teacher found that girls want to know how to improve their work whereas boys are more interested in knowing what is good about their work.

Cowes

Teachers had provided various prompts for children to aid their cooperative peer marking, such as good quality comments, Ros Wilson mark scheme, pink and green post it notes. Children need to build up skills through seeing different examples and discussing improvements to them.

Another strategy was to get children to compare examples of work and feedback to other using scaffolded supports to identify what has been included and what has been missed out.

The point was made that children can mess up each other’s books (good strategy is to have children only write on the right hand side of the book, so the left side is free for peer comments etc. SC)

One teacher described difficulties of children being reluctant to criticise each other’s work if working with a friend or someone who they perceive is a higher achiever. Another point was made that some visualisers are fiddly and of no use if a child’s work can’t be read.

The final point was made that everything needs to focus around a limited criteria to avoid constant focus on secretarial features.

Herts

The process was good for keep higher achievers on tasks and helping all children to improve against the criteria.  Some teachers believed their workload was diminished, others were not so sure.

It was felt that parents need to know the policy for marking and feedback.

There were some difficulties of children not wanting to stop when in full flow, emphasising the need to only use the stopping mid way process when involved in skill building activities rather than long pieces of work.

Hull

Teachers felt they had tweaked what they were already doing.  Choosing one child randomly to have their work shown is new.  This meant that slower working children knew they could be chosen.

The success criteria have guided children in knowing how to comment on each other’s work and teachers have emphasized the use of positive language.

The impact has been that children have a sense of achievement and they know that everyone can improve their work.  They know how to determine their own targets for improvement.

Nantwich

Teachers had trialled all the techniques suggested, including banning rubbers and using the left had side of the book for improvements.  They believed that there needs to be a whole school ethos for this to work well and teachers need to be trained.  The impact has been that children are now going back to their work without being asked, adding new vocabulary and improving their writing.

Tameside

Difficulties with not having a visualiser meant that teacher were scanning, using the OHP with work on laminate or photocopying.

Children are seeing that editing is improving, not correcting wrong things.

Having random choice of work leads to excitement and more focused concentration as children know that they might be chosen. One teacher said the first time she did this, children wrote more in 10 minutes than she used to get in 2 days! There had been no issues about analysing a lower achiever’s work.

Secondary

Cowes

Teachers have used the strategies suggested and found that students have produced higher quality work, evidenced by quality drawings, note taking etc.  The feedback techniques were seen as a culmination of the other formative assessment tools, such as success criteria and quality talk and a growth mindset.

Herts

Y6 teachers said that children love the random choice of one child’s work mid lesson and the use of the visualiser.  The impact had been that quality, presentation and feedback had consistently improved.  Children were proud of their work being shown.  The point was made that the interruption sometimes stops concentration but on the other hand helps when there is a block in creativity.  Teachers liked the ‘top hat’ progamme which randomly chooses children’s names.

Hull

Knowing that anyone’s work might be shown has had an impact on student’s focus – they work harder.  The random aspect was seen as vital to this process, although one student’s name was drawn 3 times in a row! However, each time he had produced no work, convinced that his name would not be drawn.  He now works harder and produces work of higher quality.

It was useful to have a timer for the time given to work before stopping, so students could see how much time they had left.

One teacher uses a traffic light system for student’s marking.  They mark the success criteria red if they have not included it, amber if used once or twice and green if used throughout.  They then spend the rest of the lesson turning reds to amber and ambers to green.  This works well when the content is appropriate.

Lower achievers found it hard to make an improvement suggestion when marking their partner’s work, so it would be better to peer mark cooperatively, where improvements are made there and then.