2. Use of product comparisons for quality

Foundation Stage/Year 1

Worthing

One teacher had drawn 2 examples of art using the book ‘Where the wild things are’ and asked children which one worked best and why.

Teachers said the choice of words was important: excellent, good, even better etc. as well as identifying good things in the poorer example.

It was necessary to make up some examples and pass them off as children’s previous work.

Showing a range of good examples prevented constraining children to one format.

The impact was that children knew better what they had to do to achieve; the purpose was clearer; excellence was more accessible; motivation was increased as children could ‘borrow’ aspects of the good piece; everyone could access the work at their own level; everyone can achieve something.

Herts

Art was seen as the most obvious area to start product comparison for this age group discussing excellence and generating success criteria.

Teachers had to make their own examples as they did not have their own collections yet.

It was felt that children cannot always apply their generated success criteria into their work but they were able to generate them.

Teachers felt that it had helped them to see what they needed to expect in children’s work.

Overall the technique had changed the ethos of the classroom to open sharing of success.

Kettering

The reception teacher had used a visualiser to compare aspects of work which ha improve the quality and outcomes achieved. The children had generated success criteria for different areas of learning, which were on success criteria cards displayed around the classroom and propped up on each table where children were working if they related to that group’s task. Children say “I have been successful because I have….”

Lincoln

Teachers agreed that comparing products was visual, good for art and D and T, so easier for children to follow, making them more focused. It was a good starting point for lessons, with success criteria being instantly generated. Children remember the criteria better if they have generated them and understand their purpose. Children are able to measure their success as they are working and are aware of what is expected and the comparison process allows children to explain their thinking and bring a situation to life.

It was also felt that summative assessment was easier as children and teachers can assess against the criteria. This means that children and teachers are aware of/can plan for next steps.

One teacher had successfully used puppets to compare the right and wrong in PSHE.

Surrey

Special (SLD)

Teachers had found that this process is enabling some children to remember and transfer skills across subjects (e.g. in a number activity the success criteria were linked to counting but one child said ‘I need to hold my pen properly’ and looked for the symbol to add to his success criteria board. He then changed his pencil grip.)

Rec/Y1

Teachers had used this process in Literacy, art and ICT, with one teacher leading to children making ‘checklists’ of what to include. They are finding it difficult to read the checklists, so more adult direction is needed at this age.

Making deliberate errors to illustrate quality was popular as children enjoy telling the teacher what she has done wrong.

All teachers agreed that a focus on the positive is vital for children of this age.

Doncaster

Rather than a finished product, teachers felt that demonstrating the whole process (via a visualiser) was often a better way of generating success criteria. As the children get older in their first year, the process of generating success criteria gets easier.

One teacher told how a child said ‘Mrs Pryce – he’s got the b/d thing!’ demonstrating the understanding and transference of one of the criteria.

Year 1/2

Worthing

Using this technique means that children can see what they are aiming for. Teachers saw a link with the growth mindset in that defining excellence in this was leads to an improvement ethos.

The technique allows children to see the steps they have to take and what is expected. It provides a ‘recipe for success’ as success criteria are generated. Quality rather than quantity is emphasised.

Herts

Teachers had used the comparing strategy in Literacy to generate success criteria and found that children were actively involved in knowing how to be successful.

Children are producing higher quality work as they see models.

Using two different examples of ‘good’ had led to children realising there are different ways to achieve success.

Using children’s work from earlier in a unit had also been successful as they could actively decide how to improve their previous work.

Children have been credited with their ideas for success criteria which has made them very willing to offer suggestions.

Children can then self-assess against the success criteria and are very honest about their achievements.

The focus is on improvement rather than a final product.

Kettering

Children are now very good at identifying key aspects of success criteria as a result of comparing products.

A Year 2 teacher performed a poem in 2 contrasting ways which led to children coming up with good criteria (e.g. you need to speak clearly, you need to use expression), which they used to evaluate each other’s performances.

Children loved looking at previous children’s work and teachers have noticed that criteria are remembered much better with children who have been through this process than children from classes where this process was not followed.

Teachers compared posters, art work (for colour, size and shape), DT, history, literacy such as instructions and maths. A DVD entitled ‘Observing children move’ was very effective for using this process in PE.

Teachers found that children do not copy modelled work and enjoy seeing different versions of excellence.

Lincoln

Teachers had compared products from different area, such as puppets in D and T, instructions, and adjectives. Some teachers were saying WAGOLL (What a good one looks like) and WABOLL (What a bad one looks like).

The impact has been improved outcomes for the same lesson.

Surrey

One teacher found that it was possible to find 2 products to compare on the internet (e.g. a DT lighthouse).

In Literacy, non-chronological reports had been the focus for this process, often made up by the teacher. In art, portrait drawing had been used and in DT a mummy model was the focus. One teacher used science to investigate a mini beast drawing with no comparison of a good and bad product. The result was poorer quality work than when comparisons were used.

The overall impact has been more self-motivation to try to better the product they have seen and higher quality achievement.

Doncaster

Teacher said that children were excited by the product comparison process and that younger children need very obvious comparisons. It was found to be easier to build a bank of examples for writing than other subjects.

The process generated god, appropriate success criteria and children’s ideas are very focused.

The process was very effective in mathematics, where different methods of calculating were compared. This encourages children who know answers instantly to develop skills of discussing their working out.

Most teachers had used a visualiser to compare products. One teacher had focused on invitations, with different examples created by her.

Many teachers use old examples of work for modelling how work can be improved.

The criteria generated by the process are used successfully by children to self assess and can be transferred.

Year 3/4

Worthing

Examples used were: showing a good and poor example of a calculation with numbers in wrong columns, a diary extract and extending sentences. The good example shown was:

As I rolled out of the dark, gloomy truck into the bright lights of the stadium, I felt excited because I knew I had a great chance of winning.

The poor example was:

I felt excited because I knew I had a great chance of winning.

Kettering

Examples given were art watercolours demonstrated by the teacher (your lines are too thick, you’ve got too much water on, there’s too much paint on your brush) and comparison of posters.

The impact of this process is that children are giving an opportunity to generate success criteria; children love correcting teacher’s deliberate errors; expectation for children are clear; it is an excellent way to illustrate errors; children’s criteria help them to self-assess.

Lincoln

Examples given: a recording of drawing a graph on the visualiser broken down into steps; showing children a piece of work and asking how it could be made more successful; writing; DT, sewing, art, maths and ICT. Real life examples were more effective than those ‘made up’ by the teacher.

The teacher for the first example recorded herself drawing a bar graph on the visualiser. She then used the pause button to work through the graph drawing with the children to generate success criteria. ‘The results were fantastic!’

Teachers agreed that this process was a powerful tool. The impact of the process was raised expectations, higher quality and clearer understanding of expectations. Sharing children’s work made children more open to being able to improve together rather than feeling as if they are being criticised. Success criteria are easier to generate and lessons flow more easily as there is less teacher intervention when children are working.

It was agreed that it was important to show a range of achievement across the excellent examples shown, to give lower achievers more encouragement.

Surrey

Comparing products had been used across the curriculum.

In art, one teacher compared 2 different versions of the Mona Lisa. Children suggested the good qualities which led to them generating success criteria for what makes quality in portraits.

Pictures were compared for science/art which raised children’s expectations. They did not want to make the same mistakes as those shown in the poor example so the result was better quality outcomes.

In comparing work done by previous classes, children were discussing and deciding for themselves how to achieve rather than being told by the teacher, which was seen as a significant point. Using a visualiser made it easier to write the success criteria.

In PE, teachers demonstrated or chose a child to demonstrate, for example, landings. The immediate modelling of good made more children able top succeed.

An Egyptian dance on Teachers TV shown as the end point of a project was demonstrated. This motivated children to create something even better.

Two examples of Power Point were shown for ICT which led to children’s ideas leading the learning, less teacher input and more pupil engagement.

It was agreed that if children do not know the expected outcome they do not know what to aim for.

Doncaster

Comparison of products had been used across the subjects. One teacher described a drama lesson in which she used video, using freeze frames in role play, playing it back and asking what was included and what was not. Characters’ feelings had not been developed in the language or actions in the play. The concept intended was made much more understandable, especially for lower achievers.

The strategy had been used in Literacy. By seeing what had not been included, children found it easier to generate success criteria.

Animation in ICT was also used in this way looking at good and not so good from last year’s work. Children were able to produce their own success criteria and then produced their own animations with effective application of excellence.

Teachers agreed that this was a successful technique which children own and can see the relevance of.

Year 4/5

Herts

Product comparison had been used across the subjects. In DT lessons, one teacher had used examples from a previous year. They were making structures (shelters) and the technique had helped develop children’s confidence. In music, a teacher had demonstrated making musical instruments and had the best quality ever as a result.

It was easy to photograph last year’s work and store it via the visualiser (avoids having to scan in) and then annotate it.

The impact of the techniques was that it raises standards and expectations, preventing complacency from higher achievers.

Both teachers and children gained ideas from looking at different past pieces of work and common mistakes are often avoided.

Kettering
Y5

Teachers felt very positive about this aspect of formative assessment and had experimented in art, writing, DT and science, seeing a big improvement in pupil achievement. Children understand what they are supposed to do and it raises their expectations.

It was felt that seeing a child’s example is better than a teacher’s typed example because the children can relate to the child, making them feel that they could produce something similar. Children are also more attentive.

Surrey

Across the subjects, it was felt that it is easy to do with ICT, using PowerPoint, for example, because you can compare boring with lots of features. It Literacy one teacher had compared specific linguistic features, asking which were better and why.

A visualiser had been used to lay side by side two poems.

In PE photographs were used to compare sequences, moves, balances.

The impact had been increased achievement and expectations, although reaching an outcome takes longer. Children can generate success criteria and evaluate their work.

Doncaster

This technique had been used in mathematics to compare examples of the grid method of multiplication. Lower achievers were more able to understand and sort out their misconceptions.

Allowing children to compare a poor and good example enables then to generate success criteria.

After highlighting the mistakes in a poorer piece of work, children have found it easier to look in their own work and change their errors.

Children are more aware of the quality of work expected and are more motivated to meet those expectations.

The process focuses children as they want to do better than the better example.

Year 5/6

Worthing

There was a major issue about building up a bank of resources, made easier if there is a whole school policy about storing work electronically. Teachers are having to ‘make up’ work, which is time consuming, but effective nevertheless.

This strategy was adapted to all subjects and was found to have an immediate impact, providing a scaffold for those who struggle and resulting in higher quality work. Children can generate success criteria more easily and all children can achieve.

The point was made that lower achievers need a lesser example of excellence, so that they can see their possible errors.

Planning should be altered to allow for a longer introductory time, as the time spent on this is worthwhile, but cuts off children’s writing time.

Herts

One school is now keeping books from last year: top, middle and low.

Children can get very competitive, looking for mistakes in the poor version.

One teacher showed a good pop up book and children asked if they could copy this. She agreed but they had to take the idea further.

The visualiser is being used to video teacher modelled activities and photographs are being taken, played back in the next lesson.

This work has linked with involving pupils in planning. In one school the children are teaching, videoing it, the next group evaluating the previous group as a way of developing success criteria and bringing together all aspects of formative assessment.

Kettering

Teachers had used a range of strategies, using children’s past examples, asking children to bring in last year’s books, a text base and children’s examples from the beginning of the year within the same class:

In Literacy, using the visualiser to compare handwriting has improved children’s handwriting.

Two pieces of writing have been shown, asking children ‘Why is this Level 4 and this Level 5?’ Children then come up with the criteria.

Children are now more aware of the next steps and lower achievers become more confident when they see examples – they can take ideas and make a start. Expectations are clearer and higher.

Surrey

One teacher showed 2 or 3 versions of a movie and children were asked to comment. The teacher did not say what was wrong with the movies, but left it open to discussion. Without recording the success criteria specifically, the children came up with what they had to do to ensure high quality work.

Another teacher used 2 graphs to compare, deciding which was better and why.

One school found the generation of success criteria can take too long and felt that children have already internalised ideas and strategies from previous teaching

Lincoln

One school showed children different SAT marking schemes and some work and asked them to analyse why specific marks had been awarded and to rank the pieces. Children were more aware of expectations as a result.

Another teacher asked children to write in a specific genre without discussing success criteria, input was then provided then repeated at the end of the week. Children were then able to compare their first and second pieces and generate success criteria more meaningfully. This teacher felt that starting in this way enabled children to consolidate their knowledge and self evaluate, developing independence and self assessment strategies, so that they were driving their own learning.

One teacher photocopies children’s work for the learning wall and children identify where the success criteria have been used, leading to the identification of targets for development.

Secondary

Worthing

This technique was an excellent motivator. Using other children’s work makes it very relevant, age appropriate and concrete. Success criteria can be generated more easily.

It is important to keep the examples quite short and can take time.

Some teachers had compared examples against level descriptors.

Children’s understanding had improved.

Herts

Teachers found that this techniques led to pupil generated success criteria, with students owning them, leading to greater success.

One teacher compared two products of facial features; another used video examples for sports skills comparisons.

The technique had led to higher achievement.