1. Separating the Learning Objective from the context

FOUNDATION

We found it quite hard because we need to be specific with this age group anyway, we plan by looking at the activity first, then the LO.

Literacy tried by most where it was easier to separate the LO and have a specific LO and context. In knowledge and understanding of the world it was more difficult: people who help us - what do we want the children to learn about - e.g. the job of a police officer- difficult to separate the LO from the context. S: Did you want them to learn about anyone's job or a police officer's job? The context is how you were going to get them to learn about his job.

Our planning is different so it makes it harder. In some ways its easier because you plan quite tightly anyway at this stage and often it is through context that you know in advance what you want them to learn. We felt that at this stage you think before you start about what you want the children to learn

YEAR 1

We felt that it was difficult to separate this from the next point on SC, where it was most successful.
It makes the children focus more on the context than the LO. Maybe it's the age of the children, but they used to focus more on the context first. They had to do this with SC - could not do one without the other. We felt it was useful in planning as it focused teachers on how they wanted to teach.

YEARS 2 & 3

The first thing, in this age group its difficult to get them to understand separating the LO from context. One teacher used the terms 'life skill' and 'this time only skill' for learning objective and context (e.g. Art lesson - drawing perspectives - encouraged them to think that the LO was a lifetime skill, but the context was a this time skill- next time it would be something else)

Another teacher: Every lesson has displayed LO with SC so children can refer to it constantly.
Impact: when children are questioned about what they were learning, they refer back to the board before they answer. More are focused on what they are really learning rather than the context.

YEAR 4 & 5 (with some 3)

It has helped to focus children on their learning - we were doing subtraction. I put TODAY for the context (lifetime skill again). One boy was adding, but then looked at the board and corrected himself and went back to subtracting.
Children are more able to tell what they are learning and explain it to others. The same LO applies to all, the context changes. We know this by how the children have evaluated their work. They look at the SC at the end.
It makes it more cross curricular as skills are transferrred. S: does this happen within a subject? One teacher said she did this within PE: asymmetrical/symmetrical shapes. She did the sequence on the floor with the children, then the children had to repeat this on the apparatus, and they were able to transfer. Before she had had to start again and explain it all a second time before they moved to the apparatus.

YEAR 6

Children can transfer the objective across the curriculum. Within YR 6 they begin to understand it's just the context that changes.

Impact: they pick up key skills they can readily apply evidenced particularly in writing in terms of the use of language. With the build up to SATs they identify and use resources (a book of useful words and phrases) and apply these across the different genres. In the plenary lessons, children are much clearer about what they learned and use the language of the objective rather than the context.

Through observations in other classes it is clear that separating the LO from the context does g\help their learning. Those classes not trialling still talk about the context.

2. Success criteria issues

FOUNDATION

When we actually use SC, in this stage we chose key areas like literacy and ongoing things like writing where we had SC on the wall all the time (speaking and listening, too). With creative elements like art we used SC too. Planning: we usually had a clear idea of what we wanted SC to be and guided the children into them. We wanted them to have some input, so we had an A3 sheet labelled 'how we want to be successful' and they came up with sensible ideas (story time - listen well, look at the board with your eyes, etc.)

Tried Talking Partners to generate SC. Did some for speaking and listening and put them on A4 laminated sheets. Generated these SC by modelling bad behaviour for speaking and listening then asking in TPs why these were not good and then coming up with better ways . The children definitely use these SC.
Creative work: one teacher used an anonymous piece of work - she drew a self portrait on the board with missing features, then the children had to say what was missing, then had to draw their own portrait... overheard children telling others what they needed to include. Also helps with the marking as children can look at the SC and can say what they have missed or remembered.

The key is to be visual-using colour and pictures.

The impact is that the children are more motivated and animated. Children are evaluating their own and each other's work through the success criteria.

YEAR 1

Some teachers write them on flip charts, some on the smart board, some print them out. Any adult coming into the class knows exactly what you want the children to do. Supply teachers know, too. This is a recipe for success.

One child said 'SC help us cheat. If I follow all of that I get it right!'

When she talked about SC, one teacher said they talked about what it means to be successful -this was necessary to get this word understood.

One teacher had individual targets but the rest of the school has taken on board the notion that you can use SC instead.

Plenary is now more focused.

YEARS 2 & 3

Self-esteem: this has been the most exciting thing about SC. One teacher felt that even in the first lesson where SC were put in it had an almost magical effect on the children's work.

One teacher talked about one strategy for time management when SC are developed with the children: 'When you introduce SC you can spend a lot of teacher time talking and the children writing down, so I tried on Monday to introduce the features of a fable, the children created SC, I displayed them all week then on Thursday when they wrote, I copied them for all the children and the children ticked them off with highlight pens. This gives children more extended writing time and less teacher talking time. They check where they are on the list. They also develop targets from the SC. The children's work has hugely improved. The children create their own fables now. This has come from developing the features, having them displayed, and then having them on the table for them to refer to.'

Impact generally for all teachers: quality of work has improved, improved self esteem, particularly with lower achievers and boys but does not know why, increased motivation for writing.

YEAR 4 & 5 (with some 3)

We found planning on the whole easier. More structure based - give a writing sample and asked them which and why they liked one over the other.(discussion of quality) Names of animals (panthers) based on animal facts, give 10 facts, then give a poster to show what it looked like, made list on board, got into TPs, then generated a first draft - combined SC generated from posters, comparing gave them an idea of quality, used A4 examples and tried to do draft on A3, impact: 28 children all got the aspects of the SC correct - lifted self esteem and confidence. Children said they better understood what makes a good poster (design elements)

Plenary: it helped teacher to focus more in the plenary and the children to know how they've done and the teacher could say right away which needed extra help. Realised at night it's too late to discover what you need for the next day. Can work together to identify what they need to do next. SC form a better structure for the plenary. Children can lead the plenary.

YEAR 6

We decided we did not specifically need to plan for SC themselves - our previous knowledge of what the children needed to do led us. If doing fair testing, we know it consists of four things, etc. We can write them down, but we know the children and know what we need to get out of them for SATs. One does not always write them in her planning as she knows them in her head, but the children generate them, too. We want the children to come up with them. We use good examples of writing so children can say what needs to be improved. Have used L3 pieces of writing and asked them to say what needs to improve - have used these across the curriculum. In plenaries we look at work and ask the children to evaluate in Talking Partners to see if SC have been used. Also, one teacher got them to write down SC at the beginning of the lesson and underline in red aspects they have achieved. Some use SC to self-evaluate and set targets for the next lesson based on what they have/ have not achieved. Children are taking ownership.

3. Unit coverage (making sure children know how each lesson's learning objective fits the unit coverage)

FOUNDATION

Doing things visually. They do mind maps every Friday to find the starting point for their learning. Then at the end they complete another one to compare how much more they have learned. Helpful for children to see where they are going and to refer back to things. There is more child involvement with learning and this provides a link with home as they know what's coming and start bringing in things from home.

YEAR 1

Used it to find out what the children already know, etc. The impact has been that they take ownership of what they want to know and are more motivated.

Anecdote: In Science - growing plants - mapping what they already know, stopped the lesson as they knew it all. Scratched head and had discussion with children about what they wanted them to learn. She led them a bit by extending their knowledge. Children came up with a list of questions.Plants need water, but do they need just a drink -only water?, etc.? They tried milk (and it seems to work with plants). Each lesson they revisited and were very excited. Went back to mind map and added in different colours what they learned and new things that they've learned alongside. Impact: teacher was not teaching children things they already knew.

YEAR 2 & 3

Anecdote 1: Electricity. Asked children what they were going to be learning about and they came up with good ideas which were continually kept on a flipchart. The impact was they kept asking when they were going to do the next lesson, went home and did independent learning and research, and at the end had more level threes than before. S: So this is having an impact on achievement?Teacher said it's because she's revising each time - the flipchart is there all the time, what did we learn in each lesson and from one to the next is retained.

Anecdote 2: Did a week's literacy in this way straight away. The fact they know where they are going is important. Took it into science, ICT and numeracy after that. For 5 years she had followed the national curriculum but has missed out what the children are thinking about and want to know - now she addresses these questions and ideas even spending time for the last lesson to answer their questions. The children want to know what comes next. The process fixes it in the brain for the children - these are visual reminders of where they have been and where they are going.

Another added she only has done this in science, but initially she was beating herself up because she thought the children were getting her off on a tangent, but now she realises she covers what she is supposed to AND can address the items the children want to know more about.

YEAR 4 & 5 (with some 3)

One teacher had done 'Weather around the world' with Yr 3, asking, what do you already know and what you want to know about? Talking Partners generated questions and the teacher used those for planning. Sometimes it was just a matter of twisting around the planning to answer their questions. In plenaries, they tried to see if they could answer the question they'd asked themselves. Impact: keeps them excited and looking forward to answering these questions. They have more ownership of their learning.

"Focus Friday" - they do small workshops with groups of children on extra questions written on post-it notes they have raised.

Post-It notes: as a teacher you do not hear all of the conversations in the classroom. Judaism - one child put up a sticker asking where do Jewish children live and teacher could see something that needing explanation that otherwise she would have missed. Another- marble is a different material from a glass marbles? - this child confusion was picked up on a sticker. Misconceptions are noticed and addressed.

YEAR 6

Introduced topics with children, mainly through science, asking them what they already know and where they want to go. Used post-it notes and created displays. From that they generated objectives with students and put these in their books and took copies home to parents. A good aid to revision as they've seen the big picture. They have taught the parents about what they are learning. The parents report that children talk more about what they are learning. All has helped independent learning, finding things out for themselves, informed teachers' planning, a very useful teacher tool - quick informative method for assessment as they know what a specific cohort of children need to know. Children are better motivated.

4. Wait time/no hands up/talking partners

FOUNDATION

Most have done Talking Partners- with young children do lots of modelling and talking about it - very good for them, they found it exciting. Have chosen different methods - photos, etc. Impact is that they see and hear the more accomplished speakers and listeners are identified and the others want to join in. Friendship groups are widening - more interaction at playtime with others. Those who have not said anything in a lesson yet ask to be involved. Parents know what's going on, too.

Interaction: - one child is hearing impaired. How to help children the classroom with speaking and listening - the child she got randomly was good verbally and this child really mouths the words and makes good eye contact and the impaired child is now more willing to offer answers.

TPs helps the pace & behaviour of the lesson

YEAR 1

Role played TPs with the children. Little problems of not remembering where to sit, six disruptive boys who did not want to be together. Random placing was eventually accepted.

One teacher had quite a few children with limited English so they help each other in translating for each other. Cooperation improves with TPs.

YEAR 2 & 3

Most have used TPs in most subjects but one only in literacy. Good discussion has resulted and has improved work. Sandtimers have been used successfully for thinking/talking times.

KS1 - used TPs for first time on 2-week rotation - sometimes the noise level of open plan gets louder and louder - so they developed www.Talking Partners = whispering when working - to keep noise level down. Lots of little captions around the room to help them keep on task with their TP SC.

Another teacher asks children to evaluate themselves as a talking partner before they move on to their next partner. They complete a form and have a target for their next talking partnership. The teacher asks them to pass the questionnaire to their partner and the partner had to say where they agreed or not and why - resulting discussion was wonderful. At bottom was 'How can I be a better taking partner next time?' Teacher has children's evidence about how they did or did not perform as a good TP. S: how accepting are the children if one says 'You interrupt' and the partner says 'no I don't! When faced with it, the children were accepting of this.

The questions on the form: SIDE A Were you a good learning partner?

1. Were you a good listener? Yes   sometimes   no
2. Did you offer ideas?   All the time   some of the time   not very often
3. Were you honest in your ideas about their writing? Did you give improvements?
4. Yes...Give ideas in the space below   Some of the time   No
5. Did you enjoy using learning partners? Why?

The questions on the form: SIDE B Was you partner a good learning partner?

1. Were they a good listener? Yes   sometimes   no
2. Did they offer ideas? All the time   some of the time   not very often
3. Did they suggest any improvements to your work?   Yes   a few   no
4. How can they be a better learning partner next time?

YEAR 4 & 5 (with some 3)

Yr 3 class: took on stright away, random TPs -aYr 4 child was paired with a Yr3 child- it was amazing watching them - the bright lad blossomed - a teacher within a teacher! Great confidence builder. Spent lots of time explaining things to the other child. Another child had been on extended holiday out of the country - EAL - TPs and thinking time brought this child back very quickly. They talk to each other, too, with white board writing. Write answer down on board then correct it with LO on board. The whole experience was fantastic.

Another teacher has partnered EAL children within their own language. An average child with a below average - the below average child dominates more!

The most trouble came with no hands as the young children are so eager to put them up. The latest strategy is to smile at teacher when they are ready.

One teacher puts names in a bag and pulls them out when a question needs to be answered. If one can't their TP can answer.

Used SSA to role model a good talking partner and this was useful.

Impact on social issues: one teacher did TPs for a while but never tried random pairings. She found the impact to be amazing in that the quality of the answers improved as did social skills - the same children do not dominate anymore. Partners changed each two weeks. Partners need to find out something they like about their new partner - good icebreaker. Also to make both in the pairings feel safe with each other and are valued.

YEAR 6

Modelled what good TPs are. From that SC developed. Nominated a TP of the week - had to read out all the nominations of all TPs so all were valued. This was positive. Quality of interaction between TPs - SC displayed and modelled with a TA, if they felt their TP met the criteria, they could give feedback on nomination papers (she brought some examples along..."he did not laugh when I was stuck" etc). They finish the week with these. Other children in other classes come to teacher and ask her what TPs are as they've heard about it from the children and seem to like it and want it in their classrooms. Sometimes the most unlikely pairings interact so well with each other "It's a way to make new friends". Big impact on the learning and the social interaction.
Children's views on TPs were positive:
Eg.    You make new friends
         You learn from others
         You get used to working with other people
         You work/talk to people they have hardly ever talked to

The change from working in ability groups helps SEN children particularly.

One teacher engineers who the TPs are - this is not random (random pairings has been shown to be the most successful way of pairing talking partners across previous learning teams) - need to take the risk!

5. Effective Questioning (range of answers, statement, right and wrong, starting from the answer, opposing standpoint)

FOUNDATION

Range of answers: could be confusing to have four answers and would have to be very visual. So they would limit it to 2or 3 but haven't tried it so only hypothetical at this point.

Right and wrong: pattern and sums - put a repeating pattern on board and one that did not

One tried statements: drew square wheel on board - these are the best type, what do you think?

Goldilocks was naughty - what do you think about that?

In general gave more higher order questions, not just recall. Impact: better discussion and thinking

YEAR 1

Range of answers with words and numbers:

"A good mum should..." was better than asking "What makes a good mum?"

Numbers: "2 3 4 6 8 12 -- which is odd?" and tell your TP why.
Increased reasoning and explanation skills.

Statement: "A family is a mum and dad with two children - discuss." All of her 30 kids still lived with their mums and dads! No concept of step family. The teacher has step children so she put up a picture of her family and the children could not place her as a mum.

Right and wrong: a bit tricky. This is a square - why?

Strategies involved all children. Need to prepare the questions.

YEAR 2 & 3

Did not try this much as a group. All agreed it was difficult to think of questions for young children due to their lack of background knowledge.

YEAR 4 & 5 (with some 3)

One teacher gave a range of answers and asked - how did I arrive at these wrong answers. Had to work-out in TPs on their white boards how answers were derived. All were engaged, all were able to give an answer.

Right and wrong: showed good example of an explanation and a bad example. TPs had to decide why. Discussion helped develop the SC.

When children do not have to find the right answer it is less scary for them to work-out a problem.

Good questions have an impact on problem solving skills, deeper thinking and make children more engaged in their learning.

YEAR 6

Statements: used a lot in the oral start of numeracy lessons. 20 is a prime number - do you agree or disagree? Also used to recap learning in science lessons... Pitch is how quiet or loud a sound is - do you agree or disagree?

Right and wrong: used in numeracy - multiplication using grid method with one right or wrong answer - what's going on here? Can see how mistakes were made.