Day Three Essex 21 st September, 2006

• Use of products for discussion of quality (using two products to compare or using one to model or generate success criteria)

FOUNDATION STAGE

Teachers described various ways in which they model success: aspects of writing using finger spaces using pieces of completed work; colouring; one to one correspondence in maths; pieces of writing from which success criteria were generated; ‘Working Walls’ in which pieces of work displayed show improvement. Having actual examples on the wall had made a big difference to pupil achievement. Parents could see these in the first 15 minutes of the morning which has fostered support from home. One teacher saved models of writing on the laptop and used them later for quality discussions. Pupils were confident about discussing this and having their work used.

Impact : greater independence, with higher achievers able to lead groups identifying success criteria. In some settings pupils got upset when their work was compared.

(Shirley-it seems better to use anonymous work at all ages when comparing 2 pieces of work. With one piece you can look for success and improvement with a known child, but then it seems important to make sure everyone’s work is chosen over time, rather than always the same few)

YEARS 1 & 2

All teachers had tried using products with children and said that motivation was greater when they were produced by children rather than the teacher making it up. Examples of work from the day/lesson before were mostly used at the beginning of the next lesson, because teachers did not have collections yet of old pieces of work. Children in one lesson were able to see that a very neat piece of writing with paragraphs looked better than a messier piece but there was higher quality in the messier piece.

Impact : use of products gives understanding and credibility and increases independence. Children feel capable when they see what others their age have produced. Children’s writing often surpasses the quality of the model shown at the beginning. In some schools the biggest impact was with the lower achievers. Self esteem and motivation rises – teachers know this because children wanted to write more. Children’s aspirations are raised. There is greater access to lessons for under achievers. Children are good at saying what they found good in another child’s piece of writing but less able to talk about what was not so good. Teachers believe this is difficult probably because the children do not have the ability to know or articulate these things.

YEARS 3 & 4

All tried using single products and also comparative products. Impact: children looked very closely at what others had achieved, became more analytical and could engage in peer criticism with more care. Children were better able to spot detailed aspects of success criteria over time. Children became sensitive to other’s feelings with their comments.

All agreed they could develop more regular use of this strategy and to allow the children to become more proficient at spotting different elements of success criteria.

YEAR 5

One teacher had used Level 4 and Level 5 pieces of writing for comparison. Others had tried the process first with a published piece of writing rather than children’s.

Impact : verbally children were very good at identifying what was better in one than the other, but found it difficult to apply to their own writing because the teachers felt they had not been specific enough.

Teachers found that when they had used children’s work it was a better motivator. Children could identify with someone of their own age and this boosted their confidence. One teacher had a lower set English Yr 6 and used children’s work all the time at the beginning to model excellence. She said she had been stunned by the children’s response.

Comparing two pieces gives understanding and credibility but it is important to be specific in the comparisons and not ask children to do too much.

Children have greater fluency in their writing. Seeing a whole piece shows them how to fit things together. They get into the habit of learning the skill of writing fluent sentences.

Significant finding: most teachers across the team said that when the children complete their final piece of work, the quality of that (not for every child but for most) surpasses the quality in the piece of work used in the beginning as the example.

One teacher surveyed her children’s opinions: do they find it useful having a piece of work shown to them? Most children said they had empathy with those whose struggle, some think it’s cheating to use that writing, some think it’s useful but want to be original and not copy. Some children found it restrictive because they felt the writing has to go in a certain direction so their imagination is restricted. S: how would we get around that? By showing 2 or 3 very different pieces at the beginning to show the range possible?

YEAR 6

This process creates a concrete image of what the finished piece will look like and raises children’s aspirations. This is what will give you those increased SAT results at the end of the year. Impact: children become more independent and stop saying “we’re stuck.” There is improvement in language choice and children’s editing skills. Work is now being valued on another set of merits. What used to be important was a smiley face at the bottom of the finished work. We are moving on from simply including success criteria as discussing products provide the quality.

One teacher’s experience of use of products in maths: pupils were asked to give explanations for their answers. They worked on whiteboards which was very effective then discussed with each other why someone’s explanation was better than theirs. Those who were less articulate had a model to work towards. This process was also good when solving problems involving shapes. “Do you think this person did better because of the way they drew the problem out in their mind” etc.? The process enriches understanding of “working out” a problem in different ways: it helps to clarify thinking and promotes different ways of visualising and thinking through to a solution.

2. On-the-spot modelling of ‘Success & Improvement’ during the lesson (‘Integrated feedback’)

FOUNDATION STAGE

Teachers in this group decided that they do this all the time. For example in whole class cookery we would ask ‘Why is this runny? Too much milk in –let’s put in more flour, etc.’ Teachers look at what children can show them that they can do against the success criteria. They look at ‘success and improvement’ in a variety of settings.

YEARS 1 & 2

One teacher used the success and improvement method by stopping the class etc. and they could rub out their work to be improved. Children like using this method but in the end the teacher could not see what improvement had been made.

Teachers found that children working in pairs was most effective. Impact: children were more focused on the task - they did not fall into the trap of not knowing what to do but went off to have a go then stopped to check if they were on track and made adjustments if necessary. This took longer but resulted in more and better work in the end. There were good, excited conversations between talking partners for this work.

With Yr 1 this process needs to be done over two lessons. By the end of Year 2 children can stop and start more often with more flow. Overall quantity and quality improves and teacher time is more efficient. Children are more focused and cannot opt out. Children like looking at their own work and found it harder to look at others. More value is given to their work as they understand why things are being done. Marking this way has to be a whole school issue with parents knowing the expectations.

YEARS 3 & 4

In one school there is a visualiser on in the class all the time so a piece of work can be shown at any time. Impact: children are free to use their imaginations. They are taking this on for themselves: one child put his work on the visualiser and began talking himself through the success criteria. When he got to the bottom he had done a detailed drawing and labelled it ‘How I achieved the success criteria’. Other children copied his approach and their work improved. Expressive writing and the quality of language is improving. One teacher explained how in maths, when one child finishes she marks it and they go off and share their answers with someone else and this is then ‘snowballed’. It is important to see and read a finished piece of work in order to understand success.

One of the benefits of the visualiser is for visual learners who do not catch on so well through hearing and listening.

YEAR 5

This process results in less marking. Some teachers felt they still needed to make more traditional comments even though they knew the children were not even reading them: there was still a perceived need by the teachers to do this. Because in lessons you only stop and look at bits, it is still important to acknowledge the whole. Modelling success has increased pupil motivation.

YEAR 6

Teachers said that there was much less take home marking if any at all which frees up time for planning and preparation. Teachers have instant feedback for planning purposes, so can plan for a better lesson working on difficulties from the day before. Children felt their work was looked at more often as feedback and improvement become instant, which has led to more ownership in work and children no longer feeling that marking was ‘being done to them’: they are integral to the marking process. Some parents hate it because they can’t see traditional marking in the books so teachers need to educate them about what we are now doing in the classroom.

Children move along much quicker with on the spot ‘success and improvement’ and the idea of traditional individual pupil targets is now irrelevant, so they have been abandoned. Ability grouping has gone in one school and children are now grouped according to what they achieved the day before. The activities and size of the group can change from day to day with tailored activities based on what they had achieved being planned.

There are now more generic, cross-curricular targets for key skills. Targets were not necessarily subject specific but could be applied across the board to help learning in general. This has become more useful.

3. Further Developments

Questioning strategies

• Yr 6: now putting the questions on displays. In maths, rather than the teacher having to think of the wrong answer, display a child’s wrong answer and ask where the class thinks he went wrong.
• Yr 1 & 2 : Yr 2 teachers found it hard to develop different questions. The ‘range of answers’ was hard to discuss as there was a language development issue. The ‘statement’ question strategy got into too many points of view. The lower achievers responded best to one’s right and one’s wrong – which? Yr1 teachers, on the other hand, liked the statement strategy and found it easiest. The maths ‘range of answers’ and ‘giving the answer’ were most successful.

Any new developments…

• The unit coverage work had given more power to the children. Some colleagues were now reorganising their curriculum, blocking foundation subjects and doing them over 2-3 weeks. Implications for planning – asking the children what they know helps refine which bits you need to plan or if you need to do them at all. Yr 2 teachers had asked children ‘what do we know and what do we want to know?’ and found the answers very interesting. They had generated questions from children’s responses then planned the activities.
• Success criteria: it is important that children embed the skills of creating these to ensure they are using them for themselves and not just relying on the visual aids. Success criteria are only there to help children understand what the expectations are.
• Success criteria in writing has led to higher SAT scores. Some others found better results as a result of this, too. It is hard to know, however, what exactly has caused the improvement out of all the formative assessment approaches.