1. Separating the learning objective from the context

PRE 5

Teachers take learning objectives from the 3-5 curriculum and have this in mind first, then they do mind maps and talking partners with the children to determine the context from that point on. 

P1/2 

Self and peer assessment is easier once the learning objective is clear, as the pupils know what they are looking for.  Teachers and children used to look at the same things for every piece of work (e.g. spelling) but now there is more focus on the learning objective and the children can look for specific aspects of what they are to learn.  Teachers used to write-up the learning objective and success criteria new all the time but now they keep them up and just change the context. This means you can build up a bank and share them with colleagues.  Children are now able to transfer skills. There has been huge benefit for pupils and teachers.

P2/3 

This group agreed with the last group. They also said that children are now more focused on the skill they are learning as they know what is expected of them. Children are more independent, most evident in higher achievers. Planning is improved – if we know what we are doing, it goes better for the children. The national tests in writing this year have resulted in higher results across the board in the class.  Teachers were sure this was due to separating the context and being very clear about the learning objective.
Teachers now want to work on things other than writing and transfer this approach to the rest of the curriculum.

P4/5/6 

Teachers had so far only focused on writing.  One teacher said that in her class there has been significant improvement in the national tests. She saidthe children were now ready earlier with less input. Another teacher said it is probably too early to say anything about significant improvement after only two or three month’s trialling.  The first teacher said the children are now familiar with the success criteria strategy and they take this with them to the national test. The actual quality of the work is better than last year. 

P7/SEC 

Secondary teachers found it difficult as so much of what they do is exam or portfolio focused.  Teachers all agreed that it has helped them to be more focused and understand what they need to do, more so than the impact on the children.  Children could, however, use more effectively the prior knowledge they brought to class.  Overall, the group felt they can’t yet tell if the new strategies will have a long term impact.

One teacher wanted to find out what the children thought of the new strategies so she made a questionnaire and gave it to 10 children.  From those received so far they said ‘very helpful’ with written comments like “we know now what we are doing.”

2. Success Criteria issues

PRE 5 

Teachers believed that it is important to have a balance between formalised learning and play learning. They record their daily observations and build the children’s learning from that.  Teachers found developing success criteria easier with skills, but were concerned that their work is child led, so children might not meet the success criteria because they have diverted to another activity.  Shirley: learning objectives and success criteria for this age group are more useful to inform the quality of the talk the adults will be involved in with the children.  If the adults have a clear understanding of all the learning objectives and success criteria for the different skills involved (building, nesting etc.) then whatever a child does the adult will have the  knowledge of success criteria to be able to ask appropriate questions etc.  This is much more about getting the adults to use appropriate talk which is everything in nursery. 

P1/2 

Teachers are now more aware of what children need to be doing to meet the learning objective and what you actually need to teach. This has freed them from being resource driven.  They thought that success criteria need to be planned by the teacher but to use the child’s language to frame them. 

Some teachers tried showing a good and not so good piece of work and made the examples clear with colours. It was more successful if there was a focus on only one success criterion.

P2/3 

Child-generated SC: you explain to them how to make SC and it takes quite a while because they come up with secretarial features. Better to have a general writing skills list which they put those criteria on, then just concentrate on the success criteria for each specific skill. 

The impact has been that children are now focused on skills of the learning objective rather than general features. Teachers knew this by the quality of their writing. They stopped in middle of lesson, asked them to look at their work and help each other.  They showed they were more focused.  The vocabulary they use to describe their work is now the language of the success criteria. 

P4/5/6 

When children generate their own success criteria they are involved and enthusiastic.  The language you used needs to be child friendly.  Because of success criteria children’s comments are more focused.  When they are with their talking partners they can be brought back to remember the success criteria: a systematic process with explicit, clear points.  The teacher has to let go and give them some autonomy. Maths is a bit trickier.  Teachers believed you should not overload children with the LO and SC for every single lesson. They become bored with it.  Shirley:  you don’t have to get the children to generate them every time - just print it on cards rather than doing it over and over again.  PE lessons and drama don’t need a flip chart of SC each time.  You give SC almost automatically in these kinds of lessons.  If the children are involved in an independent task, they need them.  But a whole class, teacher-led discussion or activity like a PE lesson don’t need success criteria.

One teacher described how basic skills are taught to the children in PE.  The teacher gets them to draw movements, talk about them in talking partners and videos the children so that they can self assess.  This has been a huge success in making the children evaluative.

P7/SEC 

Teachers said it was important to have the success criteria clear in your mind before getting children to generate them. Children were enthusiastic and involved and liked generating the success criteria. One teacher who found this process difficult had read out some work and then asked the students what they had noticed.  This reinforced the fact that the class needs to look at something being projected in order to analyse it. Relying on memory doesn’t work. 

A checklist approach was used for SC to be checked off from P7 to Sec school.  What has to happen is a formalisation of the procedure so that all understand the process. 

Some secondary teachers said that some children like to put down their partner’s work when involved in peer assessment. They believed this was a fault of the culture.
S:  it is more difficult to do this with older children as it takes longer to develop the culture.  Formative assessment, however, does appear to improve behaviour.

Teachers came to the conclusion that primary teachers were more open to these assessment strategies.  Less able were benefitting from this when they could do oral assessment rather than have to write.  Most agreed they were doing well with SC.

One teacher got her first piece of strong writing from a boy last week and has put this down to the SC – everything else she had tried in the past did not work.  He is secure and comfortable about what he must do now.

3. Unit coverage

PRE 5 

Mind mapping is the starting point for most teachers in involving the children in unit planning.  We put in a seasonal focus, then cultural events and then move to weekly and daily plans.  Teachers had brought in large books for each theme in which examples of children’s work, photographs etc. are displayed for parents to see.

P1/2 

Teachers said that involving the children in the unit plan increases motivation and eliminates element of surprise.    Teachers tended to introduce the topic and then children decided what they wanted to learn. Strategies such as bringing in objects to stimulate discussion were useful but children also bring things in from home.  Activities were recorded in a book, very much involving the children including quotes from discussions, pictures brought in, etc.  Teachers said that children are kept motivated as you do something the children want to be doing and the pitch is appropriate because of the original discussions with children.

P2/3 

Teachers made the KWL grids into posters with the children, finding out what the children know and what they want to know.  This saves time by finding the appropriate pitch at which to come in at. They knew when asked about things I was going to teach whether they already knew it or not, so instead of boring them we were able to do things they wanted to learn based on their interest.  They are very motivated as the ideas have come from them and they bring things in from home.  Overall the impact has been that children have ownership and are motivated and excited about what they are learning.

P 4/5/6 

Teachers had all tried involving children in an interactive display and initial discussions for various subjects, including science, environmental studies, maths and language. All agreed that it works really well for topic work.  Children had some input on what they were going to learn and, as a result, were more focused in being able to talk about prior knowledge.  Topics were mainly set out as a mind map that could be modified and added to as the children learnt new things.  Teachers were able to pitch appropriately and not waste children’s time teaching things they already knew. Some topics didn’t take the teacher as long as the teacher initially thought as large chunks could be removed. Children were also motivated by seeing the end in sight rather than not knowing how long they would be working on something.  Children liked having ownership in the process and could ‘see’ their progress on the poster. 

Knowing what happens in advance has had a big impact on achievement and motivation.  One boy for the first time brought in good homework not just on time but early.  

Things are becoming a coherent whole for the students. The visual image of the interactive mind map has contributed to this. 

Teachers could see overlaps with ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ giving more flexibility for contexts.

P7-SEC 

Teachers said they had spent least time on this area.  One teacher had produced a time line for a topic on WWII which could have things added on to as the topic developed, so children had an overview of where they were going next.  Sometimes the children go off on a tangent if you ask what they want next so it was felt important to tell the children the minimal coverage and then ask them what they already knew about that before they said what else they would like to know or find out about. 

4. Talking partners/no hands up/wait time

PRE 5    

Props like jigsaws were used to focus the paired talk, but children were easily distracted and had to be brought back on topic.  A lot of them did not have the vocabulary to carry this off. Circle time was used to work with learning partners. At this age TPs need to be given short, specific things to discuss. Because of the fluidity of the nursery, pairs change all the time.

P1/2  

Teachers believed that it was very important to explain the rationale for talking partners to the children, explaining that everyone will have a voice rather than the unfairness of hands up. 

The impact of random talking partners is that children become more tolerant and more accepting of others. Children are developing different relationships.

All children are involved and are very enthusiastic. Because children are so focused there has been a positive impact on behaviour. Shy children are now involved and confident children don’t dominate.

Strategies were used to develop talking and listening skills like asking them to explain what their partner said.

P2/3  

All teachers agreed that this had been successful.  In retrospect they should have communicated the random partners’ rationale to parents (within the larger framework of wider formative assessment strategies). This would have stopped the odd parent saying they did not want their child sitting next to xxxx. 

Children can still call out so we need to keep training them. Teachers felt they should be more honest and be able to say they don’t know the answer without fear.

P 4/5/6  

As a group all teachers enthused about talking partners although there had been some initial problems with reluctant children. For the teacher the difference in noise level and a different way of learning was something to get used to. Children learned from each other and became better listeners.

When there has been conflict with children in class TPs overcomes this.  By the end of three weeks they are excited by the changeover and they liked the lottery system.  Changing partners, knowing there is a finite time, keeps learning fresh and children have new learning experiences every three weeks. In terms of active learning it was very successful and children are not given an opportunity to opt out.  

Behaviour problems that could be expected by certain parings did not really happen.  TPs also takes away the isolation from learning. Teachers liked the fact that this is truly cross curricular.  One colleague set up SC before she started TPs to focus their talk. 

P7/SEC   

All agreed that this strategy is successful.  The strategy makes the children feel less conspicuous and vulnerable and all are involved in the learning with no opt outs.

One teacher used an ice cream cup and put names in it pulled out randomly.  After some groaning they saw the pairings worked.  One child with autism who is isolated socially was paired with a chatty boy in class and both initially spoke to the teacher not each other.  It took them about ten minutes but by the end of the period they physically moved closer and were talking to each other. 

As with the last group, teachers believed it was very important to let parents know about ‘no hands up’.  One teacher related how parents at her son’s school talk about a teacher who is very strict ‘because he doesn’t let the children put their hands up’

Children are so used to putting their hands up it is difficult for them to break the habit at first. 

5. Effective Questioning

PRE 5

Teachers had experimented with reframing questions (e.g. do plants need to eat chips?). They had also used props to tune children in before asking them recall questions.

P1/2

Teachers had used ‘range of answers’ with maths, ‘right & wrong’ and ‘starting from the end’. 
One example of a ‘statement’ was:
‘When on the stage if you did not speak the audience wouldn’t notice’ – agree or disagree.

P2/3

Teachers had raised their awareness of the type of questions they ask at the moment.

P4/5/6

Statement questions were very successful: ‘All children should have a healthy snack at playtime’ and ‘A solid has a fixed shape and volume’ led to a healthy discussion.  Right and wrong answers also worked well and helped also develop their maths vocabulary. 

P7/SEC

Teachers found using ‘the range of answers’ very useful in maths as the students learning through analysis, working backwards.  Some teachers used ‘a statement’ to generate debate and different viewpoints (e.g. wild animals should be kept in zoos – discuss and give your viewpoint).    One secondary English teacher had put a Cloze reading passage on the board and put in some options, asking children to discuss which was most suitable and whether some words were better than others and had found this successful in developing quality discussion.