  |
|
|
|
|
||
|
               |
|
|
Moray Day Two - 7th June, 2007 1. Separating the learning objective from the context P1/2 Teachers said that because they were now separating the LO from the context at the beginning in their planning, there was a much better focus for staff in knowing what they want children to learn. Activities were now more challenging because of this. Children are more focused as they know what they will learn and are more positive, apply themselves better and the quality of their work bears this out. The LO is mainly introduced at the beginning of the lesson and this works well. Some of the time one teacher puts an example of the work they will be doing on the board and asks children in talk partners to decide what they think they will be learning. They successfully create the learning objective. This captured their interest first and worked very well. P2/3 All teachers agreed that the teacher is now more focused because of this. Children are transferring skills to other learning and use and understand the terminology (e.g. report writing is recognised in other contexts). There is greater motivation, more ownership of their learning and the pace of learning has increased. One child said “I now know what I have to do.” They ask less often about what they have to do as they now can move forward more independently. P5/7 All teachers agreed that the main impact was that children were more focused – it was as if a light had come on. The children are excited by what they see written up. Overall, the children are thinking more deeply with a clearer understanding of what has been learned. They feel they are being given a map with a clear destination. Fewer children opt out as they have a clear LO now. P7 pupil: “It helps you focus more and helps you think about where your story is going and why you’re doing it. You’re going to know what to do.” All found it more difficult to separate the LO from the context in mathematics. It works well in mixed ability classes. Secondary 1 Teachers felt insecure about this as exam leave meant fewer classes – they need more practice. Transferring skills had improved for one physics teacher. Students recognise the same skill being practiced again in a different context. This teacher felt that physics was easier than maths as the same skill is used many times (e.g. transport, electricity etc.). (Shirley: a secondary maths colleague from last year’s North York stream said the reverse – that you could cut down the curriculum by a third by transferring core skills) Another maths teacher said the LO is understanding the Pythagoras Theorem then splitting that into various stages: investigating, using, and applying. Shirley agreed that each lesson has that separate learning objective with its own context/activity. Secondary 2 Teachers who had done this said there was less time lost in lessons. Pupils knew what they were doing most of the time.
Success Criteria issues P1/2 The impact on the learning is that they are more secure and confident in knowing what they are to do; the quality of work is better and the children recognise this; teaching and learning happens at a faster pace; children use them for self and peer correction. In writing the children are producing successful writing of 3 or 4 sentences. One teacher described how several years ago she was happy if 4 or 5 children could write a sentence by the summer term. Now all can write 5 or 6 – she believed this was definitely due to the success criteria because this was the first time she had used success criteria. One teacher used SC in maths and said the children are now working at a faster pace as the children pick it all up better. Teachers said it was easier to get children to develop criteria for closed skills. If they were asked to give the features of a story opening, for instance, they would simply talk about the story rather than be able to pick out features. One teacher said it was hard for P1’s to read the success criteria. Another teacher said that she added each SC in a different colour so that the children could remember them by colour. P2/3 Teachers found that children now had greater independence – as they refer to the SC they can help themselves and each other. They have greater ownership and understanding because they are generating the success criteria themselves. This impact is evidenced by the fact that the quality of work has improved and teachers see the children referring to the SC and discussing them amongst themselves and with the teacher. There are fewer mistakes in maths. P5/7 Some problems were discussed because teachers believed they were only supposed to have two or three success criteria. Shirley explained that there cannot be a set number as each learning objective is what it is: a maths calculation might have 5 steps, for instance, or a conclusion 4 elements. All teachers agreed that with success criteria there was better quality work from the students as they are more focused and know what they are working towards. One teacher said that constructive criticism was developing well using success criteria with P7, but that children needed to fully understand them to do this properly. This reiterates the importance of children generating the success criteria for themselves from a given example etc. SEC 1 Maths: students are now better at checking that answers are correct against the success criteria and are showing their working. Teachers also agreed that using success criteria was very inclusive: all students had achieved something and were therefore more interested in what they were learning rather than ‘who’s the best in the class’. When generic success criteria are used again and again students get to the stage where they don’t need to use the list as it becomes embedded. SEC 2 Success criteria have made the biggest change in these teachers’ classrooms. Students are more involved as they are generating success criteria themselves. Presentation has improved and there is better uniformity to their work. There is more independent learning going on with more ownership of it. Students can now pinpoint where they went wrong. Teachers are starting to understand how they can break down what they want and how they want the children to learn which is improving teaching and learning. There is more clarity for teachers and this group felt that they were now better teachers. Teachers of English said that success criteria were good for general things like behaviour. They could ask, for instance, “What does a good listener have to do?” and get students to generate the success criteria. Two teachers were beginning to understand that they had not been doing success criteria correctly but had been making them too broad, but now felt they know how to make these better. One did not like the use of the word success but others were comfortable with it because ultimately the children had to do these things in order to succeed. Teachers agreed that students need to generate the SC themselves. Unit coverage P1/2 Where this approach had been used in environmental studies, including the children in what they knew already and what they wanted to know made it easier to identify which elements to plan. There were problems, however, with teachers’ perception that the Moray programmes of study and lesson plans were ‘set in stone’. Involving the children meant that covering things they already knew could be avoided so more time was being saved and children were not bored. This approach gives ownership and relevance and children can see exactly where they are going next. They were keen to bring things in from home as motivation had increased.
P2/3 Teachers believed that this approach had helped the children make links in their learning. Teachers knew where to start and found they didn’t have to plan so much themselves. Children were more motivated because they can see where they are going and it gives them a sense of achievement. Their awareness of learning objectives was heightened. Children were more enthusiastic about lessons and were bringing in resources from home. They were also able to identify when they had learned something new. P5/7 One example was given of an interactive display: a tree with the roots labelled with what the children already knew, the trunk stating what they wanted to find out and the leaves showing what had been learnt. Another teacher had used an A3 sheet summarising in bullet points the coverage for mathematics. There was a re cognised problem if there were differentiated ability groups, however. Teachers said that children knew where they were going with their learning and were more motivated. Direction came from teachers and children working together. Children have ownership of their learning and are able to see links. Sec 1 Teachers agreed that concept maps gave pupils security as they liked to tick things off and they gave them an idea of how much they need to know. Some had used talking partners to generate ideas and had made sure the posters changed a lot so that students looked at them. Sec 2 These teachers said that the coverage was already outlined and syllabus led and there was a lack of space. Mind maps were seen as suiting some people but not everyone. They also queried whether the bigger picture was too big to be worthwhile or effective in discussion.
Talking partners/wait time/no hands up P1/2 All teachers agreed that the impact had been very positive, with benefits for all children. Talking partners had made talk more purposeful and random partners allows for a wide range of talk opportunities – social, gender and ability. A teacher described how one boy with very challenging behaviour became kind and considerate when he had a girl partner yet when he had a boy partner he was annoying. When the class stopped to talk about why they did not like his behaviour he was gobsmacked and since has been better with all pairings. All children now have a chance to express their opinions about things which they have never had before. The quality of feedback is better and there is greater participation. Shy children have become more confident.
One teacher talked about a child with Aspergers Syndrome who became agitated by the increased noise level and his behaviour then became uncontrolled. Another teacher said this might be due to the change in routine which is hard for him to accept. Another with an autistic child said the child puts her hands to her ears when they go into TPs. Another teacher with an Aspergers child keeps his partner the same rather than changing it. He is a secondary teacher who has the group once a week. In a primary set-up the lack of change would be a serious issue for the other child. Maybe threes is an answer to be fair to all children. Shirley gave an example of a Salford team teacher from a special school who kept going with talking partners despite these initial reactions, resulting in autistic children being eventually able to work with different children successfully. A strategy used to improve listening was numbering the children 1 and 2 so that children take turns to be the talker/listener. Using success criteria for talking partners also improved the quality.
P2/3 Teachers agreed that talking partners had increased children’s confidence, had led to greater engagement and less passive listening. There was now an expectation that everyone is able to contribute and it works across the ability ranges. The system is fairer because the children with hands up no longer dominate. There is something to be gained from every type of partnership. Teachers realised that children’s responses reveal that they are at a much higher level than they had previously given the students credit for. Personality clashes were not as much of a problem as originally expected. This is perhaps because the children see the fairness in the randomness of the partnering and what they are talking about takes them away from each other. Limiting the time for discussion makes this work– they do not have time to waste falling out with each other or talking about things that do not matter. They do not want to let each other down. They want to be ready as a pair for this because they are working together. You can see and hear the positive interactions. Different social links have been formed. It is the boys who cause the problems adjusting to this, not the girls. Even after a few months, there are one or two boys in a class causing difficulties depending on who their partner is. P5/7 Feedback from teachers was very positive. Children really enjoyed working with other people and on a personal level got to know each other better. Talking partners keeps them on task – they are rarely off task when they are in talking partners. One child said “It makes my brain work better.” Children offer support for each other. A teacher described how one pair were not talking appropriately, were told they would lose the privilege and then begged not to have talking partners taken away. Children are developing coaching skills. Everyone’s answers are important. They often rethink the answers. They realise there is more than one solution. Boys are somewhat more reluctant to talk but this can be overcome. Teachers knew this was working by the comments from the children, the quality of their feedback, their attitude and the quality of their responses. Teachers are now giving them time and confidence to put an idea forward. Their evaluations of their performance and their talking partners performance is really good quality: “Next time he could be a little less silly.” “Don’t be afraid to say I’ve done something badly.” Sec 1 All students have to take part and think more knowing they have to feedback to the teacher. Lower achievers have now been brought into the learning arena, but teachers wondered if it would benefit higher achievers. Random partners had met with mixed success. Sec 2 There was unanimous approval of talking partners, even in maths. Teachers agreed that it had helped with all classes, even for those with difficult behaviour. The teacher could tell if students were having difficulty because they talked much less. Pupils are becoming more accountable. Students are more willing to attempt tasks. The system allows teachers to see the good side of students which might otherwise not be obvious. One teacher was sceptical about talking partners at first but it’s been an ‘utter revelation’ to her. She felt she has been doing things in the class wrong for 20 years and now she’s “got it”.
Effective questioning P1/2 ‘Starting from the end’ worked well in mathematics but little work had been done in this area. P2/3 With all the questioning strategies children have to think and justify their answers. They need the thinking time as they can’t answer straight away and this is good. Better questions are being asked. Children are beginning to include justification. P5/7 Teachers believe that there is still a place for some recall questions as they are a good way of getting started, recapping and linking learning from previous lessons. Teachers felt that to get good questions, they need to be planned. One child said ‘Questions make you think about someone else’s answer’. Sec1 Teachers said that it takes time to prepare a good question and are still finding it difficult to avoid recall questions. There is a clear link from the questions to the success criteria. Sec 2 Using a ‘range of answers’ worked well in science.
Go back to the top of the page. |
 |