  |
|
|
|
|
||
|
               |
|
|
LEARNING TEAMS UPDATE North Tyneside Day Two - 3rd July, 2007 1. Separating the Learning Objective from the Context Nursery/Rec/Y1 Teachers agreed that the skill being taught had become the main focus and that it was now clearer and simpler for children to understand. Teachers knew this because of children’s talk and their observations. One teacher described ‘making father’s day cards’ as her original learning objective then changing it to ‘learning to cut out accurately’ with the context of father’s day cards. The result was more attention to the skill than the context and the ability to subsequently transfer the skill. Children were also making connections between subjects, transferring skills which strengthened curricular links. Children have become more independent, applying what they have learnt. It has empowered children to take responsibility for their own learning. Doing this has empowered teachers as there is now greater clarity for teachers, the objective is not as ‘woolly’ and teachers are more sure when children have achieved learning objectives.
Year 2 Teachers said that children can relate the learning objective to other work. With reports and explanations, children could remember the exact words of the success criteria and apply the skill to other curriculum areas. One teacher described how a child working on a recount of a visit said ‘I will be able to use that sequence word won’t I?’ This process was also being done for mathematics and science problem solving. Teachers agreed that it was more difficult to do this for something like poetry or mathematics. After discussion it was felt that with maths one could take a basic calculation, such as adding two digit numbers and then use that skill in different contexts such as money and length. All agreed that it helps the teacher to focus more appropriately.
Year 4 Teachers said that children were now focused on the task and that they now see a skill as transferable. Generic criteria can be applied to different contexts and the process provides clarity for children and teachers. One teacher described changing a learning objective from ‘taking the temperature between our toes’ to ‘taking temperature’ or ‘reading thermometers’ with the context as ‘hot parts of the body’. Another got children to sharpen a pencil and then describe exactly what they were doing and how they were doing it. She then got them to use the same principle to explain how Egyptian mummies were made. It was felt that context need to provide the excitement in learning to stop learning objectives being too dull. Teachers said that there were fewer questions during independent tasks and that they were able to apply skills to other areas of the curriculum. They said ‘Is this like when we did….?’
Year 5/6 Teachers found the process easier on maths. Y5and 6 felt that this was an area they had well established in their schools. The impact overall has been clear, focused learning and children able to transfer skills across the curriculum. Children’s confidence has increased and work scrutiny reveals exactly what has been covered. Teachers feel they have moved away from ‘doing the Romans’ to looking at a set of skills within that context. One teacher described how children are able to take a fundamental skill and memorise the success criteria. During SATs, they quickly scribbled the success criteria in the corner of the page before they started work, using them to check their work.
Y6/7/8/9 Children now have clearer understanding and better focus and can now apply learning objectives to other lessons. One teacher described changing her original learning objective from ‘finding the area of shapes’ to ‘applying a formula to find the area of shapes’. Each lesson dealt with a different shape as the context but a formula was being applied each time, which was a more successful approach. Children have become more independent and autonomous learners. Teachers wondered if the approach would become boring and whether there should not be more variety. Discussion showed that once a learning objective is developed there is potential for many different contexts and approaches to achieving that learning objective.
2. Success Criteria issues Nursery/Rec/Y1 Success criteria help internalise expectations. Children know what they need to do and look for it in their work. Success criteria raise self esteem because children know they have achieved success and get positive and immediate feedback and self-gratification. One teacher described how Rec/Y1 children are capable of generating success criteria. One child who needed help stayed in the Reception class and had previously used thumbs up to indicate her success. With the advent of success criteria she said ‘We need words for this’. She had been able to see that she needed more than thumbs up to describe her achievements. Children are truly active learner with success criteria, because the decision making is passed over to them, observable in their discussion and written work. Success criteria are accessible to all children and allow children to achieve at their own level.
Year 2 Children are more focused. Using success criteria gives them learning steps and makes the learning more manageable. Children can recognise for themselves if they have achieved success. Children are less inhibited about getting something wrong. They can see they have had some success so accept that they can also improve. Children are working more independently. The teacher can refer to success criteria which have been generated by the children. Initially children were just ticking all success criteria, but over time they have become more reflective and are able to self assess more accurately. Younger children find it difficult to read success criteria so making them more graphic and using symbols has been very helpful (e.g. A for capital letters and a picture of a finger for finger spaces)
Year 4 When children generate success criteria, they use child friendly language, which is empowering. Success criteria provide a good checklist for children especially if they are stuck and are used by children to improve their own and each other’s work. Success criteria enable children to identify errors at an early stage. One teacher described a less confident child saying ‘Wow! I didn’t think I could do such a good piece of work and I got it finished!’ Teachers felt that starting with a child’s finished work as a means of getting children to generate success criteria (‘What can you see?’) was very powerful. It was important to separate secretarial skills for specific skills.
Year 5/6 Children have been successfully developing success criteria, which has allowed them to focus in on their own learning. Some teachers differentiate the success criteria across the class, but have moved away from ‘must, should, could’ and are now building up banks of success criteria. Some teachers are also linking children’s individual targets with success criteria. It was agreed that lower achievers feel more secure and confident with success criteria. One teacher described how her class was able create success criteria for making a newspaper report and broadcast, which led to work completion, of a high quality, in 25 minutes. Y6/7/8/9 Teachers agreed that children can generate their own success criteria, often coming up with their own ideas and breaking things down, and felt that this had been the most powerful element of formative assessment so far. Children were more confident about what they had to do and even lower achievers were able to get on task. Children have more ownership and independence and are able to go over their work checking against the criteria. One teacher described a child who usually throws his pen on the floor whenever writing is involved, but after discussion and generation of success criteria, he was willing to have a go and join in peer feedback for the first time. Teachers from secondary schools said there had been a positive impact on exam results as a result of success criteria, and coursework was of a higher quality. One danger noted was that success criteria can take up to 15 minutes to generate. If these become generic criteria, to be reused, this was seen as acceptable.
3. Unit Planning (making sure children know how each learning objective fits the unit coverage) Nursery/Rec/Y1 Children had been eager to research topics. Taking children’s initial ideas had led to more meaningful learning (e.g. children carried water around the yard to see what it was like living in an African village) and more cross curricular links. Planning had become more creative. The impact had been that children were very engaged and teachers believe they will remember more. A potential difficulty was that there might be an overlap of topics across year groups. Teachers felt that a better use of QCA schemes of work than slavish following, was to fit them into a topic based approach. Year 2 Teachers had used the KWL grids (what they know, what they would like to know, what they’ve learnt). This had generated questions from children about what they would like to know and these were printed out for assessment purposes. They could be stuck into children’s books to show learning and used for display. Children are now bringing in resources from home Year 4 Children now have more ownership of a topic and their involvement generates interest and enthusiasm. Learning is more active and memorable as there is now a more creative curriculum. Determining children’s prior knowledge highlights the gaps in their understanding. Creating a visual record of what the children have learnt is valuable and generates more questions about what they want to find out. Children are now more likely to go away and think about or research what is coming next. A problem discussed was that younger children don’t have the knowledge to articulate what they want to find out so it was seen as important to give them a starting point list of coverage which was used to say what they already knew. Another issue was the possibility of draining or finding appropriate resources if ideas were used ‘on the hoof’.
Year 5/6 Teachers felt that it was useful to have a verbal overview at the beginning of a unit of work and was particularly effective for history, geography and science. Making some kind of display was seen as time consuming and could emphasise stalled progress. KWL grids were very effective planning tools and led to in-depth questioning. One teacher described how when children were asked what they wanted to learn about worms they came up with amazing and unique questions, such as ‘Do all worms share the same numbers of segments?’, whereas the teacher’s questions were more predictable, such as ‘How do worms move?’. Children went to the ICT suite and asked ‘Jeeves’ to get answers to questions they couldn’t answer. One potential problem is if children know absolutely nothing (need to give initial coverage list). Doing the preplanning a few weeks before the unit of work needs to be built into school organisation. Y6/7/8/9 Teachers had shared unit plans with children before planning lessons and children had created mind maps which were stuck in their folders and reviewed at the end of the unit. Students were often paired so that one mentored another. Coverage and mind maps were used for revisions for tests with students identifying areas to review rather than the teacher. Teachers said that students were more motivated to find out new things. One teacher said that you can get surprises as a teacher if you assume the children’s prior knowledge. 4. Talking Partners/Wait time/No hands up
Nursery/Rec/Y1 Cognitive impact: Talking partners had positively supported children with EAL, developing their vocabulary, and lower achievers. Speaking and listening skills had improved for all, such as reporting back and structured conversations. Talking partners had given children thinking time and made them participate and engage. Social impact: There were problems for some children but boys were now happy to work with girls. Questioning What if questions had been used successfully, such as ‘What if there was no electricity? / ‘What if the sea was made of jelly? One teacher had used starting form the end by showing children a report. Year 2 Cognitive impact: All children have to contribute. Children are more active learners and there is improved concentration and motivation. Children are more confident speakers and have better listening skills. Social impact: Children are more able to wait their turn as they know they will get a turn to speak. There is improved self-esteem as children now have a chance to check their ideas and think through with someone else before they tell the whole group. There are now fewer children that nobody wants to work with. Children know each other better so bullying is less of an issue. One child said at first ‘She’s a swot. I’m not going to work with her.’ At the end of the 3 weeks she said ‘Emma was great to work with because she really listens to you’. One teacher removed the title from a poem and then gave the children a range of questions: They decided that e.g. the poem couldn’t be about an aeroplane because it talks about going through a tunnel.
Year 4 Teachers felt that talking partners had been very effective and positive but that it was important to establish criteria by modelling good and bad talk. Random partners worked very well and children were always excited to change partners. The approach encourages their tolerance of each other and focuses them to be good listeners. They develop their speaking and listening skills and become more confident because both theirs and their partners ideas are given. Questioning The ‘range of answers’ was good for addressing misconceptions and ‘true or false’ questions had led to a variety of discussion. The strategies encouraged explanation and reasoning and provided a more motivating start to lessons. They engage lower achievers and children who would normally sit back. A concern was addressed about the need to keep the pace of a lesson going and move onto the main subject of the lesson. Year 5/6 There has been a great gain in confidence for lower achievers. Lessons are more active and children are given breaks from the teacher. Talking partners are very positive for previously passive learners and children now expect that talk will be a big part of a lesson. This has broken down barriers between boys and girls and the anxiety of having to find a partner. Children are given oral preparation for a written answer and they are very aware that they are learning from each other. Lower achievers have a real chance to shine verbally. Working with someone they would never have chosen has enables new friendships to flourish. One teacher described how her children asked if they could have talking partners in all their lessons. Questioning Teachers had tried most strategies but needed to continue further. Y6/7/8/9 Cognitive impact: Lower achievers a re now having to talk things through, which has helped develop their emotional intelligence. Students are now better listeners and focus more on their work because they know they will have opportunities to talk. Social impact: Student behaviour has improved through random partners. Students are happy to change partners and appreciate new ideas and perspectives. This is good preparation for the real world of work! One teacher described how two autistic children were randomly partnered and, after initial problems, settled down to work together extremely well, possibly due to their empathy for each other.
Questioning One teacher devised a system where children write their point of view against a question then choose an opposite view to write even if it is not their own view. Another based a whole lesson around the question ‘What is courage?’
|
 |