  |
|
|
|
|
||
|
               |
|
|
LEARNING TEAMS FINDINGS:
Day Three Salford 23 rd November, 2006
YEAR 2 Teachers have been doing this and have been collecting work and models etc. for this purpose. Biggest impact on using two products has been on children’s vocabulary. When good pieces of writing were analysed that used effective vocabulary, the children began using those words in their writing. Shirley: this shows the importance of showing them the very best – it takes everyone up and inspires them. It is not copying, it is improving. One teacher used some descriptive writing within a different topic focusing on adjectives, then they talked about how that linked to the work they were doing today. This improved the use of adjectives in the work they then did that day.
YEARS 4/5/6 a Two very different ideas came from this group: a) – comparing two pieces of work – scan on to the board and look at the language used b) each group of children produces a presentation for their lesson e.g. Ancient Greece – each group chooses the learning objectives, does independent research, does a presentation. The end products are compared – the learning that went on during the process was the most important thing. These were videoed to show next year. They chose various topics within “Ancient Greece” and when all theses presentations were shown the whole class had a complete learning experience about Ancient Greece. Next year the videos will be shown as an example of what they can produce. S: how do you stop a basic level of mediocrity? What makes this an effective approach? We put into place a child-centred approach – along the way they were critical of each other and they set their own success criteria. Working in groups they all pushed each other – the teacher did not feel they needed models or analysis. S: one of your processes is research…so how do you make sure that the children (process of taking notes) know what is an effective or non-effective way of doing this? The idea was that the learning took place representing what they found out and they could process the info any way that suited them. S: this is how teachers taught when I taught in the early 80’s and it relies on the quality of the teacher’s intervention and expertise. I think the most fantastic way of learning is when the best of the new and old approaches are brought together. It is difficult, though, to make this kind of instinctive teaching something every teacher can do well.
YEAR 4/5/6 b This group decided that they always use good examples of work at the beginning of lessons anyway, so they have used the approach more in the following lesson once they’ve actually had a look at the work. Using the work immediately is difficult as there is a problem with scanning the work in the time. One teacher said that if she were to scan work into the computer with a certain child the class would not be able to read his handwriting so it would have to be retyped – yet to evaluate that work immediately would be good for this boys self esteem. Shirley: if you show the good and bad and have a quality discussion before they work, it seems you get better results. One teacher likes to let them have a go first.
SECONDARY One History teacher had a particular approach he had found extremely effective: he takes two pieces of work – a level 4 and a level 6 – then gets the students to ‘speed date’ them (discuss and analyse against the success criteria) – at the end of an exercise they write feedback and are asked to come up with two things they think are good and something to improve. In 9 out of 10 cases the area picked up on is the conclusion. Then in groups they identify what is a successful conclusion from Level 6 and apply it to Level 4 and come up with their own SC to see why the conclusion was better and apply it to their own work. This is a direct result of this process. The teacher has only done this with 2 Yr 8 and 2 Yr 9 classes and in these classes they can quickly differentiate what a less successful piece of work is from a successful one. Impact : this teacher’s marking is reduced by about 75% as the pupils understand the benchmark to get from level 4 to level 6. In the whole of Year 8 there has been an average improvement of 4 sub levels. Another technology teacher has found comparing two products works well. Technology outcomes/products range from hats to bags to electronic games. She hangs on to a few examples from each project. They also use a digital camera but the kids like to touch and play with these things so they need to be stored. “In the past I went off this idea because of the copying but I’ve started to compare products again and get students to generate success criteria from the comparison and the impact is fantastic. The quality of outcomes has improved 100% and this has made the students far more creative – there has been lots of creative thinking from their self-generated success criteria.” When you use other students’ work for comparison the kids feel they can do better. This “defeats” as it were a desire to simply copy. In the past when the teacher produced the work as an example, the kids copied.
SPECIAL all phases One teacher described how, in English, when introducing a new genre, students used talking partners and created their own success criteria from (e.g.: a good model of a recipe) – this can be used in any kind of writing. During the session as the work progressed, the teacher picks 2 examples to blow up onto A3 for the next lesson. Talking partners then choose 2 positive points and one to improve and then go back to their own work and improve it. Impact : much improved vocabulary and their ability to edit and improve their own work. In maths, one teacher shows the children one question answered well and one answered badly. They discuss points and generate the success criteria. They do their own work, then swap and mark each other’s against the success criteria. Impact: pupils are looking for key vocabulary in the questions now and giving more in depth answers where explanations are required. In PE, some kids have autism or challenging behaviours – the teacher physically demonstrates right and wrong ways to perform an activity. “We need to recognise that ASD children are skilled imitators, however so we need to prevent them fixating on the wrong ways of doing things.” In Art there are several ways to do this. The teacher always refers to works of other artists, history and culture, so the students can understand their place as artists. Have used previous student’s good work but seldom used not so good work. The teacher will often model right and wrong techniques (e.g. clay pot construction) which can be fun!
2. On-the-spot modelling of ‘Success & Improvement’ during the lesson
YEAR 2 Teachers now have lots of mini-plenaries throughout the lesson with improvements throughout the lesson rather than a big plenary at the end. “Maybe with Yr 2 it is harder to write for a half an hour than at Yr 6, so it’s easier for us to do this approach.” The children constantly check against the success criteria and self assess. One teacher tends to talk a lot about what they are going to write, then hands over to talking partners, and then they tell each other what they could have said to improve it. Strategies used have been scanning in work (children use sharp pencils so the work can be read) or photocopying and enlarging. Impact : lots more insertions, crossings out, editing; confidence improves; attitude – children see that everybody can improve – and this gives them tools to get there.
YEAR 4/5/6 a One teacher uses a wireless keyboard to type a child’s work during a lesson, typing it as the child is writing it. Children highlight pinks and greens with a partner and do the same to their own work. Impact: They initially copied phrases but it leads to children using advanced phrases in future work.
YEAR 4/5/6 b Lack of technology in the classroom is an issue to instantly project pieces of work. So the teachers have read out pieces of work, which has limitations on children’s understanding of the point you are trying to get across. Some teachers have an issue with stopping the flow of children’s work after ten of fifteen minutes. “There is a place for giving input at the start of a lesson where you give success criteria and model what you want them to do. Stopping then on a regular basis interrupts the flow.” One teacher only does this occasionally if as he walks around he sees a common error. Stopping after half an hour to look again at the SC or do some peer evaluation is what he prefers. S: it’s difficult to generalise that every lesson be stopped after ten minutes or so-it could be 2 minutes, five minutes, 20 minutes depending non the task in hand. Should we always allow children to work for a long period of time, which gives them permission to make lots of errors and then hand it over to the teacher to do all the work marking it? We are training children to do what adults do naturally e.g. stopping after each sentence, looking back and modifying there and then. “One of the things here is that we are SATs oriented. We need to train the children earlier then Yr 5 and 6 to do this.” S: the 40-minute writing session is the ‘test’ or application lesson. In other lessons we surely need to be helping children develop strategies for review and improvement.
SECONDARY Success and improvement needs to be built into planning…so that children have time to assess their work. One teacher tried this with low and high achievers: the lower set took to this very well with enthusiasm and they all wanted to have a go at marking each other’s work. Interestingly, the higher achievers did not take to people writing directly on their worksheets so a different approach was taken where the feedback was written on a separate piece of paper. The main impact : children are getting immediate feedback and are being given the opportunity to improve their work there and then. They really appreciate the chance to do this. The history teacher takes a selection of work and artificially applies a level to that work. In each group the pupils are given a range of success criteria in pupil friendly language and look at the artificially applied levels and agree as a group why those success criteria are wrong, then justify why those artificial levels are wrong, then feed back to the group and reach a consensus, feeding back to the teacher at the end. Impact: they develop more respect for each other’s decisions and can justify these; they have confidence to challenge wrong decisions and arrive at joint decisions.
SPECIAL Comparing two products leads directly to integrated feedback. If they are peer marking, they look at success criteria and find two positives and try to improve them. The teacher described how pupils in partnerships compared and planned design briefs and co-evaluated as partners, with the teacher showing their art work along the way. Impact : they totally accept what their peers say; it makes them aware of the level they are at compared to others and what they need to do to improve this; achievement has increased: they have become more confident when doing self/peer assessment and comments are very good; there is no reluctance to share work with others. Different pupils excel in different areas, and as students know their work is fair game to be used, they want it to be shown. There is better team working going on, increased responsibility for their own progress and students are more receptive to constructive advice. “I need to make myself more aware of this process and identify opportunities in the planning. But pupils will now remind me if I’ve left too long a gap between feedback (i.e. they automatically start consulting with their partners about any problems).”
3. Further Developments
YEAR 2
YEAR 4/5/6 a
YEAR 4/5/6 b
SECONDARY
SPECIAL
|
 |