Age 9-11: Y5/6 (4/5 Grade US) 2016 Feedback from Day 3


Showing children previous work with mistakes and asking what do you notice had identified gaps in children’s understanding and teachers needed to then go back to planning, simplifying and filling in the gaps.

Identifying features showed that children struggled and needed more guidance. This impacted planning.

Children asked to make up their own questions took the fear out of SAT papers.  Children’s questions for comprehension were in greater depth than the actual SAT questions.

True or false had been used with rectangles and became an investigation lesson.  Lower achievers responded well to the slower pace in greater depth.

Convince me and justify your ideas: higher achievers had at first struggled with this because they ‘knew’ the answers.  They are now starting to understand the importance of mathematical language, not just ‘put a zero on the end’ but why this happens, focusing on processes.


All teachers had used the statement such as ‘Michael was wrong to do this.  Do you agree or disagree?’ in reciprocal reading; in maths ‘All rectangles are types of squares’.  Children had developed the confidence to agree/disagree with each other. Where did I wrong was good for high level thinking and developing a mistakes culture.

The odd one out was used for SPAG which had developed children’s use and understanding of vocabulary.  In a science lesson, children discussed different types of power which revealed unexpected prior knowledge.

All teachers had used the good example compared to bad example strategy for modelled writing, sentence structure and punctuation.  Children gained the confidence to unpick and improve their work.

Always sometimes never had been used by all teachers for English (e.g. for different text types/features).

Prior knowledge had been gained in maths lessons by using concrete resources and ‘show me’ on whiteboards or a statement, sentence of calculation.  The teacher could tell instantly if children had understanding or if misconceptions were present in which case the lesson plan would be changed accordingly.

Given a statement to discuss in science or topic work, or resources or vocabulary had led children into mind mapping and planning their own learning.

One strategy used very effectively was for partners to share an idea, then teach that to a new partner each.

One teacher asked ‘Show me what 3×5 looks like’ of Y4 children.  They showed a variety of ways, extending their thinking into division.  One child used counters to spell out the numbers 3 x 5!


One teacher gave a range of answers in a math talk session, looking for multiple answers.  This got students to think and deepen connections but also enabled the teacher to see their level of understanding.

Teachers also asked ‘What do you know?’, so that students had to be constantly self-evaluating.

‘What went wrong?’ meant that students had to go through the process.

Statements with agree/disagree led to opinion forming and the importance of evidence.