The importance of the learning objective was discussed, delaying it when necessary to capture interest but always then writing it on the whiteboard.
Teachers had found it very useful to have mini plenaries to review success criteria via self and peer evaluation.
Showing children two different examples of work, one which contained mistakes made by the teacher had engaged and motivated children.
One teacher had left a green had print in the classroom and a missing CD player. Children generated both the learning objective and the success criteria and were highly motivated and engaged.
Another teacher asked the class to guess the LO from given success criteria. Re-ordering the success criteria was another strategy, which really made children think about the skills being used.
It was also felt that some key success criteria for application writing were effective, such as VCOP (vocabulary, connectives, openers and punctuation: Ros Wilson) leaving other success criteria as ‘could have’. This helped children feel less restricted.
Delaying the LO had helped children to see what was expected and had motivated their learning.
Teachers said that children were more aware of their objective now. One teacher had a ‘cycle of success’:
- What does a good one looks like
- What do I need to do?
- How do I do that – what do I need to learn?
- I create my piece/product
- Did I do number 2?’
- What did I do best? Where could I improve?
Having success criteria means the feedback is immediate and children are aware of their achievements as they are working. Peer assessment is easier and it cuts down on teacher marking. Less confident writers gain support and there have been, in all classes, a marked improvement in the standard of writing.
Success criteria had really helped with SATs tests. Having numeracy success criteria remembered had led to improved grades and improvement in children’s ability and attitude. Children liked marking each other’s books against the criteria.
Brighton and Hove
Statements had been used as opening discussions, such as division is easier than multiplication. Children were instantly involved and revising the subject matter. They were acutely aware of what was needed to achieve.
The ‘range of answers’ strategy was also used in the same way.
A ‘play script’ LO was introduced by the teacher and class reading and acting followed by discussion about what was needed. The feedback and interest was instant and good for boys.
Comparing products for handwriting and other writing had been effective in capturing interest and generating success criteria.
Some had used Pie Corbett’s ‘must have’ and ‘tricks to improve’. It was felt that there was a danger that some children were too reliant on success criteria and felt less capable of begin creative and generating independently. We must tune children into quality rather than a ‘tick box’ of success criteria.
Delaying the learning objective was common practice so this was well embedded.
Teachers had used excellent examples of work to generate criteria. Children now know what they need to include and this is reinforced on displays in the classroom. Children are more ware of their strengths and what they need to do to be successful. Uplevelling pieces of writing has made children more aware of how to improve and how to identify the next steps needed.
Children are now developing their own success criteria according to their achievement level, as their self assessment against the class criteria tells them what they should do next.
Other strategies for generating criteria were playing ‘what’s the learning objective?’ as ain investigation is carried out and letting children make mistakes with the success criteria then getting them to adjust them later when they find they don’t help them. Children had a better understanding after realising they had made a mistake.
Brighton & Hove
Suzanne Morgan | email@example.com
Ellesmere Port, Cheshire
Anne Vickers | firstname.lastname@example.org
Paul Wilson | email@example.com
Amy Parry | firstname.lastname@example.org