Children’s interest had been captured by acting out higher order vocabulary to use in a final write. Children were eager to use the challenging vocabulary and were able to use it appropriately.
One teacher showed a piece of work she had written at their age and they compared that with another piece. The difference between level 3 and 4 was brought out. Children were able to be refined in their analysis and could see what was being aimed for. It was thought that we should maybe demonstrate how to solve maths problems wrongly.
The visualiser had been effectively used to show examples, modelling peer assessment.
Boards in classrooms had been used exclusively for success criteria which means children can access them throughout a lesson. Children are asked to talk in pairs and come up with them. Everyone knows they need to be actively contributing.
Comparing good and bad examples have given children an understanding of what makes good and have a model to work towards.
Using a visualiser in the plenary to show random children’s work helps children know if they have been successful and the peer pressure of their work being on display is motivating.
Non-negotiable writing criteria are always on display which means children know exactly what to concentrate on.
Success criteria are used for self and peer assessment and it has become second nature to the children. They have a great understanding of what it means to be successful.
With success criteria children’s feedback becomes very focused rather than ‘I liked all of it.’
Sometimes it was felt that success criteria should be simply given to children as always generating them slowed the pace.
Teachers had delayed the learning objective but were worried about possible criticism from OFSTED. Various starters were used: video from Teachers’ TV, YouTube clip, interesting object etc. The wording of learning objectives was tweaked to make them more accessible to children. The impact of delaying the learning objective has been more awe and wonder and children coming up with the success criteria more naturally. One teacher started the lesson with a big question on the board, planning what would be the desired answer by the end of the lesson. This led to deeper thinking and greater involvement, with instant engagement.
Demonstrating art skills, maths skills and comparing good and not so good products had made it possible for children to generate the criteria. This has improved the quality of their work. Lessons are sharper as there is a focus on the criteria. Children use marking grids to assess each other.
Another strategy was eavesdropping the criteria from talk partner discussions.
Success criteria had been used by all, getting children to generate them.
Teachers had scrapped the learning objective with success criteria as the first slide and were now leaving the LO till later. Children were asked what the hidden LO was. Children start thinking and discussing what they are learning. It was important to balance between actually learning the skill and talking about what it might be.
Teachers had played ‘Guess the LO’, which they found had empowered children and increased confidence. Another teacher had given the children clues (success criteria) which amounted to the learning objective when put together. Children were enthusiastic and it reinforced their prior learning.
Children had generated their ‘steps to success’ through discussion and comparison of texts. Children can pick out what is good about each but say what is needed to improve.
One teacher had set a problem at the beginning of the lesson which enabled the success criteria to be generated throughout the lesson.
Another teacher had success criteria across a unit which outlined the learning journey. Children suggested next steps and changed the criteria to fit their personal targets.
In one class children were struggling with times tables so children were asked how they were going to learn them. They decided as a group to try to improve their joint score and generated lots of different success criteria as strategies for learning them. There was significant improvement across the class as a result.
Editing the success criteria was valuable if things had not worked well.
Claire Hodgson | email@example.com
Tower Hamlets, London
Stella Smith | firstname.lastname@example.org
Stella Smith | email@example.com
Pauline Hill | firstname.lastname@example.org