Using the context of descriptive writing via the novel ‘Skellig’, children looked at previous Y6 excellent examples and determined the success criteria from that analysis. It also really helped children to see the expectations for quality.
In an art lesson, children looked at various drawings of people and were asked ‘What makes this a successful picture?’ They generated the success criteria based on the LO of proportions. This had a positive impact on the quality of their artwork and they later transferred those skills in another task. Children developed their own short hand success criteria.
In writing in another school, children picked out different skills from an excellent model, focusing on their own learning needs, so differentiated. Children then self and peer marked against these success criteria.
Co-constructing success criteria had been successful, especially with maths. One school used a character who needs help with maths to encourage the breakdown of skills. The success criteria helped them to reason and explain their methods.
When children make mistakes, they can identify where they have gone wrong through the success criteria.
Success criteria had been shown under the visualiser with missing steps and good versus bad examples had also been used. Teachers were following a ‘teach it, practise it, understand it and then create individual success criteria’ rule, which deepened their understanding and reasoning.
In talk for writing, when children do shared writing, the class create success criteria by using their toolkits. Some children like this structure.
One teacher created mild spicy and hot criteria which led to some children losing focus.
One school used analogies of pizza topping being the open criteria where you can choose or like a cauldron with the legs being non-negotiables.
One teacher gave children the lesson objective at the end of the lesson which enabled students to rethink their learning. Another goes through the lesson identifying the goal and asks students to identify it as well, which gives them an opportunity to focus in for understanding and clarity.
Having 15 steps for learning a new phonogram meant that students knew where they were in the task.
Children were given a chance to review their writing before sharing with a partner.
One teacher helped children to create their own word goals for their IEP statements. Students can define their goals clearly and develop action plans.
Children are more engaged with student created success criteria. Rubrics were used for writing which has helped students to be more focused.
Students are encouraged to show their thinking in multiple ways in maths given the learning intention and are now pushing themselves and are more thorough.
Co-constructing success criteria via teacher demonstrating mistakes was trialled as well as error analysis of old student work. Students loved this, especially spotting teacher mistakes and this analysis made them look more closely and meticulously at the calculations.
Students were given a checklist of learning objectives by one teacher which children could then self-assess against.
Two teachers intended to share learning objectives and co-construct success criteria but had not time. It was felt that 7th graders would not be able to create success criteria but 8th graders might be able to because they are more independent. Where 8th graders had attempted this it had been valuable for self-assessment and peer review. They are more aware of where they are.
One teacher looked at great sentences for improving children’s writing. They could then speak more specifically about how and why sentences could evoke more emotion depending on the sentence style.
One teacher looking at parent teacher conference sheets, peer review and self-assessment sheets clearly showed some intrinsic motivation and some who didn’t have this. This proved that there was a wide range of what students got out of reflection sheets.