Age 9-11: Y5/6 (4/5 Grade US) 2017 Feedback from Day 2

Cardiff

Teachers had shared co-constructed success criteria on IPads so all could see them. Children became more independent.

In order to co-construct criteria, the teacher needs lots of good examples and sometimes not so good. One teacher used good compared to excellent for a writing task. They really help children understand what the success criteria look like in reality. They love marking against them.

One teacher gave red herring examples to check whether they were paying attention. Another talked about the task first so that children could determine the skill.

The clearer the learning intention, skill based, the clearer the success criteria.

Norwich

Through analysing a good recount, children were able to pick out the features.

Children also looked at good and poor examples, linking to the vocabulary of objectives to be achieved, ‘Grammarsaurus’ (internet resource) provided model texts annotated with the objectives.

Writing has much improved as a result of this work, compared to last year’s class at this stage of the year. There is a deeper level of thinking for each genre.

One teacher gives children a puzzle to solve then asks what they did to solve it, generating the success criteria. This had more impact than teacher delivered success criteria.

Anecdote

“Before the first session of this project, my school said we had to produce LO slips for every lesson including success criteria. I started co-constructing the success criteria with the children in maths and English, using good and bad examples or asking the children to solve a problem. They then generate the success criteria based on this, which is then written up on the board and kept displayed all lesson. There has been very positive feedback from the children. I am now applying this across the curriculum. One child said ‘I like writing the success criteria together because it makes me feel more involved and I can give my idea.”  Ann, Kessingland School