thehawk
|
should success criteria....deal with genre specific stuff (e.g. use bullet points accurately)
or general stuff (e.g. Use capital leters for names, underline your title)
Should they be differentiated?
How much should they match/dovetail with the LEarning Objective?
How long should a success criterion last? One lesson? A number of lessons? A unit of work?
How do they differ from targets?
Confuseddotcom!¬!!!!!!!!!!!! 
|
sal 26
|
For something like Maths or Science I have a 'Can I...?' title eg. Maths - Can I multiply TU x U using the grid method? or a say a science one like 'Can I find out why shadows change during the day?' For an investigation in Science, I would expect children to work towards their next Sc1 target. Marking would give feedback on a) whether they had been able to find out and show in their work why shadows change during the day and on their individual progress towards their Sc1 set of targets.
For writing the title is usually specific to the piece of writing eg. The King's Great Matter (for our Henry VIII conscience alley about whether to divorce Catherine of Aragon). I would expect children to organise their ideas according to the genre of the piece (in the example given, it was a discussion) and when marking their work I would comment on how well they tackled the set task and I'd also look to see whether they had met their individual writing targets which are applicable to pretty much any piece of writing eg. writing in sentences, using questions, use of complex sentences beginning with a subordinate clause etc.
Hope that helps.
|
smileylady
|
In my neck of the woods success criteria are always linked to the learning objective. They are differentiated (although not shared with the children) and linked directly to the lesson.
So for example I might have the following lesson objectives -
To identify common features of poetry and to say what we like or dislike about a text.
The success criteria would then be
LA -I can find rhyming words in a poem. I can say what I think about a poem.
A- I can identify features of poems
I can express my opinions about poems with justification.
AA- I can compare the features of different poems.
I can express a preference and justify my ideas.
|
magpie nic
|
When we had training on AFL etc, we were told success criteria should link closely with the learning objective, they can be repeated in another session if necessary, but would usually change. You can have an umbrella one for across a whole topic, but it would be broken down into smaller ones. They were almost always differentiated (could, must,should or sometimes completely separate depending on LO) unless it was relevant to the whole class. We tried whenever possible to address targets in the learning objectives and success criteria.
|
thehawk
|
Should success criteria be tick-off-able (e.g Use an adjective in every sentence) or a judgement (e.g. use adjectives effectively)?
Funny how the answers above so far agree with me, and disagree with my SLT!
|
smileylady
|
Tick-off-able where possible. What are your SLT advocating Hawk?
|
thehawk
|
| smileylady wrote: | | Tick-off-able where possible. What are your SLT advocating Hawk? |
They seem to be confused by success criteria and peer assessment.
They think general stuff like "Underline the date" is part of the success criteria, as this will make them accountable for their work.
I always thought "underline the date" was a next steps thign when marking books, and would only apply to a few children, not a general whole class in a lesson one.
success criteria for a lesson should apply to everyone (even though they advocate three different ability activities in each lesson which I think would OFTEN need different (or at least layered) success criteria)
Would "write three adjectives" be a good success criteria though, as they could write boring adjectives - nice, good and big - and "succeed". Surely that is not the point. "USe adjectives effectively" would surely be better, though woolier???
|
magpie nic
|
Usually tickable but not always, depends what it is. I always tried to make mine as specific as possible while staying brief enough for the children to understand what they were trying to achieve. So I might have had something like Use 3 adjectives which describe the smell or something like that.
Underline the date and similar to me would be generic success criteria that you would maybe have on display and refer to when needed, they are not linked to the lesson objective and therefore do not help the child to be successful in that lesson. Does that make sense?
|
smileylady
|
Very strange! We very rarely use different activities as it limits the LA to always being LA. More often we have a similar task for all with differentiated expectations.
I would agree with you that use adjectives effectively is a much better criteria.
|
thehawk
|
| smileylady wrote: | Very strange! We very rarely use different activities as it limits the LA to always being LA. More often we have a similar task for all with differentiated expectations.
|
Which is my thought, but apparently I am wrong.
|
thehawk
|
| magpie nic wrote: | Usually tickable but not always, depends what it is. I always tried to make mine as specific as possible while staying brief enough for the children to understand what they were trying to achieve. So I might have had something like Use 3 adjectives which describe the smell or something like that.
Underline the date and similar to me would be generic success criteria that you would maybe have on display and refer to when needed, they are not linked to the lesson objective and therefore do not help the child to be successful in that lesson. Does that make sense? |
Isn't "underline the date" an expectation rather than a success criteria?
|
smileylady
|
Come join us Hawk! 
|
thehawk
|
| smileylady wrote: | | Come join us Hawk! |
where are you?
|
smileylady
|
Way up north in lovely Yorkshire!
|
thehawk
|
bit of a commute!
|
smileylady
|
LOL
|
redredrobin
|
My understanding is that success criteria will show you how to meet the learning objective. Underlining the date will not meet the learning objective (well, not in most lessons!)
You could have "use at least 3 interesting adjectives" because you would also be talking about what makes an interesting adjective.
|
bluerose
|
We use the process success criteria method in general so SC are linked to LO are small steps needed to achieve the LO so use at least 3 interesting adjectives could be a step At least immediately differentiates as you push some to exceed this or could have different number in brackets for some gps if needed. Or could be word interesting in brackets as a improvement for MA on any adjective for others
The underline title thing i can see how this has happened as think it comes from the process method in way. Maybe there should be set of simple general SC that children should also be always able to tick off if wanted eg underline title, date, name, margin whatever and these all help children to check themselves that they are presenting work well. So maybe they could be generic presentation SC to meet the LO - to learn to present my work neatly and accurately for other readers
|
magpie nic
|
We always had the presentation code in front of any book and also on display in the classroom, referred to it regularly, so the children were expected to follow the code always.
When we had training we were told to avoid words like interesting in the success criteria, because what the teacher thinks is interesting could be totally different to what the child thinks is interesting, and they might feel they met the SC, while you think they have not. We were told to make them more specific than that.
|
thehawk
|
| magpie nic wrote: | We always had the presentation code in front of any book and also on display in the classroom, referred to it regularly, so the children were expected to follow the code always.
When we had training we were told to avoid words like interesting in the success criteria, because what the teacher thinks is interesting could be totally different to what the child thinks is interesting, and they might feel they met the SC, while you think they have not. We were told to make them more specific than that. |
But surely whether a piece of writing is "interesting" or "clear" or "imaginative" is the most crucial aspect of writing. Otherwise writing is mechanical, which it should not be??????????
|
magpie nic
|
Yeah but you have to give them some measure of what imaginative etc is. We know we would be talking to the children about that in the lesson, but we were told that it has to be made very explicit to the children so they know exactly what we are looking for and want them to achieve.
|
psycho_jo
|
blimey....maybe I'm doing it all wrong. Must admit not had any training ever on what success criteria is/should be etc etc. However, I have a lesson objective and get the children to make the success criteria for writing - I say what will a successful piece of work look like and they come up with ideas and we discuss importance.
Am I doing it wrong?! If so, I don't care cos I am doing what works for the kids.
|
redredrobin
|
psycho_jo, that's what I did with writing. The SC were often built up over a unit as we looked at other texts in the same genre.
|
thehawk
|
No, no no! Success Criteria are specific to one lesson*, and cannot apply to a unit. So you are obviously doing it wrong!
*according to my SLT
|
choccat
|
| thehawk wrote: | No, no no! Success Criteria are specific to one lesson*, and cannot apply to a unit. So you are obviously doing it wrong!
*according to my SLT |
Actually your SLT is right to a degree, (IMO) the SC should be specific to each LO, but each LO should build on the last one and each unit is made up of several linked LOs.
I think children frequenlty do not understand the LO and the purpose of SC is to break down that objective into manageable steps to enable the children to see what their learning should look like. As long as the children understand what it is they are supposed to be learning and can use the SC to assess whether they have achieved that learning and what they need to do next then you are doing alright. I would not use underlining etc as SC as that is, as others have said, an expectation and does not contribute to children's learning; unless of coures that was your LO. We use SC (must, should, could) for all lessons, and frequenlty the same LO and SC criteria will span several lessons. All out MTPs have end of unit SC as well so we know where we expect the children to be at the end of a unit.
|
thehawk
|
It is interesting how the SLT introduced a new planning format and one box is "end of unit success criteria" and then say that SC can only belong to one lesson and not to a unit. This is why my SLT are mad.
|
magpie nic
|
No, I used to have end of unit success criteria, but also had them broken down for lessons, depending on the LO.
|
dillsage
|
Please keep this discussion going - it's really useful! I thought I was getting the idea of SC, but have now been told to stop using them because I'm apparently taking up too much time getting the children to work them out for themselves! (Can't blame the SLT as I'm part of it - this is lea advisers.) Now I thought that the reason my class made good progress in writing was because they'd gone through the process of working out the sc. But apparently not. (I shall go on doing sc that make sense to me anyway, but now have permission to not spend hours trying to figure out sc when they're less obvious - though it sounds a bit weird to me.) Maybe training will make it all come clear. I suspect that sc means different things to different people (and different things in different types of lessons).
|
thehawk
|
I think there are skills you can list in your SC (e.g use adverbs) but writing is more than just ticking boxes. It is not just a recipe, "use these things and you get a great story".
|
choccat
|
Just an example of how we do it.
RE Unit The key events in the life of Jesus.
End of Unit SC
MUST: To be able to retell stories of the events studied.
SHOULD: To be able to compare their own ideas and other people’s ideas about who Jesus was.
COULD: To describe the key beliefs about Jesus in these events and connect them with features of Christian life and practice.
Lesson 1 Baptism of Jesus
You must be able to say what Baptism is.
You should be able to recall the events of Jesus' baptism.
You could be able to say why Jesus baptism was a key event.
Not sure if this is of use to you.
|
thehawk
|
I like that sort of layered SC. But apparently the SC should be the same for everyone!
|
choccat
|
So what happened to personalised learning?
|
dillsage
|
That layered sc for RE looks sensible. We were also told (at lea training) that the sc should be the same for all, which I just couldn't get my head round.
But, sc in maths (process sc) look totally different, to me anyway, as they're what you need to do to be successful (rather than outcome success criteria - how an outsider can recognise success) - and the process sc for eg adding decimals isn't the same as for adding single digits using cubes, even though the basis might be the same. I'm not sure that all advisers have clicked with the difference. (And I'm still a bit fuzzy - need to finish reading my 2nd Shirley Clarke book.)
(Maybe your SLT have been trained in as confusing manner as me, but aren't brave enough to admit they're confused. Whereas I admit I'm confused and am branded dense. Or maybe I just am dense!)
|
thehawk
|
Literacy and Numeracy, sorry English and Maths, are different subjects by nature. They are not the same type of learning, and so should not be approached in the same way. Thereofre it is sensible to have different SC.
|
dillsage
|
Shirley Clarke - Formative Assessment in Action page 2:
"As with anything of any worth in education, formative assessment has been argued over, misinterpreted and misused. ... As too-straitjacketed approach to techniques doesn't work because the underlying aims of active learning are not guiding the practice, requiring constant flexibility and re-evaluation of learning needs at the moment. A flexible, 'follow the principles and do your own thing' approach, however, leads to disillusionment when things don't work very well because the specifics of the technique have not been studied. Both aspects make or break the success of formative assessment implementation."
OK. So now I'll read the rest.
|
senorcalvo
|
We have just started using success criteria and at times i must say it can be confusing.
Currently the children have a Learning Outcome (To subtract 3 digit numbers), A Learning Objective (I can subtract 3 digit numbers) and process Success Criteria (the steps they need to do to subtract 3 digit numbers).
I sometimes feel that after i have gone through the whole process of explaining the L/O and L/OBJ as well as getting the success criteria from the children(we try to have them as children lead) that we don't have enough time to actually do the work!
|
dillsage
|
Nitpicking.
Are you sure the outcome and objective are that way round? Not trying to be funny, but in a training earlier this week I wrote down that 'I can...' statements are outcomes. I wrote it down because I couldn't quite get my head round it at the time.
So now we're really clear!
(Do you really have to tell the children the L/O and the L/OB? Seems rather a waste of teaching time to do both, and rather confusing when they both use almost exactly the same words?)
Just checked on the Nat Strat site:
(so it must be true?):
"Assessment for learning requires children to have a clear understanding of what they are trying to learn (learning objectives), how they can recognise achievement (learning outcomes), what 'good' looks like (success criteria) and why they are learning this in the first place (i.e. the big picture, sometimes linked to personal curricular targets).
Learning objectives in lessons are important because they help secure progress towards the medium-term and longer-term objectives. They support planning and help focus the teaching on what children need to learn. They help children see the point of individual lessons or sequences of lessons.
Learning outcomes are important because they focus on children's achievement and help teachers design lessons that enable children to do well. As important as clear learning objectives are, it is the clarity of learning outcomes that most helps children make good progress over a sequence of work.
Success criteria are the refinement of the learning outcomes. They provide the detail needed to help children understand how to evaluate the quality of their work and improve it. "
Ours are called learning intentions though, not objectives, because apparently that gives greater clarity!
Because I am really sad, I've tried looking in the dictionary:
"objective: a thing aimed at or wished for, a goal"
"outcome: the result of some action or situation, etc, consequence"
"intention: something that one plans or intends to do; an aim or purpose"
(I can also remember some circular arguments about the difference between aims and objectives - they seem remarkably similar to me - "aim: what a person, etc intends to do; the achievement aimed at").
The 'outcome' "I can add 3-digit numbers" seems to me to quite reasonably also be considered as an aim, objective or intention - you are aiming to be able to do it - it's something you want to do in the future. I'm not sure that children are too bothered by the semantics of it all, thoguh maybe I'm missing something.
Oh, and I've been reading Shirley Clarke's, "Active Learning through Formative Assessment" and it says, "Some authorities advocate 'must, should, could" as the basis for three lists of differentiated success criteria, to ensure that all pupils progress. All the teachers in learning teams using this method have found it constrained pupils, lowered their expectations and overloaded short-term planning, so have now abandoned this approach. Differentiation by activity, rather than differentiating by success criteria, seems more successful.
It is most effective if all pupils have the same learning objective, the same context and the same success criteria, but certain success criteria are highlighted as priorities and, most importantly, activities are planned so that there is varied support within the task to ensure authentic 'personalised learning'."
But I'm not convinced it always works with large SEN groups if you want them to be able to access the SC independently (eg when they are poor readers, or in widely spaced ability maths).
|
thehawk
|
I think generally , dillsage, I agree with all that above. Unfortunately, my SLT have a different version!
|
wicked witch
|
It's difficult isn't it? We all get told something slightly different and different people interpret the same thing in different ways.
Our presentation policy is on display in the class and wouldn't appear as success criteria. After all, whether or not you underline the date has no impact on the quality of the work
We don't have must, could etc as it can be limiting but have success criteria that all the children can aspire to. It's surprising how often your less able can do something unexpected. I tend to put them in the order I want, all children must do top2, most should do next 2 etc. It seems to work fairly well but we are still new at it so still experimenting.
|
thehawk
|
| wicked witch wrote: | Our presentation policy is on display in the class and wouldn't appear as success criteria. After all, whether or not you underline the date has no impact on the quality of the work
. |
Heretic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (according to my SLT)
|
psycho_jo
|
thanks dillsage - I found that very useful.Think I am doing the "right" thing!!
We use must/should/could layered targets for maths and I must admit I don't like them. We're supposed to display them in classroom and put children's names or groups by each one, but what you said about it limiting the children and having lower expectations is exactly how I've felt about it but hadn't put into words. Will pinch those words and have a word with maths co!
|
dillsage
|
Glad to be appreciated! (It makes a pleasant change!) I've just made name cards to put on our curricular target displays. I have resisted it for a long time because I'm worried it could demotivate some children, but have decided to try it out as it seems to be working in the class next door. I'd just hate to be a child that was always at the bottom of the scale in everything right through school - hopefully it motivates them enough to push a bit further up, but two of my weakest pupils are the older of my two year groups and will be below younger pupils. Do other schools put them on display in relation to their levels?
|
choccat
|
We are supposed to use layerd SC criteria in all lessons, however I don't often use them for Maths I as find they are not helpful and I have to spend too much time trying to breakdown processes in order to come with them. I tend to just use a Learning Objective and the get the children to do a smiley face, striaght face or sad face to tell me how they feel about the work they have done. I find well differentiated work and setting a challenge for those who finish early works best for me in Maths, all the children want to get on to the challenge as extra house points are rewarded.
We need to ensure that children have the time to practice and hone the skills we are teaching them, being able to do it once does not in my book equate with success. If we spend half a lesson going through objectives and outcomes and success criteria we are not giving the children a proper chance to succeed.
(And I'm sure that a million years ago when I went to school we didn't have LOs or SC and we did all right.)
|
thehawk
|
Don't you think that different lessons sometimes need different approaches and we shouldn't just stick to one?
|
thehawk
|
Why would must/should/could demotivate lower ability? If you "encourage them " to aim at the should, and give them time or design work so that in the early stages they have an opportunity to hit must and should??
|
sal 26
|
| thehawk wrote: | | I think there are skills you can list in your SC (e.g use adverbs) but writing is more than just ticking boxes. It is not just a recipe, "use these things and you get a great story". |
So true hawk. There is a danger requirements become so set in stone and formulaic that they threaten to squeeze the life & passion out of what you're trying to do - ie. build children's enthusiasm for the subject & develop children's skills to pursue it further.
|
wicked witch
|
I love this thread!
|
choccat
|
| thehawk wrote: | | Don't you think that different lessons sometimes need different approaches and we shouldn't just stick to one? |
Yes, totally agree, but once those in authority decide they like something and implement it then it has to be observed in every lesson.  That, Hawk, is the trouble with all these new initiatives we have to be seen to be using them and we are in danger of overdoing and not going with our instincts as trained teachers and doing what we actually know is best for our pupils.
|
magpie nic
|
So true Choccat.
|
thehawk
|
In the old days, you would hear a good idea and then decide, using professional judgement, whether to use it, all of it some of it or none of it. Now, you have to use it, or you are a rubbish teacher.
Strange how "doing as you are told" is perceived as a higher skill than "making your own judgement". Yet we want our children to decide for themselves about life choices, rather than just do as they are told.
|
Gertie Grumbles
|
Re: should success criteria.... | thehawk wrote: | deal with genre specific stuff (e.g. use bullet points accurately)
: |
absolutely yes!
| thehawk wrote: |
How much should they match/dovetail with the LEarning Objective?
|
totally - 100%!!!
|
dillsage
|
I loved sal's phrase, "squeeze the life & passion out". I feel squeezed! But I've had a good weekend bumping into friends I've not seen for ages, so I'm ready to face it all again. And this place helps a lot too!
|
