Enabling Outstanding Written Communication through expert subject specific modelling.
EXPLAIN During the initial learning journey stages the teacher explicitly explains the key skills required in order to produce a sophisticated piece of writing or piece of art work. The teacher is aware that in order for students to be sophisticated learners the students themselves must appreciate the increasing cognitive demands of the task.
PRE-PREPARED MODEL Teaching practitioners effectively plan, prior to the learning journey, a model of the expected written/practical outcome.
DECONSTRUCTIONIn collaboration with students the model is deconstructed and the key elements that meet the assessment criteria are drawn out and explained.
COLLABORATIVE PLAN- Students and the teacher plan a further response utilising the knowledge gained during the prior deconstruction task.
Outstanding 1 The teacher discusses the question/task title in an engaging manner so that students feel motivated and encouraged to meet the required demands. The question/task is broken down with clarity and the varying cognitive demands are clear from the verbal explanation. The teacher has a clear understanding of how this task will be assessed and effectively shapes their verbal explanation around this knowledge. Visual reinforcements are used in a highly effective way to enable students to retain what the question is asking of them. Where appropriate kinesthetic, and auditory resources are also used to enhance student understanding and engage all learners. It is due to the teacher’s explicit explanation students have the ability to recall what has been discussed and rely on this knowledge when independently tackling a question/task of a similar nature.
Good 2 The teacher has a clear understanding of the question/task title. It is evident that they also understand how the task is assessed. This is communicated to students and where necessary the question is segmented according to the nature of the assessment demands. The students are engaged in this verbal introduction and as a result are clear regarding the task expectations. This clear introduction arms students with the ability to segment a question/task according to the cognitive demands during the later independent application stages.
Requires Improvement 3 There is some evidence that the teacher has considered the question/task prior to the lesson. Resources have been produced that attempt to help the students make sense of the task. These however are hampered by the teacher’s lack of knowledge regarding the assessment criteria. This filters through to the students understanding. They can talk about the ‘answer’ or ‘final product’ but cannot really explain the learning process that will get them to that point.
Unsatisfactory 4 There is no evidence that the teacher has considered the set question/task prior to the lesson. It is presented in dis-engaging way and as a result students are not motivated to complete the required task. The teacher’s knowledge of how the task will be assessed is limited and as a result the students’ knowledge is limited also. Students are unable to replicate how to manage a multi-layered question/task beyond a very simplistic point.
The practical or written model produced by the teacher is inspirational. The teacher ensures that the model enables students to clearly ‘see’ the expected outcome. It is evident from the model produced that the teacher has exceptionally high aspirations. These are expertly balanced, stretching students understanding and belief constantly without it ever feeling unattainable. The teacher is an expert and their artistic skills and talents are evident in the piece being showcased. During the deconstruction stage the teacher expertly draws on the assessment criteria unpicking why the inspirational model is successful. As a result students have a clarity regarding how to achieve something of a similar standard. They understand the learning process required in order to achieve something of this standard and feel inspired and motivated to produce work that exercises an individualistic approach rather than one that is influenced by rote learning.
The teacher produces a model that enables students to have a clear sense of what the final outcome should look like. The model is influenced by the assessment criteria and demonstrates the teacher’s expert skills in Art. It is evident that the teacher expects students to replicate writing or art work of a similar standard.
The teacher produces a pre-prepared piece of writing/art work however its impact is limited due to the teachers lack of knowledge regarding the assessment criteria.
The teacher does not produce a pre-prepared written or practical model of the expected outcome. This hampers students understanding as they are unable to ‘see’ the final outcome.
The model is deconstructed in such a way that students are able to replicate a final outcome of a similar standard. The way the model is influenced/shaped by the assessment criteria is discussed and students appreciate how to achieve a final outcome of a similar standard with many exercising independence during the production of the final outcome
Due to the lack of a model students are attempting to complete outcomes by ‘guessing’ what they should look like. They are unable to link the final product with the assessment criteria and as a result the outcome demonstrates a lack of understanding and progress.
It is evident that the teacher has effectively planned each stage of the learning journey to consolidate the last. The teacher sets a further appropriate question/task that tests the knowledge gained in the earlier modelling and deconstruction tasks. The teacher expertly manages the contributions of the whole group ensuring all students contributions are valued and utilized appropriately. All students are eager to write down the plan as they have complete ownership over it and are able to engage with it due to the clarity
The teacher sets a further question. Contributions are managed effectively and are utilized on the board. Students are eager to write the plan down as they feel they have ownership over it. Most students offer valid contributions to the plan engaged by their clarity and the varied styles employed by the teacher.
The teacher attempts to deconstruct the model however this is carried out superficially with limited impact. The lack of understanding of the assessment criteria hampers any depth of analysis and as a result students can ‘see’ the final outcome but are unable to appreciate how this was achieved and why certain decisions were made regarding the final outcome. A further question is introduced. Some students offer contributions to the plan however these comments tend to lack an independent understand and demonstrate a superficial understanding of the assessment criteria and demands of the question.
Due to a lack of planning in the earlier stages of the lesson students struggle to offer valuable contributions to the collaborative planning stage and it is therefore owned by the teacher rather than the students. The lack of student understanding, results in a lack of input and ultimately a lack of interest as students do not feel
REAL TIME MODELThe teacher then expertly demonstrates in ‘real time’ the written outcome under the visualizer. The verbal commentary includes comments and illustrations of the cognitive processes involved in constructing the piece/text.
COLLABORATIVE THINKING, ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTIONStudents, in groups, construct a collaborative response independent of the teacher. Depending on the outcome this may lead to further intervention and deconstruction of models produced.
of their understanding. Where appropriate the teacher highlights /reinforces individual contributions to ensure fellow peers gain from these. It is evident students are eager to contribute to this planning phase and their contributions demonstrate sophisticated understanding. The teacher expertly demonstrates in ‘real time’ the written/practical outcome using the collaborative plan as a foundation. A verbal commentary explaining the success of the piece of writing/art is delivered as the task is carried out under the visualizer/in real time at a desk. The verbal commentary includes comments and illustrations of the cognitive processes involved in constructing the piece/text. Students are in awe of the teacher’s skills and are eager to carry out the final outcome independently.
The teacher has planned a stimulating and inspirational collaborative task that creatively overlearns the skills acquired in the earlier stages of the lesson. As a result all students’ are engrossed in appropriately pitched group work and demonstrate exceptional levels of enjoyment. The carefully timed task encourages all students to work together collaboratively. As a result they produce a final written/practical outcome that demonstrates sophisticated understanding. The wellconsidered task also encourages excellent relationships in the class and enables all students to offer valuable contributions to the learning experience and make considerable progress. The teacher accurately monitors progress at all times and effectively intervenes where progress is not sustained, confidently returning to whole class teaching where necessary to sustain progress
empowered to carry out a similar task independently.
A real time written/practical model is completed as a result of the collaborative plan. This is completed under the visualiser/at a desk and most students are keen to see how the plan transfers into a final product. The teacher offers a verbal commentary as the final product is constructed. This enables students to gain further understanding and ultimately produce a final outcome that is shaped by the assessment criteria.
The teacher produces a real time piece of writing/art work however its impact is limited due to the teacher’s lack of knowledge regarding the assessment criteria.
The teacher does not have the confidence to attempt a written or practical model of the expected outcome. Again this lack of a model hampers students understanding as they are unable to ‘see’ the final outcome.
The teacher plans and manages an appropriate collaborative learning task that builds on the prior learning achieved during the ‘modelling’ tasks. The activity is well timed and is presented in an engaging way. As a result students work productively and show considerable interest in the group activities. As a group they produce a final outcome that demonstrates good understanding of what is required according to the assessment criteria. The considered collaborative learning task ensures the students relate well to each other. They feel secure, gain confidence and most communicate well with other students enabling good progress.
There is evidence of a planned collaborative task The teacher seeks to make the collaborative task interesting and is successful some of the time. The task does not always successfully reinforce prior learning. The pace at times does prevent a better rate of progress. There is some evidence of enjoyment. Students’ understand what to do and enjoy, participating in the group activity. The collaborative learning task and relationships are constructive. There is a well ordered atmosphere in the classroom including some student interaction enabling adequate progress.
There is no evidence of a planned collaborative learning task. The group has been put together without any consideration and as a result many are unwilling to work together without constant supervision. Teaching is dull and fails to capture students’ interest and enthusiasm. Timing is illjudged resulting in students disengaging. Greater effort is exerted on managing behaviour than on learning. Classroom management is ineffective and as a result students do not work effectively together, are not prepared to offer contributions and do not make the expected progress.
Learning appears to be monitored throughout the duration of the task and there is a clear sense that the teacher is aware of student progress though there is no evidence of the teacher’s ability to respond to this with any immediacy. Students complete a final product of satisfactory standard. There is a limited knowledge of the assessment criteria and utilization of this knowledge to create the final outcome is limited too. Students can talk on a basic level about how previous learning activities have supported the completion of the final outcome however this
The teacher fails to monitor student progress accurately and group work tasks are allowed to persist for long periods of time with no effective teacher intervention. As a result students make little or no progress.
The teacher accurately monitors progress at all times and intervenes where progress is not sustained, interventions tend to be at small group level rather than making the judgement to deliver productive interventions at whole class level. INDEPENDENT APPLICATIONFinally, students produce a sophisticated independent response that reflects on understanding of organisation and cohesion gained from the earlier
Students complete a highly sophisticated written outcome/ piece of art that demonstrates a conscious understanding of the assessment criteria. Students are able to clearly articulate decisions they have made and coherently verbalise the process of their thinking. The final product reveals a highly sophisticated, individualistic take on the task and is evidence of significant progress.
The final written or practical outcome produced by students is of a very good quality and is influenced by the assessment criteria. Students are able to discuss their individual learning journey with a particular emphasis on the creation of the final product. The students are able to draw on the previous learning activities and as a result make good progress
The final written or practical outcome produced by students demonstrates a lack of progress. The students are unable to demonstrate any understanding of the assessment criteria and as a result the final outcome has no relation to the assessment criteria. Students are unable to discuss their individual learning journey or make
learning activities.
limited understanding and lack of ownership over the final outcome suggests learning by rote.
links with the previous learning activities carried out. As a result progress is below the expected standard.