Effective AfL gives pupils opportunities to make improvements and learn more after receiving feedback (Hodgson & Pyle, 2010 and Smith, 2011). Ofsted (1998), reported that many teachers give feedback but do not allow pupils time to act on it. If students do not act on feedback, it is not actually formative (Sadler, 1989 and Gioka, 2006).
Hattie (2009) and Melmer et al (2008), argues that teachers receiving feedback on pupils understanding and learning, which is used to adjust ongoing teaching is more important than simply providing pupils with feedback, as previously suggested by Black & William (1998).
To effectively engage pupils in their learning, feedback needs to be linked to shared learning objectives (Harrison et al,2001 and DfES, 2004). …show more content…
Ultimately, self-assessment is essential, as it puts the pupils in charge of their own learning and they develop a deeper rather than surface understanding (Harrison & Harlen, 2006; Harlen 2007, and Black & Harrison, 2004).
Review of teaching and learning
For study, a mixed ability year 9 class was selected and observed over a series of ten lessons, as outlined in the introduction.
A range of six pupils were selected based on pupil data held by School X, as the focus of the research, with some comparison made to whole class performance.
All lessons followed a similar pattern with a mix of written work, questioning and visual or kinaesthetic activities to provide for all types of learning style.
Questioning
Due to the mixed ability of the class, simple written recall questions were used to assess knowledge and vocabulary at the start of each lesson, as suggested by Peer and Reid …show more content…
Initially written feedback was given on every piece of written work. However, it soon became apparent that it was not necessarily the quantity of feedback, but the quality that mattered, as suggested by Black et al (2002) and having time to act was a critical factor, as suggested by Hodgson & Pyle, (2010) and Smith, (2011).
While higher ability pupils had time to make improvements as suggested by feedback, lower ability pupils often did not have the luxury of time in lessons and therefore did not make improvements unless dedicated lesson time was allocated. In some ways, this supports the suggestion by Sly (1999) and Henly (2003), that feedback has little impact on improving underperformance and that only 60% of pupils benefit from feedback as suggested by Kluger & Denisi (1996).
However, it was observed that reducing the frequency and improving the quality of written feedback, resulted in greater action and noticeable future improvements, as suggested by Black et al (2002). This was most noticeable for pupils who had previously underachieved. While this contradicts Sly (1999) and Henly (2003), it supports the suggestions of and Black & William (1998), that previously underperforming pupils benefit most from any form of
Hattie (2009) and Melmer et al (2008), argues that teachers receiving feedback on pupils understanding and learning, which is used to adjust ongoing teaching is more important than simply providing pupils with feedback, as previously suggested by Black & William (1998).
To effectively engage pupils in their learning, feedback needs to be linked to shared learning objectives (Harrison et al,2001 and DfES, 2004). …show more content…
Ultimately, self-assessment is essential, as it puts the pupils in charge of their own learning and they develop a deeper rather than surface understanding (Harrison & Harlen, 2006; Harlen 2007, and Black & Harrison, 2004).
Review of teaching and learning
For study, a mixed ability year 9 class was selected and observed over a series of ten lessons, as outlined in the introduction.
A range of six pupils were selected based on pupil data held by School X, as the focus of the research, with some comparison made to whole class performance.
All lessons followed a similar pattern with a mix of written work, questioning and visual or kinaesthetic activities to provide for all types of learning style.
Questioning
Due to the mixed ability of the class, simple written recall questions were used to assess knowledge and vocabulary at the start of each lesson, as suggested by Peer and Reid …show more content…
Initially written feedback was given on every piece of written work. However, it soon became apparent that it was not necessarily the quantity of feedback, but the quality that mattered, as suggested by Black et al (2002) and having time to act was a critical factor, as suggested by Hodgson & Pyle, (2010) and Smith, (2011).
While higher ability pupils had time to make improvements as suggested by feedback, lower ability pupils often did not have the luxury of time in lessons and therefore did not make improvements unless dedicated lesson time was allocated. In some ways, this supports the suggestion by Sly (1999) and Henly (2003), that feedback has little impact on improving underperformance and that only 60% of pupils benefit from feedback as suggested by Kluger & Denisi (1996).
However, it was observed that reducing the frequency and improving the quality of written feedback, resulted in greater action and noticeable future improvements, as suggested by Black et al (2002). This was most noticeable for pupils who had previously underachieved. While this contradicts Sly (1999) and Henly (2003), it supports the suggestions of and Black & William (1998), that previously underperforming pupils benefit most from any form of