You are on page 1of 18

Formative Teaching Methods Geoff Petty Jan 2004

The strategies below are mostly for teaching where there is a right way to answer questions (convergent learning). For example: calculations in mathematics science accounts or similar punctuation grammar translation or other language s!ills mastering content: basic !nowle"ge an" comprehension in any sub#ect they can be a"apte" to teach practical s!ills in"ee" to most s!ills teaching they can be a"apte" to teach social s!ills such as "ealing with a customer complaint. Groundrules for self and peer assessment: $f Formative Teaching %etho"s are to be use" effectively stu"ents must enter into the metho"s with the right spirit. Try to agree the following with your stu"ents: We ill learn !est if e all agree that: $ts o!ay if you "ont fully un"erstan" a concept first time learning ta!es time. $f wor! is gra"e" aim to beat your own recor" not someone elses. &owever gra"ing shoul" be avoi"e" where possible. what counts is whether you un"erstan" the problem an" solution or question an" answer eventually: not whether you got it right first time not whether you got it wrong #ust because of a silly slip $t is not humiliating to ma!e a mista!e. 'e all ma!e mista!es when we learn. $n"ee" is part of how we learn. $f we "ont ma!e mista!es the wor! is too easy for us to learn at our maximum rate. %ista!es are useful because they tell us where we can improve. $ts goo" for learning to a"mit to not un"erstan"ing an" to a"mit to mista!es an" then as! for clarification. we shoul" never ri"icule each other for mista!es even in a #o!ing way (ou will learn from mista!es if you fin" out how to "o it without mista!es next time an" really un"erstan" this. )re you brave* )s an half+hour long exercise to get your stu"ents into the right spirit you might li!e to as! them to say hooray every time they notice one of their own mista!es, When to use Formative Teaching strategies -ome of the strategies that follow are very "eman"ing. $f stu"ents fin" them "ifficult or tiring you might li!e to re"uce the time spent on them but "ont give them up. They are too powerful to aban"on. .o listen in to the peer explaining an" peer assessing conversations they will give you valuable if "epressing insight into the level of your stu"ents un"erstan"ing but "ont butt in. $f stu"ents are not much goo" at peer explaining self+assessment or peer+assessment this is no reason to aban"on them. $t is a reason to give your stu"ents more practice in it. &owever you might want to use corrective peer explaining an" to review peer an" self assessment after it has ta!en place to stress the !ey points an" "eal with common wea!nesses.

Formative Teaching "trategies


#$ Peer %ssessment in pairs
The simplest form of peer assessment is to get stu"ents to wor! alone on an exercise for five minutes or so an" then get pairs to swap their wor! an" assess each others. Fee"bac! is usually verbal rather than in writing. $t nee"s to be given in a supportive way. /eer assessment in pairs with mo"el answers )nother strategy which 0ibbs foun" almost "ouble" attainment on a university engineering course is as follows. This strategy is useful if you are setting less wor! for stu"ents than you woul" li!e because you cant !eep up with mar!ing. &owever peer assessment is goo" practice anyway. -tu"ents "o a wor!sheet of questions an" put their name on it They han" these to the teacher who gives them out to other stu"ents to mar!. -tu"ents "o not !now who is mar!ing their wor!. -tu"ents mar! their peers wor! using mo"el answers or wor!e" solutions inclu"ing a mar! scheme provi"e" by the teacher. The wor! is han"e" bac! to its rightful owner an" stu"ents each !eep the wor!e" solutions. %ost stu"ents will probably chec! the quality of the peers mar!ing but the teacher "oes not. $n the case 0ibbs reports the teacher "i" not even ta!e "own the mar!s that the stu"ents obtaine". The average mar! on the unit rose from aroun" 123 to aroun" 423 as a result of this strategy, ((ou coul" of course collect mar!s at this stage if you prefer.)

The process of mar!ing anothers wor! has a number of stri!ing a"vantages over having your wor! mar!e" by the teacher. -tu"ents see alternative ways of answering the questin or solving the problem5 they see mo"el answers or wor!e" solutions an" have to stu"y these closely "uring the mar!ing5 an" they see where mar!s are gaine" an" lost. This ma!es the goals clear. -tu"ents also have to ma!e #u"gements about their peers wor! which requires them to clarify their un"erstan"ing of the sub#ect matter an" the goals set. 'hat is more the goals are learne" by in"uction from stu"ying the concrete wor!e" solutions this is a powerful way to learn. This is an excellent way of getting stu"ents to "o more wor! than you can mar! but it is much more than this. The metho" contains a hi""en message. $t teaches stu"ents how to avoi" mista!es an" how to improve but more than this it teaches them that mista!es are avoi"able an" that improvement is possible. $t shows stu"ents that achievement is not "epen"ent on innate talent but on "oing the #ob well. $t is "ifficult to overestimate the importance of this message it has been shown to have a huge effect on stu"ents motivation an" achievement. (-ee the .wec! han"out on the motivation page of my moonfruit site).

$t "oes not matter if stu"ents "o not ma!e perfect #u"gements an" you nee" not arbitrate in every case. The "esire" outcome is that learners clarify their un"erstan"ing an" set themselves goals for improvement if this outcome is achieve" that is often sufficient. $ am not of course saying that teachers nee" not mar! stu"ents wor! only that peer assessment is very useful.

2$ Peer %ssessment in groups


-tu"ents are arrange" in groups of three or four its best if they are not frien"ship groups. $t can be "one in pairs but the more learners in the group the more their answers are li!ely to "iffer in ways that help stu"ents to learn. -tu"ents are given questions or calculations to "o which they wor! on alone in the first instance (say five minutes) -tu"ents compare their answers reasoning metho"s wor!ing etc noting "ifferences. They "iscuss an" try to agree: 'hich are the correct or best metho"s wor!ings reasoning an" answers etc an" why The groups i"ea of the best answer. 'hat errors were ma"e by group members an" why (this is "one in a supportive an" constructive manner) The stu"ents are then given mo"el answers an" compare their group answer with the teachers mo"el answer. -ee also 1 /eer assessment of "eliberate errors below.

&$ Peer '(plaining


/eers explaining of mo"el answers This is a variant of the above an" was "evise" an" researche" by 6arroll. -he foun" that this metho" enable" stu"ents to learn the s!ill faster while ma!ing less errors even though more stages are involve" than the usual metho" (which is to use only 7 an" 8 below). 7. The teacher "emonstrates how to "o it on the boar" explaining an" thin!ing out lou" in the usual way. 9.g. how to use tangents to "etermine an un!nown angle how to use apostrophes how to write a care plan from a scenario etc

Peer explaining of model answers

:. -tu"ents are arrange" in pairs not necessarily with frien"s. ;. The teacher has prepare" two sets of questions with their mo"el answers fully wor!e". 9ach contains a variety of "ifferent types of questions very similar to the ones "emonstrate" by the teacher. 9ach pair has one of each set. 9ach stu"ent only wor!s with one of the sets in the next stage.

1. -tu"ents stu"y their own mo"el answers alone preparing for the next stage (say 2 minutes) 2. 9ach stu"ent explains their set of mo"el answers to their partner pointing out what was "one an" why an" why the metho" an" wor!ing is soun". 8. -tu"ents then practice "oing some by themselves in the usual way. The i"ea behin" this metho" is that if teachers go straight from 7 to 8 this is too big a leap for many stu"ents. $t goes straight from !nowle"ge to application on <looms taxonomy. 6onsequently wea! stu"ents are trying to comprehen" the metho" at the same time as trying to apply it which is too much for them. 'ea! stu"ents often report that they un"erstan" the teacher "emonstration yet are unable to ="o one by themselves.> This strategy provi"es an extra rung on the la""er (strengthening comprehension on <looms taxonomy) which ma!es stu"ents conceptualise the metho" by requiring them to express it in their own wor"s. ?nce stu"ents are use" to peer explaining they can be encourage" to explain to small groups or to the class as a whole. =@ohn can you explain your solution to question A on the boar"*>

Usual 2 step approach

Carrolls 3 step approach

Students do some on their own

Students do some on their own

Peer explaining

Teacher shows how on the board

Teacher shows how on the board

application

application comprehension

knowledge

knowledge

/ilot an" navigator: This wor!s well for stu"ents wor!ing on computers in pairs but can be use" in other contexts. -tu"ents are paire" up one ta!es the role of navigator an" the other is the pilot. The navigator tells the pilot what to "o an" why. 9.g. =?!ay with the mouse go up to File an" choose /rint.> The pilot "oes this an" is correcte" by the navigator if necessary. The navigator is not allowe" to ta!e the controls. This wor!s best if the navigator is the stronger stu"ent however ta!ing turns in the roles also wor!s well. $ts har"er to explain clearly than iit is to "o it so navigators often learn more than their pilots. /eers explain a summary of !ey points )t the beginning of the lesson the teacher ma!es it clear to learners that at the en" of the lesson they will be require" to peer explain the !ey points of the lesson. These two points are given in a"vance for example: ='hat is /ythagorass Theorem an" when "oes it apply or not apply*> =&ow can the theorem be use" to fin" an un!nown si"e of a triangle*> ?r ='ho supporte" 6romwell an" why*> ='hat were 6romwells !ey goals an" how "o we !now these*> The lesson then continues in the usual way with the aim of teaching the two !ey points mentione". )t the en" of the lesson the peer explaining ta!es place li!e this. $t usually ta!es between five to ten minutes. -tu"ents are put into pairs an" given one ob#ective each those nearest the win"ow please answer the first question -tu"ents prepare for a minute what they will say to each other They peer explain their !ey points to each other the listener is allowe" to mention ways of improving their partners explanation only after they have finishe". The teacher then gives mo"el answers an" as!s the pair what "i" you miss out or get wrong* /airs then "iscuss this correcting themselves first an" then each other. The teacher can then as! stu"ents to prepare for a repeat peer explaining session at the beginning of the next lesson. The challenge is to fix any wea!nesses foun" in the first peer explaining session.

There is a "anger that stu"ents or their teacher will see this metho" as a cramming technique to force rote memory. &owever it purpose shoul" be to ensure that !ey points

the structure of the material an" their an" meaning are properly un"erstoo". -o stress why the !ey points are !ey points an" stress the meaning of the structure of the information. )tten" at least as much to the why as to the what of the leraning. This strategy has some of the properties of mastery learning which a""s at least a gra"e to stu"ent achievement see =Teaching To"ay> 0eoffrey /etty for more on mastery learning.

/eers explain their answers to questions. This is a simpler version of the above. $t is a useful way of encouraging participation in question an" answer an" for provi"ing the =wait time> nee"e" for stu"ents to engage with questions fully. The teacher explains the following process so stu"ents !now what is about to happen The teacher as!s a question that is reasonably thought provo!ing or sets them a short tas! to "o on paper or similar. The stu"ents are as!e" to wor! on this alone for a given perio" of time. -tu"ents explain their answers to each other. ?nly after their partner has finishe" explaining can they challenge or comment on the answer. 'hen both answers have been expresse" they can compare an" "iscuss their answers. The teacher gives the correct answer to the question an" as!s stu"ents to "iscuss the extent to which they both got it right an" to explore any misun"erstan"ings that they ha". ?ptionally there can be a class "iscussion on any issues raise" an" on misun"erstan"ings etc which shoul" be consi"ere" as interesting an" useful learning opportunities. (-ee the groun"+rules above)

4$ Peer assessment of deli!erate errors


This is a variant of peer explaining exemplars "escribe" above an" is often "one imme"iately after it. -tu"ents are put in pairs -tu"ents are given a set of wor!e" examples containing "eliberate errors. The two stu"ents in each pair have "ifferent examples. -tu"ents wor! on the own to fin": 'hats wrong 'hy its wrong &ow to "o it right

9ach stu"ent in the pair explains the errors in each of their examples to their partner $f a stu"ents has notice" errors in their partners examples that they have misse" they now point these out. The teacher then as!s stu"ents for the errors they have foun" an" confirms or "enies these. The teacher clarifies misconceptions carefully.

This is a fun activity an" a useful exercise to =inoculate> stu"ents against common errors an" misun"erstan"ings. $t shoul" not be "one too early in a topic for fear of confusing stu"ents but it very useful at the en" of a topic to "iscover an" correct any lingering misconceptions. $f stu"ents cannot error spot they will not be able to proof+rea" their own wor!. %dvantages of Peer %ssessment: -tu"ents learn other ways of "oing it an" gain a wi"er view of what is possible. <y evaluating metho"s they come to un"erstan" them better They become more reflective of their own learning. For example if a stu"ent realises they got one calculation wrong because they confuse" a sine with a tangent that is very helpful. -tu"ents greatly en#oy this metho" an" both helpers an" helpe" learn if they support each other constructively. (The stan"ar" of "iscussion is commonly higher than you expect,) They attribute success to effort using the right strategy etc rather than innate ability. This empowers learners to improve.

)$ "elf %ssessment
-elf+assessment using goals assessment criteria or ob#ectives )t the en" of a tas! topic or lesson stu"ents are remin"e" of the goals ob#ectives or assessment criteria. -tu"ents are then as!e" to ta!e say five minutes to loo! over their wor! an" self assess: 'hat they have learne" !now an" can "o 'hat they still nee" to learn or practice to achieve the goal or ob#ectives

-tu"ents use this to set themselves an in"ivi"ual action plan

The action plan is implemente" next lesson '(amples:


-tu"ents have #ust complete" "rawing a graph they use assessment criteria "evelope" an" explaine" "uring the lesson to assess their own wor!. -tu"ents have complete" a lesson on hair colouring which ha" three ob#ectives given in a"vance. The ob#ectives are presente" on the ?&/ an" stu"ents reflect on whether they believe they have met them. -tu"ents have complete" three lessons on the rift valley. The teacher writes up a chec!list of statements in the form =$ can now i"entify a rift valley on a map> etc. -tu"ents wor! alone to "eci"e whether they can meet these goals. -tu"ents have #ust complete" the first of two presentations. They self+assess against criteria which were "etermine" in a"vance an" then set themselves goals for their next presentation.

Bsing an assessment proforma to assist self peer an" teacher assessment &ere is an assessment proforma for mar!ing calculation in mathematics or science etc. $t helps to focus stu"ents efforts on the most important s!ills rather than #ust on getting the right answer. -ee http:**geoffpetty$moonfruit$com for many more examples of assessment proformas.

Assessment criteria Methods: aim to make these appropriate, and as simple or elegant as possible. Methods +ustified: The principles or formulae use" are ma"e clear Working: aim to make working clear; complete; easy to follow; stating principles or formulae used where necessary. Care taken: aim to check your work for errors, and present work neatly. Main strengths

grade

Teacher, peer, or self-assessment

-elf assessment as a wor!shop review 6arol Cyssen of ?xfor" 6ollege uses this strategy with her &air"ressing an" <eauty stu"ents. -he uses the strategy with her whole teaching team but it coul" be easily a"apte" for use with a single teacher. ?b#ectives are state" at the beginning of each lesson by every teacher in the team an" are written by stu"ents in an exercise boo! specifically for this purpose. -tu"ents review their learning against the ob#ectives at the en" of each session. There are wee!ly s!ills wor!shops where stu"ents review the ob#ectives for the whole wee! pic!ing out those they feel least confi"ent about. The wor!shop teacher "eals with any ob#ectives the whole class has ha" trouble with

-tu"ents are supporte" in personal wor! towar"s the ob#ectives they have personal "ifficulty with.

This requires that the wor!shop is run by a teacher who can thin! on her feet an" who has an excellent grasp of the whole curriculum. $t also requires the availability of suitable boo!s an" other learning materials.

-elf+assessment using mo"el answers This is a stu"ent activity which follows the teacher explaining an" mo"elling how to "o it to the class The teacher explains that stu"ents will mar! their own wor! on this exercise an" that the teacher will not mar! it. (&owever the teacher can chec! whether or not stu"ents have self+assesse".) -tu"ents "o an exercise which might be a series of questions. 'hen they have finishe" they proof+rea" their own wor! before the next stage. -tu"ents are given mo"el answers or examplars. These might have a mar! scheme on them. The stu"ents mar! their own wor! against these mo"el answers. $f they "o not un"erstan" an answer or why their answer is wrong they try to puDDle this out for themselves rather than as! imme"iately for help. The teacher offers help where nee"e" but "oes not mar! the wor! or chec! the stu"ents own mar!ing usually. -tu"ents can then "o the next few questions an" so on. The self assessment using mo"el answers can be "one in stages through a wor!sheet for example every two questions. ?ptionally the stu"ents coul" correct their wor!. &owever it is best if they "o not offer this wor! for mar!ing by the teacher. $f they expect the teacher will mar! their wor! they will often #ust copy the right answers from the mo"el without trying to un"erstan" them, $f the teacher will not mar! their wor! they are motivate" to wor! out for themselves how they have "one.

-ome stu"ents fin" mar!ing their own wor! preferable to a peer or teacher mar!ing. -elf+ assessment "evelops un"erstan"ing an" confi"ence. $t ma!es more "eman"s of the learner an" less of the teacher a characteristic of effective learning metho"s generally. This metho" is relate" to peer assessment metho"s. $n"ee" the same resources coul" be use" to "o both or either "epen"ing on stu"ent choice. ) compromise metho" is that stu"ents share the mo"el answers but mar! their own wor! "iscussing any issues together where necessary. -tu"ents en#oy this metho" much more than you woul" thin!. <ecause the fee"bac! is almost imme"iate it is very motivating an" the more frequently the fee"bac! occurs the more motivating it is. Try arranging the questions an" mo"el answers so that self+ assessment occurs after about every five minutes of stu"ent wor!. (ou must then ma!e

sure that stu"ents only see the mo"el answers for the questions that they have complete" of course, -ome stu"ents will nee" help conclu"ing what they have learne" from comparing their answers with the mo"el answers. (ou coul" as! them to write this "own or relate it to you before procee"ing. )s! them what are the rules about how to "o it* )s they relate these ac!nowle"ge correct responses an" then as! =why*>. That is why "oes this rule apply. -elf assessment with a formative test -tu"ents complete a test on the wor! they have "one "uring the last half term They self+mar! their paper using wor!e" solutions provi"e" by the teacher They are provi"e" with a list of topics an" subtopics that appeare" in the test an" are as!e" to mar! each as: 0reen if they can un"erstan" how to "o them (ignoring careless slips) Ee" if they "o not un"erstan" how to "o them )mber if they are not sure Name:
,ed $ts hol"ing me up sin cosine tangent /ythagoras %m!er Cot sure Green $ts not hol"ing me up

How did you do on:

The teacher loo!s through these self+assessments. $f there are lots of re" blobs next to a topic then this topic is reviewe". -tu"ents write action plans to respon" to their in"ivi"ual wea!nesses. 9.g. =$ nee" to remember to square root my answer when $ use pythagoras theorom>

This action plan coul" be chec!e" by teacher or by a peer (preferably not a close frien"). For example stu"ents coul" be as!e" to explain how to "o the questions they have been wor!ing on to their peer. (-ee peer explaining below). Advantages of self assessment ) research stu"y employing a similar metho" to the above "ouble" attainment in numeracy. (-ee the <lac! an" 'iliam Eeview (7FFA)) $t ma!es stu"ents aware of the goals an" familiarises them with the characteristics of acceptable wor! $t helps them wor! out how to improve that is to i"entify the gap between their present s!ills an" the learning goals. $t encourages stu"ents to ta!e responsibility for their own learning

-tu"ents reflect on themselves as learners an" so learn to learn this meta+cognition (thin!ing about thin!ing an" self+regulating their own learning) has been shown in many stu"ies to greatly improve learning. The most important a"vantage of self+assessment accor"ing to many theorists is that it ma!es stu"ents realise that success or failure "epen"s not on talent luc! or ability but on practice effort an" using the right strategies. 'hen stu"ents realise this they are motivate" to improve. -ee internal attribution at the en" of this "ocument.

-$ "poof.assessment
) spoof piece of wor! is one create" by the teacher specifically for the purpose of spoof+ assessment. $t is presente" as if it were "one by an imaginary stu"ent. For example: ) teacher presents two pieces of wor! G an" ( an" as!s stu"ents to mar! an" gra"e these. For mathematics or similar work stu"ents are given the answers to the wor!: ?ne piece of wor! has all the right answers but the metho"s are not explaine" or #ustifie" some are over long an" the wor!ing is not clear. The other piece of wor! has some wrong answers but the metho"s are correct fully explaine" an" #ustifie" an" the wor!ing is well lai" out an" easy to follow. %ost stu"ents will give the worst wor! the best mar! because they believe the goal is to get the right answer an" "o not consi"er metho"s an" wor!ing. For written work: ?ne piece of wor! is long has many technical terms an" impressive "iagrams an" is written in long sentences with quite complex grammar. 'hile superficially impressive the wor! "oes not answer the question. The other spoof piece of wor! is short only uses technical terms where necessary an" answers the question very well an" very concisely. )gain stu"ents usually give the worst wor! the best gra"e because when they rea" tas!s or assessment criteria they "o not pay enough attention to them or "o not un"erstan" them well enough. $n both cases there is class "iscussion after stu"ents have given their #u"gements. This is use" to un"erline learning points an" to explain the criteria for goo" wor!. This "iscussion is very important an" is ai"e" by the fact that all learners have copies of the sames pieces of wor! unli!e peer or self assessment. The teacher can "irect attention to this wor! an" to the criteria. =Hoo! at wor! G "i" they #ustify their answer as question ; require"* 'hat "oes it mean to #ustify an answer* Hets loo! at how ( "i" thisII > The first time you use spoof assessment it is fun to tell stu"ents that one piece of wor! is an ) gra"e an" one is a . gra"e an" as! them which is which. 'hen they get them the wrong way roun" as they usually "o as! them for a homewor! to go away an" wor! out why. -tu"ents may or may not be given assessment criteria the first time they "o spoof assessment. $f no criteria are given it helps to conclu"e "iscussions on the wor! by stressing how important these criteria are an" what they are. &owever stu"ents will benefit greatly from being given criteria for later attempts so they can practice interpreting them an" so learn what they mean. -poof assessment is one of the best ways of getting

stu"ents to really un"erstan" assessment criteria an" assessment language. The teacher "iscussion can be use" to explain any misun"erstan"ings. -poof wor! can in fact be wor! "one by a stu"ent in a previous year but with their name remove". $n this case you ought to have that stu"ents approval to meet copyright law even thought their name is not being use". $f stu"ents present wor! electronically it is not too "ifficult to save wor! for this purpose.

%any stu"ents believe that "escribe explain analyse an" evaluate all mean pretty much the same thing: write about. -poof assessment can really help them to un"erstan" assessment language. )nother useful metho" is to use "ecisions+"ecisions. -tu"ents are given phrases or short paragraphs of text to classify as "escriptions explanations analyses an" evaluations.

-poof assessment with one piece of wor! $t is not always possible to have two pieces of wor! as "escribe" above or the time to "iscuss it. )n excellent homewor! activity is to give stu"ents one goo" piece of wor! from last year to assess against clear criteria imme"iately after stu"ents have complete" an i"entical or similar tas!. -tu"ents learn a great "eal from examples of goo" practice li!e this. $t is a very natural way to learn animals learn this way J an" we are animals after all, )t first stu"ents may copy the surface characteristics of the goo" wor! they assess but with s!illful me"iation from the teacher they get to learn the important characteristics of this goo" wor! an" a"apt what they see to new situations.

/$ '(plaining tas0s
-tu"ents nee" to learn that the ob#ective is not simply to rote+learn proce"ures to get the right answer but to become a mathematician (or language specialist etc). This requires that they un"erstan" strategies !now when a strategy will wor! or not wor! an" why an" !now more than one way of "oing things an" so on. %athematics an" other s!ills teachers can set explaining tas!s to assist this "evelopment. For example: In your own words, explain Pythagorass heorem, descri!ing when it does and does not apply" #xplain also how it can !e used to find an unknown side of a triangle"$ -uch tas!s help stu"ents to "evelop an un"erstan"ing of concepts an" to remember them. /eer explaining 9xplaining tas!s can be set as written homewor! or as verbal pair+wor! in class. For example the tas! above coul" be split into two an" a pair of stu"ents be as!e" to ta!e half each an" explain to each other. They coul" then peer+assess each others explanation giving one strength an" one suggeste" improvement.

6orrective /eer 9xplaining To ma!e the peer explaining activity "escribe" above truly formative the teacher now gives the stu"ents the correct explanations very briefly an" as!s the stu"ents to i"entify how their explanations coul" have been improve". -tu"ents "o this for themselves first an" then explain these self+improvements to each other. ?nly then can pairs suggest improvements to each others wor!. -tu"ents are then as!e" to prepare for the next activity with the goal of explaining without any mista!es or omissions. )t the beginning of the next lesson the same peer+explaining tas! is repeate" as a review but also to chec! that improvements have been ma"e. -tu"ents nee" to be "iscourage" from rote learning they shoul" explain their answers an" give them in their own wor"s. )"vantages of /eer 9xplaining 9xplaining tas!s require stu"ents to clarify their un"erstan"ing an" chec! this. There may also be corrective wor! "one on these un"erstan"ings. There is a focus on !ey points as explanations are usually short. This requires stu"ents to structure their un"erstan"ing a prerequisite for it to pass into the long term memory. %ome examples of tasks for peer explaining &ow can you tell whether to use a sine or a cosine to fin" the un!nown si"e of a triangle* .raw some "iagrams to help you explain. ?ne of you ta!e sin the other cosin. 9xplain in your own wor"s where you woul" we use a comma an" where you woul" use a full+stop in a sentence. ?ne of you ta!e the full stop the other the comma. The one nearest the win"ow explain what is meant by a care plan an" the other explain the main criteria for evaluating a care plan.

1$ 2oing corrections
0etting questions right you initially got wrong ensures you improve un"erstan"ing an" unlearn misconceptions. $t also ma!es stu"ents more careful if they !now they must correct errors. &owever errors "ue to simple slips can usually be ignore" its fun"amental errors that require correction. This strategy li!e most teaching strategies can be overuse". -tu"ents may fin" it too "ispiriting if you as! them to correct all their wor! an" they may well not be able to !eep up. &owever the metho" can be un"eruse" too. -tu"ents sometimes nee" to have another go at something if they are really to un"erstan" how to "o it properly.

3$ 2iagnostic 4uestioning
Teacher: =$s 4 a prime number*> 6ompare the following two alternative approaches to questioning the same stu"ent. -tu"ent: =(es> Teacher: =$s 4 a prime number*> Teacher: ='hy*> -tu"ent: =(es> -tu"ent: =<ecause its o"">

The first question being factual low on <looms Taxonomy an" close" has not "iagnose" that the stu"ent is suffering the misun"erstan"ing that prime numbers are the same as o"" numbers. The why* question because it requires explanation "iscovers the misun"erstan"ing. Further questioning an" explanation can then be use" to "iagnose the misconception more fully if necessary an" then to correct it. Kuestioning is an excellent an" imme"iate metho" to fin" faults an" fix but only wor!s if the questions are "iagnostic an" if there is corrective follow+up. )s! searching questions an" thin! about the misconceptions behin" wrong answers. The K6) reference has some fascinating "etail on this for mathematics teachers.

#0$ Mastery test


-et a simple quiD or test focussing on !ey points. This coul" consist of almost any activity for stu"ents: recall questions on !ey facts a number of simple calculations to "o a practical activity some simple past paper question(s) etc.

-tu"ents mar! their own. -tu"ents compare their answer with the mo"el answers you give them an" mar! their own papers. The questions nee" to be easy enough for stu"ents to un"erstan" the mo"el answers an" to be able to mar! their own paper. -tu"ents note the questions they got wrong an" note also the correct answers for these questions. They coul" ta!e photocopies of the test an" mo"el answers away to wor! on the questions they got wrong. -tu"ents reta!e the test "oing only those questions they got wrong the first time. )lternatively they coul" "o a retest again only "oing the questions similar to those they got wrong. This coul" be a few "ays after the first test an" will not ta!e long. $f a stu"ent nee"s to "o most of the questions they can "o it in their own time. -tu"ents also mar! this re+test themselves. ?ptionally stu"ents coul" ta!e a similar but "ifferent test.. -tu"ents report on any improvement. $"eally stu"ents have a target to aim at say a mar! of AL7M an" !eep correcting their wor! until they achieve this.

)s in peer explaining of !ey points above ma!e sure stu"ents un"erstan" the materials an" its structure atten" to the why at least as much as the what of the learning. -ee

Teaching To"ay 0eoffrey /etty for a full account if you inten" using this metho" as it has some pitfalls.

## "tudent 5uestioning and 6mountain clim!ing7


This is less rigorous than mastery testing but more fun. $ will "escribe a version of this game for level : learners but it can easily be a"apte" for more a"vance" learners. (ou split the past wee! or twos teaching between teams of stu"ents who write three or four mastery questions (low on <looms taxonomy) with answers for their subtopic. (ou chec! these questions an" answers ma!ing sure they are on vital material are truly mastery questions an" have goo" answers. 0roups ma!e enough copies of their car"s for what follows. The following are examples of question car"s for a game on the topic of mastery learning. The stu"ents who have written these questions an" answers have alrea"y learne" a goo" "eal. The questions can be type" into a table in a wor" processing application. ($f you set autofit to "istribute rows an" columns evenly all the car"s become the same siDe.) (ou can then print on thin car" with a "ifferent colour for each topic if necessary an" cut into question car"s. )lternatively they can be han"written. 4uestion: 0ive two !ey characteristics that ma!e a question suitable for a mastery test 4uestion: 0ive two !ey "ifferences between a mastery test an" a conventional test

%ns er: accept : from: $t shoul" test vital !nowle"ge an" be low on <looms taxonomy. The material must have been practice"

%ns er: accept : from: The stu"ents must "o reme"ial wor!. 9veryone passes eventually. There is no mar! #ust pass or not yet passe". Kuestions are low on <loom

-tu"ents can pass their groups questions on to the next group so every group gets a set of questions an" the sets rotate. )lternatively -tu"ents wor! in pairs with a complete set of the car"s. They ta!e it in turn to as! each other a question. $f the stu"ent gets it right they move their counter up one square on a game boar" with a mountain "rawn on it. There are almost as many squares up the mountain as there are question car"s. $f a stu"ent "oes not get their question right they !eep their wrong car" an" can stu"y the correct answer "uring the game. ?ne square before the sumit of the mountain is a base camp where stu"ents must ta!e a secon" attempt at all their wrong car"s. The ob#ect of the game is not to get to the summit first but for the team of two climbers to both get to the top of the mounain. This is about twice as much fun as it soun"s yet it has a very serious purpose. %astery games can be use" by themselves or can of course be use" to prepare for mastery tests. Eesearch on as!ing stu"ents to generate questions an" answers for each other has shown that the approach pro"uces mar!e" improvements in achievement. 'hy is this*

#2 8oncept Map 8hec0


This has the a"vantage that it focuses on "eep levels of un"erstan"ing. )lso for learning to go into the long term memory it must be structure" first an" this teaching strategy requires stu"ents to structure their un"erstan"ing an" chec!s this structure is soun". -tu"ents create their own concept map. )fter completing a topic stu"ents are as!e" to complete a concept map or spi"er "iagram that summarises the !ey points an" inclu"es the main relations an" principles. ?ne way of "oing this is to pro"uce a /rinciple %ap which starts with the main principles criteria causes or issues etc an" then the rest of the topic is connecte" to these. )n alternative is to as! stu"ents to pro"uce the more usual content base" map. -tu"ent compare their maps in groups of about three. They suggest improvements to their own maps an" then to each others. The teacher shows their map The group notes "ifferences between their maps an" the teachers map "iscuss these an" then suggest improvements to their own maps an" then to each others. These improvements are ma"e.

This activity can be repeate" for the same topic as a review exercise.

What is so special a!out Formative Teaching9


/rofessor @ohn &attie showe" that fee"bac! ha" more impact on learning quality than any other single factor. -a"ler AF analyse" fee"bac! to show that for learning to ta!e place the learner nee"s to !now: The goal e.g. =$ nee" to use the correct metho" to solve a right angle" triangle with trigonometry. $ nee" to use "iagrams an" lay out my wor!ing correctly showing the metho"s an" equations $ am using an" to calculate with few errors> Their present position: how far they have achieve" the goal. 9.g. what they "o right an" what they "o wrong =$ use the correct metho" usually an" show my wor!ing a"equately my "iagrams are clear an" $ refer to them well in my wor!ing.> :o to close the gap between the goal an" their present position e.g. =$ nee" to ensure $ "ont confuse sines an" tangents. $ nee" to be better at splitting up complex "iagrams into right angle" triangles.>

Formative Teaching -trategies provi"e these three vital pieces of information often in a very vivi" way. Cote that fee"bac! "oes not nee" to be provi"e" only by the teacher in"ee" it is often best provi"e" by the learner or by a peer. This is because peer an" self+ assessment are very powerful ways to clarify goals; sho ho to improve; encourage the learner to ta0e responsi!ility for their learning; and create in the learner a !elief that improvement is possi!le$ ,eferences$ http:LLgeoffpetty.moonfruit.com http:** $5ca$org$u0*pdf$asp9*ca*).#4*afl*afl<maths$pdf http:LLwww.p"!intl.orgL!appanL!blaFA7M.htm http:LLwww.qca.org.u!LcaL2+71LaflL =Teaching Today a practical guide> :n" 9" 0eoffrey /etty publishe" by Celson Thornes (7FFA)

You might also like