–Date: Thursday 16th May, 2013
Session Title: How LOs, WALTs, WILFs, success critria etc are used to aid learning?
[pullquote]Did this #ukedchat session have a LO? Do we have a success criteria? do we need one to learn? Are we learning tonight?” @mrw608[/pullquote]
As is often the case, there was a lot of disagreement in UKedchat this week, making my job to summarise the discussion all that much more difficult. There are a myriad of learning objectives, learning intentions, success criteria, WALT, WILF and many more out there. It would seem that there is also no clearing defined way of using these or how these are related to the pupils.
The discussion began with a question about whether children should be given a metaphorical yard stick to judge there performance. There was disagreement about this with those against saying that it blinkers the children’s view and pushes them towards a particular path. It was also argued that it could also shut down self-expectations and be a glass ceiling for many. Others argued that it is important for children to know the direction in which they need to go in a lesson and an objective is necessary for assessment. Many also voiced that it gave their lessons structure.
There was a lot of discussion and disagreement about where the learning objective et al should come from. While there was a whole spectrum of views, this fell broadly into three camps – those who thought that they should come from the children and follow their interests, those who asked the children to form their own objectives based on the teacher provided lesson outline, and those who thought that teachers should give the learning objectives.
Many UKedchatters expressed worry about splitting into three or four learning objective et al. The general fear seemed to be that unless you have individual objectives for each child, differentiation was not effective. Other chatters said that the whole class should be working towards the same objective and the differentiation should come in the support and activities the children are doing, not what is being learnt.
We all like to know what is expected of us, but we also like the wiggle room to do things our way and to choose to go beyond expectations, at least once in a while. Objectives have a role to play for teachers designing lessons, but lessons should be flexible and adapt to the needs of the pupils, even once the lesson is underway. Objectives provide guidance and show intention, but learning, in all its forms, is what is important.
shornymorgan: I like lessons where it is not made explicit and it’s more of a surprise – then discuss what learning took place at the end. #ukedchat
ColinTGraham: Are learning outcomes/objectives actually all that clearly defined? Should the NC be more like a “can”/”cannot” statement? #ukedchat
HoDTeacher: #ukedchat sharing success criteria with individuals as an ongoing process – to give one lo to whole class seems too general an approach
fullonlearning: Assessing impact of teaching ON learning much clearer if ‘students can (x) as a result of pedagogy (y)’ #ukedchat
feedyour_brain: @ICTmagic child generated success criteria unlocks the door to a secret garden of learning #ukedchat
brownh1971: #ukedchat Important for students to self or peer assess themselves against success criteria- helps them develop responsibility for outcomes
yesiamemmab: LOs MUST be clear and concise to be worthwhile.Not just waffle teacher talk; makes it easy to mark and chn. See next step #ukedchat
ethinking: #ukedchat the worship of LO WALT & WILF is the act of an average teacher trying to be better….it’s managerialist tosh
Tweet of the Week
mrw608: Did this #ukedchat session have a LO? Do we have a success criteria? do we need one to learn? Are we learning tonight?
About Your Host
Martin Burrett (@ICTmagic) is a Year 5/6 teacher at Mersea Island School in Essex and is an advocate for using digital technology to improve teaching and learning in schools. He founded the ICTmagic educational resource website and is a co-administrator for UKedchat.