Curriculum Studies Assignment: An investigation into assessing my students’ current

knowledge and skills in my subject area, using my findings to inform my future practice.

Introduction

Within education, the term assessment refers to teachers evaluating and measuring students'
skills and knowledge acquisition. Depending on the purpose of this data, assessment will be
either formative or summative.

Summative assessment within secondary education is presented through tests, such as a GCSE
or A-level exams, to judge students’ competence and understanding of the material, to thus
provide students with a grade or certification (Black and Wiliam, 1996, p.537). The grades
derived from such exams provide performance measures to show pupils’ average achievement.
The grade received from summative assessments offers a ‘shared meaning’ (Fletcher-Wood,
2018, p.2) for both students and wider society.

On the other hand, formative assessment is used within lessons to assess children’s
understanding, in order to enable teachers to be reactive in their further teaching. As endorsed
by Black and Wiliam (1998) in ‘Inside the Black Box’, formative assessment looks to expose what
students have and haven’t understood to inform the next steps the teacher should take. Also
known as ‘Assessment for Learning’, formative assessment seeks to encourage teachers to take
a more responsive approach to their lessons in which they adapt and reteach where necessary
based on data collected within the lesson. It can therefore be argued that formative assessment
is ‘the most powerful educational tool for raising achievement’ (Clarke, 2014, p.3) as teachers
can modify lessons to specifically suit their classes needs.

I teach in a non-selective, all-through comprehensive school in South-East Lonon in which the

intake is largely ethnically diverse and formed of disadvantaged socio-economic groups. This
essay will be focused on formative feedback and its impact on my Year 7 English class. I have
selected this class as in the early stages of Key Stage 3 there is still a large disparity in ability
within classes despite being separated into four sets based on data from summative
assessments. I am interested to discover how formative assessment can help to bridge this gap
whilst still stretching higher ability students and supporting lower ability students. This class is
1
set one out of four and compromised of thirty students. In their most recent assessment
students scored a range of 3 – 10 out of the 10 available marks in the assessment. According to
Department of Education (2023), the disadvantage gap is at its widest since 2011 and so the
need for monitoring students’ progress within the lesson is more imperative than ever to ensure
that every student has the opportunity to reach their full academic potential. I have decided to
investigate and evaluate the effectiveness of feedback within formative assessment with the
hope to not only give pupils the tools to improve and feel confident in their independent writing
when it comes to their future examinations but also the wider benefits it can bring in future life.

This essay will start by summarising literature and research on formative assessment in general
before focusing more specifically on the strategy of feedback. I will then use this literature to
consider how this can be implemented in my Year 7 classroom before reflecting on how this has
impacted my students’ performance. Finally, I will consider the challenges I am still facing, how I
can continue using these skills and how I can improve upon them as I move forward in my
teaching career.

Literature review: formative assessment in English

Due to the broad and subjective nature that comes naturally to a subject within the arts and
humanities remit, there are many concerns surrounding the accuracy in assessing students’
proficiency in English Literature. When examining past concerns and policies surrounding the
marking of English Literature assignments, Marshall proposes that the subject should move
away from strict analytical mark schemes that covertly encourage teachers to ‘[teach] to the
test’ (2011, p.84) rather than allowing children to have freedom in their writing and creativity.
There are a multitude of factors that go into writing a successful analytical essay and so a clear
and precise mark scheme is essential to ensure marking is fair and consistent, however,
Marshall suggests assessment criteria should focus on a more holistic way of marking that
‘encourages students to write more freely, [and] to write what they meant to say’ (2011, p.84)
in order to protect the subjectivity and creativity embedded in the subject.

Royce Sadler’s 1989 phrase ‘guild knowledge’ therefore becomes imperative to the literature
surrounding assessment in English for both formative and summative assessment. This term

2
refers to a teacher’s knowledge about what is considered to be a ‘good’ response in English,
furthermore, focusing the assessment in English on teacher’s judgement as the holder of this
guild knowledge rather than marking according to objective facts (Marshall, 2011). This guild
knowledge can be developed over time through sharing ideas and discussing marking with
colleagues to develop a shared understanding of what constitutes to certain grades to
accommodate the variety of possibilities for improvement. For example, when marking
analytical essays (a skill that constitutes 100% of available marks in the AQA English Literature
GCSE and around 40% of the available marks in the AQA English Language GCSE) some teachers
may focus on improving work in English from a technical point of view such as using complex
sentences or more sophisticated vocabulary whilst others may concentrate on analytical flair
through method analysis and contextual knowledge. Therefore, to improve students writing
skills teachers must adapt to the more ‘amorphous concept of improving performance’
(Marshall, 2004, p.105) in English as opposed to subjects such as maths and science which have
more definite answers.

This guild knowledge can then be shared with both more unexperienced teachers and students
alike, which Marshall notes is particularly important in peer-assessment:

‘The guild knowledge of which Sadler writes is acquired over time. And this applies to students
too. One of the main ways in which teachers can encourage students into an understanding of
what it is to be good at the subject without using strict criteria is to peer assess each other’s
work.’ (2011, p.87).

However, there are a multitude of ways in which teachers can impart their guild knowledge
through formative assessment. Black and Wiliam (1998) highlight the many different forms this
may take, such as: sharing success criteria, questioning, feedback, peer-assessment, and self-
assessment. When considering the importance and necessity of formative assessment, Fletcher-
Wood simply states, ‘if we know what students do not know then we can plan what to remind
them of, what to build upon, what to seek to correct; we can pitch our lessons appropriately,
identify who needs help and assess who has learned what’ (2018, p.6). Fletcher-Wood
encapsulates what it means to be a responsive teacher which ‘blends planning and teaching,

3
based on an understanding of how students learn from cognitive science, with formative
assessment to identify what students have learned and adapt accordingly’ (2018, p.9). By
placing an onus on the interactivity of teaching and learning, responsive teaching has a positive
impact not only on students learning but also teachers’ practice, as they begin to work more
deliberately (Fletcher-Wood, 2018). In English, formative assessment and responsive teaching
can therefore build and impart guild knowledge for students to identify and create ‘good’
writing more independently.

When considering the numerous forms of Assessment for Learning advocated by Black and
Wiliam, feedback appears to be one of the most effective forms of formative assessment in the
classroom. Clarke characterizes feedback as being ‘key to formative assessment’ as it is how ‘we
progress – learning from teachers and peers’ (2014, p.4). In Hattie’s 2009 meta study, in which
they explored the effect-size of elements of education, the effect-size for feedback was recorded
as 0.75 which translated to be 9 months ahead of expected progress (Hattie, 2009, cited in
Clarke, 2014, p.121). However, ‘the effect sizes reported in the feedback meta-analyses show
considerable variability, which indicates that some types of feedback are more powerful than
others’ (Hattie, 2009, p.174) thus presenting the issue of deciding how and when feedback
should be presented to students. In particular, it was found that ‘feedback is more effective
when there are perceived low rather than high levels of threat to self-esteem, because low
threat conditions allow attention to be paid to the feedback’ (Hattie, 2009, cited in Clarke, 2014,
p.121).

On the other hand, it can be argued that feedback is only productive where students have
secured foundational knowledge. Fletcher-Wood claims ‘feedback is powerful but problematic’
(2018, p.97) as teachers must have taught their pupils well before feedback can be used as a
tool to enhance their work. Kluger and DeNisi conducted a study in 1996 in which they
concluded 38% of cases demonstrated feedback had a negative impact on students’ progress.
Kluger and DeNisi highlight the drawbacks to avoid when giving feedback such as overly
focusing on the student rather than the task or not being concrete in the feedback given (1996).
Feedback that does focus on the student can become a distraction from the criticism given on
the task. This is particularly prevalent in giving praise when feeding back to pupils as students

4
may begin to rely on teacher’s praise a form of motivation to learn rather than independently
pushing themselves (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996). Alternatively, feedback should concentrate solely
on the task at hand rather than the pupil whilst still facilitating students’ improvement rather
than only improving the task fed back on (Black and Wiliam, 1998).

Shute summarises the components of useful and effective feedback as depending on ‘(a) motive
(a student needs it), (b) opportunity (the student receives it in time to use it), and (c) means (the
student is able and willing it to use it)’ (2008, p.175). It is therefore imperative that feedback is
planned and prepared in advance of the lessons to ensure that it has been assessed whether
the student needs it, that ample time is available for students to implement the feedback and
that teachers are delivering it in a way that is accessible for students to complete. This then
incites the questions: how should feedback be given and when? Shute proposes that feedback
should be differentiated for different attainment groups. Whilst lower prior attainers find more
directive feedback effective with clear instructions such as ‘start your topic sentence with a
subordinate clause’, higher prior attainers benefit more from leading questions or ‘hints, cues
and prompts’ (Vygotsky, 1998 cited in Shute, 2008, p.180). Regardless of the form of feedback,
the most important thing to remember in this routine is to allow enough time for students to
process the information and implement it (Shute, 2008). Shute also considers when students
should receive the feedback. Whilst feedback often occurs throughout the lesson for example in
response to verbal answers or during independent tasks, Shute proposes that delaying feedback
can be a more effective tool, particularly in more complex tasks (2008).

Whilst it is apparent that feedback is effective in giving students the tools and opportunity to
improve on their work, there are a multitude of forms this feedback can take, with some
proving more beneficial than others. For example, when evaluating Thorndike’s (1913) ‘law of
effect’, Kluger and DeNisi found that presenting students with a grade can impede their learning
rather than improve it (1996). Whilst grades may encourage ‘increased ego involved’, as
students may be motivated to achieve higher grades, it does not increase performance whereas
specific comments were found to increase ‘task involvement and consequently performance’
(Kluger and Denisi, 1996, p.267). Overall, Kluger and DeNisi found that when feedback was
concentrated on the task rather than the students, the effectiveness of feedback increased

5
(1996). Whilst the more subjective nature of literature may present feedback on interpretations
and analysis as a personal comment, teachers must work to remain task focussed.

Similarly, Butler and Nisan found that ‘nonthreatening, task-related evaluation’ (1986, p.210) as
opposed to grades prompted a growth in student’s intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, this
presents not only the importance of not giving grades and focussing on the task but also that
feedback should be ‘nonthreatening’ or low stakes. Feedback should be comprised of
comments on students work rather than providing feedback as if students had been assessed
summatively i.e. nominal grades. The focus on grades can ‘depress creativity, foster fear of
failure, and undermine interest’ (Butler and Nisan, 1986, p.215) thus detracting from the point
of formative assessment which is to improve students’ work. A barrier for English teachers when
it comes to comment led feedback and marking books is that reading and assessing students
writing can be a time consuming, laborious task. Hattie and Clarke ameliorate this issue with
marking codes in which students are given a letter or number linked to targets to implement in
their future work (2019). Whilst this allows teachers to distribute feedback more efficiently, it
also benefits from a sense of de-personalisation for students, ensuring that feedback pupils
receive is ‘about the particular qualities of his or her work, with advice on what he or she can do
to improve’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998, np). Codes used can then link to success criteria created by
the teacher who has the guild knowledge as to what a ‘good’ response is in English.

Focusing on the main purpose of feedback, in which students use it to make improvements on
their work, in English this is often a case of redrafting the work they have received feedback on
as opposed to applying the feedback to a new task. This is due to the importance of editing and
redrafting writing in English which is a skill that can be applied beyond the subject and even
school. Clarke also states, ‘the more immediate the feedback, the better’ (2014, p.145) as
students can correct misconceptions on the spot. Fletcher-Wood reiterates the importance of
students acting upon feedback:

‘Improving work is more worthwhile than acknowledging feedback, and more satisfying: it
forces students to understand and act upon feedback. It demonstrates students’ capacity to
improve and reach high standards powerfully ... This experience of mastery (and reflection upon

6
how it was achieved) develops student self-efficacy: confidence in what they can achieve
(Bandura, 1982).’ (2018, p.104).

When it comes to students implementing feedback this can be made more accessible if
modelled to students. For example, providing models combined with checklists to explain what
success should look like can be a useful tool to demonstrate how feedback is generated and
furthermore what quality looks like in order to regulate their own work (Fletcher-Wood, 2018).

As Vgotsky’s More Knowledgeable Other, teachers would usually deliver feedback to students to
share their understanding of what constitutes towards a ‘good’ piece of writing. Nonetheless, as
students develop this understanding, it is possible for students to use peer assessment to take a
more active role in both teaching and learning. Whilst this is an effective technique in terms of
engagement and deepening their understanding of successful writing, it is important to
consider when peer assessment can be introduced. As children are building their guild
knowledge at the earlier stages of the teaching process, the teacher will ‘monitor progress,
point out problems and offer ways to address those problems’ (Ericsson and Pool, 2016, p.99).
However, once students have begun to gain this understanding, students should instead ‘learn
to monitor themselves, spot mistakes and adjust accordingly’ (Ericsson and Pool, 2016, p.99).
Just as editing and refining is imperative for strong pieces of writing, peer and self-assessment
are crucial for pupils learning. Sadler highlights the importance of students understanding and
holding the concept of quality both in hindsight when reflecting on writing but also during the
process, as ‘students have to be able to judge the quality of what they are producing and be
able to regulate what they are doing during the doing of it’ (1989, p.121). Students can
furthermore develop independence as assessors through the process of marking each other’s
work in order to become better regulated learners. While this will be instrumental for students
to produce high quality writing in the classroom and examinations, this will also support them
beyond education.

It is persistently noted in research and literature that whilst feedback can be invaluable to a
student’s improvement, it should be task focused and avoid making comparison between
classmates (Fletcher-Wood, 2018; Black and Wiliam, 1998). However, when it comes to peer-

7
assessment, there is likely to be some level of comparison between peers. Whilst this may
appear to be a deterrent for peer-assessment, the learning opportunities presented outweigh
this worry. There is still a sense of privacy as the feedback is shared only between two pupils
rather than being openly presented to the class thus abiding the advice that feedback should be
nonthreatening, immediate, and focused on the task.

‘The general interpretation of peer marking or peer assessment has been the swapping of
children’s work’ however this can cause marking to be ‘superficial and relatively unhelpful’
(Clarke, 2018, p.124). Instead, Clarke recommends a more cooperative approach to peer-
assessment in which both students read their work and then discuss it together with the child
who has produced the work maintaining ultimate control. Though I see the benefit of the more
collaborative approach to peer-assessment, I will instead ensure precision in marking by using a
model to demonstrate success criteria. To incorporate Clarke’s proposal of discussion I will
ensure that pupils have time to explain their marking and I will also use alphanumerical codes
for peer marking to save ‘precious time when the actual improvements can be made’ (Clarke,
2018, p.125).

Reflections and findings

I will now use this research to inform my practice, specifically utilising peer assessment in my
Year 7 English class in order to improve students analytical writing skills. I intend to incorporate
peer assessment consistently in my Year 7 lessons going forward, so it becomes an embedded
routine. Furthermore, I hope to empower students to develop the ability to regulate their own
work. Peer assessment is a tool used routinely both in my department and throughout the
school, but, in my Year 7 class I have been resistant to introduce this form of assessment whilst
students acclimate to the secondary school setting and the expectations that go with this.
Whilst developing my teaching skills, I have struggled with time management and often have to
rush through the final task. I therefore will aim to plan ample time in my lessons so that
students can gain understanding through modelling, receive feedback and ultimately have time
to implement and practice this feedback to ensure it is meaningful and effective.

8
‘The general interpretation of peer marking or peer assessment has been the swapping of
children’s work’ however this can cause marking to be ‘superficial and relatively unhelpful’
(Clarke, 2018, p.124). Instead, Clarke recommends a more cooperative approach to peer-
assessment in which both students read their work and then discuss it together with the child
who has produced the work maintaining ultimate control. Though I see the benefit of the more
collaborative approach to peer-assessment, I will instead ensure precision in marking by using a
model to demonstrate success criteria. To incorporate Clarke’s proposal of discussion I will
ensure that pupils have time to explain their marking and I will also use alphanumerical codes
for peer marking to save ‘precious time when the actual improvements can be made’ (Clarke,
2018, p.125).

Whilst preparing for their upcoming end of unit assessment on A Midsummer Night’s Dream, I
decided to plan for pupils to give each other immediate feedback on an analytical paragraph
answering the question ‘Was Oberon right to keep Demetrius under the influence of the love
potion?’ (see appendix A for the full lesson plan). Students are coming to end of their unit so
have strong plot knowledge, however, due to set changes at the end of last term, there is a wide
variation of ability when it comes to conducting in-depth quote analysis for an analytical
paragraph. This is also a new skill to Year 7 students when starting secondary school. Their basic
knowledge of the requirements of an analytical paragraph in general however are secure due to
their practice throughout the Autumn term. This knowledge is essential for this feedback task to
be purposeful (Fletcher-Wood, 2018) and will be extremely beneficial in supporting their
application of their knowledge. I have therefore kept the success criteria relatively basic,
focussing on techniques we have specifically covered in previous lessons. As students are
predominantly focussed on their upcoming assessment, this practice paragraph was a low-
stakes piece of work, which is most effective for formative assessment to ensure students do
not feel ‘judged’ on their performance.

To prepare for this lesson, I ensured that work from their previous lesson in which they
completed a similar task answering the question ‘Is Egeus a good father?’ had been marked.
This helped me gather formative data on the students writing and develop success criteria
against which the students can experience success whilst still being stretched and challenged.

9
When marking these paragraphs, I delivered feedback through a numerical code which students
then wrote out in their next lesson as their starter task using the success criteria with allocated
codes. They then used this feedback to edit and improve their paragraph. I planned this task not
only to formatively assess students thus informing my success criteria for the peer assessment
but also so that students had a chance to practice using codes for feedback before applying that
to their peers work at the end of the lesson. I also felt this was an important task to highlight
the positives of finding mistakes in our work as ‘it is when we make mistakes that we are given
an opportunity to receive feedback’ (Hattie, 2012, p.122) and thus improve.

Working with my mentor, I created a model demonstrating success criteria prior to the lesson
ensuring that feedback linked the specific task to the general skill of writing analytically and thus
confirming it is transferable to different learning contexts. For example, I have included success
criteria to include contextual reference to Ancient Athens or the Elizabethan era which is
specific to the play ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’, however, practicing the skill of considering
how contextual factors impact writers can be used across literature and taken forward into their
GCSE exams in English Literature. I decided to co-write the success criteria with students as this
is something we have discussed previously however I explicitly drew attention and highlighted
that the analysis of the quote must be three sentences long. I did this by highlighting where I
have used the ‘what, how, why’ technique practiced earlier in the lesson (see Appendix A) to
produce the three sentences so students could use the work from earlier in the lesson as a
scaffold in their writing. The point of feedback is to help students improve and so I felt it was
important that I highlighted this piece of criteria myself as it is the overall learning objective of
the lesson and an area of weakness I have identified in the class.

Clarke advocates for ‘demonstrating at the visualiser’ so that students can ‘identify the steps or
ingredients of the skill. They can be asked repeatedly ‘What did I just do?’ as a way of gathering
the criteria’ (2014, p.87). Since creating success criteria by using a model answer is a new skill
for Year 7 students, I felt it was beneficial to use the visualiser when annotating the model to
utilise the think aloud process to furthermore pass over independence. Not only did this
reiterate the expectations of a successful piece of analytical writing but also provided a model
of how to critically read a paragraph whilst looking for improvements.

10
Moving into peer-assessment, I instructed students to use their green pens as per the school’s
marking policy and following the advice of Clarke (2014). Students were instructed to swap
books with their partners, read the work and then using the numerical codes on the board
which are followed by success criteria, such as ‘1 – I used a relevant, short quote in my
paragraph’, write two ‘What Went Well’s’ and two ‘Even Better Ifs’ in their partner’s book. Using
the codes that students were already familiar with due to the ‘Do Now’ task, ensured that there
wasn’t a high cognitive load on the students doing the marking and that all feedback was task-
focused and simplistic (Shute, 2008). All students were able to engage in this task and appeared
to enjoy the chance to give each other feedback and fulfil the role of the expert. After marking
their peer’s work with the codes provided, students then had time to communicate their
feedback verbally in order to solidify their ideas for improvements. Whilst some students were
very specific in referring to the success criteria, others were a little vague which was less
productive. On reflection, I think being more explicit in what language students should use or
even giving students sentence starters when it comes to verbalising their feedback may be
beneficial.

When planning, I ensured there was ample time for students to act upon their feedback in line
with advice that feedback is more impactful when students have the opportunity to implement
improvements on their work straight away (Clarke, 2014; Shute, 2008). Students were asked to
redraft their work rather than applying the feedback to a different question (Hattie and Clarke,
2019; Fletcher-Wood, 2018) to not only improve the task at hand but also develop skills such as
editing and redrafting work that can be used in future tasks. Students seemed very motivated
by this task as they appeared eager to perfect their work. As students are learning new skills
consistently at the beginning of their secondary school career, it appeared they appreciated the
chance to make such immediate improvements to their work and have time to consolidate
these new skills.

For the exit ticket task, I asked students to reflect on what they improved in their work and how
(see Appendix A). Reflecting on their peer assessment feedback to summarise how they had
improved and changed their work was an effective way to consolidate feedback as it promotes
their metacognition (Clarke, 2014; Fletcher-Wood, 2018). To continue building on this

11
consolidation, in the future I will ask students to also reflect on how the feedback may alter how
they approach future analytical writing to highlight how this feedback can be transferrable to
other tasks.

The seating plan I have in place in the class which ensures students with lower reading ages are
sat next to those who have a higher reading age or low prior attainers are sat next to higher
prior attainers. This ensured that the lower prior attainers were supported by a student who
had more secure guild knowledge and allowed higher prior attainers to stretch their knowledge
by practicing identifying and communicating success criteria to their peers. My worry with this
seating plan is that higher prior attainers may not be stretched or assessed correctly, however,
when circulating I did not see any evidence to support these worries. Still, some of the higher
prior attainers were untrusting in these partnerships and wanted me to read their work and
check their feedback as the More Knowledgeable Other in the classroom. I am hoping that as
time goes on and peer-assessment becomes more of a consistent routine in the classroom,
students will not only be more confident in peer-assessment but also their own abilities as they
build the ability to regulate their own work.

Conclusion

The research conducted in this assignment has enabled me to reflect on how I use formative
assessment strategies in my classroom to develop students’ learning. I have had time to reflect
on the impact of feedback in the classroom, how that should be structured, and the benefits of
peer-assessment.

Using codes to deliver feedback rather than writing out ‘what went well’s’ and ‘even better if’s’
has proved an extremely efficient method to deliver and receive feedback. Moreover, using
codes and excluding praise both de-personalises and increases the impact of the feedback, thus
allowing students to improve their work (Curtis, 2016; Hattie and Clarke, 2019). Additionally, I
have witnessed the benefits of simple feedback, especially when students were giving feedback
to one another in their peer-assessment. Overall, this assignment and the introduction of peer-
assessment in my Year 7 lesson has shown me that students can be effective teaching resources

12
for each other, and that pupils can develop and practice using information they have, to
regulate and improve their own work (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Clarke, 2014).

Conversely, I have also learned the importance of ensuring students see the significance of
implementing improvements based on feedback and how beneficial it can be to redraft work.
This could be embedded into students practice more by making it an expectation and routine in
the lesson that students must edit their responses to make improvements and corrections. As
students become more confident with analytical writing expectations, it may be effective to co-
construct success criteria after they have completed the initial task rather than before. This may
develop and sustain their motivation to edit their work independently and build their ability to
regulate and recognise criteria. To ensure students continue to improve, I will ensure to
continuously collect data from peer-assessment to plug any gaps using this data (Fletcher-
Wood, 2018). I also need to pay attention to high prior attainers in particular to ensure they are
being stretched in their feedback due to the wide gap in ability in the class.

In conclusion, whilst success criteria can be considered a restrictive, limited, and non-
comprehensive device to evaluate student work, using criteria alongside feedback and models is
an important tool to present the multitude of ways in which work can be improved. As students
continue to make these steps to improved writing it is important to not restrict their freedom
and creativity in writing. Furthermore, feedback from both the teacher and peers is an efficient
and motivational way to continue building and passing on guild knowledge.

Appendix A

Date: 28/03/24 Class: 7M+1

Lesson Objective: To develop students analysis in analytical paragraphs
Big picture (Medium term plan, national curriculum, responding Misconceptions
to formative data): to be aware of:
By the end of this unit, pupils will complete an assessment on the
question ‘Is the love potion good or bad?’. Next term, students will move - Students
onto studying poetry. This lesson is the 21st in the unit and works on may be
students’ writing skills needed to complete an analytical paragraph with narrative
the practice question ‘Was Oberon right to keep Demetrius under the about quotes
influence of the love potion?’. This builds upon the first essay students rather than
wrote last term on Oliver Twist. Today we are focussing on constructing analytical.
an analytical paragraph as their essay will be composed of three of - Students
these paragraphs. The KS3 national curriculum states that pupils should may add

13
continue to develop their knowledge of and skills in writing, refining context
their drafting skills and developing resilience to write at length. They without
should be taught to write formal and academic essays. Data from the linking to
previous classes independent work showed that whilst students had the analysis.
great ideas in response to questions around the text, they struggled to
produce multiple sentences of analysis to support their argument.
Completed independent task attached in Appendix 1 ☒
Completed thinking/planning process in Appendix 2 ☒
TKT & TBAT:
1) TKT the purpose of analytical paragraphs is to support the argument
explored in the essay.
2) TBAT to construct at least three sentences of analysis using the ‘what,
how, why’ method.
3) TKT analytical paragraphs must include a clear topic sentence to
introduce the point of the paragraph.
4) TKT analytical paragraphs must include at least three sentences of
analysis.
5) TKT quotes must be used to support the topic sentence.
6) TKT context must to the point argued in the paragraph.
7) TKT paragraphs should include audience reaction to support analysis.
8) TBAT collaboratively create a success criteria for a model analytical
paragraph.
9) TBAT use a success criteria to peer assess partner’s work.
10) TBAT use feedback to improve written work.
# of I, We, CfU, You cycles:
Which TKT/ TBAT will you cover in each cycle?
- First I, We, CfU, You: 1, 2
- Second I, We, CfU, You: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- Third I, We, CfU, You: 9, 10
Lesson TKT/ Description (inc. scripting and use of other adults Time
part TBAT where appropriate)
Do Now Improve previous lessons work using assessment codes. 5
Hook TURN & TALK: Was Oberon right to keep Demetrius under 3
the influence of the love potion?
Intro Today we are going to continue working on our construction 3
of analytical paragraphs by practicing our quote analysis to
develop writing multiple sentences of analysis to support our
point. We have fantastic plot knowledge on A Midsummer
Night’s Dream and wonderful ideas about themes so it’s
important for us to be able to support our argument with
quote analysis.
I 1, 2 Model a quote explosion using ‘what, how, why’ 4
We Complete a quote explosion with your partner using ‘what, 5
how, why’
CfU Cold call to hear answers 2
You Complete a quote explosion independently using ‘what, how, 5
why’
I 1, 3, Model of an analytical paragraph. 4
4, 5, 6,
We Annotate the model to create a success criteria with guided 5

14
 7, 8 questioning.
CfU Cold call to question what the success criteria looks like to 2
ensure knowledge is concrete.
You Construct an analytical paragraph using the success criteria. 10
I 8, 9 Provide codes with targets. 2
We Swap books with partners and peer assess using the success 5
criteria/codes.
CfU Discuss in pairs why you have given your partner that 4
particular target.
You Implement improvements on paragraph as per codes given 10
by the peers.
Exit Reflect on peer assessment: Today I improved… I did this 3
Ticket by…
Resources needed Model paragraph

Appendix 1: Completed independent task.

‘Was Oberon right to keep Demetrius under the influence of the love
potion?’
In the beginning of the play, Shakespeare present Demetrius as a cruel character
who is dismissive of Helena’s love until under the influence of the love potion.
When Helena follows him into the forest, he spurns her and states ‘I am sick when
I do look on thee’. Demetrius throws severe insults towards Helena when she tells
him she loves him. The hyperbolic language ‘I am sick’ heightens how cruel
Demetrius appears and presents him as a very unlikeable character. It is therefore
a good thing that Oberon leaves Demetrius under the influence of the love potion
to stop this cruelty. Alternatively, it could be considered unfair that Demetrius is
forced into a relationship with a woman he hates. Whilst this is comedic for the
audience it also generates sympathy for Helena. In Ancient Athens women were
viewed as inferior so it is unsurprising Demetrius is so severe towards Helena.
Appendix 2: Completed thinking process.

15
Reference list

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) ‘Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom
Assessment’, Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), pp. 139–148. [ONLINE] Available at:
https://www.proquest.com/docview/218533069?accountid=11149&parentSessionId=Gesyapox
%2F3SvnyfgMsX1xFHhHuW9SbVahJuHEmrC860%3D&pq-origsite=primo&sourcetype=Scholarly
%20Journals [Accessed 23/03/24]

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1996) ‘Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing
Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?’, British Educational Research Journal,
22(5), pp.537-548. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1501668 [Accessed
23/03/24]

Butler, R. and Nisan, M. (1986) ‘Effects of No Feedback, Task-Related Comments, and Grades on
Intrinsic Motivation and Performance’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), pp. 210-216.
[ONLINE] Available at: Results - OpenURL Connection - EBSCO [Accessed 25/03/24]

Clarke, S. (2014) Outstanding formative assessment: culture and practice. London, [England]:
Hodder Education. [ONLINE] Available at: ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader [Accessed 14/03/24]

16
Curtis, C. (2016), ‘It’s all about the books, about the books, about the books – no trouble!’.
Available at: Learning from my mistakes: an English teacher's blog: Search results for it's all about the
books (learningfrommymistakesenglish.blogspot.com) [Accessed: 25/03/24]

Department for Education (2014) ‘Assessment Principles’ [ONLINE] Available at: WITHDRAWN_-
_Assessment_Principles.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) [Accessed 23/02/24]

Department for Education (2014a) ‘Assessment Principles’ [ONLINE] Available at:

P8_factsheet.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) [Accessed 23/02/24]

Department for Education (2023) ‘Key Stage 4 Performance’ [ONLINE] Available at:
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key-stage-4-performance
[Accessed 26/02/24]

Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. London: Bodley
Head.

Fletcher-Wood, H. (2018) Responsive Teaching: Cognitive Science and Formative Assessment in

Practice. Abingdon: Routledge. [ONLINE] Available at: Responsive Teaching | Cognitive Science
and Formative Assessment in Pr (oclc.org) [Accessed 13/03/24]

Hattie, J. and Clarke, S. (2019) Visible Learning: Feedback. Abingdon: Routledge. [ONLINE]
Available at: https://doi-org.gold.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9780429485480 [Accessed 25/03/24]

Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London: Routledge. [ONLINE] Available at: - VleReader [Accessed 21/03/24]

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research,
77(1), pp. 81–112. [ONLINE] Available at: The Power of Feedback - ProQuest [Accessed 27/04/24]

Kluger, A. and DeNisi, A. (1996) ‘The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A

historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory’,
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), pp. 254–284. [ONLINE] Available at: The effects of feedback
interventions on performance: A historical review, ...: EBSCOhost [Accessed 25/03/24]

17
Marshall, B. (2011). ‘Assessing English’, in Green, A. (ed) Becoming a Reflective English Teacher.
Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 110-122 [ONLINE] Available at: EpubReader
(vlereader.com) [Accessed 13/03/24]

Marshall, B. (2004) ‘Goals or horizons—the conundrum of progression in English: or a possible

way of understanding formative assessment in English’, Curriculum Journal, 15(2), pp. 101-113.
[ONLINE] Available at: Goals or horizons—the conundrum of progression in English: or a
possible way of understanding formative assessment in English - Marshall - 2004 - The
Curriculum Journal - Wiley Online Library (oclc.org) [Accessed 14/03/24]

Sadler, D. (1989) ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional
Science, 18(2), pp. 119–144.

Shute, V. (2008) ‘Focus on formative feedback’, Review of Educational Research, 78(1), pp. 153–
189 [ONLINE] Available at: Focus on Formative Feedback on JSTOR (oclc.org) [Accessed
21/03/24]

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Harvard: University Press. [ONLINE] Available at: EpubReader (vlereader.com) [Accessed 25/03/24]

18