Dr Keith Watson, NACE Curriculum Development Director and former CEO of Portswood Primary Academy Trust

So why do we do it? Primarily because the EEF toolkit identified feedback as one of the key elements of teaching that has the greatest impact. With this came the unintended consequence of an Ofsted handbook and inspection reports that criticised a lack of written feedback and response to pupils’ responses to marking which led to what became an unending dialogue with dangerous workload issues. At some point triple-marking seemed more about showing a senior leader or external inspector that the dialogue had happened. More recently, the 2016 report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group noted that written marking had become unnecessarily burdensome for teachers and recommended that all marking should be driven by professional judgement and be “meaningful, manageable and motivating”. 

So what is “meaningful, manageable and motivating” in terms of marking and feedback for more able learners? Is it about techniques or perhaps more a question of style? At Portswood Primary Academy Trust our feedback has always been as close to the point of teaching as possible. It centres on real-time feedback for pupils to respond to within the lesson. Paul Black was kind enough to describe it as “marvellous” when he visited, so not surprisingly this is what we have stuck with. Teachers work hard in lessons to give this real-time feedback to shape learning in the lesson. The importance of this approach is that feedback is instant, feedback is relevant, and feedback allows pupils to make learning choices (EEF marking review 2016). But is there more to it for more able learners? 

Getting the balance right

In giving feedback to more able learners the quality of questioning is crucial. This should aim to develop the higher-order skills of Bloom’s Taxonomy (analysing, evaluating and creating). A more facilitative approach should develop thinking. The questions should stimulate thought, be open, and may lead in unexpected directions.

A challenge for all teachers is how to balance feeding back to the range of attainment in a class. The recent Ofsted emphasis on pupils progressing through the programmes at the same rate is not always the reality for teachers. Curriculum demands are higher in core subjects, meaning teachers are under pressure to ensure most pupils achieve age-related expectations (ARE). The focus therefore tends to be more on pupils below ARE, with more time and effort focused there. The demands related to SEND pupils can also mean less teacher time devoted to more able pupils who have already met the standards. 

Given that teachers may have less time for more able learners it is vital the time is used efficiently. For the more able it is less about the pupils getting the right answer, and more about getting them to ask the right questions. Detailed feedback in every lesson is unlikely so teachers should:

• Look at the week/unit as a whole to see when more detailed focus is timely;
• Use pre-teaching (such as in assembly times) to set up more extended tasks;
• Develop pupils’ independence and resilience to ensure there is not an over-reliance on the teacher;
• Identify times in lessons to provide constructive feedback to the more able group that would have the most impact.

Another tension for teachers is the relationship between assessment frameworks and creativity. For instance, at KS1 and KS2, the assessment criteria at greater depth in writing is often focused on technical aspects of writing. But is this stifling creativity? Is the reduction in students taking A-level English because of the greater emphasis on the technical at GCSE? As one able Year 10 writer commented, “Why do I have to focus on semicolons so much? Writing comes from the heart.” Of course the precise use of semicolons can aid writing effectively from the heart, but if the passion is dampened by narrow technical feedback will the more able child be inspired to write, paint or create? Teachers need to reflect on what they want to achieve with their most able learners.

Three guiding principles

So what should the guiding principles for feedback to more able learners be? Three guiding principles for teachers to think about are:

1. Ownership with responsibility

More able learners need to take more ownership of their work; with this comes responsibility for the quality of their work. Self-marking of procedural work and work that has a definitive answer (the self-secretary idea) allows for children to:

• Check – “Have I got it?”
• Error identify – “I haven’t got it; here's why”
• Self-select to extend – “What will I choose to do next?”

Only the last of these provides challenge. The first two require responsibility from learners for the fundamentals. The third leads to more ownership for pupils to take their learning further. The teacher could aid this self-selection or only provide feedback once a course of action is taken. Here the teacher is nudging and guiding but not dictating with their feedback.   

2. Developing peer assessment

There is a danger that peer assessment can be at a low level so the goal is developing a more advanced level of dialogue about the effectiveness of outcomes and how taking different approaches may lead to better outcomes or more efficient practice. For instance, peer feedback allows for emotional responses in art/design/computing work – “Your work made me feel...”; “This piece is more effective because...”.  For some more able pupils not all feedback is welcome, whether from peers or teachers. The idea that I can reject your feedback here is important: “Can you imagine saying to Dali that his landscapes are good but he needs to work on how he draws his clocks?” 

3. Being selective with feedback 

The highly skilled teacher will, at times, decide not to give feedback, at least not straight away. They are selective in their feedback. If you jump in too quickly, it can stop thinking and creativity. It can eliminate the time to process and discover. It can also be extremely annoying for the learner!

In practical terms this means letting them write in English and giving feedback later, not while they are in the flow. In a mathematical/scientific/humanities investigative setting, let them have a go and ask the pertinent question later, perhaps when they encounter difficulty. This question will be open and may nudge rather than direct the pupils. It might not be towards your intended outcome but should allow for them to take their learning forward, perhaps in unexpected directions. 

In summary, this gets to the heart of the difference in feedback for more able learners compared to other pupils. While the feedback will inevitably have higher-level subject content, it should also:

• Emphasise greater responsivity for the pupil in their learning
• Involve suggestion, what ifs and hints rather than direction, and…
• Seek to excite and inspire to occasionally achieve the fantastic outcome that a more rigid approach to feedback never would. They may even write from the heart. 

What does this look like in practice?

Jeavon Leonard, Vice Principal at Portswood Primary School, outlines a personal approach for more able learners he has used: “Think about when we see a puzzle in a paper/magazine – if we get stuck (as adults) we tend to flip to the answer section, not to gain the answer alone but to see how the answer was reached or fits into the clues that were given. This in turn leads to a new frame of skills to apply when you see the next problem. If this is our adult approach, why would it not be an effective approach for pupils? The feedback is in the answer. Some of the theory for this is highlighted in Why Don't Students Like School? by Daniel Willingham.”

Mel Butt, NRICH ambassador and Year 6 teacher at Tanners Brook Primary, models the writing process for her more able learners including her own second (and third) drafts which include her ‘Think Pink’ improvement and corrections. While this could be used for all pupils, Mel adds the specific requirements into the improved models for more able learners based on the assessment requirement framework for greater depth writing at the end of Key Stage 2. She comments: “I would also add something extra that is specific to the cohort of children based on the needs of their writing. We do talk about the criteria and the process encourages independence too. It's also good for them to see that even their teachers as writers need to make improvements.” The feedback therefore comes in the form of what the pupils need to see based on what they initially wrote. 

Further reading

• Education Endowment Foundation. Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Feedback. 
• Education Endowment Foundation (2018). Metacognition and self-regulated learning: Seven recommendations for teaching self-regulated learning & metacognition. 
• ‘Four Quarters Marking’ – A Workload Solution? (2017) 
• Daniel Willingham (2009). Why Don't Students Like School? 

From the NACE blog:

• Using feedback for more able learners to promote self-regulated quality
• The power of effective feedback in remote teaching and learning

---

Additional support

Dr Keith Watson is presenting a webinar on feedback on Friday 19 March 2021, as part of our Lunch & Learn series. Join the session live (with opportunity for Q&A) or purchase the recording to view in your own time and to support school/department CPD on feedback. Live and on-demand participants will also receive an accompanying information sheet, providing an overview of the research on effective feedback, frequently asked questions, and guidance on applications for more able learners. Find out more.

Hilary Lowe, NACE Education Adviser

Despite and also because of what is happening around us currently, we are returning to the big questions in education – what should schools be teaching, and how should we assess that on a day-to-day basis and for the purposes of public accountability and progression throughout all phases of education? 

All the big questions are complex, but assessment is a particularly devilish one. It raises issues of course such as what we should be assessing (and ‘measuring’) and when, but also of how to reflect the different rates of progress and the learning capacities of different young people, of how to assess skills as well as knowledge, and of the place of current and possible future technologies in educational assessment. Assessment must also address wider questions of educational equity. 

The smaller questions are also important – of how everyday formative and summative assessment practices in all classrooms, real and virtual, can be as effective as possible. All teachers must become as proficient in assessment as they are in pedagogy – two sides of the same coin. We return therefore to the central importance of high-quality, evidence-informed professional development and evaluation and planning tools for schools. 

Your chance to contribute: NACE member survey

NACE has a keen interest in contributing to the debate about how everyday assessment practices and public accountability systems may be improved and reformed to the benefit of all learners, including the most able. As an organisation serving schools directly, we plan to start by looking at aspects which have current and practical application for teachers, informing the development of resources (including enhancement of the NACE Curriculum Audit Tool) and training programmes to support schools. Our engagement will also take account of the rapidly evolving context in which schools are working, and of the importance of improving day-to-day formative and summative assessment practices.

Our  initial focus will be on:

• The assessment of remote learning; 
• Assessment literacies and practices to promote the learning of more able pupils.

Both areas will of course make reference to issues of educational equity.

As a membership organisation we very much want to involve our members in our work on assessment, and to that end we are inviting members to respond to an online survey focusing on remote feedback and assessment. This will be used alongside a review of emerging best practice and theory in everyday assessment practices, including assessment of remote learning. Your survey contributions will be an important part of our work in this area, and we will feed the initial results back, so that you can benefit from others’ experiences.  .

To contribute, please complete the survey by 4 February 2021.

Contribute to the survey. 

This blog post is based on an article originally published on LinkedIn on 16 August 2020 – click here to read in full.

The fallout from A-level and GCSE results will be uncomfortable for government and upsetting and challenging for teachers and students alike. Arguments over whether this year’s results are robust and fair miss one key issue.

Put simply: "Has the exam system in England ever been robust and fair for individual pupils?"

For those of us who did well in exams and whose children also did well, it is too easy to be confident. Accepting that our success and others’ failure is a systemic problem, not a result of competence and capability, is not easy.

Let me be clear: I do not have confidence in the exam system in England as a measure either of success or capability. 

[…] Try this as a thought experiment. Imagine that I gave an exam paper submission to 100 examiners. Let me assume that it "objectively" is a C grade.

Would all 100 examiners give it a C? If not, what is the spread? Is the spread the same for English literature, physics and geography, as just three examples? If you cannot provide clear evidenced answers to these questions, how can you be confident that the system is objective?

If we look at the examiners, the same challenge appears. Are all examiners equally consistent in their marking, or do some tend to mark up or down? Where is the evidence, reviewed and published to demonstrate robustness?

We also know that the month you are born still has an effect on GCSE grades. What is robust about that?

[…] I have known children who have missed out on grades after divorce, separation and death of parents, siblings and pets. I cannot objectively give a measure of the impact, but then neither can the exam system. I would add that I suspect a classmate of mine missed out because of hayfever. Children with health issues such as leukaemia and asthma whose schooling is disrupted have had their grades affected every year, not just this one.

So, the high stakes exam system is, for me, a winner-takes-all loaded gun embedding inequality and privilege in the outcomes.

Can we do better? Well, if we want to use exams, then each paper needs to be marked by say five independent assessors. If they all agree on a "B" then that is a measure of confidence. This is often a model used for assessing loans, grants and investments in businesses. It does not guarantee success of course, but what it does is reduce reliance on potentially biased individuals. If I was an examiner and woke up today in a foul mood, would I mark a paper the same today as yesterday? I would not bet on it.

The really interesting cases in my experience are where you get 2As, a C and 2Ds, for instance. In my experience, I've seen it more often in "creative subjects", but some non-traditional thinkers in subjects like mathematics (a highly creative discipline, by the way) often don't fit the narrow models of assessment of our exam system. The problem with this example of bringing people together to try get a consensus on a "B" is that it eliminates the value that comes from the diverse views and the richness of the different perceptions.

So, for me, for a system to be robust it has to have more than one measure to allow the individual, parents, universities, FE and employers access to a richer view of an individual. If someone got an ABBCD in English that is as interesting as someone who got straight Bs. 

[…] There are already models that command respect in grading skill levels. Parents are quite happy if a child is doing grade 6 piano and grade 2 flute at the same time. They are quite happy for a child to sit when ready and have the chance to resit. Yet in the school setting the pressure is there for a child to be at level 8 say for all subjects. That puts unnecessary pressure on pupils, teachers and schools.

Imagine how society would react if you could only take the driving test once at 17 and barriers were raised to stop you retaking it.

[…] This year’s bizarre algorithmic system is not robust, but then we have never had a robust system as far as I am concerned. Let's open our eyes and build something that we should have more confidence in. Carpe diem.

Join the discussion: share your views in the comments below (member login required).

In this excerpt from the NACE Essentials guide “Realising the potential of more able learners in GCSE science”, NACE Associate Ed Walsh outlines six key steps to improve provision and outcomes for those capable of attaining the highest grades in this subject. 

1. Make effective use of assessment data

While many schools devote a significant amount of time to assembling, applying, marking and grading periodic tests, there’s often scope for these to be used more effectively to diagnose areas for improvement. Question-level analysis can help both teachers and learners identify areas of low subject knowledge and skills gaps (tagged against GCSE assessment objectives) – informing feedback, self-assessment and goal-setting, interventions, evaluation of teaching styles and planning for future lessons.

Similarly, analysis can indicate how learners perform in multiple choice questions, shorter written responses and longer responses. Be prepared: if aspirational students are looking to develop in one of these areas, they’ll expect guidance as to how to do so. Woe betide the teacher who can’t provide a learner chasing a good grade either with more examples or effective strategies in areas identified as weaknesses!

2. Challenge learners to use a range of command words

Each awarding organisation uses a particular set of command words in GCSE science exams. Some of these will already be in common parlance in your science lessons, while others may not be used as often. Familiarising learners with the full range of these terms will prepare them to answer a wider range of questions. 

When revising a topic, prompt learners to suggest the type of questions examiners might ask; this will help them revise more effectively. Elicit the nature of each question, encouraging learners to consider the influence of assessment objectives (AOs) and to use a full range of command words.

3. Develop dialogue with the maths department

The quality of dialogue with colleagues in maths and the development of a whole-school numeracy policy has never been so important. (It may also never have been so tricky, bearing in mind the pressure that both maths and science teams can be under.) It can be tempting for a hard-pressed science department to want the maths team to fit in with their running order of topics. The maths curriculum is also driven by a sense of progression, but not necessarily the same one. Skills demanded in KS3 science may in some cases not be taught in maths until KS4.

Rather than reach an impasse, focus on exploring common ground. Set up a joint meeting and look at maths skills involved in sample science questions. Invite colleagues to explore potential strategies, terminology, likely challenges for learners and how they would deal with these. As well as nurturing specific skills, focus on developing learners’ ability to identify effective strategies and sequencing. More able learners aiming for high grades need to develop problem-solving skills as well as a mastery of individual skills.

4. Review the role of practical work and skills

When carrying out required practicals, ensure learners have access to a range of question types, including questions based on AO2 (application of knowledge and understanding) and AO3 (interpretation and evaluation). It is also important to look at the lists of apparatus and techniques skills in the GCSE specification. Questions relating to practical work are often based on these, even if the context isn’t one learners have met in the required practicals. Assess how good learners are at these skills and whether you can give them more opportunities to develop these. These have a strong relationship with skills used at A-level, meaning those progressing to further study will also benefit.

5. Develop the role of extended writing

Candidates will be expected to develop extended responses, especially on higher tier papers. Look at learners’ performance on such questions to see how it compares with other items. It may be useful to encourage learners to consider what structure to use before commencing writing. Model the drafting of an extended response, demonstrating how you select key words, use connectives, structure a response and check against the answer. AQA, for example, is moving towards the use of generic descriptors for types of extended responses.

6. Link ideas from different parts of the specification

As part of the changes to GCSE science specifications, learners are expected to show that they can work and think flexibly, linking ideas from different areas. Use questions that require this, identifying good examples to use in advance. One of the sample questions uses the context of a current balance, including ideas about magnetic fields and levers. Check out the specification and the guidance it gives about key ideas and linkage. As well as scrutinising the detailed content, look at the preamble and follow-up.

Are your primary maths lessons too quiet? Ahead of her upcoming workshop on strengthening talk in primary maths, NACE associate Sarah Carpenter explains why effective discussions are key to deepening and extending learning in this core subject. 
 
Often there’s an assumption that primary mathematics is about numbers, concepts, operations – and not about language. But developing the language of maths and the ability to discuss mathematical problems is essential to help learners explore, reflect on and advance their understanding.
 
This is true for learners of all abilities. But for more able mathematicians in particular, regular opportunities to engage in talk about maths can hold the key to deeper, more secure understanding. Moving away from independent, paper-based work and the tunnel-vision race to the answer, discussion can be used to extend and deepen learning, refocus attention on the process, and develop important analytical, reflective and creative skills – all of which will help teachers to provide, and learners to be ready for, the next challenge.
 
If you’re still not sure why or how to use discussions effectively in your primary mathematics lessons, here are five reasons that will hopefully get you – and your learners – talking about maths… 

1. Spoken language is an essential foundation for development. 

This is recognised in the national curriculum: “The national curriculum for mathematics reflects the importance of spoken language in pupils’ development across the whole curriculum – cognitively, socially and linguistically. The quality and variety of language that pupils hear and speak are key factors in developing their mathematical vocabulary and presenting a mathematical justification, argument or proof.” – National curriculum in England, Department for Education, 2013
 
Or to put this another way, when else would we expect learners to write something if they cannot say it? As Anita Straker writes: “Sadly, children are frequently expected to write mathematics before they have learned to imagine and to discuss, and those who do not easily make connections are offered more pencil and paper work instead of vital talk and discussion. Yet in other subjects it would be unthinkable to ask children to write what they cannot say.” – Anita Straker, Talking Points in Mathematics, 1993

2. Practice is needed for fluency… 

… and fluency is what the new SATs expect – not only in numbers and operations, but in the language of mathematics as well. For mathematical vocabulary to become embedded, learners need to hear it modelled and have opportunities to practise using it in context. More able learners are often particularly quick to spot links between mathematical vocabulary and words or uses encountered in other spheres – providing valuable opportunities for additional discussion which can help to embed the mathematical meaning alongside others.
 
Free resource: For assistance in introducing the right words at the right stage to support progress in primary maths, Rising Stars’ free Mathematical Vocabulary ebook provides checklists for Years 1 to 6, aligned with the national curriculum for mathematics.

3. Discussion deepens and extends mathematical thinking. 

The work of researchers including Zoltan Dienes, Jerome Bruner, Richard Skemp and Lev Vygotsky highlights the importance of language and communication in enabling learners to deepen and extend their mathematical thinking and understanding. Beyond written exercises, learners need opportunities to collaborate, explain, challenge, justify and prove, and to create their own mathematical stories, theories, problems and questions. Teachers can support this by modelling the language of discussion (“I challenge/support your idea because…”); using questioning to extend thinking; stimulating discussion using visual aids; and building in regular opportunities for paired, group and class discussions.

4. Talk supports effective assessment for learning. 

More able learners often struggle to articulate their methods and reasoning, often replying “I did it in my head” or “I just knew”. This makes it difficult for teachers to accurately assess the true depth of their understanding. Focusing on developing the skills and language to discuss and explain mathematical processes helps teachers gain a clearer picture of each learner’s current understanding, and provide appropriate support and challenge. This will be an ongoing process, but a good place to start is with a “prior learning discussion” at the beginning of each new maths topic, allowing learners to discuss what they already know (or think they know) and what they want to find out.

5. Discussion helps higher attainers refocus on the process. 

More able mathematicians often romp through learning tasks, focusing on reaching the answer as quickly as possible. Discussion can help them to slow down and refocus on the process, reflecting on their existing knowledge and understanding, taking on others’ ideas, and strengthening their conceptual understanding. This slowing down can be further encouraged by starting with the answer rather than the question; asking learners to devise their own questions; pairing learners to work collaboratively; using concept cartoons to prompt discussion of common misconceptions; and moving away from awarding marks only for the final solution.
 
During her 20-year career in education, Sarah has taken on a variety of roles in the early years and primary sectors, including classroom teaching, deputy headship and local authority positions. After a period as literacy and maths consultant for an international company, she returned to West Berkshire local authority, where she is currently school improvement adviser for primary maths and English. As a NACE associate, Sarah supports schools developing their provision for more able learners, leading specialised seminars, training days and bespoke CPD.