# data[].attributes.body
What is it? This strategy is closely linked to prioritising and can be used in conjunction with Priority pyramid and Diamond ranking. This technique is very useful in engaging learners with developing and using success criteria and also in promoting discussion. Learners are presented with a number of statements/issues/questions/success criteria (which could also have been generated by brainstorming and collation of ideas from a number of learners) which they have to assign ‘votes’ for consideration. Learners are told that they have up to 10 ‘votes’ to assign according to how important they feel the issues/criteria are. For example, if learners decide that 10 statements are of equal importance they could assign one ‘vote’ to each whereas if they feel that one of the statements dominates, they could show this in the form of ‘weighting the vote’ (e.g. assign 4 votes to this statement and then look at how they would distribute the remaining 6). As in other prioritising strategies, learners must justify their reasons. This strategy works particularly well in starting to develop and use success criteria as learners can review their choices throughout the task and apply these ideas to subsequent tasks.

# data[].attributes.headline
PMI Diagram (Plus, Minus, Interesting things)

# data[].attributes.subject
PMI Diagram (Plus, Minus, Interesting things)

# data[].attributes.body
Learners categorise their ideas or learning into: ‘+’ Plus (i.e. worked/ may work); ‘–’ Minus (i.e. did not work/ may not work); and ‘I’ (Interesting). It encourages learners to classify ideas according to their merits, or identify what has worked and not worked for their learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Learners mark their own work using their own success criteria or mark schemes. It is most effective if learners have had a hand in the development of the success criteria or even developed their own mark scheme and compared this with the published version. This allows learners to understand the assessment procedure and look for ways to improve the existing and future work. At its simplest level, learners can be asked to indicate precisely which part of their work they are most proud of.

# data[].attributes.body
- Provides each pupil with a partner to discuss their work with
- Important that they understand their role - to be truthful and help improve their partners work
- Must understand the Learning Intention and Success Criteria of the lesson - so that they can relate back to it

# data[].attributes.body
When work has been marked/ peer assessed etc., allow learners sufficient time to read and then make one focused improvement based on the improvement suggestion. In order for the feedback to be formative, the information must be used and acted on by the learners, preferably as soon as they receive it.

# data[].attributes.body
Posing 'big' open questions and problem solving tasks, allowing plenty of time for thinking or researching either as individuals or as groups. Leads to a greater depth of understanding and a higher level response

# data[].attributes.body
Give learners a choice between different possible answers and ask them to vote on the options. This is a very powerful tool as the fear of failure is removed because learners are agreeing with another person’s ideas, therefore they do not have to formulate their own idea and risk fear of rejection by peers.

# data[].attributes.body
Involving more than one learner in answering each question. If a teacher immediately evaluates one learner’s answer, other learners have no incentive to listen or think. However, if a second learner is asked the same question, a third/ fourth can be asked to evaluate which answer they think is more effective, keeping all learners actively engaged.

# data[].attributes.body
Learners need to know the aspects of their work which are successful, and what they need to improve. The ratio of three to one is based on research which shows we are more likely to take advice if there is at least three times as much encouragement as criticism. The teacher or peer identifies three specific aspects of the work which are effective (the stars), and identifies one specific detail which needs to be improved (the wish). The learner acts on the ‘wish’ as soon as the comment is received. Younger / less experienced learners might find it easier to use two rather than three stars.

# data[].attributes.body
Formative assessment
Similar principles to Traffic lighting, and avoids the trials of writing self assessments. Is very useful for younger learners who may struggle with the concept of ‘amber’; instead they hold their thumb to the side.

# data[].attributes.body
Do learners know what a good piece of work looks like before they start? To fully understand what makes for quality in a given context, learners need more than verbal statements of the relevant criteria: they need actual examples of work to look at. Often it will work best if learners are given two pieces to compare – the qualities of the better one can form the basis of agreed success criteria for the task. As learners become more skilful at making judgements, the difference between the exemplars can be narrowed, allowing for more subtle distinctions in � terms of quality. This is a particularly effective way of supporting learners in developing and using success criteria. Using a range of work ensures that learners can tell the difference between an average piece of work and an excellent one. When their work has been peer/ teacher assessed, using only comments, learners read the comments and make an improvement there and then, also setting next steps for their next piece of work. They can also interpret the teacher/ peer comments to make judgements about the success criteria they have achieved. This can be collaborative and involve peer as well as self assessment. It takes longer, but has a dramatic effect on the quality of the work.

# data[].attributes.body
Learners are posed a question: given time to think individually; then time to discuss ideas with a partner; and finally the pair share their ideas with a larger group or the rest of the class. This helps to extend thinking time, and allows learners to develop more sophisticated answers than they could in a typical ‘ping-pong’ questioning session. It also supports reluctant/learners with low self confidence to actively contribute.

# data[].attributes.body
Whatever the task, feedback should first focus on the learning objective of the task and the agreed success criteria. The emphasis when marking should be on both success against the learning objective and improvement needs against the success criteria. Focused comments are used to help the learner in ‘closing the gap’ between what they have achieved and what they could have achieved. The feedback provides a negotiated next step.

# data[].attributes.body
The teacher or a learner selects a classmate who is good at explaining a particular topic. This MKO (More Knowledgeable Other) acts as a peer tutor, helping their partner work through problems by giving hints and instructions (scaffolding). Over time, pupils can discover which MKO in the class (or elsewhere) is most helpful for a particular skill area. Links well with Ask the audience/Phone a friend (Can be used if a pupil shows red when Traffic lighting.)

# data[].attributes.body
To fully understand what makes for quality in a given context, learners need more than verbal statements of the relevant criteria: they need actual examples of work to look at. Often it will work best if learners are given two pieces to compare – the qualities of the better one can form the basis of agreed success criteria for the task.

# data[].attributes.body
Learners share with a partner three new things they have learned, what they found easy or difficult, what they need to improve, something they would like to learn next, etc. Learners explaining thoughts and ideas to each other is often an essential part of the learning process. This tool allows an overview of the learning that has taken place, and allows the teacher to change the teaching focus if necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
If wrong answers are explored, misconceptions can be removed. If misconceptions are not removed, learners may well retain their wrong answers simultaneously with any correct new ideas they have ‘learned’. It is very worthwhile for teachers to collect examples of typical errors, as exploring wrong answers is an invaluable part of the process of learning.

# data[].attributes.body
When designing written tasks to go alongside oral work, intend for them to develop and show understanding of the key features of what students have learned.

# data[].attributes.body
-Put lesson objectives on the board at the beginning of the lesson.

-Talk to students about why they are studying what they are studying.

-Contextualise short-term aims in long-term aims (e.g. analysing Shakespeare will contribute to a wider knowledge of the cultural canon and stronger analytical skills among other long term aims)

-Check with students that they are clear about the aims of the lesson/unit/subject

-Produce aims in conjunction with students