# data[].attributes.body
It is important to remember that pace is both ways and that sometimes taking time at the start of a lesson to get learners where they need to be is a valid use of pupil and teacher time. Getting through lots of little tasks quickly might not always be the best way to achieve positive results for pupils.

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson structure is important but there is a tension between meeting the needs of the learner and slowing pace down to focus on areas of weakness and progressing through a curricular timeline

# data[].attributes.body
There are lots of examples of good profiling opportunities for learners to evaluate their progression. Discussions with pupils highlighted that these were not used rigorously enough to help them understand their progression.

# data[].attributes.body
Saw excellent use of feedback as a question. So turn the heat down became what does a simmering pot look like and what does a boiling pot look like?

# data[].attributes.body
Feedback during the process was excellent to allow pupils to modify their performance. Pupils also spoke about recording this feedback at end of assessment in self evaluation forms. The challenge must be when pupils are in middle of task, do they have the working capacity to store this information and remember it later when self evaluating or before they commence the next activity. How can feedback be made memorable and actionable?

# data[].attributes.headline
What success looks like Vs what level am I performing at

# data[].attributes.subject
What success looks like Vs what level am I performing at

# data[].attributes.body
Pupils could clearly state what they were trying to achieve, how they would do this and what a good piece of work would look like. However, although they could talk about the task they were less sure what level they were performing at, what level they were performing at last year and were failing to make the connection between previous years or units of work so that they weren’t seeing previous learning as transferable

# data[].attributes.body
Pupils were aware of what level they were currently working st however could articulate what was necessary to achieve Bronze, Silver or Gold. There is lots of evidence to support the moderation of this and understanding of staff but this doesn’t appear to have been translated into pupil understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Some pupils felt tasks were confusing and hard, while others saw tasks are same as previous that made task repetitive to point of disengaging or going through process without thinking.  I think whole class starts at same point but them if there are a serious of tasks more learner choice is required if need to keep scaffolding or as gain confidence they can be creative and expand on the task so look at improving end process rather than just focusing on skill of the process which other pupils may still require a focus  on

# data[].attributes.body
In more than one lesson small group tasks were used alongside individual ones. Pupils were set active learning tasks which provided challenge. Tasks were purposeful and we’ll supported with differentiated materials.

# data[].attributes.body
In one observed lesson two additional adults supported pupil learning effectively. The support put in place enabled the pace of the lesson to progress. Support staff took the teacher’s lead and intervened appropriately.

# data[].attributes.body
Some classes today were writing up their findings/key messages to take away.  The pace at this point in the lesson often slowed down to directive teaching where learners would copy from the board. Others would give pupils sheets to quickly stick in to their books to summarise the information learned. Is there a preferable way to balance these activities? Is it better to take time and write things down from the board, but risk losing engagement, or is it better to provide pupils with a summary to stick in and hope they revisit the information later? Would their time be better spent putting it into their own words?

# data[].attributes.body
High emphasis placed on tag sheets for a piece of work in one faculty.  Teacher comments, self reflective comment and parental signature all included. This type of feedback happens every 2 weeks for homework and for class assessments.  Pupils could articulate their strengths and areas to improve as a result.

# data[].attributes.body
I witnessed some teachers use it questioning very effectively.  They clearly knew their content and class very well.  They adapted their questioning techniques based on the pupils and follow up questions were used to probe deeper thinking and application.

# data[].attributes.body
Being used so all pupils are supported to complete the task, class reminded had to move at pace of group not individual. However, was group work and not cooperative learning, which raised question of how to know if all members are participating or if one or two more able pupils are being used to compete group task.

# data[].attributes.body
A re-emerging theme has been the tension between SQA assessm this and BGE assessment with pupils unsure if doing work for N3/4/5 level or G/S/B level. With BGE seemed cleared that pupils had better understanding how to improve level while seem to view SQA as a summative judgement of what achieve not a progression

# data[].attributes.body
Should pupils in s3 be changing levels between 3rd and 4th based on current performance? if so what is clear difference between 3rd level gold and 4th level bronze? Is this progression even linear?

# data[].attributes.body
Most of the classes had appropriate chunking. Pupils were kept on task with support provided for those who needed it. This also allowed opportunities for self-evaluation and for summations. I seem a fantastic example of this in Modern Languages. However, when tasks are given out in some areas a ‘timed’ element to the task may have ensured that some don’t ‘drift’.

# data[].attributes.body
It was clear that pupils are aware of the school’s Bronze, Silver and Gold assessment criteria and having spoke to a number of them they are confident in being able to articulate how they were doing in all of their subjects. Teachers used this framework to challenge pupils to aim for next level though I didn’t see any one-to-ones I imagine this is a powerful tool.

# data[].attributes.body
I saw evidence of carefully considered groups. Placing pupils based on their current ability. This was a smart way of allowing the teacher to get to those who need extra support while also ensuring those who are doing well can continue to challenge/support each other.

# data[].attributes.body
Pupils in expressive arts were able to clearly see what levels they were working towards and also how to move to the next level, by looking at printed sheets with clear indicators of levels.
They were also able to identify other pupils levels and give feedback to their peers on how to progress.

# data[].attributes.body
Some activities seemed to be lasting several lessons, I thought this may become an issue with pupils disengaging, however, pupils were able to progress through different stages of the task.

# data[].attributes.body
I saw a lot of differentiation by outcome, not so much differentiation by tasks.

# data[].attributes.body
Was really great to see pupils challenged in subjects and pushing themselves to improve. It was clear their teachers had high expectations of them and also that the pupils knew how to move forward.

# data[].attributes.body
Katie C had a well planned lesson incorporating coop in the right way. Individual task / personalisation and choice both tasks scaffolding effective coop. Very well thought out. This kept up engagement and pace.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the lessons I watched involved going quite slowly and I think that’s as important as going quickly. Consolidating knowledge is important.

# data[].attributes.body
Although most lessons were well suited to the needs of most learners, some were not being challenged and were finding the work too easy.

Is challenge dictated by working at National 5 level in the BGE?

# data[].attributes.body
Various approaches to feedback including one to one discussion and use of digital technologies.

# data[].attributes.body
Differentiation by outcome clear in several lessons, but all pupil working on the same task. More able learners needed to be challenged more.

# data[].attributes.body
In some lessons, timers used effectively to maintain a good pace in the lesson

# data[].attributes.body
Differentiation and Challenge
Lots of mixed ability classes all working on the same task, but perhaps differentiation is by outcome and not task. Lots of excellent examples of scaffolding used to support pupils who required more help; however what else could be done to challenge those who are achieving the learning and need to be pushed further? We often differentiate to meet the needs of our learners who are finding the learning challenging however how do we effectively differentiate lessons to challenge the more able learners in the class?

# data[].attributes.body
JR: I would say that there was a real mix in terms of the pace between the 4 lessons I saw.  The pace was inappropriate (too slow) in larger, higher ability classes where everyone was engaged in the same activity at the same time.  This could have been improved through more robust planning of learning activities and differentiation (which was non-existent).  In comparison, in smaller classes with lower ability pupils, the pace was completely appropriate and directed with highly skilled use of questioning and activities from the class teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
Feedback in the evidence looked varied , detailed and really great. However this didn't fully match up when talking to pupils in focus group / classes and when observing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Low Challenge + Low Skills = Apathy / High Challenge + High Skills = Flow

# data[].attributes.subject
Low Challenge + Low Skills = Apathy / High Challenge + High Skills = Flow

# data[].attributes.body
JR: In learning episodes which had a high proportion of highly skilled, direct interactive teaching the challenge was high, the pupils were engaged and inspired and this was evidenced from the level of questioning and the responses which were provided by the pupils.  In contrast, 'cutting & sticking' or 'discussing questions in a group' for 15 minutes led to boredom, apathy and no real COGNITIVE engagement.

# data[].attributes.headline
50 /50 - half of the lessons observed had good pace and challenge. Some had challenge with no pace. Some had good pace but it was hard to tell if it was challenging enough from that short time but felt like some could be pushed more. 

# data[].attributes.subject
50 /50 - half of the lessons observed had good pace and challenge. Some had challenge with no pace. Some had good pace but it was hard to tell if it was challenging enough from that short time but felt like some could be pushed more. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Witnessed HW in a practical subject. It had tag sheets and written feedback. Each person was then had a learning conversation too. Pupils seemed to take that bit seriously - however the pace and focus was lost when the learning conversation was going on. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Witnessed HW in a practical subject. It had tag sheets and written feedback. Each person was then had a learning conversation too. Pupils seemed to take that bit seriously - however the pace and focus was lost when the learning conversation was going on. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Are more able learners being pushed? sometimes pupils are going straight to discussion and they are losing confidence in their own ability to make a decision alone and be right. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Are more able learners being pushed? sometimes pupils are going straight to discussion and they are losing confidence in their own ability to make a decision alone and be right. 

# data[].attributes.body
JR: Lower ability pupils could talk in appropriate detail about their progress and about the work that they were doing.  They were able to articulate the level at which they were working.  In contrast, this was not the case with the higher ability pupils, who were unable to talk in terms of CfE Levels with some commenting that they had not had a learner conversation with their class teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
JR: There was some really good evidence of appropriate feedback, and in the best practice 'filed' systematically so that pupils knew where to access it when they needed it.  It included teacher and peer feedback and clearly identified next steps in learning.  Again, there is a lack of consistency - how do you know how to get somewhere if you're not provided with the directions?  Rough jotter work or pupil notes did not have any evidence of teacher checking for understanding, consequently, some of the notes and work was incomplete and incoherent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Effective planning leads to high quality outcomes...

# data[].attributes.subject
Effective planning leads to high quality outcomes...

# data[].attributes.body
JR: Pupils were more engaged and alert where it was clear that the groups had been 'planned' and the tasks issued accordingly had best effect.  Some classes were not set up for cooperative learning (which is part of the school L&T policy/strategy).  Did not see any cooperative learning.  Did not see any differentiation in the higher ability classes.  A planning issue leading to poor outcomes?

# data[].attributes.body
JR: All pupils in all learning episodes were able to elicit the amount and type of homework they were receiving. The further development of 'flipped learning' would lead to further improvements in the impact of homework (moving learning forward), and skilled planning of collaborative learning opportunities.  There's no point in homework just for the sake of it - it has to have an appropriately planned purpose!