When it comes to making judgements about whether our pupils have learnt what we intended, there is a tendency to consider written work as being the most important, often at the expense of other forms of evidence.
When this happens, it can lead to some quite ‘thin’ results: responses that are not fully developed.
I think it’s worth unpacking why this might happen:
Have we fallen into the trap of thinking that a lesson hasn’t taken place unless there is something in pupils’ books?
We are keen to show colleagues, leaders and visitors that our pupils have learnt something, because it’s there in pupils’ books
I might be wrong on this and happy to be persuaded otherwise.
If I’m right, however, there are some elements that mean we are short-changing our learners.
If we look at the aims of the English national curriculum, writing comes after spoken language, which includes listening as well as speaking, and reading.
Now I might be reading too much into this, but I think that’s no coincidence.
If we want great written outcomes, we need to privilege speaking, listening and reading.
These three feed into and amplify pupils’ writing.
After all, if they haven’t been ‘fed’ properly, how will they be able to produce anything of depth, that truly reflects what they’ve learnt?
The argument above also applies to literacy across the curriculum.
If we want strong written outcomes in every subject, shouldn’t our pupils have opportunities to develop their speaking and listening skills, their reading (which includes being read to) in order to get those great outcomes?
Until next time
Mary
PS
In January I’ll be running three online sessions on assessment to explore how to
Gather light-touch evidence to show whether pupils have learnt the curriculum
Make judgements about pupils’ work
Share meaningful information about pupils’ work with governors, trustees, and external visitors
Free to join the live sessions, registration here.
Live sessions, recordings and resources for schools with a subscription for The Teachers’ Collection.