Innovate Issue 2 November 2020 | Page 6

LEARNING TO LEARN
effectiveness ( Elliott et al ., 2016 referenced in Fletcher- Wood , 2018 ) and is a high teacher effort , low student impact method that Kirby ( 2015 ) & Facer ( 2016b ) liken to a hornet .
A DfE ( 2016 ) marking review noted how it has ‘ become common practice for teachers to provide extensive written comments on every piece of work when there is very little evidence that this improves pupil outcomes in the long term ’, especially when ‘ driving pupil progress … can often be achieved without extensive written dialogue or comments ’. The authors also reported that the ‘ obsessive nature , depth , and frequency of marking was having a negative effect on teachers ’ ability to prepare and deliver outstanding lessons ’ ( Jones & Essery , 2018 ( also alluded to in EEF , 2017 )). Therefore , it is important to find a method of feedback that meets DfE guidelines whilst not being at the detriment of teacher ’ s workload .

Whole class feedback : Developing a Sevenoaks model

Elen Harris , Geography teacher
Introduction
Feedback provided via marking has an effect size of 0.79 ( Hattie , 2012 referenced in Fletcher-Wood , 2018 ), with 8 additional month ’ s progress potentially made by students ( Education Endowment Foundation , 2017 ). The albatross like burden ( Kirby , 2013 ) of marking means that good feedback is often difficult to achieve , with poor quality , generic ( Christodoulou , 2019a ; Foster , 2017 ), comments frequently seen . Students often do not act upon feedback and therefore make progress ( Jones & Essery , 2018 ; Percival , 2017 ), as they may not understand actions to improve based on vague comments like ‘ explain this ’; guidance steps on how to ‘ explain ’ have not been given ( Christodoulou , 2019a ; Jones & Essery , 2018 ; Kluger & DeNisi , 1996 ). Marking individual student work therefore has limited
Whole class feedback ( a low effort , high impact , ‘ butterfly ’ method ( Kirby , 2015 )) is a solution , which this study aims to investigate . Most work that exists on whole class feedback ( WCF ) is published on teacher ’ s blogs where they reflect on the effectiveness of this strategy , both for students and teacher workload ( the pros and cons are outlined in table 1 ). The premise of WCF is outlined in Jones & Essery ( 2018 ), Sherrington & Stafford ( 2019 ), and Percival ( 2017 ): work is read through whilst making notes on a feedback sheet , with common errors , things done well etc . recorded . Nothing is written on work itself , though a star in the margin next to good work that a student can read out could be added . The time saved on marking is utilised to create feedback tasks , which are added to the sheet . Christodoulou ( 2019b ) recommends that the feedback tasks should involve ‘ a recipe , not a statement ’ that is ‘ specific and actionable ’ ( Christodoulou , 2019c ). i . e . students know how to progress with more specific comments than ‘ explain this ’. The sheet is photocopied for pupil ’ s books and feedback should be provided as close to when the students completed the original task as possible , so they can remember the task .
4