## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Encapsulates lesson purpose**: Task should capture the essential learning from the lesson in rapid assessment format > - **Diagnostic design**: Use questions that differentiate understanding levels and elicit specific misconceptions > - **Divide Dig Decide**: Sort responses into three piles to inform next lesson planning and interventions ## Definition **Exit Ticket**: End-of-lesson assessment task that encapsulates the lesson's purpose and can be completed and assessed rapidly to inform next steps. ## Connected To [[Feedback]] | [[Diagnostic Questions]] | [[Check For Understanding]] | [[Responsive Teaching]] --- ## Characteristics of effective exit tickets Exit tickets serve little purpose unless they provide actionable information that informs next teaching decisions (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Formative assessment strategies are effective when they provide immediate, actionable information about student understanding that shapes subsequent instruction (Heritage, 2007). The power lies not in the assessment itself but in the instructional response it enables (Wiliam, 2011). Effective exit tickets must differentiate understanding levels by including a range of questions that indicate student understanding. They should use [[Diagnostic Questions]] to elicit specific misconceptions and reveal thinking errors (Sadler, 1998). Questions must cover all essential learning from the lesson whilst maintaining sufficient structure (formats like multiple choice and cloze passages ensure structured responses). Practical considerations require that students can complete exit tickets quickly at lesson end and teachers can assess them rapidly for next lesson planning. ## Divide dig decide process This rapid assessment protocol uses exit tickets as diagnostic tools that shape subsequent teaching. Teachers first sort exit tickets into three piles: students who definitely got it, students who partially understood or included elements of a good answer, and students who definitely did not get it. The second step involves splitting the 'No' and 'Maybe' piles according to the errors and misconceptions they reveal. Response planning should match the pattern revealed, not a predetermined plan. If everyone answered well, teachers can recycle tickets and move on. If everyone answered poorly, teachers prepare to reteach from the start (recycling tickets or returning them for correction). Mixed results, the most common outcome, require revising key points at the start of the next lesson and [[Feedback#Show-call|show-calling]] students' answers for discussion. ## Implementation example Scripted language for returning to exit ticket results: "Your exit tickets were really helpful in understanding where we can all improve. I want us to go over an example of the harder kind of sums we were doing yesterday to pick up a couple of very important things to remember... Now, I have five questions to practice. All of you should find some of them difficult. Remember the three rules we've just discussed. Three minutes, go." ## Research basis Research on retrieval practice shows that testing itself enhances long-term retention (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Exit tickets serve dual purposes: they provide diagnostic information for the teacher whilst strengthening student memory through retrieval (Rohrer & Pashler, 2010). The act of recalling information at lesson end consolidates learning and reveals gaps requiring attention. Effective formative assessment requires immediate feedback and instructional response (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Exit tickets enable rapid assessment-to-instruction cycles, allowing teachers to address misconceptions before they become entrenched. This responsive teaching approach, grounded in evidence of actual student understanding rather than assumptions, produces learning gains (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Lemov, 2015). Exit tickets provide teachers with data about lesson effectiveness and student needs, give students clear expectations and targeted follow-up support, and prevent misconceptions from becoming embedded between lessons. ## References Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. *Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice*, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. *Review of Educational Research*, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? *Phi Delta Kappan*, 89(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900210 Lemov, D. (2015). *Teach like a champion 2.0: 62 techniques that put students on the path to college*. Jossey-Bass. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. *Psychological Science*, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. *Educational Researcher*, 39(5), 406-412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10374770 Sadler, P. M. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching*, 35(3), 265-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199803)35:3<265::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P Wiliam, D. (2011). *Embedded formative assessment*. Solution Tree Press.