## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Explicit expectations prevent confusion**: Students need clear, specific guidelines about how work will be assessed before they begin tasks > - **Standards must be taught**: Quality criteria require direct instruction and examples, not just verbal explanation > - **Self-assessment opportunities essential**: Students must practise evaluating their work against established criteria ## Definition **Quality Criteria**: Explicit standards for work presentation, mathematical reasoning, and task completion that students understand before beginning assignments. ## Connected To [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Feedback]] | [[Worked Examples]] --- ## Teaching quality standards Students need explicit instruction about how their work will be assessed, with opportunities to examine their work against these criteria. Without direct teaching, students cannot reliably infer quality standards. ### Presentation standards in mathematics When working with formulae, students should write the formula first, then show the substitution step explicitly, and include units in their final answers. All working should display steps in logical sequence, with algebraic manipulation shown clearly and reasoning given for method selection. In "show that" questions, students should use algebraic manipulation rather than guess-and-check methods. Different proof types require different structures: mathematical induction proofs state the base case, inductive step, and conclusion; algebraic proofs begin with the left-hand side and manipulate it to reach the right-hand side; geometric proofs list given information, reasoning steps, and conclusion. For problem-solving tasks, students should explain why their chosen approach is appropriate, address all parts of multi-step questions, and check their answers for reasonableness and accuracy. ## Making standards visible Teachers make quality standards concrete through modelling and contrasts. Showing what excellent work looks like, using previous student work or teacher demonstrations, helps students see the target they're aiming for. Displaying strong and weak responses side by side highlights the specific differences that distinguish quality work. Students also benefit from explicit checklists they can use to self-assess their work against established criteria. During independent practice, teachers monitor work against the established criteria, addressing issues immediately rather than waiting for final submission. Students evaluate each other's work using the quality criteria, which helps them internalise the standards through application. When tasks are submitted, teachers use a visualiser to display exemplary work that meets all criteria in a [[Mini-Whiteboards|show call]]. Feedback should focus on specific criteria rather than general praise or criticism, and students benefit from opportunities to revise their work based on this feedback. ## Standards across subjects In mathematics, set-out requirements follow a clear sequence: formula, substitution, calculation, answer with units. Students should demonstrate their method when solving multi-step problems and apply appropriate rounding and significant figures. In writing, structure requirements include an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Evidence standards expect quotations to be analysed rather than merely described, and language expectations call for formal register and technical vocabulary appropriate to the subject. ## Common implementation errors Students often cannot identify quality work without explicit teaching, yet teachers sometimes assume this understanding exists. Vague criteria like "neat presentation" or "clear explanations" provide insufficient guidance because they lack specificity. When teachers reveal standards after submission, students cannot meet expectations they didn't know existed. Students need repeated opportunities to apply criteria with feedback before formal assessment. ## References Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. *Review of Educational Research*, 70(2), 181-214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181 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 Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. *British Journal of Educational Psychology*, 58(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00874.x Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. *Review of Educational Research*, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. *Educational Research Review*, 9, 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002 Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. *Instructional Science*, 18(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 Wiliam, D. (2011). *Embedded formative assessment*. Solution Tree Press.