Run a mock round

I decide what evidence would prove the objective was met, then collect it in more than one way.

Direct measures include a task, quiz or performance rubric aligned to the objective. I mark against clear criteria, so the judgement is about the standard, not the student.

I also use indirect measures: exit tickets, student self assessment and work samples over time. Comparing a pre and post assessment shows the gain, which is more informative than a single score.

For skills I use performance tasks where students apply knowledge, because recall questions can overstate understanding.

I disaggregate the data. If most of the class met the objective but one group did not, the issue may be my explanation, the materials or a prerequisite gap. I use that to reteach or adjust the next unit, and I share progress with students so they know what to do next. Assessment informs teaching, it does not just record it.

I start with the objective, not the activity. What should students know or be able to do by the end, and how will I know they can?

I write the objective in observable terms, for example "compare two interpretations of a poem and justify a view", so it can be assessed. Then I plan backwards: what evidence will show success, and what steps get them there.

A typical structure is a short hook to activate prior knowledge, explicit modelling of the skill, guided practice with feedback, independent practice, and a plenary that checks understanding.

I build in timings but stay flexible. I plan the key questions I will ask and the likely misconceptions, and I decide how I will support students who struggle and stretch those who finish early.

Finally I reflect after teaching and adjust the plan for next time.

First I find out why, because the cause determines the response. It could be a missing prerequisite, attendance, language, motivation, or something happening outside school.

I check the data and talk to the student privately, listening more than talking. I may also speak to colleagues and, where appropriate, parents or support staff.

Then I put a targeted plan in place. That might be reteaching a specific concept in a small group, providing scaffolds and a worked example, breaking work into smaller steps, or giving extra practice with quick feedback. I set one or two clear goals and a short review date.

I check in regularly and celebrate small wins, because confidence matters. If the difficulty persists or there are signs of a learning need, I refer to the appropriate support service rather than trying to solve everything alone.

I start from the learning outcomes and the constraints, not from the technology.

First I map which outcomes can be achieved online and which need synchronous or practical sessions. Then I restructure the course into modules with clear weekly objectives, so learners always know what to do and why.

For asynchronous content I keep videos short and chunked, with an activity or check after each, because passive watching produces weak learning. I add discussion tasks and peer feedback for interaction, and low stakes quizzes for retrieval practice.

For live sessions I use the time for what cannot be done alone: discussion, problem solving and question and answer. I make participation expectations explicit and provide a way for quieter learners to contribute in writing.

Assessment is redesigned for authenticity and integrity, often moving to applied projects. I pilot with a small group, gather feedback and iterate.

I differentiate in content, process and product, and I plan it before the lesson, not on the fly.

First I know where students are, through a short diagnostic, prior work or exit tickets. Then I design one clear learning objective for the class and multiple routes to it. I might give some students a scaffolded version with sentence starters and worked examples, a core task for most, and an extension that asks for analysis or a new application.

I use flexible grouping so students are not labelled, and I vary the support: guided practice with me for those who need it, independent work for those who are ready, and peer explanation for others.

Assessment is the check. I use mini whiteboards, targeted questioning or a quick task to see who has understood, and I adjust the next lesson based on that evidence rather than assuming.

Early in my teaching I planned an activity that depended on students already understanding a concept they had not secured. Within ten minutes it was clear: most were confused, and behaviour started drifting.

I stopped the activity rather than pushing through. I asked a few quick diagnostic questions, realised the gap was a prerequisite idea, and switched to a short direct explanation with a worked example. I then gave a simpler guided task so everyone experienced success before returning to the original challenge with scaffolds.

Afterwards I reflected on why I had misjudged it: my pre assessment had not checked the prerequisite. Since then I always test prior knowledge before building on it, and I plan a fallback activity in case a lesson is not landing.

The experience taught me that adapting quickly is not failure. Refusing to adapt is.

Prevention does most of the work. Clear routines, an engaging task and a well planned start reduce disruption before it begins.

I establish expectations early and rehearse them, for entry, transitions and group work. I use non verbal cues, proximity and names rather than shouting, and I give positive attention to students who are doing the right thing.

If disruption continues I use the least intrusive intervention first: a look, a quiet word, moving seats, then a private conversation. I keep the correction about the behaviour, not the person. For repeated issues I follow the school's behaviour policy and involve parents and pastoral support.

The most important factor is the quality of instruction. Students who are busy with work that is appropriately challenging, and who feel known by the teacher, rarely need to disrupt. Relationship and consistency matter more than any single technique.