Practical disciplinary literacy
Review learner evidence
Judge what changed without turning a checklist into an impact score.
A worked school example
Record response accuracy, reasoning and the support used on an initial task.
Check a comparable disciplinary move on different content after teaching.
Compare subject meaning, English expression and independence; note task differences and workload.
This is a suggested local planning example, not a school rating or an official EEF implementation tool.
Put it into practice
- Select comparable tasks and agreed subject criteria; avoid treating greater length as automatic improvement.
- Review a small anonymised sample. Separate conceptual accuracy, language clarity and level of prompting.
- Consider alternative explanations: content familiarity, task difficulty, attendance and access conditions.
- Agree the next move: concept teaching, targeted language support, delayed retrieval or greater challenge.
Build your working record
Adapt and keep your resource
Edit these fields for your class or department. Drafts stay in this browser; use anonymised evidence. Download an editable text copy to keep it elsewhere.
Questions for a useful team conversation
“What improved on fresh content, and how confident are we that the evidence is comparable?”
Ask colleagues to bring a concrete task or response, explain one judgement and identify uncertainty. Invite learner perspectives without treating comments alone as attainment evidence.
Keep implementation proportionate
Start with one unit and a manageable sample of work. Use existing meetings and curriculum records where possible. Agree essential practice while allowing subject-specific representations and examples.
Avoid fixed promises about attainment or CEFR gains. Review access, reasoning, language and independence separately.
Open the existing whole-school planner