Success Criteria Co-Construction¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 3 studies (2 causal, 1 quant-synthesis), q3–q4 · 1 of 3 report an effect size

Description¶

Success criteria co-construction is a formative assessment practice in which the teacher and learners jointly generate, negotiate, and refine the criteria that describe quality performance on a task — rather than the teacher presenting a finished rubric or checklist. Learners typically analyze exemplars of varying quality, articulate what distinguishes strong from weak work, and translate those observations into concrete, student-friendly criteria that then guide drafting, self-assessment, and peer feedback.

Design Implications¶

Co-constructing criteria converts assessment from something done to learners into a shared reference point they understand and can apply independently, a core mechanism of Assessment for Learning [+S]. The act of analyzing exemplars and naming quality features requires learners to discriminate between strong and weak work, which sharpens their internal model of the target performance Comparing contrasting cases improves learning. [+M]. Criteria that learners help author are more likely to be used during revision than criteria imposed after the fact, because learners understand the rationale behind each criterion [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• High-quality exemplars (ideally including deliberately flawed or contrasting ones) for learners to analyze
• A facilitation approach that elicits learner language rather than replacing it with teacher vocabulary
• Follow-up structures that require learners to actually apply the criteria: drafting, self-checking, peer review
• Time to revisit and refine criteria as understanding deepens

Constraints¶

• Co-construction without exemplar analysis tends to produce vague criteria ("neat," "good effort") that do not improve work [-M]
• If criteria are generated but never used in revision or feedback cycles, the activity consumes time without learning benefit [-S]
• With novices who lack any model of quality, unguided co-construction can founder; teachers must seed the discussion with anchor examples [~M]
• Overly long criteria lists dilute attention; 3–5 criteria outperform exhaustive checklists [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Exemplar-first: learners rank samples of anonymous work, then derive criteria from what distinguishes the top samples
• Draft-and-negotiate: teacher proposes criteria, learners question, reword, and add
• Progressive disclosure: criteria revealed and refined stage-by-stage as the task unfolds
• Rubric translation: learners convert a teacher rubric into their own words and check it against exemplars

Target Learners¶

• Most effective for learners with some familiarity with the task type, who can meaningfully discriminate quality in exemplars [+M]
• Novices benefit when the teacher anchors the discussion with contrasting examples rather than open-ended brainstorming [~M]
• Particularly valuable for learners who historically see assessment as opaque or externally imposed; transparency supports ownership [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Quality understanding: internalizing what distinguishes strong from weak performance in a domain
• Self-regulation: equipping learners to monitor and revise their own work against explicit standards
• Feedback literacy: building the shared vocabulary needed for productive peer and teacher feedback

Instructions¶

1. Select 2–4 anonymized exemplars of the target task at different quality levels, including at least one deliberately flawed sample.
2. Have learners compare the samples and articulate what makes the stronger ones stronger — the Comparing Cases structure drives the discussion.
3. Capture learner phrasing into 3–5 concrete, observable criteria; resist substituting teacher vocabulary.
4. Test the criteria against a fresh exemplar: do they predict its quality? Revise as needed.
5. Make the criteria the explicit basis for drafting, self-assessment, and peer feedback — criteria that are not used for revision are decoration.
6. Revisit and refine the criteria after the first round of work, treating them as living documents.

Related Strategies¶

• Exemplar Analysis — the exemplar-comparison activity that typically anchors co-construction
• Peer Feedback — co-constructed criteria give peer reviewers a shared, legitimate standard
• Self-Assessment — the criteria become the instrument learners apply to their own drafts

Examples¶

Writing workshops (elementary/secondary) — Teachers display three anonymous student essays, learners name what the strongest does that the others don't, and the resulting criteria chart ("hook in the first sentence," "evidence for every claim") hangs beside the drafting area and drives revision conferences.

Assessment for Learning (UK ARG) — The Assessment Reform Group's framework, popularized by Black and Wiliam, treats sharing and negotiating success criteria as one of its core classroom practices.

Design critique in studio courses — Before a project brief, the class co-writes the critique criteria from past student work; those criteria then structure every peer critique session.

Key Sources¶

• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. doi:10.1007/bf00117714
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi: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. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002