Successful revision methods for low prior-attainers in maths

Students in low-attaining sets, sense they have failed to grasp important maths concepts prior to your lessons. They know (despite their outward teenage protestations) getting a maths GCSE is life-changing. They don't need fancy cartoons or entertaining maths teachers, they want to practise and master essential maths and then get on with life.

Low prior-attaining students need maths lessons that are well-structured, predictable and more importantly 'pacy'. Each part of the learning should be easily to replicate, low stakes, and not last too long, so if a student feels they have failed at one part, it is 'forgotten for now' and they move onto a task they can access. This reduces student anxiety on entering the classroom (and therefore poor behaviour), and shortens the perception of the length of the lesson when it is time to do the plenary.

Lessons should have a weekly structure, thereby promoting stability, predictability and a safe space in which students will feel comfortable practising mathematical exercises. In an hour's lesson, 10 minute revision starters and plenaries (including you going through the answers line by line and students self-marking and asking questions) leave a manageable 40 minutes to deliver and practise one or two 'new' key techniques relating to your specific scheme of work. Weekly revision tasks should look EXACTLY the same, with the numbers changed each day. Each question can scaffold (or not) the next question but should not be identical to the one before that. Identical maths skills replication is left for the 'middle' part of the lesson.

For low confidence learners or importantly for students that have missed some or all of the main practice a couple of weeks prior, you are really re-teaching key concepts in these 10-minute revision sessions, showing cognitive progression in the topic, however minor. It is vital that there is a connection between the focus of these questions and not mix up topics, as you would do for students in more advanced learning sets, in preparation for exam conditions.

These students generally have socially emotional and/or memory issues and really need a gentler approach. You can safely leave mixed question practise for much later in Year 11. Short daily repetitive practice allows students to make more cognitive connections because they are calmer. Scaffolding will allow differentiation by outcome and use (or not) of the calculator (We love calculators because mobile phones have enabled this to be used in real-life scenarios). Students have to use their 'recall' for mathematical processes but can independently review the previous day's work. Typically, students of low energy or memory really need you to choose your battles, and this is practical given 67% of the GCSE exam is calculator based.

Beginning and ending with a key skill practice, fosters continuity and security for students. At the beginning of the week model, explain and allow students to ask questions before they copy the method out. Ensuring students copy the workings out and the solutions at the beginning of the week, allows students to work (more) independently during the rest of the week, enabling you to set up and close down your lesson. There will always be at least one student announcing 'they know' how to do the work and refuse to get the notes down. This is usually a case of the teacher having reminded them of the required techniques and for that 10 minutes they genuinely know how to do the task, however the following day unable to complete the skill independently. If they choose a different valid way of working, insist on them writing down their method. If your school is not versed in 'Rosenshine' principles across the board, teachers have to work harder on your expectations with these students from the get go, but it is worth persevering and will lead to a calmer and more focused classroom.

It is highly recommend (but is not always possible for plenaries, when you teachers and students alike dashing to the next lesson or break) to model and ask questions of students to check for deeper understanding, without displaying the full answers with one click on the whiteboard, every single time students are self-assessing their work. There are a couple of good reasons for this:

• A method that resonates with one group will not for another group, sometimes for good reasons, other times maybe not so.

• Many students in low-attaining sets need a rest between writing tasks, and should they be successful in answering questions, it allows a mechanical break and self-congratulatory part of the lesson, which may have been few and far between in previous maths learning, improving the learning atmosphere in the classroom.

• Students may not be in all maths lessons for a variety of reasons (hence the gaps in their mathematical learning), and require aural teaching as well as visual reminder.

• Positive Foundation Project empirical studies indicate that the reason for poor outcomes is not their maths! Rather poor language comprehension inhibits true deeper mathematical understanding. Therefore lots of lines of text and numbers put on the screen all at once does not precipitate an attempt to comprehend; it leads to a tick or cross on their paper, losing a great teachable moment.

Finally, students in these classes are often weary of 'faking it till the make it' in maths. These revision methods are a way of tapping into maths understanding with minimal effort and maximum gain. Imagine if even the lowest prior-attaining students could calculate and comprehend percentages and fractions for life, albeit with the calculator on their phone? Now that would be truly life changing.