Success Criteria Revision

Overview

This lesson revises students’ information reports about the Gold Rush and colonial life. Students explicitly practise revision strategies using success criteria (topic sentences, evidence, cohesion, conclusion) and improve source referencing through guided peer feedback and teacher conferencing.

Learning intentions

Students will be able to:

• use success criteria to identify what to revise in their information report
• strengthen topic sentences and conclusions so they match the report’s purpose
• ensure evidence is relevant and clearly linked to the claim in each paragraph
• improve cohesion using appropriate linking words and clear paragraph structure
• reference sources accurately when using information

Success criteria

I can:

• write a strong topic sentence that tells what the paragraph will explain
• include evidence that supports my ideas and is from the sources I researched
• use linking words and consistent wording so my report is easy to follow
• write a conclusion that summarises the main points and answers the report question
• show where information came from using a simple, consistent referencing method

Curriculum links

• Humanities and Social Sciences (History): locate, collect and organise information and data from primary and secondary sources in a range of formats
• Humanities and Social Sciences (History): present descriptions and explanations, drawing ideas, findings and viewpoints from sources, and using relevant terms and conventions
• Humanities and Social Sciences (History): impact of British colonies on First Nations Australians, colonists and convicts, and on the natural environment (used as report content focus)
• Humanities and Social Sciences (History): role of significant individuals or groups in the development of events in a colony (used as report content focus)

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Hook: “What makes it clearer?” Teacher displays two short paragraph examples: one unclear, one clear, with mismatched topic sentences/evidence. Students turn-and-talk: “What would you change first and why?” Teacher records key ideas on the board (clarity, evidence, linking, conclusion, sources).

2. 5–12 min · Explicit teach: success criteria as a checklist Teacher models revising a paragraph on a visualiser or board using the class success criteria. Focus on:

• topic sentence (states the paragraph purpose)
• evidence (facts from sources)
• cohesion (linking words and smooth transitions)
• concluding sentence (ties back to the topic sentence) Students underline the matching criteria on their own success criteria sheet.

3. 12–20 min · Guided practice: “Spot the fix” Students work with a short teacher-provided excerpt from a draft report (anonymous). In pairs, they highlight what meets the criteria and write one “revision move” in the margin for anything missing (e.g., “Add a linking word”, “Replace vague sentence with source-based evidence”, “Rewrite conclusion sentence to summarise main idea”). Teacher circulates and prompts using sentence stems.

4. 20–40 min · Guided revision: Gradual release (teacher support → independent) Students use a structured revision routine on their own drafts:

• Step A (5 min): Read paragraph-by-paragraph and check topic sentence + evidence alignment
• Step B (5 min): Add or improve cohesion (choose 1–3 linking words where needed)
• Step C (5 min): Strengthen conclusion (make it summary-based, not new information)
• Step D (5 min): Source referencing check (underline where a fact comes from; add/adjust a simple reference label) Teacher runs quick conferences with groups needing support, using targeted mini-feedback (e.g., “Your evidence is good—now link it directly to the sentence after the topic phrase.”).

5. 40–52 min · Peer feedback: Two stars and a wish Students pair as feedback partners. Each partner uses the rubric/success criteria to give:

• Two stars: what the writer does well (specific to the criteria)
• One wish: the most important improvement next (one clear revision action) Students must point to where in the draft the feedback applies (e.g., “Paragraph 2, sentence 1”).

6. 52–58 min · Self-assessment: Rubric-based next steps Students complete a brief self-assessment:

• tick what is strong
• circle one criterion to improve next
• write one “next revision step” as a personal goal (e.g., “I will rewrite my topic sentences to match the evidence in each paragraph.”)

7. 58–60 min · Exit ticket: “Revision decision” Students submit a one-sentence response: “My biggest next revision is…” plus the criterion it matches.

Resources

• Student drafts of the information report (draft page or booklet)
• Success criteria checklist for information reports (topic sentences, evidence, cohesion, conclusion, sources)
• Peer feedback sheet (Two stars and a wish)
• Simple referencing guide (class model: where to place source labels in the report)
• Rubric or criterion levels sheet (used for self-assessment)
• Highlighters/colour pencils
• Visualiser/board sample paragraph for teacher modelling
• Timer and printed sentence stems for feedback (e.g., “Your topic sentence…”, “This evidence shows…”, “To improve cohesion, you could…”)

Assessment

• Teacher observation during guided revision (check for alignment of topic sentence to evidence and proper cohesion choices)
• Peer feedback quality (students can name a specific criterion and cite where it appears in the draft)
• Exit ticket and self-assessment goal (evidence of understanding of what to revise next)

Differentiation

• Support: Provide sentence starters and a paragraph frame (Topic sentence → Evidence → Explanation/impact → Linking to next idea). Offer a small “checklist pocket” where students tick criteria while reading.
• Support for referencing: Offer a reference label bank (e.g., Source 1, Source 2) and a teacher-made example showing how to attach a label to a factual sentence.
• Extension: Students add one additional cohesion improvement (e.g., replace repetitive connectors with varied linking words) and add a stronger concluding sentence that summarises main points linked to the report question.
• EAL/SEN: Allow peer feedback to use oral rehearsal before writing. Provide a “common errors” list (e.g., conclusions that add new information; evidence statements without source labels).