Editorial
The landscape of education and…
by Dr P. Durka Devi (Lead Teacher, Science)
In a typical primary classroom, a teacher walks students through a mathematics problem: multiplying by two-digit numbers. On the board is a list—a breakdown of what “success” looks like for this task. Students follow along, check their work against the list, and talk to each other about whether they have met the criteria. This scene might look routine. But that routine moment captures something worthy of our attention.
This article takes a closer look at the concept of success criteria: what they are, how they are used in classrooms, who needs to know them and what role they play in supporting student learning.
What are success criteria?
In the context of educational assessment, the term “success criteria” is often associated with providing clear, concrete descriptions of what it means to meet a learning goal, objective or outcome. Moss and Brookhart (2019) refer to these criteria as “student look-fors because they are clear descriptions of actual characteristics of quality that students can look for in their work” (p. 28). Hattie (2023) suggests that success criteria describe how teacher and students will know they have successfully achieved the learning intention.
While phrased differently across sources, common elements of success criteria include:
Some authors distinguish types of success criteria. For instance, Clarke (2005; 2021) differentiates between “product” success criteria and “process” success criteria.
- Product criteria describe the desired end-product or effect (e.g. “The reader will be convinced by your argument” in a persuasive writing task), but on their own these can be vague for learners who may not know how to achieve that effect.
- Process criteria, on the other hand, break down the task into concrete steps or components (“State your claim, provide at least two supporting reasons with evidence, include one counterargument…”) which tell students exactly what actions to take or what elements to include. Process-oriented success criteria are especially helpful in clarifying expectations because they guide students through how to meet the goal, not just what the final outcome should be (Clarke, 2005; 2021).
Theoretical Foundations of Success Criteria in Assessment
Underlying the practice of using success criteria are several important theoretical principles in educational assessment and learning psychology. Sadler (1989) argued that for students to improve, they must develop the ability to accurately judge the quality of their own work in relation to explicit standards. He identified three indispensable conditions for improvement:
- the student understands what high quality looks like (i.e. has a concept of the goal or standard similar to the teacher’s),
- the student can compare their current work to that standard to discern the gap, and
- the student knows how to take action to close the gap.
The first condition, holding “a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher”, directly underpins the use of success criteria (Sadler, 1989, p. 12). Clearly articulated success criteria operationalise the “concept of quality” for a task, so that it is not a secret held only in the teacher’s mind. In other words, success criteria help make explicit the tacit standards of excellence, enabling students to internalise the criteria by which their work will be assessed. In the context of formative assessment, “clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success” is considered the first of five key strategies of Assessment for Learning (Thompson & Wiliam, 2007). Wiliam (2014) notes that effective formative assessment involves teachers and students jointly breaking down the learning intention into concrete success criteria, which then frame all subsequent interactions (questioning, feedback, peer assessment, etc.). This practice is rooted in the idea that assessment should shape learning (formative), not just measure it. By establishing criteria at the outset, the teacher sets up a “feedback loop”: as the lesson unfolds, evidence of learning can be interpreted against the success criteria and used to give targeted feedback on how to improve (Clarke, 2005).
Cognitive theories of goal-setting and feedback also provide a rationale for success criteria. Clear goals and immediate feedback can enhance performance and motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002). Zimmerman (2002) identified the ability to set goals and monitoring one’s performance for progress as key component skills of self-regulated learners. When students know the success criteria (the goal), they can engage in self-assessment: continuously monitoring “Am I doing what is required? What am I missing?”
The function, development, and use of success criteria can vary significantly depending on the assessment context. In formative assessment, they serve as tools to guide learning, support feedback, and promote student agency. In summative assessment, they become benchmarks for judgement, often formalised in rubrics or mark schemes and used to assign grades. Classroom assessment typically includes both functions as teachers use success criteria to steer instruction while also evaluating student performance. Table 1 summarises the key distinctions and overlaps, helping educators and researchers understand how success criteria adapt to each context.
Table 1
A comparison of the role of success criteria in different assessment contexts
Common Challenges with Using Success Criteria
Despite the widely known value of success criteria in assessment and learning, its enactment remains a challenge for teachers (Wylie, 2020). Limited teacher and learner understanding, lack of shared meaning can lead to missed opportunities for student self-regulation. In their study on teachers’ and students’ views of learning intentions and success criteria, Crichton and McDaid (2016) found that both teachers and students understood the purpose and value of the two. However, while teachers indicated using success criteria in lesson planning, they expressed difficulty in understanding the difference between the two terms and how they could implement them in the classroom.
Students on the other hand noted that learning intentions and success criteria were often something they wrote down but rarely understood what they meant – they preferred to have opportunities to understand what they were “doing” with it. Crichton and McDaid’s (2016) study also reported that students at senior levels used success criteria as checklists in preparation for examinations. These success criteria often focus on making expectations transparent – helping students to see the product they had to produce. Such a focus seldom leads students to form a shared understanding of what they need to demonstrate their learning.
These challenges highlight the need for more deliberate and reflective use of success criteria in classroom practice. The following section discusses practical implications and strategies to support teachers in addressing these challenges and strengthening the formative potential of success criteria.
Practical Implications and Strategies for Using Success Criteria
To embed success criteria meaningfully into classroom practice, educators can draw on three interconnected principles: Clarity, Co-construction, and Calibration.
- The first C: Clarity
The first C, clarity, highlights the importance of ensuring that success criteria are accessible and meaningful to students. Success criteria should help students answer the question:
For success criteria to be effective, they must be communicated in a language that students can readily understand, and they must align directly with learning intentions.
Additionally, success criteria should:
Here’s an example of how success criteria can be deconstructed from learning objectives to support students’ understanding and learning.
Teachers can communicate success criteria for better clarity pedagogically by modelling or demonstrating or by using tools such as checklists, scripts, rubrics and exemplars to co-construct with students.
The second C: Co-construction
The second C, co-construction, refers to co-constructing an understanding of the success criteria which may include building the criteria, though not always. Co-construction invites students (and teachers) to understand what quality looks like through participation. Bearman and Ajjawi (2018) suggest that students should be invited into a productive space that provides an opportunity for students to make meaning through enacting the criteria in a holistic way. For example, teachers can consider how students work with exemplars rather than see through them. Teachers can co-construct criteria by analysing exemplars with their students—comparing strong and weak samples of work and collaboratively identifying the features that distinguish success. This process allows students to develop a shared language of quality. Additionally, inviting students to critique draft rubrics fosters a sense of ownership: “Does this list capture what matters most in your work? Would you add or change anything?” Such dialogic practices prevent success criteria from becoming mechanical checklists.
Teachers can (and should) intentionally plan for co-construction using the suggested framework below.
The third C: Calibration
Finally, calibration refers to the continuous process of refining success criteria to maintain alignment with instructional goals and student needs. This dimension reminds us that success criteria should not be static or overly prescriptive. Instead, they should be open to revision as learning progresses, and interpreted in ways that are responsive to context.
Curriculum designers and teachers can reflect on the following questions to identify gaps and make the necessary adjustments over time.
- Identify gaps
Are students misunderstanding the standards?
Are they struggling with specific aspects?
2. Analyse student responses
Are students demonstrating success as intended?
How do different teachers interpret student work?
3. Refine success criteria based on evidence
Are the success criteria too complex?
Do they need to be broken down further?
Are they guiding students effectively?
4. Adjust instruction
What strategies or scaffolds can we use to support student understanding of success criteria?
Calibration also includes using success criteria as tools for feedback, self-assessment, and peer review. When students assess their own work against shared criteria, they become more capable of independent learning. This process strengthens metacognition and fosters student agency.
Conclusion
This article has outlined how success criteria are interpreted and implemented across multiple dimensions—through theoretical frameworks, and classroom-level practices. Despite contextual differences, a consistent theme emerges: making learning expectations explicit. When learners understand what is expected, they are better equipped to plan, monitor, and improve their work. Together, the 3Cs (Clarity, Co-construction, and Calibration) offer a cohesive strategy for using success criteria as more than mere assessment tools.
By making expectations visible, co-developing an understanding of criteria with students (and teachers), and revisiting them with professional judgment, teachers can transform assessment into a partnership that supports student learning.
References
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2018, November). From “seeing through” to “seeing with”: Assessment criteria and the myths of transparency. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 3, p. 96). Frontiers Media SA.
Clarke, S. (2005). Formative assessment in action: Weaving the elements together. Hodder Education.
Clarke, S. (2021). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical strategies for enhancing learning. Hodder Education.
Crichton, H., & McDaid, A. (2016). Learning intentions and success criteria: Learners’ and teachers’ views. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1134339
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2019). Advancing formative assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders. ASCD.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Wiliam, D. (2014). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Wylie, E. C. (2020). Formative assessment practices, teacher beliefs, and classroom culture. Educational Assessment, 25(2), 123–142.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.