All
together now
March 31, 2006
Can
working in a mixed-ability group improve writing skills?
Victoria Neumark examines an early experiment with the
54321 approach - groups of five primary pupils working
together for five days
"To me, the answer was clear - I had to come up with a
writing idea that pushed the most creative, while at the
same time giving less able pupils the opportunity to
improve their own writing skills," says John Bell, head of
literacy and gifted and talented since 2003 at Norwich Road
School in Thetford, Norfolk. Walking round the school, he
had noticed a lack of creativity and a formulaic approach,
of children modelling adult writing.
"Even though the quality of teacher-led discussion was
high, it moved up to another level when children talked to
each other about the writing." He needed to take the risk
of giving control to the children, and it was at this point
that the idea of 54321 writing (children in mixed-ability
groups of five) was born.
"I tried it first for six months in my own class," John
says. There were worries about whether the gifted and
talented would get as much out of the small group work as
the less able. John identified four gifted writers in his
class, one of whom had only shaky leadership skills.
Departing from tradition
One of them immediately challenged the process of starting
with the introduction: he had his own ideas about
structure. Would this piece improve on what he normally
wrote? All groups chose to plan their work with a range of
brainstorm clouds, spider graphs and general notes. By the
end of the first day, introductions (and in one case a
conclusion) had been written. It was clear that when
children wrote in groups, the process frequently changed.
There were numerous alterations to the original and
improvement points pencilled in. When comparing this with
earlier work done by the gifted writers it could be seen
that the constant challenging of ideas had made them make
more changes than they would probably have done when
writing individually.
Steps back and forward
Day two was, says John, "a bit of a kick in the teeth". Two
of the gifted writers had taken home their introductions
and finished the whole story. It was clear that they were
used to working on their own and this group approach was
going to challenge them.
Later in the day, it became evident that they were not
leading their groups and were sitting on their own ideas.
The teacher had to manipulate the groups to get these
children to take a leading role in the discussions.
By the end of the third day, the gifted children were
having a very positive effect. The less able writers were
happy to come up with their own ideas and the gifted
children were offering them ways of writing what they
actually wanted to say in a way that engaged the reader,
helping them to think and write at a higher level. But what
about the gifted writers? Progress was held up by heated
debate about what should go in the story, which was
difficult for them as they had never been put in the
position of having an idea rejected before.
Another problem was the different values that each brought
to the process.
A number of the gifted children got frustrated by their
less able peers'
desire to commit themselves to action straight off. The
gifted writers enjoyed releasing the story gradually. It
was a standoff between the two approaches.
By the final day, all the children were working alone, with
obvious deterioration in the work of the less able. The
gifted writers were in a rush to finish. One said he didn't
feel the work was his, which was, says John Bell, "a
crushing disappointment to me as the whole process was
about giving the writing process over to the children".
Great for class cohesion
But, to everyone's delight, assessment of the work showed
that all groups, apart from the gifted writers, had moved
up a writing level. For the less able, the results were
"staggering". For the gifted writers there was little
difference, as they had started from a much higher
standpoint. For the whole school, and for class cohesion,
54321 was judged a success.
The process
The process takes between two and five days, with children
working in groups of five. Each group should contain one
gifted writer - or at least one who is very able, one good
writer, one average, one poorer than average, and one with
special needs.
The most able writer acts as the scribe for the group. So,
if a less able child has an idea but it doesn't quite make
sense, the more able children can take that idea and shape
it. This allows the less able child to see his or her idea
on paper and it means they immediately feel a sense of
ownership.
The teacher acts as facilitator. For example, if the
children are writing narrative, you can teach short daily
blocks of the process (no longer than 10 minutes) in the
course of the week. Monday is introduction; Tuesday - the
build up; Wednesday - examples of dilemma; Thursday - the
resolution.
For the rest of the time, the teacher is an outsider (there
is little point in giving control to group leaders if you
can't bring yourself to trust them).
At the end of the first session, two photocopies of the
work are made and the groups of five are reorganised. The
most able writer stays with the least able and the other
three children stay together. They all use the same opening
but the work takes on a different slant. The more able
writer in the second group becomes its scribe.
On the final day, you photocopy all of the work so that
each child now works independently. The less able have a
frame in which they have been a stakeholder; the more able
have had to go beyond just being good writers, actually
explaining the process to other children whose ending may
not be brilliant but they do feel it is their own work.
Using the lit stops
John Bell uses a "lit stop" to aid discussion, always with
the same three questions. These stops should last no more
than two minutes:
* Where did you come from?
* Where is it now?
* Where is it going?
"This is my favourite part, as I love the energy that
children generate in their discussions. I simply listen in.
It's amazing how much more you learn when they talk, as
opposed to how much they learn when you talk," he says.
Print this page
See the published
article