This article was downloaded by: [University of Stirling Library]On: 07 July 2011, At: 01:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Education 3-13Publication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

Enhancing the quality of learning:what are the benefits of a mixed age,collaborative approach to creativenarrative writing?John Roberts a & Sandra Eady b This article is written from theperspective of John Roberts, Headteacher.a Cumbria Primary School, Cumbria, UKb Stirling Institute of Education, Stirling University, Stirling, UK

Available online: 29 June 2011

To cite this article: John Roberts & Sandra Eady This article is written from the perspective ofJohn Roberts, Headteacher. (2011): Enhancing the quality of learning: what are the benefitsof a mixed age, collaborative approach to creative narrative writing?, Education 3-13,DOI:10.1080/03004279.2010.511624

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2010.511624

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Enhancing the quality of learning: what are the benefits of a mixed age,

collaborative approach to creative narrative writing?

John Robertsa and Sandra Eadyb*

aCumbria Primary School, Cumbria, UK; bStirling Institute of Education, Stirling University,Stirling, UK

(Received 20 April 2010; final version received 18 June 2010)

This study, based in a small rural school, explores the opportunities provided bycollaborative learning with a mixed aged class of 7–11 year olds (Year 3–Year 6).This paper specifically focuses on those children aged 7–8 years (Year 3) and howthey worked on improving the quality of their writing through optional anddirected collaborative group work. Data were collected predominantly through aseries of observations and interviews. The findings suggest that optionalcollaboration does not always lead to shared ideas or improvements in thequality of writing. However, directed collaboration and structured conferencingcan enable powerful learning to take place within a group context. The studyconcludes that with skilled adult support children are not only ‘learners’ but canalso become ‘peer teachers’ within a supportive context.

Keywords: collaboration; creative writing; primary

Introduction

My school is a remote rural primary in Northern Cumbria with thirty-nine childrenon roll. There are two classes, 5–7 year olds and 7–11 year olds, two full-timeteachers, one part-time teacher, as well as a teaching assistant. Mixed age classeshave long been a consistent feature of this school. Our overall teaching policy is to beflexible and to use age, ability or mixed-age groupings for various aspects of thecurriculum depending on what is to be the focus of learning. In a previous study Iwas intrigued as to how the children aged 7–9 gained further insight, ‘copied’ certainobservations and ‘borrowed’ descriptive phrases from older children. When I mixedup the groupings for certain tasks incorporating different age ranges my observationssuggested that these younger children appeared to benefit from working with olderchildren with regard to the development of discussion, ideas and writing format. Idecided to specifically explore whether a mixed-age collaborative approach tocreative narrative writing could enhance the quality of learning that took place. Itwas my belief that chronological age was not the most significant factor in theplanning and delivery of creative aspects of learning with regard to my class.Collaborative learning in creative writing spanning the four year groups at the sametime would, I believed, produce enough energy and ideas to benefit all the children to

*Corresponding author. Email: sandra.eady@stir.ac.ukThis article is written from the perspective of John Roberts, Headteacher.

Education 3–13

2011, 1–12, iFirst article

ISSN 0300-4279 print/ISSN 1475-7575 online

� 2011 ASPE

DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2010.511624

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

the extent that the overall outcomes would show noticeable improvement. Mystudy therefore is an attempt to address the gap in research between currentpractice and potential of using class group work to enhance pupils learning withinmy school.

Literature review

Piaget (1932) believed that children need to encounter beliefs that differ fromexisting ones. He called this the process of ‘equilibration’, which is thereconciliation by an individual of conflict between prior and newly experiencedbeliefs. This conflict theory worked particularly well in a group as was discoveredby Mugny and Doise (1978). They worked with groups with contrasting andsimilar ideas, and found that the group with contrasting ideas showed greaterachievement. Socio-cultural theorists such as Bruner (1996) emphasise the socialnature of learning and focus on individuals acquiring knowledge within a socialcontext. Moreover, Vygotsky (citied in Daniels 2001) argued that meaning wasconstructed through talk. Vygotsky (cited in Daniels 2001) states that ‘whatchildren can do with the assistance of others might in some sense be even moreindicative of their mental development than what they can do alone’. Vygotsky’s(1978, 90) view of learning within the community suggests that childreninteracting with others is a key aspect to stimulating internal developmentalprocesses. More recent studies by Wells and Claxton (2002) and Daniels (2001)also promote the idea that learning is shaped to a significant extent by social andcommunicative interaction. Other studies in this vein, notably Ryder andCampbell (1989), found that participants in effective social interaction experiencea feeling of shared endeavour. Furthermore, Mercer (2000) found thatparticipants who interact also ‘inter-think’. In other words, we cannot trulyunderstand the nature of thinking and learning without taking into account thesocial and communicative nature of human life.

The importance of communication as emphasised by Vygotsky and Piaget led tofurther studies which have attempted to define the quality of talk necessary toenhance learning. Barnes and Todd (1977) define this as ‘exploratory talk’, whilstMercer and Littleton (2007) state that exploratory talk involves partners inpurposeful, critical and constructive engagement. Anderson at al. (1998) prefer touse the term ‘collaborative reasoning’ where children actively collaborate to solvecertain problems. However, according to Howe and Mercer (2008, 8) ‘one of thestrongest messages to emerge from surveying classroom activity is that in Britishprimary schools exploratory (and collaborative) talk seldom occurs’. Similarly,Alexander (2004a) found classroom discourse to be fundamentally monologic anddominated by the teacher. This point is examined further by Howe and Mercer(2008, 18) who emphasise that the potential values of collaborative interactions anddiscussions can only be realised if the children are given ‘structured guidance by theirteachers’ in order to maximise opportunities. Once again the lack of sufficienttraining for teachers in this field was highlighted.

In order for meaningful collaborative interactions to take place it would seemthat paired or group work would be of importance. However, Galton et al. (1999)found that over twenty-three years a noticeable focus towards more class teachingleading to a decline in group work. Furthermore, Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick(2008) found that groups within classrooms are often formed without a strategic

2 J. Roberts and S. Eady

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

view of their purpose with little support for pupil-pupil interactions within groups.Indeed, they go on to summarise, that interactions between pupils (collaborativelearning) has been neglected as a teaching and learning style and this has led to ascarcity of research in this field.

Other studies, notably Alexander (2004b) as well as Herdman, Smith, and Wall(2003) and Moyles et al. (2003) have also found that whole class teaching wasprevalent. Furthermore, these studies have shown that teachers asked closedquestions, pupils supplied brief answers, and teachers praised rather thanmaximising opportunities for collaborative discussion and diagnostic feedback.Little group interaction in English and maths was noted. The findings of the PrimaryAssessment Curriculum and Experience (P.A.C.E.) project Osborn et al. (2000)echoed the findings of Galton et al. (1999) with an increase in the proportion ofinstruction and whole class teaching at the expense of group work. In their report tothe Primary Review, Tymms and Merrell (2007) summarise these findings byspecifically stating that this shift in classroom practice is as a direct result ofstatutory requirements and the pressure of Standardised Assessment Tests (SATS)and any shift towards active collaborative work within primary classes would notoccur while these were in existence.

Interestingly, there have been some studies that have concentrated theirfindings specifically to the problems of group work within a school. Cohen (1994)found concerns from teachers about the loss of control and children being offtask. Furthermore, Lewis and Cowie (1993) were not convinced that childrenwere learning from one another; and Cowie and Ruddock (1988) found thatchildren often felt insecure and threatened when told to work in a group.However, Blatchford et al. (2003) argued that teachers rarely draw upon socialpedagogic principles which would, in turn, enhance effective group working. Theystate that supportive relationships are essential for the promotion of learning andthat pupils must be able to work in a socially inclusive manner with all membersof their class. Furthermore, Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick (2008)conclude simply that teachers are not trained properly in these aspects of socialpedagogy.

Methodology

My intention as a teacher was to explore the social world of my classroom throughthe child’s individual and group interactions. I wanted to create a situation wherethe group interaction itself positively generates effective learning (Wenger 1998).My examination using an ‘interpretivist’ approach opens up the likelihood of theevaluation of data being inextricably linked to the researcher’s perspectives andvalues. I used a variety of methods in order to gather as much information aspossible which helped me to understand how learning took place within a varietyof collaborative aspects inside my classroom. However, even though this studyexamines one year group within one class in one area of one subject, the findingsmay well have repercussions that question practice elsewhere.

Data collection

The focus of data collection was on pupils aged 7–8 years (Year 3) but data werecollected from the entire class. This class consisted of four children in each of the

Education 3–13 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

year groups, totalling 16 children. Data for this research were collected over a periodof one week. It involved me gathering data in the following ways:

(1) Verbal data, both in group situations and individual interviews. I taped eachindividual and group session and analysed the transcripts at a later date.

(2) Scrutiny of children’s written work. I analysed the written narrative workof children in Year 3 in September and compared it to the story theycompleted. I used Wilson’s Criterion Scale (2001) to grade the level ofwriting.

(3) Observation of patterns of behaviour. During the writing sessions when thechildren were on task I made a note of their movements, who they elected towork with, who decided to work alone, how they reacted when they neededadvice. I recorded my observations as they happened in a journal. I explainedthis to the children beforehand. They had experience of me taking notesbefore during various research projects and they were not unduly concerned.I guaranteed their anonymity, stating that no names would be mentioned.There were no objections. Furthermore, I secured a verbal agreement from allsets of parents to use written or spoken material in this study. I gained theirconsent during ‘parents’ week’ which took place prior to the research. Thechildren were made aware of this.

(4) Moderation from another teacher (critical friend). This included discussionwith regard to the appropriateness of interview questions, the grading ofchildren’s writing and their behaviour when working with others.

The sessions

Whenever I embark on a story-writing session I split the process into three sections.On Monday we began the story which included the introduction of the charactersand setting. I also encouraged them to draw characters and scenes on a large sheet ofpaper to set a picture in their minds so they can then attempt to talk about anddescribe them. This took place before any writing began and they were free to add tothe sketch at any time.

Tuesday saw the bulk of the story develop, what happened to the characters,where the story was leading. Wednesday brought the story to a conclusion. At thebeginning of each of the above sessions I allowed the children to talk about theirstories with each other.

On Thursday I recorded individual interviews with the four Year 3 children. Thiswas done in a separate room (library). Before each interview I had a confidentialdiscussion with the child explaining in detail what would take place. I emphasisedtheir right to refusal and their right not to answer any question they feltuncomfortable with. I explained once more that their names would not be used byme and that the tapes would be stored without labels in a locked drawer. There wereno objections. I recorded the interviews with the four children.

On Friday I took a sample of further individual interviews with older childrenand engaged the whole class in a discussion of story writing and recordedtheir comments, explaining once again the guaranteed anonymity of theircontributions.

On Sunday I scrutinised the story writing of the Year 3 children using Wilson’s(2001) criteria which allowed me to level the writing according to national

4 J. Roberts and S. Eady

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

performance standards. I then compared the level of their writing with that inSeptember, two months previous.

On the following Monday I asked my critical friend to verify my findings andasked for her observations. I noted them down during the conversation.

The difficulty with a small scale study such as this is that the pursuit of knowledgeand truth (Pring 2000) can often be compromised in the sense that ‘the findings areinevitably influenced by the researcher’s perspectives and values making it impossibleto conduct objective value free research’ (Ritchie and Lewis 2003, 17). This was apertinent caution to me and therefore when I replayed the responses from tapedindividual and group sessions I scrutinised my contributions as carefully as I did thechildren’s. Furthermore, I asked my critical friend to moderate my interpretations ofthe recordings. My overall findings therefore have to be viewed within thisprecautionary framework.

I felt that observation should be based noting patterns of behaviour and takingaccount of how ideas can generate between individuals in a group. My observationsconcentrated on the movement, the comments and on how ideas emerged. I madesure that I included everyone in my journal even to the point where ‘no actions’ wererecorded or confusion reigned. I decided to write in my journal ‘as things happened’.Although not perfect I believed it was a better option than note takingretrospectively which Ritchie and Lewis (2003, 54) describe as ‘post eventrationalisation’, which may, by its nature, risk a more biased review. My attemptsto seek out the truth from more than one method of data collection along with theconstant moderation by my critical friend have helped to reduce the inevitable levelsof bias and subjectivity to some degree.

Procedure

In order for the reader to understand the significance of the findings I think it usefulto place each procedure in context, outline its characteristics and review itssignificance.

I wanted the children to write a ‘time slip’ story based on a book by Norris(2001) called ‘Aquila’. I read the first chapter to the class on Monday morning.Briefly, it concerns two boys on a day trip with their class. They wander off from thegroup during lunch break and fall down the side of a cliff. They are not hurt. To hisgreat surprise one of the boys discovers a skeleton clothed in Roman armour. Nextto the body is a round, red machine with two seats inside. The boys climb in, onepresses a button and they zoom into the air. Terrified, they press another button andgo backwards, not just in direction, but also time. The children’s task was tocomplete the story as if they were directly involved in the adventure. I chose thisparticular story because I felt there were opportunities for the class to collaborate indifferent ways in order to develop ‘creative narrative’ and in order to do so to drawon critical thinking in order to develop a creative design (Sharples 1999). For thepurpose of my own work with children the definition of ‘creativity’ I use comes fromRobinson (2001, 115), which is ‘applied imagination’. This would be in line withMyhill (2005, 58) who suggests that ‘writing creatively is fundamentally aboutcommunication and the expression of ideas, feelings, opinions and arguments’.Whilst Graves (1983, 108) takes this one stage further by stating that ‘writing isthe medium through which our most intimate thoughts and feelings can beexpressed’.

Education 3–13 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

As far as the layout of the class is concerned, the children began the first daysitting around tables in separate year groups. They regard this set up as a sort ofbaseline, from which anything can happen. I specifically wanted to note whatmovement took place. After I introduced the story ‘Aquila’, we had an opendiscussion about what it was about. I asked the children to choose a partner and todiscuss their ideas about what could happen in their stories, and to draw sketches ofimages in their mind. Recent research suggests that the interaction of ideas with agroup or pairs can lead to a rich vein of creative writing. For example, a study byStafford. O’Sullivan, and Barrs (2004) found that children who became positivelyengaged in talking about written texts also widened their range in writing.

After twenty-five minutes I asked each child to open their literacy books andwrite the first few opening sentences. I then asked the children to read these sentencesto someone else in the class who had no knowledge of their ideas and invitedcomment. Interestingly, Bearne (2005) also showed definite links between developingchildren’s talking skills and their writing skills. Graves (1994) emphasises that writersimprove their skills when they know they have to communicate their ideas to anaudience. This is the basis of his ‘conferencing’. An audience both for speaking aboutwriting and reading what has been written is, according to him, the driver forimprovement. Furthermore, Corden (2000) found that children acquired an oralmeta-language to allow important reflection, an essential element for self assessment;and argues that in order for children to expand their written vocabulary, rich orallanguage activities are essential. Underpinning all this is communication.

The writing task

The task for everyone in the class was to improve the descriptive aspect of their storywriting. Naturally, the children’s writing was at different levels, but neverthelessthere was a definite agenda for everyone according to their ability. In order to guidethem I concentrated on using my framework to improve writing, which is based onthe work of Wilson (2001). For the purpose of this exercise I wanted the children toconcentrate on using Ambitious words (A) and different Openings (O) to sentences.Normally I would explicitly tell children to introduce ‘adverbs’ in their story or useat least seven or eight adjectives, or to try a different opening to a sentence. I wouldnormally quantify my expectations in a similar manner throughout the group,explaining to the class that good narrative writing was not just aboutinteresting story lines and ideas, but it was also about the structure of the writingand it was this particular element that was under scrutiny this week. However, in thisinstance I was particularly interested in the extent to which the Year 3 childrenwould extend their use of ambitious words and different openings throughcollaborative learning.

Conferencing

At certain times in each session I asked the children to read their stories to anothermember of the class who they had not discussed their ideas with and asked each childto comment and advise. After this we came together for a group conference which I‘chaired’. This is based on the work by Graves (1994). This usually occurred twice inthe course of a three day story writing session. The children sat in a large group(usually the whole class) and read out their incomplete story. Others commented,

6 J. Roberts and S. Eady

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

giving ideas as to how a child could improve his/her writing. Children were free toaccept or reject advice. I found this to be a very powerful tool.

Findings

I recorded my findings as they occurred in a chronological fashion. I then analysedthe data through ‘the lens’ provided by Wenger’s (1998) theory of practice and bydoing so, certain collaborative and group themes emerged. I have used these themesto structure the discussion below.

Optional collaboration in the planning session

The children were invited to plan their stories with a partner of their choice. Eventhough the Year 3 children had previous experience of collaboration, this was thefirst time that I had noted their behaviour. Whilst the girls decided to pair up, theyactually wrote separate stories. Girl A said that she actually preferred to work byherself. ‘Stories just come to me’, she said. ‘I don’t need to talk about it’. Girl B saidvirtually the same thing but did acknowledge that she enjoyed talking through herideas with girl A. Clearly they had gained nothing by being together for the planningsession, apart from being comfortable.

Both the Year 3 boys chose to work with older boys in the class. Boy B workedwith an 11 year-old boy. During my observations, boy B began dictating openingsentences for the older boy to copy down on their sheet of paper while he drew. Theycontinued to exchange ideas, but the lead for the development of the story andindeed what words were to be used in the introduction were taken by the youngerboy. In the interview boy B felt he had not really learned anything from workingwith his partner. Interestingly, I noted that the older boy later included all thephrases and sentences in his story dictated to him by boy B, suggesting that in theseplanning sessions the flow of advice, in terms of its acceptance is not simplydetermined by age, but possibly by ability.

Boy A paired with a 10 year-old boy who talked about the development of thestory as he saw it and began to label parts of the castle drawn by boy A with pieces ofdescription, such as ‘dangerous moat’ . . . . ‘cold, dark dungeon’ . . . . ‘emergencyescape tunnel’. Boy A did not label anything. When I later scrutinised both stories Ifound no trace of similarity in the storyline, but did find that boy A had includedsuch phrases as ‘dangerous moat’ and ‘cold dark dungeon’ which he had taken fromthe planning sheet.

Thus, in this first planning session it would appear there was very littlecollaboration. Even though the younger children worked alongside a partner, theypursued the task essentially as individuals. Furthermore, the Year 3 children statedfriendship as the main reason for collaboration, suggesting they were more interestedin social aspects of working together than getting a quality outcome for their story. Iconsidered whether this was specific to story writing or because they were ‘new’ tothe class, or if they simply did not know how to share and develop narrative ideaswith another person.

Discussion with my critical friend who had taught the younger children revealedthat the boys had never been friends, unlike the girls. Clearly though, their choice ofpartner in this exercise had little direct bearing on their story writing. This essentiallychallenged what I had previously pursued as standard practice. For years I had

Education 3–13 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

followed the same procedure of partner choice. I now wondered if this had any realimpact on the standard of creative writing.

Directed collaboration

After the planning session I instructed the children to write for twenty-five minutesand then to take their story to another child with whom they had not previouslycollaborated. They were, in effect, directed away from their ‘friend choice’. The aimof the exercise was for each child to read aloud their story to another child andreceive comments that may help.

The difference between optional and directed collaboration was immediatelyapparent. All the Year 3 children chose to share their stories with older girls, who werevery competent writers. In each of the four cases the comments they received weretaken and used. For example, girl B used the words ‘petrified’ and ‘amazed’ for the firsttime. This was after she shared her story with an 11 year-old girl who had used thosewords in the beginning of her story. Boy B spent all of this time with an eight year-oldgirl. She pointed out spellingmistakes and errors of punctuation. He corrected them onthe spot. She read her story to him. On his return to writing I noted that he opened asentence with ‘suddenly’. Girl A, after conferencing with an 11 year-old girl, wroteabout ‘the smelly dog trotting to its owner’. After spending time with an eight year-oldgirl (in Year 4), boy A (aged 7) decided to use the word ‘ferocious’ in his story becausehe said later, ‘she used it for a monster. I’m going to use it for a soldier’.

Later, during individual interviews I asked the Year 3 children why they chose toconference with these children. Their answers were similar and it was based on theirdesire to ‘test’ out their writing with somebody who they perceived to be better atwriting than they were. Also, they wanted to hear how the older children had startedtheir stories and also gain some advice on how to proceed.

The importance of an audience in this exercise became apparent to me. Thefindings would suggest that once a child realises that they will be reading their storyto another child (or children) in their class a sense of responsibility, even pride, setsin. Therefore, the drive to improve their own stories became evident during thesepaired conferences, with younger children eager to ‘borrow’ ambitious words frommore competent writers. My findings seem to suggest the optional friend choiceappeared to be less effective than directed collaboration in improving the outcomefor creative writing.

These findings, with regard to optional and directed collaboration, varied con-siderably with two studies by Azmitia and Montgomery (1993) and Hartup et al.(1993). They concentrated their attention on two groups, friends (mutuallynominated) and non-friends (not mutually nominated) and found that there wasmuch more positive engagement and more knowledge shared with the friends groupas opposed to the non-friends group. However, this did not seem to be supported bymy findings, perhaps because they related only to paired groupings whereas thesestudies were linked to larger group sizes. Nevertheless I was surprised to find theoptional friend choice less effective.

The effects of group interaction

The idea of the group conference, which involved all the class, was that each childhad the opportunity to read out a section of their story to everyone. I arranged the

8 J. Roberts and S. Eady

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

classroom chairs to form a horseshoe so that all sixteen children could sit and faceeach other. They chose to sit in friendship groups. We had two sessions. One tookplace near the end of the first writing session on the Monday. By then the childrenhas written for thirty minutes after the paired conference. The second session tookplace midway through the Tuesday session. I felt it important to structure theseconference sessions so that all the children would feel supported by discussion andcomments about their work. As a result, children were asked to decide how muchand which part of their writing they wished to read. We had two group conferences,each one lasting roughly twenty-five minutes. Later, in individual interviews, I askedeach of the Year 3 children about the significance of group conferencing. Allagreed that it was worthwhile because they received help which they couldimmediately use.

Boy A said he drew on several suggestions made by older children in theconferencing sessions. For example, he took on board a suggestion made by an 11year-old girl who had said, ‘Instead of writing big, big boat, just use ‘‘enormous’’’.He also changed his initial sentence ‘Me and my cousin saw a spaceship, so we wentinto the spaceship’, on the advice of a 10 year-old boy who said ‘but how did youknow it was a spaceship? Just describe it as you saw it in your head’. He felt pleasedwhen another eight year-old girl congratulated him when he used the phrase, ‘Thewind roared through the valley’.

Boy B read out his first paragraph and I asked for comments. An older girl saidthat it sounded fine but there was no emotion. She said ‘You wrote, ‘‘we landed andcrash, we got out’’. How did you feel?’ He said ‘Shocked I supposed’ She replied,‘Shocked! You’d be petrified. Use that word.’ He did. She then said, ‘If you tell ushow you feel it makes the story more interesting’. Other words were then offered tohim such as ‘curious’, ‘amazed’, and ‘screeched’. I noted that he used these words inhis story.

Girl A started her story with ‘once upon a time’ which a 10 year-old boy thoughtwas ‘babyish’. As a result, she decided to begin her story with, ‘One day Matt had aglint in his eye’. She asked for my opinion and I told her I thought it was a brilliantopening. An 11 year-old girl told her she had written some lovely phrases such as ‘thewater had rough bubbles popping’ and ‘the floor rumbled horribly’ and ‘the horsewas whispering tears’. An eight year-old girl also told girl A that her writing wasgreat but her spelling and punctuation was not as good. Girl A agreed that sheneeded to concentrate on these aspects, but was delighted with the idea that herwriting was considered good by the elder children.

Girl B started her story with a simile: ‘I pressed one more button and shot uplike a rocket’. I congratulated her straight away. I later noticed that an older boyborrowed her simile and put it in his story. Her story also contained adjectives,adverbs, interesting verbs similes and personification. I congratulated her forusing all these elements of description. I then asked the group how she couldimprove her writing. An older boy said, ‘There’s no emotion. We don’t knowhow she feels’. The point was taken by girl B and she completed the story withwords such as ‘terrifying’ and phrases such as ‘I was as warm as toast’ and ‘myfriend was shivering with fear’. Of the four children girl B was the mostforthcoming about group conferencing. I asked her about the phrase she used‘The trees whistled in the wind’. She thought she had heard an older girl use ‘thewind whistled through the trees’ and just changed it. She said that conferencingwas useful because she liked sharing ideas.

Education 3–13 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

However, there was some initial anxiety about the conferencing. Boy Badmitted to being a little nervous before reading and boy A was slightly worriedbecause he was not sure if he could confidently read his own writing. Girl Badmitted she was nervous the first time but not afterwards. Thus, whilst theelement of using an ‘audience’ as a tool to improve presentation and quality ofwriting provided both support and challenge to these Year 3 children; it isimportant that the teacher models the expectations of the social nature oflearning to ensure that it is supportive to all those involved. In this way thestructured guidance given by me as teacher enabled the potential values ofcollaborative interaction and discussion to take place in a supportive and non-threatening atmosphere so that learning is then shaped by social communicationand interaction (Daniels 2001; Wells and Claxton 2002). The commondenominator for improvement would appear to be the greater usage of ambitiouswords, starting sentences with more interesting openings, using other words than‘said’ and looking to use adjectives, adverbs, similes and personification toenhance description. By listening to peers modelling these, there was noticeableimprovement in the story lines with possible evidence of ‘inter-thinking’(Mercer 2000). This was also evident when I compared my assessment oftheir writing in September, two months before this research. My belief isthat using more interesting words and phrases to enhance description was as adirect result of working alongside and listening to the language used byolder children, particularly those who were writing at a higher standard. Acombination of paired collaboration and group conferencing seemed to triggerreflection and showed links between talking and writing skills (Graves 1994;Bearne 2005).

Conclusion

It is my belief that the teacher can create an atmosphere and a learning contextwhich promotes collaboration and produces and sustains a community of learning.Within this community the role of the teacher is to promote learning within thegroup as well as the individual. Although this is a small scale study I feel there aresome significant pointers for how teachers can improve creative and imaginativewriting in the classroom. Firstly, there needs to be a far greater emphasis onexploratory talk and constructive dialogue in the primary classroom. This needs tobe predominantly pupil-led but with structured guidance from the teacher.Cognitive dissonance should be encouraged, in order for children to reflect onthe quality of their writing, but again with support from the teacher. Finally, pupilinteractions would appear to be not always as effective or productive if given a freechoice (open collaboration). This is possibly due to pupils not always knowing whythey are collaborating (in this case to improve the quality of their writing). If areason for collaboration (directed collaboration) is made explicit, then this can bemore effective.

The results of my study suggest that directed collaborative learning in creativewriting encourages learners to become ‘teachers’ and therefore allows pedagogyto become an ingredient within the community . . . not confined just to theteacher. This, in itself, promotes the concept of group interaction as a powerfullearning tool which benefits the individual, as was evident within the findings ofthis study.

10 J. Roberts and S. Eady

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

References

Alexander, R.J. 2004a. Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. York: Dialogos.Alexander, R.J. 2004b. Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary

education. Cambridge Journal of Education 34, no. 1: 7–33.Anderson, R.C., C. Chinn, M. Waggoner, and K. Nguyen. 1998. Intellectually stimulating

story discussions. In Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning, ed. J. Osborn, and F.Lehr, 170–88. New York: The Guilford Press.

Azmitia, M., and R. Montgomery. 1993. Friendship, transactive dialogues and thedevelopment of scientific reasoning. Social Development 2: 2002–221.

Baines, E., P. Blatchford, and P. Kutnick. 2008. Promoting effective group work in the primaryclassroom. London: Routledge.

Barnes, D. F. and Todd. 1977. Communication and learning in small groups. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bearne, E. 2005. Finding the written voice. The Primary English Magazine April: 30–32Blatchford, P., P. Kutnick, E. Baines, and M. Galton. 2003. Towards a social pedagogy of

group work. International Journal of Educational Research 39, nos. 1–2: 153–72.Bruner, J. 1996. The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Cohen, E.G. 1994. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.

Review of Educational Research 64, no. 1: 1–35.Corden, R. 2000. Literacy and learning through talk. Buckingham: Open University Press.Cowie, H., and J. Ruddock. 1988. Co-operative group work: An overview of school and

classroom studies. Volumes 1–2 of learning together. London: British Petroleum Education.Daniels, H. 2001. Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge/Falmer.Galton, M., L. Hargreaves, C. Comber, D. Wall, and A. Pell. 1999. Inside the classroom twenty

years on. London: Routledge.Graves, D.H. 1983. Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.Graves, D.H. 1994. A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.Hartup, W.W., D.C. French, B. Laursen, M.K. Johnston, and J.R. Ogawa. 1993. Conflict and

friendship relations in middle childhood: Behaviour in a closed-field situation. ChildDevelopment 64: 445–54.

Herdman, F., F. Smith, and K. Wall. 2003. Interactive whole class teaching in the NLS.Cambridge Journal of Education 33, no. 2: 197–215.

Howe, C., and N. Mercer. 2008. Children’s social development, peer interaction and classroomlearning. Primary Review Research Briefings 2/1b. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Lewis, J., and H. Cowie. 1993. Cooperative group work: Promises and limitations. A studyof teachers’ values. British Psychological Society Education Section Review 17, no. 2:77–84.

Mercer, N. 2000. Words and minds: How we use language together. London: Routledge.Mercer, N., and K. Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A

socio-cultural approach. Oxford: Routledge.Moyles, J., L. Hargreaves, R. Merry, F. Paterson, and V. Escart-Sarries. 2003. Interactive

teaching in primary schools: Digging deeper into meaning. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

Mugny, G., and W. Doise. 1978. Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of the individual andcollective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology 8, no. 2: 181–92.

Myhill, D.A. 2005. Writing creatively. In Creativity in Primary Education, ed. A.C. Wilson,58–69. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.

Norriss, A. 2001. Aqulia. London: Puffin Books.Osborn, M., E. McNess, and P. Broadfoot, with A. Pollard, and P. Triggs. 2000. What

teachers do. Changing policy and practice in primary education. London: Continuum.Piaget, J. 1932. The moral judgement of the child. Translated from the French by M. Gabain,

London: Routledge.Pring, R. 2000. Philosophy of educational research. London: Continuum.Ritchie, J., and J. Lewis. 2003. Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students

and researchers. London: Sage.Robinson, K. 2001. Out of our minds. Learning to be creative. Chichester: Capstone.

Education 3–13 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1

Ryder, J., and L. Campbell. 1989. Groupsense: When groupwork does not add up to‘‘groupwork’’. Pastoral Care in Education 7: 22–30.

Sharples, M. 1999. How we write: Writing as creative design. London: Routledge.Stafford, K., O. O’Sullivan, and M. Barrs. 2004. Boys on the margin. London: CLPE.Tymms, P., and C. Merrell. 2007. Standards and quality in English primary schools over time:

The national evidence. Primary Review of Research Survey 4/1. Cambridge: University ofCambridge, Faculty of Education.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Wells, G., and G. Claxton, eds. 2002. Learning for life in the twenty first century: Socio-cultural

perspectives on the future of education. Oxford: Blackwell.Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Wilson, R. 2001. Raising standards in writing. 2020 vision. Wakefield: Andrell Education

Limited.

12 J. Roberts and S. Eady

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

irlin

g L

ibra

ry]

at 0

1:24

07

July

201

1