The storytelling workshop with Chris Smith reminded me of all the techniques that excited me about teaching when I trained twenty years ago with drama and theatre studies as my specialism. Although I have used many ideas and activities akin to the storytelling schools model, which support the development of children’s language for communicating and writing, I had never used this approach before and looked forward to developing this in my school. As mentioned above, the language profile of various groups of children in the school mean that supporting speaking and listening, oral rehearsal and sequencing ideas for writing is a priority. Having learned about storytelling I felt this was an approach which could address these needs.
Following the training, part of my learning was the way in which I prepared for lessons. I had to ‘map’ and then ‘step’ the story several times in order to be confident enough to share the story well and to draw the children in.
Internalising the story this way, unlike learning lines for a play, using visual memory prompts or a lesson plan, was extremely uplifting and gave me confidence in delivering the story without having to look at a book and therefore being able to connect far more with the story and the children during the initial telling. The response from the children was extremely positive and in their retelling, they were far better (in my experience) at recalling the main points of the story than children usually are, having heard an unfamiliar story being read to them for the first time. This was particularly true, I felt, of the lower ability children.
Internalising the story this way, unlike learning lines for a play, using visual memory prompts or a lesson plan, was extremely uplifting and gave me confidence in delivering the story without having to look at a book and therefore being able to connect far more with the story and the children during the initial telling. The response from the children was extremely positive and in their retelling, they were far better (in my experience) at recalling the main points of the story than children usually are, having heard an unfamiliar story being read to them for the first time. This was particularly true, I felt, of the lower ability children.
As a non-teaching deputy this year, one of the challenges has been how to deliver quality lessons in isolation but relevant to the rest of the curriculum, working collaboratively with teachers, so that they still feel ownership of the process and confident enough to go on and use the same techniques in their own practice – much of this has come about through the storytelling work we have done.
Following the WRITE session, I used the same story of ‘The Freedom Bird’ that Chris Smith had used for training purposes
Both Y3 classes came to the hall for the initial session and I told them the story of the Freedom Bird using the techniques taught to us on the training day.
As a year group, the children then mapped the story, following my examples of the first few key moments and then stepped the story.
|
Unlike the storytelling cycle, where children do not write the whole story until the end of the deepening activities – we asked the children to do a cold write of the story at this point.
As this is a high achieving year group, most children had the ability to retell the story after the first three stages – hearing, mapping, stepping.
Most of the stories were well written and reflected the story I had told them well, which meant that all the stories were mostly the same.
As this is a high achieving year group, most children had the ability to retell the story after the first three stages – hearing, mapping, stepping.
Most of the stories were well written and reflected the story I had told them well, which meant that all the stories were mostly the same.
Again, as a year group we watched the clip of Austin’s Butterfly featuring Ron Berger from Expeditionary Learning. The message for the children was not that we wanted all our stories to be exact replicas of the original story, but the reasons why we edit and redraft and to learn how to critique each other’s work in a positive way. The children peer evaluated each other’s stories and suggested ideas to each other about how to improve their stories.
The last activity that we all did as a year group was a Philosophy for Children session when we explored the themes on the story; the children’s task was to come up with a question to debate based on the themes in the story.
The type of questions that children arrived at were:
Both classes then independently took a vote on which question they would discuss in their class.
At this point the teachers then planned for their classes separately so that guided group work was tailored to their own classes and the ideas had that been generated from the P4C debates and the feedback from their peers.
Other deepening activities included hot seating and making the freedom bird in order to write a detailed description.
The type of questions that children arrived at were:
- ‘Is it ok to hunt animals for pleasure?’
- ‘Is it ok to kill birds in the wild?’
- ‘Is it ok to hunt animals if you need to feed your family?’
- ‘Should you hurt someone if they are annoying you?’
Both classes then independently took a vote on which question they would discuss in their class.
At this point the teachers then planned for their classes separately so that guided group work was tailored to their own classes and the ideas had that been generated from the P4C debates and the feedback from their peers.
Other deepening activities included hot seating and making the freedom bird in order to write a detailed description.
The guided write was dependent on their level of ability so, for example more able writers discussed at what point of the story another character might be introduced and if so what dialogue could be added – how would this change the events in the story?
By the time the children did their ‘hot write’ their stories now had a variety of different story openers, other characters and story endings and had been personalised by each child.
The children went to their infant school to share their stories with their previous teachers and Y2 children.
By the time the children did their ‘hot write’ their stories now had a variety of different story openers, other characters and story endings and had been personalised by each child.
The children went to their infant school to share their stories with their previous teachers and Y2 children.
The Y4 classes, conversely, are not a high achieving year group and needed far more deepening activities and opportunities to ‘talk the story’ before writing.
This group began in the same way in the hall listening to the story of ‘Ganesh and Kartekeya.’ Again, for my preparation I needed to both map and step the story as well as tell the story to my own children in order to be familiar enough with it to deliver it well.
This year group needed far more oral rehearsal and so we decided to become story tellers before committing the story to the page and invited parents, younger children and other teachers in the school to hear the story being told and reenacted
|
In order to prepare for their storytelling the children mapped and stepped the key moments as well as creating posters with pictures from the internet to add creative descriptions.
The children also had specific sessions about similes, metaphors and complex sentences in order to add interest and variety of sentence length to their storytelling.
The children also had specific sessions about similes, metaphors and complex sentences in order to add interest and variety of sentence length to their storytelling.
‘It’s like I put my heart onto the page and then the teacher asks me to do it again!’ |
The Y4’s also watched ‘Austin’s Butterfly’ after their first draft as editing and redrafting is something which they find very difficult, as one pupil put it, ‘It’s like I put my heart onto the page and then the teacher asks me to do it again!’
|
The impact of this work on the Y3’s writing was instantly evident in the class display, attitudes to writing, length of writing and innovation around the initial story. Children were eager to have their stories read by a wide audience and the quality of presentation and handwriting improved due to the pride taken in their stories and knowing there would be a wide audience.
Y4, in particular boys and those with additional needs, were able to sequence their stories and as a result of this began to write in paragraphs. They had a feeling of immense achievement in the length of writing they were able to produce which had a strong storyline throughout.
Y4, in particular boys and those with additional needs, were able to sequence their stories and as a result of this began to write in paragraphs. They had a feeling of immense achievement in the length of writing they were able to produce which had a strong storyline throughout.
In the planning stages of each new unit of work, the teachers in Y3 have continued to place high importance on the purpose and audience for writing. Children in this year group have continued to thrive in this environment knowing that there will be an appreciative audience if only each other. Reading their work to each other in pairs and small groups is a natural part of the writing process as one pupil commented to me during a learning walk, ‘Well what’s the point of writing anything if nobody reads it!’
|
‘Well what’s the point of writing anything if nobody reads it!’ |
Y4 teachers have continued to adopt many of the storytelling techniques throughout the year particularly in the early stages for children planning their writing to support memory, sequencing and oral rehearsal. The storytelling techniques have also been used in non-fiction work alongside the deconstruction of a historical text to support historical recounts and accounts.
The end of year writing levels are extremely positive for year 3 and 4, showing outstanding progress as a cohort.
In Y3 nearly a quarter of the year group have made better than expected progress and children in receipt of pupil premium funding have all made expected progress. As a group the PPF children have achieved 4APS progress against their end of key stage 1 results.
In Y4 90% in one class and 77% in the other made 4APS progress with all but 1 pupil in the cohort making expected progress. Based on the end of KS1 results, children in Y4 in receipt of pupil premium funding are now on track to meet their end of Y6 expectations.
In Y3 nearly a quarter of the year group have made better than expected progress and children in receipt of pupil premium funding have all made expected progress. As a group the PPF children have achieved 4APS progress against their end of key stage 1 results.
In Y4 90% in one class and 77% in the other made 4APS progress with all but 1 pupil in the cohort making expected progress. Based on the end of KS1 results, children in Y4 in receipt of pupil premium funding are now on track to meet their end of Y6 expectations.