|
Teacher and Researcher Reflect.
How is the collaborative writing process we see from the video data different from that undertaken individually with pen and paper?
- What the computer can do in relation to design challenges the traditional model of writing. See Lesson One - the font issue.
- The shared text on the screen makes possible a great deal more voicing of the text. Note the extent to which both writers “take a run” at composing by reading/reciting, often in chorus, the previous phrase/sentence/paragraph. There are parallels here with reading development.
Text is also voiced while typing but this does not always prevent error while transcribing eg omitting “table”. However re-reading brings omissions to the writers’ notice. There is much more reading and re-reading of the text than would have ocurred with pen and paper.
- Collaborative composing here seems to encourage the girls to act out/improvise dialogue.
- There are examples here of collaborative interaction supporting the writing process. Eg the process by which they arrive at the chessboard simile for the floor; the understanding that they have left out an important step in the narrative. (We haven’t said he picks it up)
- Collaboratively the writers are drawing on the 'available designs' of other versions of Alice, especially the film.
- An instruction to focus on drafting the narrative does not preclude a concern with surface features – “Is that how you spell board?” Is there a capital M?
- The available resources for 'illustrating' the text were unsatisfactory especially in terms of extending the creative possibilities of story telling.
- The intervention of the teacher is assisted by having the text on screen; and effective when the teacher takes on the role of co-writer/problem solver.
- The girls were accustomed to having easy access to dictionaries and thesaurus but they did not know how to access these on the computer - though they tried.
- They had been taught cut and paste in ICT lessons and practised it by changing the order of a story; but no-one in the class made use of this facility to make changes in their stories.
We also considered the alternative model of the writing process developed from observations of the writers' interest in layout and presentation from the start. (See The Font Issue). Kate was frustrated by not being able to find illustrations she felt could be integrated into the text she and Naomi had created. The work in lessons five and six were less satisfying because the emphasis was on task completion rather than creative communication of the story. This led us to consider the software available for such activity and the level of pupils' skill in accessing and processing images.
All this made us ask: How much of these observations are related to collaboration and how much to writing to direct to screen? Does the computer facilitate collaboration?
What was the effect of typing skill on the composition and the contribution of each individual in the pair?
Naomi and Kate thought they were a good team.
Naomi: Kate's really fast at typing. I'm not very fast at typing. I quite like just flowing thoughts out of my head.
Kate: And I don't have very many good ideas.
This characterisation was one which reflected Pam's initial view of Naomi as the dominant partner with all the ideas and imagination. However when we analysed the video data we found that Kate had been much involved with the mutual constructiom of the text when they were talking before typing. When Kate started typing she appeared to contribute less to the shaping of the language, although she did use her ownership of the keyboard to make minor amendments to the text without consulting Naomi.
Pam's thoughts overall
"It was very interesting. I don't usually approach writing in this way. It made me think. Overall it was too drawn out, too long between sessions. That's all to do with timetabling. We each get a weekly session in the computer suite and because mine was Friday afternoon we couldn’t do an immediate follow up. We printed off what they had written each week and in class I’d give them a chance to read what they’d done and share any thoughts about it but it needed to be more concentrated – even if we could have managed two lessons a week for three weeks.
Ideally I would have been in the suite on Monday, Wednesday and Friday for two weeks. Give them a chance on the Tuesday and Thursday to look at what they’d done, chat with their partner, scribble notes. I think that off-screen time is more important than I thought it would be."
We tried to iterate this design with the changes Pam felt were needed. Outside the weekly timetabled lesson for each class, there was a maximum of six additional sessions available for teachers to book. However, this potential access was limited for some teachers (including Pam) by tight timetabling of other activities such as swimming, badminton, tennis, work with a visiting artist.
|
