Rabina Baksh Bissessar
Describe the small groups. How many in eachgroup. How were group
Abstract
Though my Honors English students are industrious and focused, inclusive collaboration was challenging for them, so I intervened with a protocol that allowed all group members’ ideas to be heard and considered.
After my Honors English class students completed reading “The Possibility of Evil,” by Shirley Jackson, some students expressed dissatisfaction with the story’s ending.Though, typically, after reading a short story, my students take a quiz or complete a project to demonstrate their comprehension and analysis of the literary elements utilized in the story; aligning with Schiro’s (2013) learner-centered ideology, I supported my students in their deciding what the focus of the assignment would be for this reading.
Students stated they wanted the assignment to be a revision of the story, providing background information about the main character, to help readers understand her motivations and empathize with her actions.The students decided they would work in small groups. Each group would collectively write and then present their version of the story.
The challenging aspect of this assignment was students working in collaborative groups. Students had to listen to their peers’ suggestions, provide constructive feedback, determine the revised version, and share the responsibility of writing it. Cooperation and collaboration among high-achieving learners can be challenging because they each think their ideas are the best; this assignment required them to consider others’ perspectives and not solely rely on their own.
Cooperation and collaboration among high-achieving learners can be challenging…
Collaborative Groups
For their collaborative work, which spanned eight days, students were required to formulate ideas, rewrite the story in a group document, peer edit the initial draft, and make revisions in response to teacher input, before presenting their re-written story to the class. In their group of six, each member was required to contribute to their team’s efforts. My students needed to use abilities suggested by Laal & Ghodsi, (2012), as they collaboratively analyzed information, developed solutions, respectfully challenged each other’s ideas, and, learned to respond respectfully to challenges to their ideas.
Students were assigned to groups where, I believed, it would be most effective to emphasize and showcase their individual strengths. For instance, though students selected their roles, every group contained a student with the ability to lead and maintain focus within the group.
The students had no trouble staying on task, as these particular students are industrious and focused on their studies. However, they had difficulty making decisions about which group members’ ideas should be included in the story, and which ones shouldn’t. In addition, students’ ability to adapt to challenges of their own ideas was put to the test, when they were required to hear other group members’ opinions about their revised story. In my role, as facilitator, I put into practice a plan that would enable the students to deliberately hear each other out, respectfully discuss each other’s ideas, and then come up with original ways to combine each other’s ideas.
Collaborative decision-making protocol. First, in a manner akin to a business pitch, I asked each group member to present their rewriting idea to the other students in their group. I asked the other group members to list the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed revision. Following the presentation of all group members’ rewrite ideas, the group members went back to discussing each idea.They spoke about each concept separately, identifying the aspects they found appealing and objectionable. Next, they discussed how to include some of the ideas in the group rewrite, so that each student could contribute to the revised version of the story.
Strengthened communications. Students’ ability to effectively communicate was strengthened and demonstrated when they practiced active listening techniques and then spoke about the parts of each member’s revisions that they found appealing. Members of the group discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each revised story, politely challenging one another’s ideas. Students’ eventual satisfaction with their peers’ communications is partly demonstrated in the peer assessment ratings they gave to their group members. Using the Peer Assessment Rubric (see Appendix A), 83 percent of students received “Met Expectations” and 17 percent of students received “Almost Met Expectations.”
Presentation
Group members chose a portion of their group’s revised story to read. Content and style of group’s presentations varied. One group emphasized how little information was provided to readers about Ms. Strangworth, the main character. Thus, they decided to include a “flashback” segment in the narrative to clarify the character’s actions. Another group chose to tell their story theatrically, so instead of doing a read-aloud, their presentation resembled a drama performance complete with props.
Evaluation
The students determined that grading for the assignment would be 50% peer evaluation, completed with the use of the student-created Peer Assessment Rubric (see Appendix A). Students peer assessment and, also, self-assessment was based on input to the project, openness to receiving criticism, cooperation in making edits and modifications, dependability and involvement. The other 50% of their grade was based on my evaluation, with the use of a rubric I created (see Appendix B).
Deeper Learning
The assignment provided deeper learning, leading to deeper learning outcomes such as effectively working independently and collaboratively, and effective communications. The deeper learning outcome of acquiring and being able to use knowledge was forwarded by students strengthening and using English curriculum content and skills, as listed on Teacher’s Assessment of Student Work Rubric (Appendix B) in their revisions. Effective collaboration and communications were realized both through the group work and the presentations.
Students experienced the deeper learning outcome of social-emotional learning when they practiced receiving constructive criticism without viewing it as a negative experience; and respecting other people’s viewpoints and opinions. Helping to decide their class’s assignment and effectively seeing it through supported students’ sense of self-efficacy. To choose where in the original story they wanted to start their rewrite and what the new plot would be for the rewrite, students had to use careful/ critical thinking and creativity.
Author’s Reflections
My students engaged in a process that guided them to effective collaboration. Students experienced receiving constructive criticism, without viewing it as a negative experience.The students learned how to pay attention to criticism, apply the criticism to improve their rewritten story, and respect other people’s viewpoints and opinions.
In the future, I will allow my Honor students the opportunity to decide the focus of at least one assignment, within the academic year. In addition, I will provide further creative writing options such as (1) rewriting the ending of the story in literary format, (2) re-writing the piece as a theatrical performance, or (3) interviewing a character from the story to deep-dive their character’s motivations.
I had a well-prepared lesson plan for our “The Possibility of Evil” unit, however, I did not anticipate the students’ dissatisfaction with the story’s ending. I listened to my students and worked with changing the assignment, which helped improve students’ satisfaction with the short story, allowed important lessons about respectful collaboration, and created a memorable unit.
Our class culture includes a secure and supportive learning environment, where students feel free to ask questions, engage in dialogue, and consider the literature they have read. I believe this classroom culture was instrumental in the unit’s success.
References
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091
Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Appendix A
Student Peer Assessment Rubric
Appendix B
Teacher’s Assessment of Student Work Rubric
Rabina Baksh Bissessar teaches high school English at Neuse Charter School, Smithfield, North Carolina. She can be reached at Rabina.Bessessar@gmail.com or rb5089@uncw.edu.