Changing a Classic Tale

Overview

In this second lesson of Retelling Fairy Tale Stories, students compare selected sections of the traditional The Three Little Pigs with Jon Scieszka’s The True Story of the Three Little Pigs. They identify how changes to narrative choices reshape meaning, then apply this understanding through a jointly modelled alternative scene.

Learning intentions

• We are learning to compare how two versions of a story are structured and told.
• We are learning to identify changes in narrator, viewpoint, character motivation, events, tone, and ending.
• We are learning to support ideas with precise evidence from a text.
• We are learning how one changed narrative element can influence the whole story.

Success criteria

• I can identify important differences between two versions of a tale.
• I can name the narrative element that has changed.
• I can use a quotation or accurate detail as evidence.
• I can explain how a change affects the reader’s understanding of a character or event.

Curriculum links

• Comprehension: Text form, structure, style, and features — describing how authors use characterisation, setting, and plot to shape meaning.
• Comprehension: Text form, structure, style, and features — explaining how structural parts contribute to a text’s overall meaning.
• Comprehension: Text form, structure, style, and features — recognising that texts on the same topic can be written in different forms.
• Comprehension strategies — identifying and summarising key ideas and explaining how supporting details connect them.

Lesson structure (45 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Retrieve and hook. Display the opening question from the Changing a Classic Tale slide deck: “If the wolf told the story, would he still be the villain?” Students complete a quick think-pair-share, recalling the traditional tale and one feature of a narrative they studied in Lesson 1. Invite two or three responses and clarify that a narrator is the voice telling the story.

2. 5–12 min · Explicit teaching. Use the narrative elements and comparison examples to define narrator, viewpoint, motivation, events, tone, and ending. Teacher models one comparison aloud: “In the traditional tale, the wolf appears threatening; this makes the pigs seem vulnerable. In Scieszka’s version, the wolf gives his own explanation, so readers may question whether he is entirely to blame.” Students show a hand signal when they hear evidence, an effect on the reader, and an inference.

3. 12–20 min · Read and notice. Read selected, legally obtained excerpts from both versions, pausing after each short section. Students follow the text and annotate or note one surprising detail. Ask: “Who is speaking?”, “What does this character want?”, and “What has changed here?” Keep the excerpts visible and briefly recap each section before moving on. Use paired reading or teacher read-aloud as needed for access.

4. 20–32 min · Paired comparison. Distribute the two-version narrative comparison chart to pairs. Students compare the excerpts under the six headings: narrator/viewpoint, character motivation, events, tone, ending, and overall effect. For each heading, they record a detail or short quotation from each version, identify the change, and explain its effect. Partners take turns as Reader/Evidence Finder and Explainer, changing roles halfway through. Teacher circulates, prompts students to return to the text, and checks that explanations go beyond “it is different”.

5. 32–40 min · Joint think-aloud model. Return to the alternative-scene modelling slides. Teacher models changing one element in a familiar scene, thinking aloud: “I will keep the setting and main event, but change the narrator to the second pig. This means the reader hears fear and defensiveness rather than the wolf’s justification.” Jointly compose a 4–6 sentence alternative scene on the board. Ask students to suggest a changed narrator, motivation, or tone; question each suggestion with “What would the reader now think or feel?” Underline the chosen narrative evidence and label its effect.

6. 40–45 min · Reflect and assess. Students complete the final prompt on the two-version narrative comparison chart: “Changing ______ reshapes the story because ______.” Invite two pairs to share. Students self-check the success criteria and hand in their charts as they leave.

Resources

• Legally obtained copies or teacher-selected excerpts from the traditional tale and Jon Scieszka’s The True Story of the Three Little Pigs
• the Changing a Classic Tale slide deck
• the two-version narrative comparison chart
• Whiteboard and markers
• Highlighters or coloured pencils
• Timer
• Visual vocabulary cards or displayed definitions for narrator, viewpoint, motivation, tone, and evidence

Assessment

• During retrieval and explicit teaching, listen for accurate use of narrator, viewpoint, motivation, and tone; correct misconceptions immediately.
• Check paired charts for text-based evidence and explanations of how a change affects meaning or the reader.
• Use the final sentence as an exit assessment: students should name one changed element and explain its effect. Record students needing further support with evidence or narrative terminology.

Differentiation

• Provide dyslexia-friendly excerpts with clear spacing, a readable sans-serif font, short chunks, and optional text-to-speech or teacher read-aloud. Do not require students to read aloud without preparation.
• Support students with ADHD through the visible six-step agenda, brief timed tasks, movement while collecting resources, partner roles, and frequent verbal check-ins.
• Support students with APD by facing the class when speaking, reducing background noise, giving one instruction at a time, displaying every question, and checking understanding privately.
• Provide sentence starters such as “In the traditional version…”, “Scieszka changes…”, and “This affects the reader because…”. Extend confident students by asking them to explain how two changed elements interact.