Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogic

spaces

Virginia Samuda

TBLT 2007

Are sharks predictable?

Research on shark behavior day to day helps us understand the space and resources they need for survival. And research gives insight into potential interactions between sharks and humans.

Tracking sharks: Scientists in Hawaii attach a lightweight

sound producing tag to track a shark’s movements. Researchers listen to the sounds the tag produces and record the shark’s location.

Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogic

spaces

Virginia Samuda

TBLT 2007

The teacher as task designer

The texture and subtlety of teachers’ work connotes a need to acknowledge that they are necessarily involved in designing tasks at almost every twist and turn of classroom interaction.

(Towndrow, 2004)

Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogic spaces

1) Some background issues brought into focus through the title of this talk

2) Some real world pedagogic problems, relating to the demands made on teachers that these issues bring into focus

3) Some recent empirical directions that seek to engage with those issues

‘Tasks,’

As a pedagogic tool…

open to systematic use for a range of pedagogic purposes at different points in a teaching

sequence open to a range of pedagogic decisions about

how it may be varied, shaped and adjusted to meet those purposes

open to mediation by a teacher

‘Design’:

Done by…. materials writers, curriculum developers,

researchers, testers, teachers, learners Includes…

Development of a new task from scratch; adjustments to existing tasks

Draws on.. Complex problem-solving mechanisms and

conceptual domain knowledge

‘Design’:some problems of scope?

Emergent?

Re-shape.., re-interpret.., re-define..

(Lantolf, 2000, Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Donato 2000, Seedhouse, 2005, Slimani-Rolls, 2005 etc…)

Impact on performance and SLA processes?

Direct..,channel.., deflect.., predispose.. require.., impinge on..

(Pica et al, 1993; Skehan & Foster studies, 1996-9; Ellis, 2001; Robinson, 2001; 2007; Mackey, 1999 etc..)

… in relation to task as a pedagogic tool?

Interactions between emergent and predictable elements of task design?

The zone where teachers work?

‘Design’:

Development of the workplan

Implementation of the workplan

Task-as-workplans

Workplanº

Original

workplan

(designer’s workplan)

Workplan¹

Prospective

workplan

(teacher’s lesson plan)

Workplan²

Dynamic workplan

(teacher’s on-line plan)

Workplan³

Retrospective

workplan

(teacher’s reformulated plan for future use)

‘The architecture of pedagogic spaces’

‘Task-as-frame’Practitioner construals of ‘task as:

a bounded pedagogic unit

..with a beginning, a middle, and end

…unfolding in stages

…providing a reason to use language

..leaving space for the learner(Samuda et al, 2001)

Pedagogic task design: some real world issues

The curriculum: All English teachers must

take on the responsibility of selecting or adapting suitable tasks from existing materials or designing tasks for their own learners (Curriculum Development Council, Hong Kong/SAR, 1999)

The teacher:I am very conscious that if I

sit down of an evening as a teacher that I don’t want to spend all evening preparing tasks or designing tasks. I want to produce something which is valid […] and enjoyable for the class in as short a time as possible (Samuda et al, 2000:5)

Problems with design: an example

[Teacher x]: ‘never considered the question of how to

design the tasks in a way that would make it necessary for the students to collaborate for task completion’ (Tsui, 2003: 174);

[and did not appear to] ‘have any principles on which to base her judgment of whether the activities [were] well designed’ (ibid: 219).

Potential guidance on task design

‘How to manuals’ (Nunan, 1989; 2004; Estaire & Zanón, 1994, Jolly & Bolitho, 1998 etc)

Empirically-grounded insights (notably the two Peters)

Empirically-grounded recommendations about task-based methodology (Ellis, 2003)

Principles of task-based methodology (Ellis, 2003)

1. Ensure an appropriate level of task difficulty2. Establish clear goals for each task-based lesson3. Develop an appropriate orientation to performing the task in

the students4. Ensure that students adopt an active role in task-based

lessons5. Encourage students to take risks6. Ensure that students are primarily focused on meaning

when they perform a task7. Provide opportunities for focusing on form8. Require students to evaluate their progress

‘Design awareness’ (Samuda, 2005)

Enabling task implementation: teacher and task ‘in tandem’ (Samuda, 2001)

Enabling teacher planning over a course of instruction (Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992)

A role for ‘design awareness’ in developing the workplan and in implementing it?

Design awareness: some unknowns:

What does it entail? How is it deployed in the development of

the workplan, and how is it deployed in task implementation in the classroom?

How is it acquired? How does it develop? Can it be ‘trained’?

Some empirical studies of design

Example 1:The development of the workplan (Johnson, 2003; Samuda, 2005)

Example 2: Teachers’ implementation of the workplan (Samuda, forthcoming)

Example 1: What designers do: developing the workplan

Interview data: evaluations of ‘typical’ tasks; card sorts: task designers, teachers.

Design process data: concurrent thinkalouds while designing tasks: design brief: ‘specialist’ (S) designers and ‘non-specialist teacher’ (NS/T) designers

Differences in the ways that S and NS/T designers approach design

process? (Johnson, 2003)

Design outcomes data: tasks produced; teacher evaluations of tasks produced

Differences in the tasks produced? (Samuda, 2005)

Selected findings: differences in the ways that specialist designers approach the design process: (Johnson, 2003)

‘concrete visualisation capacity’simulate and rehearse ways task might unfoldenvisage and troubleshoot problems ‘consequence identification’awareness of potential knock-on effect of changing

one element of the task ‘maximum variable control’attention to wide range of variables relating to

overall task and the details of its parts

Selected findings: differences in tasks produced (Samuda, 2005)

Differences in surface level features: S tasks: titles, summarising statements (task goal;

pedagogic purpose); ‘structured stationery’; jointly supplied task data

Differences in internal structuring: S tasks: ‘proleptic’ design features: anticipate how the

design might unfold in action; points in the task where there could be a change in attentional focus

EXAMPLE: the ‘staging’ of a task

Movement through the task chunked via steps and sub-steps, with step boundaries corresponding to shifts in interaction, sub-topic and/or task focus

Outcomes of one stage of the task used as input for the next

Iterative opportunities for different types of language use at different stages of the task

Closures:-stage closures-final closure in plenary mode

Cumulative pedagogic effects?

- use of advance organisers- staging- pacing- variety in interaction type- recycling- closure ……. built into task design

Designer as teacher?

Example 2: teachers’ implementations of the workplan

How do teachers appraise the potential strengths and limitations of the original workplan?

Does varying an element of the workplan, whether prospectively or dynamically, have a knock-on effect on other aspects of the task?

How do teachers anticipate and manage those effects, both prospectively and dynamically?

Data base

Teachers with different levels of classroom experience planning and teaching the same unit of material from a widely-used ELT textbook in a 50 minute lesson.

(Source: LATEX Research Group archive, Dept of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University)

Present example: Two teachers planning and implementing a task that formed part of those materials

Participants

The teachers Teacher ‘V’: over 20

years ESL and EFL teaching experience

Teacher ‘N’: TEFL diploma; limited teaching experience.

The students Two classes: young

adults, from China One-year’s

foundation course, at UK college of education, prior to entering university  

Procedures

Pre-lesson interview: each teacher talked through a 50-minute lesson plan based on the same textbook unit

Video-recording of lessons taught

Two stimulated recall sessions: 1) teacher-nominated points of focus2) researcher-nominated points of focus

Tap into different dimensions of the task-as-workplans?

Analysis:

Based on practitioner construals of task as a ‘frame’

Track teachers’ macro- and micro-framing of the task prospectively and dynamically

Example: proactive/reactive framing moves relating to: theme, content, procedure, goal, timing

Variations to original workplan: prospective workplan

Problem Solution Anticipated impact

V Inappropriacy of task content

China’s Greatest Achievements

Rubric Mode of activity Outcome format

N Lack of time Omit last step of task

None

Both teachers vary the original workplan in different ways..

Teacher ‘V’ Changes to task

content cumulative changes to task structure and procedures

Re-tasks elements of original workplan

Teacher ‘N’ Omitting part of task

procedure removal of task ‘outcome’

De-tasks elements of original workplan

De-tasking and re-tasking: Teacher N and Teacher V

prospective dynamic impact on language use

N Omit part of task

DE-TASK

S individual preparation T nominated responses

DE-TASK

IRF

a) R= one-off extended prepared turns

b) R= single word utterances

DE-TASK

V Changes to content changes to internal structuring (rubric type; number of stages; outcome)

RE-TASK

On-line changes to internal structure of task rubrics, number of stages, outcomes of stages

RE-TASK

Cumulative opportunities to engage and re-engage with familiar content in slightly different ways at different stages of the task; dynamic reframing of task demands

RE-TASK

Some elements of Teacher V’s re-tasking

Demarcation of beginning/end of task, and the stages within the task

Use of student-generated data arising out of one stage as springboard for next

Variation of interaction types

Keeping the frame of the task constant enables changes in task procedures and

changes in task demands as the task unfolds?

Staging the task: macro and micro-framing: Teacher V

T

A

S

K

open frame

close frame

open frameclose frame

open frameclose frame

open frameclose frame

open frameclose frame

Factors enabling Teacher V to ‘re-task’, prospectively and dynamically?

Robust schematisation of the architecture of the task: overall task frame, and micro-frames within it?

Capacity for envisaging and troubleshooting problems?

Awareness of effects of changing one element of task on others?

Highly proceduralised repertoire?Teacher as designer?

Are sharks predictable?

Research on shark behavior day to day helps us understand the space and resources they need for survival. And research gives insight into potential interactions between sharks and humans.

Tracking sharks: Scientists in Hawaii attach a lightweight

sound producing tag to track a shark’s movements. Researchers listen to the sounds the tag produces and record the shark’s location.

Some conclusions……

Not all tasks are created equal… The use of tasks implies ‘design’: prospective and

dynamic, with fluid boundaries between workplan and process

Further empirical studies that look at ‘design’ in terms of how teachers construe the pedagogic potential of different tasks, and how they work with them in the classroom

richer understandings of ‘task’ as a pedagogic tool within a context of use, and richer conceptualisations of the scope of ‘design’?

insights for teacher development?

An end……

….and a beginning…..

TBLT 2009 Lancaster landscapes and sweeping panoramas friendly locals literary and cultural heritage rain pubs and well-kept real ales local produce Lancaster Axe A longstanding association with tasks

See you in 2009…

Advice to novice architects, (Potter, 2002)

Enter old buildings alertly, on the prowl for trouble. Note any evidence of smell, subsidence, cracking, rot, woodworm, damp, loose plaster, stuck doors, pattern staining, damaged fittings.

Always note the superficial nature and conditions of surfaces, but..

Always go beyond surfaces, to structure, and to an awareness of materials.

Framing the task: examples

Teacher NSo we’ve got just short of a quarter of

an hour left and there’s a task on the back about talking about greatest achievements. It’s on the last page and it’s number 1. In your pairs I’d like you to decide which you think is the greatest achievement ever made

Teacher VNow we’re going to do an exercise in

pairs. If you could just take some paper (handing out sheets of poster paper). [.] We’re looking at achievements and so far we’ve been looking at achievements of people. But countries could also have great achievements. Now you all come from the same country. I want you in 5 minutes to write down the greatest achievements that China has experienced in its long long history. What great things have happened in China? OK?

What makes a good street bollard?

Reprise: What makes a good street bollard?

Height? Geometry? Surface? Spacing? Articulation with the ground?

Fitness for purpose (Gropius, 1936)

What makes a good task?

Real world relationship? Engages holistic language

use? A non-linguistic outcome? Focuses attention on

meaning? Gives rise to different

kinds of language processing?

Planning time?Clear instructions? Feedback on success?

…..vis a vis ‘fitness for purpose’?

Tasks

Design

Pedagogic spaces

Differences in the tasks produced: (Samuda, 2005)