Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogic spaces

1. Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogic spaces Virginia Samuda TBLT 2007

2. 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.

3. Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogic spaces Virginia Samuda TBLT 2007

4. 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)

5. 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

6. ‘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

7. ‘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

8. 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..) ‘Design’:some problems of scope?

9. … in relation to task as a pedagogic tool? • Interactions between emergent and predictable elements of task design? • The zone where teachers work?

10. Development of the workplan Implementation of the workplan ‘Design’:

11. Task-as-workplans

12. ‘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)

13. 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) Pedagogic task design: some real world issues

14. 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).

15. 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)

16. Principles of task-based methodology (Ellis, 2003) • Ensure an appropriate level of task difficulty • Establish clear goals for each task-based lesson • Develop an appropriate orientation to performing the task in the students • Ensure that students adopt an active role in task-based lessons • Encourage students to take risks • Ensure that students are primarily focused on meaning when they perform a task • Provide opportunities for focusing on form • Require students to evaluate their progress

17. ‘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?

18. 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’?

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. Selected findings: differences in the ways that specialist designers approach the design process: (Johnson, 2003) • ‘concrete visualisation capacity’ simulate and rehearse ways task might unfold envisage 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Cumulative pedagogic effects? • use of advance organisers • staging • pacing • variety in interaction type • recycling • closure ……. built into task design Designer as teacher?

25. 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?

26. 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

27. 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 Participants

28. 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 focus 2) researcher-nominated points of focus Tap into different dimensions of the task-as-workplans?

29. 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

30. Variations to original workplan: prospective workplan

31. 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 Both teachers vary the original workplan in different ways..

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

33. 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?

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

35. 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?

36. 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.

37. 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?

38. An end…… ….and a beginning…..

39. 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

40. See you in 2009…

41. 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.

42. Teacher N So 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 achievementever made Teacher V Now 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? Framing the task: examples

43. What makes a good street bollard?

44. Reprise: What makes a good street bollard? • Height? • Geometry? • Surface? • Spacing? • Articulation with the ground? • Fitness for purpose (Gropius, 1936)

45. 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’? What makes a good task?

47. Differences in the tasks produced: (Samuda, 2005)