Workshop Plan for Communicative Task Design Input Session
by admin | September 2, 2010 | 0 Comments
This is a looped input in that is uses task design models in order to discuss classroom practice. However, the main aim of the session is for teachers to be able to create effective fluency tasks which get students communicating/speaking. Handouts and participant tasks included.
A useful background pre-reading is the trainer notes
Time: Minimum 1 hour, ideally 1.5 hours
| Aim | Procedure |
| To set up the boundaries of the input and intended outcome | Explain why workshop is being given – it is to help with the problems of getting students to speak in a fluency task. The process of the workshop is to ask participants to take part in 3 different types of task and then to assess them for effectivenessExplain that there might not be time to complete each task fully but that the aim is to have an understanding of the tasks which will be easier at the evaluation stage. If time is limited participants can get frustrated as the tasks themselves can be very interesting to a group of teachers J |
| To demonstrate a poor task type for later discussion | Task 1Tell your partner 3 things that annoy you about students or 3 peeves you have about your studentsDon’t do feedback at the end of the task but explain that the feedback will be covered later in the session. Don’t spend more than 6 or 7 minutes on this stageChange partners
(Peeves usually include, students use of electronic dictionaries, not doing homework, telephones in class, lateness, talking when teacher is talking, refusing to speak etc) I haven’t met a group of teachers yet who don’t have lots of peeves! |
| To demonstrate a different task type (slightly better!) | Task 2Talk with your partner and find 3 peeves about your students that you have in common.Again don’t do feedback. Change partners again |
| To demonstrate aneffective task type | Task 3Talk with your partner and agree on a top peeve about your students and decide on some possible solutions. Prepare to present your top peeve and solutions to the group who will see if they agree or can add to the solutions.Take this task to its conclusion- get participant’s presentation about peeves and solutions. Don’t allow for any repetition if some of them have the same peeves.You don’t need to provide any ‘answers’ to the peeves. To do so can also distract from the main aim of the workshop. |
| To bring tasks around to main aim of designing effective tasks | Elicit which task was most effective/enjoyable and authentic. Point out that you are going to come back to the tasks in a minute but for now you want to go off on a tangent! |
| To establish one of the keys aims of a speaking task | First, elicit why we give students speaking practice.Possible Answers
The aim of the question is to point out that we want to give speaking practice with a clear linguistic purpose rather than just a ‘warm up. Make the point that the best speaking tasks will be those that are as authentic or as real to the student’s world as possible. If they can relate to the context and situation of the task they are more likely to want to use the language. Don’t get sidetracked onto a discussion about the purposes of fluency tasks at this point! |
| To establish the components of an act of communication between two people | When we communicate with each other there is always a reason/purpose or intention which can also be defined as an outcome. For example if we walk into a cafe and ask for a coffee the coffee could be described as the outcome of the communication. If we tell another teacher about our peeves we are probably looking for some solutions, maybe sympathy, or maybe just some recognition that teaching is hard. This is where it can get complicated! It’s true that the reasons for communication and the desired outcomes from the communication can be almost unreadable at times, or non verbal etc. However, for the purposes of this workshop we want to look at specific communicative outcomes from a spoken task.So, keeping it simple, what can a teacher include in the task design which will make it as communicative as possible?Put these answers on the right side of the board, leaving enough space for to include the three task boxes (as per board plan). |
| To distinguish differences between the 3 tasks | Participants complete the Task 1, 2 and 3 table that have been developed on the right of the board.Comment.
|
| To test the task through counting the amount of information generatedTask 1 | A good test of a task can be to calculate how many pieces of information are generated. The numbers are based on the assumption that there are 10 students in the class.Task 1If 10 students tell their partner their 3 top peeves then we have 30 pieces of information in the room. The teacher has to manage this information. There seems to be two main ways to do this.
Ask each student in turn what was said. If we have 10 students by the time the teacher has asked number two, number one is texting, sleeping, making eyes across the room or generally causing a disturbance. They as sure as eggs not listening to their peers as some teachers demand. The other problem with this type of task closure is that the aim of the speaking was to practice or test a specific piece of language but the feedback will probably take longer than the actual task! |
| Testing task 2 | Task 2We now have 15 pieces of information that need to be processed. Still less than a task 1 but the management options tend to be as above |
| Testing task 3 | Task 3For a group of 10 we will have about 3 pieces of information and less if two groups agree. It is much easier to process the information and can usually be done quickly. If all the students were involved in the task they are often interested in each others solutions or findings. |
| Information on task closure | It’s interesting to make the point that on a speaking task an effective staging to closing the lesson stages is:
If the task closure is too long there is often not enough time for the linguistic feedback |
| To pull together the message | So, get agreement that task 1’s are not good and serve no purpose except to demotivate students.Task 2 types are good and often lead onto Task 3’sTask 3 are the easiest to manage and create the most authentic scenarios for languageInterestingly another ‘test’ of a good task can be seen when it comes to writing the aim of a freer practice lesson. If the task is being used to practice/test a specific piece of language it can be stated as:Target Language + Task OutcomeTo practice ‘used to’ in order to discuss and find out who was the most horrible child in class when they were younger!
Give out summary handout – Communicative Task Design |
| To give participants practice | Give teachers the practice handout and in pairs they decide what type of task it is and how it can be converted into a 3Generally task 3 types include the words: decide, agree on, find etc in the instruction language. |
| Extension task | Look at some course book and create better production tasks |
Board Plan
| Number of pieces of Information for feedback with 10 students Task 1 30Task 2 15Task 3 3 (most) | Task 1Tell your partner 3 things that annoy you about students or 3 peeves you have about your studentsTask 2 Talk with your partner and find 3 peeves about your students that you have in common.
Task 3 Talk with your partner and agree on a top peeve about your students and decide on some solutions. Prepare to present your top peeve and solutions to the group who will see if they agree or can add to the solution. |
Components of an act of communication | Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 |
|
No | Yes | Yes | ||
|
No | No | Yes | ||
|
No | Yes | Yes | ||
|
May | Yes | Yes | ||
|
No | No | Yes | ||
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
|
Yes | Yes | Yes |
©Jeanette Barsdell
Time: Minimum 1 hour, ideally 1.5
