Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 11 November 2014, At: 08:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Curriculum StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20
Teachers as digital task designers: anagenda for research and professionaldevelopmentPhillip A. TowndrowPublished online: 20 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Phillip A. Towndrow (2005) Teachers as digital task designers: an agendafor research and professional development, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37:5, 507-524, DOI:10.1080/00220270500068591
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270500068591
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
J. CURRICULUM STUDIES, 2005, VOL. 37, NO. 5, 507–524
Journal of Curriculum Studies ISSN 0022–0272 print/ISSN 1366–5839 online ©2005 Taylor & Francishttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00220270500068591
OP-ED
Teachers as digital task designers: an agenda for research and professional development
PHILLIP A. TOWNDROW
Taylor and Francis LtdTCUS106842.sgm10.1080/00220270500068591Journal of Curriculum Studies0011-0272 (print)/1366-5839 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis Group Ltd3700000002005PhillipTowndrowNational Institute of EducationEnglish Language and Literature Academic Group1 Nanyang Walk, Block 3, Level 3, Rm 174Singapore637616+65 6790 3446+65 6896 [email protected] technology (IT) is a pervasive and permanent feature of life,especially in post-modern, globalizing contexts. As a result, the debate overwhether IT is valid from an educational perspective is futile, and should beterminated; there are more urgent matters to consider. For example, twochanges can no longer be resisted by participants in classroom interactions.The first relates to the mass of information in a multiplicity of modes thattechnology makes available to teachers and learners both in and outside theclassroom. Where information in digital format and new technology exist,individuals are increasingly able to manipulate and control aspects of life innew ways (Shapiro 1999). Furthermore, access to new technology results ina ‘restructuring of power’ (Kress 2003: 17). These phenomena are potentfactors that define and recast educational landscapes.
The second issue also affects classrooms dramatically: the convictionsheld by economists, politicians, and educational policy-makers on IT’spower to promote, through education, the improvement of the social andeconomic fabric of nations. The drive to use IT is raising vexing questionsabout implementing educational policies at the classroom level. AlthoughIT-based policy statements are ambitious in terms of their intended impacton individuals and society as a whole, they often lack essential details abouthow, or indeed why, they should be implemented. The direct result ismisunderstanding and under-use.
Taken together, the existence of new technology and the desire to exploitit place teachers and learners in a labyrinth of opportunities, challenges,imperatives, and expectations. What is required to negotiate ways out of thismaze are meaningful and productive practices that help teachers to monitor,reflect, and prepare for their classroom-specific experiences. Towards thisend, I propose a generic programme structure for teacher professional devel-opment with IT that would be informed by what Kirk and MacDonald
Phillip A. Towndrow is an assistant professor at the National Institute of Education, NanyangTechnological University Singapore, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616; e-mail:[email protected]. His research interests include information and communication technol-ogy in (language) education, learning-task design, and literacy issues in the digital age.JCS invites comments on this paper for publication on the journal’s website. Address com-ments to Ian Westbury, General editor of JCS, at [email protected]. All such comments onthis paper, and on other papers in the journal, can be accessed at http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/jcs/.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
508 P. A. TOWNDROW
(2001: 552) identify as the ‘teacher’s authoritative voice’, that is the specialknowledge teachers have of their students, colleagues, and school environ-ment. The method employed involves deriving some general principles ofclassroom practice with IT from the examination of events in a specificcontext. In this instance, the case of Singapore is used because it illustrateswell the societal effects of mass and rapid change brought about by educa-tional reforms designed to ensure political and economic survival.
The Singapore context: crafting the ‘intelligent island’
Since August 1965, when the small, multi-racial Republic of Singapore wasconceived, the government has striven to develop a ‘more just and equalsociety’ (Lee 1998: 13) against a backdrop of problems associated witheconomic and social survival (Sharpe and Gopinathan 1997). A strategicfeature of Singapore’s response to the difficulties it faced (and continues toface, in certain respects) was to form a robust bureaucracy that directednational education and its training systems towards economic viability,moral fortitude, and a sense of national identity and purpose (Watson 1994,Morris 1996, Ashton and Sung 1997, Chiang 1998).
Today, the Singapore government’s aims and objectives for educationare best characterized as ambitious, challenging, and pragmatic. Given thescarcity of natural resources, a major strand of the government’s raft of solu-tions (Teo 1999: paragraph 12) is fostering the belief that every Singaporeanhas some talent and ability, and that these attributes should be developed totheir fullest. Concomitantly, massive investment in technology and technicaltraining is intended to transform the nation into an ‘intelligent island’ (Neoand Soh 1993). Considered together, these factors produce what might betermed a ‘human-technological capital’ vision of nation-building that holdsout great promise and expectations.
To assist in the preparation of school-aged children as potentialmembers of an IT-literate workforce, the Singapore government has under-taken two major educational policy initiatives (Ministry of Education,Singapore, 1997: paragraphs 2–4, Tharman 2002). The realization of theseplans of action provides unique examples of IT implementation in educationinsofar as they attempt to integrate educational policy statements withresource delivery. In 1997, the first Masterplan for integrating IT intocurricula (Ministry of Education 1997) consisted of a phased multi-billion-dollar package designed to equip schools to a pupil-to-computer ratio of 2:1,and at the same time to improve links between schools and other institutionsaround the world, promote autonomy in the use of IT resources, stimulatecritical and creative thinking, and work towards greater efficiency in educa-tional administration and communication.
With the technological infrastructure in place, the second IT Master-plan, outlined in 2002, provided the framework for schools to think abouthow they could best use the technology to support learning in other waysthan simply delivering subject matter (Tharman 2002). Consequently, inseveral key areas attempts were made to activate learning through experi-mentation and independence, find connections between curriculum,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 509
instruction, and assessment methods, and promote school-based researchand programmes for teacher professional development.
The preceding sketch provides the basis for two critiques of the degreeof fit between the Singaporean government’s IT-based educational policiesand the potential to achieve their desired outcomes. The first critique1 exam-ines the risks involved in pursuing educational policies that rely heavily ontechnology-based solutions to problems; the second assesses the achieve-ments to date of the IT Masterplans in education.
Singapore is not in crisis, but its emphasis on creating human-technolog-ical capital for the economy gives the educational system, at times, an indus-trial look and feel. Furthermore, when combined with a traditionalistpedagogy that has historically measured teaching and learning performanceon examination results and other achievement-based criteria, the conditionsare set for a delivery approach to be adopted in classrooms. Under thesecircumstances, it is possible for the work of busy teachers to be restricted tothe technical enterprise of transferring rule-based knowledge based on thetextbook and worksheet materials at the expense of deeper and wider intel-lectual objectives.
The second critique relates to the achievements, to date, of the ITMasterplans, given the dearth of published comment and research. Oneof the few studies available is Lim et al. (2003), in which quantitativefindings from a larger study of the first Masterplan are listed at length andthen briefly discussed. The purpose of study of Lim et al. was to examinecritical aspects of IT integration in Singapore schools, and the research-ers’ methodology included a questionnaire completed by the IT co-ordi-nators or Heads of IT Departments in 328 schools (82.2% of targetpopulation). The principal findings of this study can be summarized inthree statements:
● Those schools that received funding and equipment in the initialdevelopment of the Masterplan (i.e. those that began working with ITin 1997) used IT more extensively than their counterparts that joinedthe programme in the later phases;
● Teachers and students in ‘independent-autonomous schools’ (a cate-gory created by Lim et al. that covers schools that have greater auton-omy and flexibility than regular government schools to introduceinnovations and educational programmes that challenge pupils) weredoing better with IT than their opposite numbers; and
● Higher pupil use of IT is correlated positively with greater staff-devel-opment opportunities, a conducive IT school culture, and increasedteacher use of IT.
These findings, although preliminary, are not particularly surprising; theyprovide little or no real indication of substantive issues relating to howexactly IT is integrated in the Singapore curriculum as a whole, and how ittransforms subject-specific practice in particular. These weaknesses canperhaps be traced back to the failure of the Masterplan itself to convey anyclear sense of what reformed teaching practices would look like or whatteachers would need to do or believe to implement its ambitious intentions(Deng and Gopinathan 1999).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
510 P. A. TOWNDROW
Thus, disparities can occur between policy intent and practice when ITis used as a major lever of change within an educational system to securerapid economic and social advantage. Although questioning the claims oftechnologists and the wisdom of educational policy-makers is not popular, itis relatively straightforward to identify in IT practice an ‘implementationgap’, measured and assessed in terms of what policy-makers say and whatactually occurs in classrooms. The first part of my proposal establishes anexemplary baseline from which to build a bridge between policy andpractice.
Baseline: a biology class in Singapore
The following vignette draws on initial classroom observation data collectedin Singapore in 2004 as part of ongoing studies investigating the nature ofDigital Curricular Literacies (Freebody et al. 2003). These literacies can bethought of simply as the skills (including elements of IT) that students use(or can use) to transform their ideas into extended learning activities such asprojects. The account is based on coded observational records, field notes,and a high-quality digital audio-recording that capture details of theteacher’s interactions with her learners.
Ms Koh,2 a biology specialist, works at a distingished government-aided,single-gender secondary school in Singapore. She is assigned to teach a unitof work on models and systems with a first-year top-stream class of 40students. The class is orderly, polite, and diligent. The topic of the firstsession (55 minutes), cell theory, involves a comparison of plant and animalcells.
After some introductory remarks, Ms Koh instructs the learners to open theirtextbook (Tho et al. 2001a) to page 280, and in a lecture style proceeds withsome concept-checking through short question-and-answer exchanges to drawand label a diagram on the whiteboard of a typical animal cell as shown in adouble-page spread in the learners’ book. Some explanation of the propertiesand functions of the main parts of the cell are given. Next, the class is told toturn the page, and typical plant cells are dealt with in much the same way.After these presentations, which take ∼ 20 minutes, the whole class compares,through teacher-initiated exchanges with individual learners, the two differentkinds of cell. This phase of the lesson lasts ∼ 10 minutes and requires Ms Kohto prompt individuals in the class to reproduce orally a limited number ofstatements from their books. With some difficulty in composing completesentences, the students eventually mention that both kinds of cell have cyto-plasm and a cell membrane; animal cells do not have chloroplasts; only plantcells have a cell wall; and finally animal cells contain vacuoles which are smalland numerous whereas in plant cells there is either one large vacuole or alimited number. Next, the learners are instructed to work individually for 10minutes to complete a short-answer comprehension exercise from thecompanion workbook to the main text on plant and animal cells. In the closing10 minutes, Ms Koh reviews the answers to the workbook exercise andprovides corrective feedback where needed. Finally, two other exercises fromthe workbook (multiple-choice and free response/structured questions) are setfor homework. The class ends with the learners doing private revision.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 511
Of the many comments that could be made about Ms Koh’s lesson, I willfocus on the structure and the implementation of the activities. To do so, Ipreface my remarks with some general points about learning-task design.
Defining learning tasks
Opinions differ on what a task is and how specific one needs to be in delim-iting tasks. For example, in language learning and teaching, Ellis (2003: 16)defines a task as:
a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order toachieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct orappropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requiresthem to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their ownlinguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them tochoose particular forms.
Although this definition is useful, it is narrow and confined to a particulardomain of pedagogic practice. The alternative is to produce a broader clas-sification based on the analysis of tasks in a variety of instructional situations.However, as Jonassen et al. (1989) warn, this approach is imprecise becausethere is no single way of analysing tasks, given the variety of situations inwhich tasks are performed and the multiplicity of purposes for which theyare done. Under these circumstances, one might consider that a task is what-ever it takes to get a job done, or, worse still, a proxy for a desired (learning)outcome.
Teachers need a characterization of tasks that helps them to identify andassess their roles. Thus, for the purposes of this paper, a learning task isunderstood as involving teachers and/or learners working to complete anactivity or sequence of activities that have both desirable and measurableoutcomes. Usually a task involves pre-, during-, and post-stages that couldbe framed in terms of a problem identification-solution routine, the negoti-ation of meaning(s), or the application of knowledge/instruction in a specificcontext or contexts. In task planning and implementation, teachers and/orstudents are required to make decisions that regulate the work which takesplace. For example, some factors for consideration include: the amount oftime that is available to learners to plan and complete a task; the modes inwhich meanings are represented; the level of familiarization with topic; theextent to which learners have choices; the amount of information availableand the ways in which it is handled (one-way or two-way exchange, existenceof context and/or reasoning gaps); the mode(s) of evaluation of performancein the task; and the existence of opportunities for learners to reflect on thework that they have done.
Making learning-task design decisions
The ability of learners to complete a learning task successfully is a functionof the way that task is planned and presented. To return to the case study,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
512 P. A. TOWNDROW
Ms Koh implemented a task that involved herself as the dominant partici-pant in a series of activities that ran for the entire class. Her presumedpurpose was to disseminate discipline knowledge that she expected would bereceived in the course of her pre-stage presentations and reproduced in thesubsequent workbook exercises she selected. Thus, as a result of the deci-sions she made, her actions were largely determined by the content of thetextbook and its instructional logic, and these factors combined to limit theintellectual space surrounding the material and task. I will return shortly tothe issue of the intellectual space surrounding tasks.
In my judgement, the decisions made by Ms Koh were by necessity thoseof a task designer. Although Ms Koh is required to cover the biology syllabusin her school, and even though cell theory is an abstract topic that requiresthe study of phenomena at the microscopic level, she still has, to use a termcoined from Cuban (2001: 167), the capability to exert her ‘discretionaryauthority’ in the way this topic is taught. There are, of course, consequencesin doing so. For example, Ms Koh chose to copy diagrams and facts fromthe textbook on the board, and then test the learners’ understanding on anindividual basis. However, could the learners’ understanding have been scaf-folded less explicitly? For example, they could have been told at the outsetthat they were going to be involved in comparing two things and then askedto complete the blank similarities-and-differences chart that appears on page107 in their workbook (Tho et al. 2001b). The point here is that this chartwas not given attention (in the class). It can be stated as a general task-designprinciple that what is designed and done in a task is equally as significant interms of its pedagogic implications as what is not done by design.3
A second learning-task designer’s decision that Ms Koh made relates toa feature of the class that was noticeable in its absence. Neither the teachernor her learners used IT, and it is open to debate in these circumstances asto how far, and in what ways, this task-design decision impacted on theinteractions and teaching and learning experiences that occurred.4 In thenext section, I outline some benefits of working with IT, and illustrate, ingeneral terms, how these benefits may influence the design of learning tasks.
Teachers as digital learning-task designers
Based on the preceding points, it is my firm conviction that for lasting bene-fit to be derived from working with IT, teachers cannot function as mere‘technicians’ or knowledge-transmitters. Rather, the new technologiesdemand a pedagogy that is purposefully and intelligently oriented towards alearning-task designer’s perspective. This maxim applies especially to thosewho believe either that learning-task design is the exclusive domain ofspecialist curriculum designers and professional materials-writers, or thatthe quintessential feature of good teaching is to implement other people’spre-determined workplans, including the use of approved resources liketextbooks and workbooks.
However, to demonstrate the rich texture and subtleties of all teachers’work, it needs to be acknowledged that they are necessarily involved indesigning tasks at almost every twist and turn of classroom interaction. This
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 513
conceptualization applies to the production of customized materials (work-sheets, cue cards, diagrams, charts, etc.), just as it does to the implementa-tion and modification of pre-defined workplans.
IT and the design of learning tasks
Put simply, IT works best in teaching and learning when it is conceived ofand used as an integral component of a task—not when it is appended to anactivity as an optional extra. Although a limited amount of experimentationis possible, teachers are advised, by and large, to make decisions about ITusage based on a set of principles (for example, those outlined by Towndrowand Vallance (2004)) that give prominence to the benefits that can bederived from the technology. These principles include using IT to:
● make possible activities that could not be done as easily, if at all, in theprint-based realm;
● allow the mixing of digital media and modes;● allow teachers and students greater flexibility in terms of when and
where learning occurs;● allow access to a wide-range of information (going beyond what
appears in a textbook);● allow for a focus on both the products and processes of learning;● allow for instructional material to be stored and recycled;● encourage discussion and consultation;● provide a channel for feedback and assessment;● avoid the unnecessary duplication of previously produced material;
and● save time, over time.
However, the greatest range of benefits accrue from IT when teachersdeploy it to help attain a spectrum of educational objectives. For example,in terms of providing the means for engagement with instructional material,Anderson and Krathwohl (2001: 67–68) outline a taxonomy of cognitiveprocesses that range from simple recall to such higher-order cognitiveprocesses as analysing and evaluating materials and creating connections.All such objectives, it is true, cannot be achieved instantly, but there is noreason why teachers working in an informed or principled way could notaccomplish a limited number of these objectives. To illustrate some possibil-ities, I return to the topic of cell biology and consider some modifications toMs Koh’s original task design.
Illustrations
The following examples illustrate how IT may help in redesigning andimplementing the task at two levels of integration: the first at a level wherethe teachers have started to use the technology to their advantage by adapt-ing what they do in class to their learners’ needs and interests; the second ata level in which teachers and learners confidently use technology in an
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
514 P. A. TOWNDROW
educational setting that values learning as an active and creative socialprocess. Both instances assume access to computers and the Internet.
The first example exploits IT as an information store and promotes theunderstanding of written and graphic communication. Plant and animalcells can be exemplified and interpreted, for example, with reference tointeractive images available freely for classroom use through the World WideWeb (e.g. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1997, CELLS alive!2003). These resources can be used repeatedly, save time (in the sense thatthe teacher does not need to draw or reproduce images from a printed page),and promote exploration that could be used as the basis for subsequentcomparison and inferential analysis.
The second example involves a departure from textbook-bound materialand requires learners to work together to interpret factual information byconverting it from one form to another (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001).Assume that the learners, having read the key point that the membrane of aplant or animal cell is partially permeable (Tho et al. 2001a: 285), are nowcurious about which materials are able to pass through the cell membraneand how this is achieved. Instead of the teacher entering into a dictionary-based monologue to explain the meaning of the terms ‘partial’ and ‘perme-able’, he or she could assist the learners in re-articulating their interest as aproblem and then ask them to do some on-line research to produce a graphicthat illustrates their findings. Class time could then be spent discussing strat-egies for finding, disseminating, and reflecting on the information needed toexplain the concept of partial permeability mentioned in the textbook. Notethat I am not suggesting that biology courses or teachers do not deal withtopics like osmosis. My point lies in another direction entirely.
The second example allows me to make several crucial comments aboutthe nature of IT and the design of learning tasks. For this particular task,which involves guided exploration, to succeed, the teacher needs to bemoderately flexible about the scope of the subject matter dealt with in classand the way learners work together. Given the teacher’s willingness, theintellectual space surrounding the task must be open. The purposeful use ofIT empowers both the teacher and learners to exploit the learning opportu-nities in this working environment. This conceptualization of classroompractice is without question located at a point beyond the mainstream oflockstep, textbook-bound instruction; IT and new media restructure theterrain of educational practice, and as a consequence learners need oppor-tunities to exercise their power to manipulate and control what and how theylearn. This is the kernel of task design with IT: addressing the expectationsof policy-makers while overcoming perceptions, where they exist, thatthreaten and potentially displace the centrality of teachers. Teachers needassistance in implementing IT; this is best done, I maintain, by orientingtheir professional practice towards learning-task design perspectives.Towards this end, the next section of the paper proposes a genericprogramme structure for in-service secondary-level teacher professionaldevelopment in digital learning-task design that would be conducted byresearchers and trainers in the field of digital curriculum literacies. Theframework also raises several questions about the practicalities of task-designpedagogy, which are flagged as agenda items for future research.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 515
A generic programme structure for teacher professional development in digital learning-task design
If it is accepted that teachers can and do have a function to perform as learn-ing-task designers, and that the decisions they make shape their interactionswith their learners, then it would be helpful for teachers to expand theirrepertoire of task-design skills and task-implementation strategies involvingIT. To provide teachers with the means for making informed decisionsbased on desired outcomes and conditions pertaining to particular situationsas specified in particular tasks, it is proposed that they embark on aprogramme of professional development that is experiential, incremental,and supportive of pedagogic improvement and practice. Such a programmeshould allow teachers to:
● define, describe, and classify learning tasks in general terms;● design and modify specific learning tasks and re-articulate (where
necessary) specific instructional objectives; and● prepare, implement, and evaluate learning tasks according to specific
learning objectives.
It is hypothesized that there are substantial benefits to be gained by teachersin these areas.
The first step in learning to design tasks from a digital perspective is toacquire or develop a vocabulary for describing and classifying learning tasksin general terms. One possibility for describing and classifying learningtasks is by making reference to the nature of the structure and degree ofcertainty of the subject matter they are concerned with (Freebody et al.2003). For example, Jonassen (1997) proposes a continuum of instruc-tional design models that makes a distinction between well- and ill-struc-tured problems (see figure 1). At one end of the continuum, well-structuredproblems typically involve learners in applying a limited number ofconcepts, rules, and principles in a restricted problem situation. Underthese circumstances, there is usually a correct and predictable answer orsolution to be sought through a process that is preferred and/or prescribed,but, importantly, not contextualized. At the other end of the continuum, ill-structured problems are prototypically context-specific, authentic, and seeksolutions (where possible) that are not predictable and require in problem-solvers what Spiro and associates (Spiro and Jehng 1990, Spiro et al. 1992)refer to as ‘cognitive flexibility’—an attribute that requires careful honingand facilitation.Figure 1. Continuum of instructional design models (derived from Jonassen 1997).As far as teachers’ work as task designers is concerned, the terms ofJonassen’s dichotomy can be put to service when they are seen as morethan simply devices that demarcate bipolar regions. Thus, figure 1 shows
Figure 1. Continuum of instructional design models (derived from Jonassen 1997).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
516 P. A. TOWNDROW
intermediate points along the continuum in acknowledgement of thepossibility that problem-based tasks can be comparatively more well- or ill-structured, depending on the design and the ‘definiteness’ of the knowl-edge domain in which they are embedded. Theoretically, this realizationallows a teacher to take any learning task he or she has conducted or plansto use and place it on the scale as a first step towards describing it andunderstanding the implications of its structure on the interactions thatoccurred or would be likely to occur in the classroom. However, as itstands, this attempt at benchmarking is of limited practical use because it isnot necessarily evident which aspects of a task one would have to change inorder to move it along the scale in either direction.
Knowing more about the operational factors and dimensions thatsurround learning tasks would encourage benchmarking with greater preci-sion and assist in subsequent modifications. As far as problem-solving isconcerned, later work by Jonassen (2000) identifies a range of problem typesfrom well- to ill-structured in 11 overlapping categories: logical, algorithmic,story, rule-using, decision-making, trouble-shooting, diagnosis-solution,strategic performance, case analysis, design, and dilemmas. Although Jonas-sen illustrates his taxonomy with sample learning activities, not all of hisexamples feature in typical, decontextualized secondary-level curricula.Therefore, it can be argued that for Jonassen’s categories to be more fullypracticable, more needs to be known. In particular, Jonassen was unable toarticulate in sufficient detail the cognitive, social, affective, and historicaldimensions surrounding all the problem-types he proposed, and it is hypoth-esized that the keys to reworking tasks are located within these properties(and perhaps others that have yet to be identified). This situation is unfor-tunate, but it is not a weakness. Further inquiry is required to augmentJonassen’s preliminary task-design work and to assess if his categorizationsand concepts are useful for mainstream teachers.
Perhaps the greatest strength of Jonassen’s existing task-design typologyis that it charts areas and identifies possibilities for a rich set of teaching andlearning experiences to be discovered and exploited. However, a mechanismthat provides cognitive flexibility is also required to allow entry into thesedomains. The key point is that the movement into new, more open, educa-tional landscapes is aided by IT, and so the professional developmentprogramme in learning-task design must enable teachers to view technologyas providing for multiple:
● solutions (in that end-points in learning may be validly different);● strategies (in that the route to a learning end-point is often generated
by the invention of the learner and the needs of the data being gener-ated as part of the process); and
● perspectives (in that the perspective on a problem or issue investigatedmight be instrumental in a solution, or offer an alternative approachgiven a different point-of-view).5
Once teachers begin to adopt the multiple solutions, strategies, andperspectives approach to learning-task design, they will start to questionwith greater acuity the relevance and usefulness of various aspects of theirdesigns. For example, the purposefulness of workbook exercises can be
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 517
scrutinized, the function of group-work and collaboration can be consid-ered, and the need to expedite the transfer of subject learning can be tackled.As a result of such deliberations, the expectation is that teachers can be ledto modify their planned task designs, and through this action the require-ment to re-articulate specific instructional objectives will emerge.
Thus, for ill-structured tasks, given that learners will be jointly responsi-ble for making decisions about the design of a task, the teacher’s role willchange, but in ways that cannot be pre-specified with any great deal ofcertainty. In other words, to scaffold teacher management of the intellectualspace surrounding more open and flexible types of learning, a context-sensi-tive mnemonic structure is required that advances learning-task design. Twoquestions about the practice-oriented domain of learning-task decision-making arise at this point for further investigation. The first concerns theidentification of factors that teachers need to consider when modifying tasksin real-time or at short notice; the second relates more generally to howteachers can be best guided in making quick task-design decisions.
The final stage in the generic programme in teacher professional devel-opment examines issues in preparing, implementing, and evaluating digitallearning-task designs involving IT. Potentially, many questions could ariseconcerning the practicalities of aligning teacher and learner expectationsabout what learning tasks require (e.g. how problem-based tasks can be scaf-folded), and what would count as evidence of learning within IT-basedlearning tasks. However, there are no general rules or accepted proceduresfor resolving these questions, especially in the absence of information aboutthe cognitive, social, affective, and historical factors that influence the execu-tion of specific tasks in specific locations at specific times. While thesematters need to be resolved through research and negotiation with teachersthemselves, the reasons why teachers must evaluate, in particular, theirlearning-task design work can be stated more categorically as pedagogicprinciples. First, teachers need to know if what they do is helping their learn-ers to learn; and, secondly, given the dynamic nature of technological devel-opment and the ever-changing landscape of educational practice, teachersmust continually improve in order to remain viable and relevant. The lessteachers leave to chance with IT, the greater the possibilities are that theycan keep up with events and cope with contingencies as they arise.
Discussion
For the ideas outlined above to be assimilated into regular classroom prac-tice, time, patience, and teamwork will be required by the teachers,researchers, and trainers. Qualities of teachers differ and their levels ofexposure to, and comfort with, learning-task design matters are bound tovary. To illustrate the diversity and challenges present in various task-design and implementation starting points, I return to the materialpresented earlier about teaching and educational policies in Singapore andspeculate in the following paragraphs about different teachers and teachingsituations. I then offer some suggestions about how the proposed profes-sional development programme would impact on these teachers in their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
518 P. A. TOWNDROW
specific contexts. Three fictional profiles are discussed: (a) rigid, (b)prudent-confident, and (c) prudent-willing. These are constructed withinthe constraints imposed by the Singaporean educational structure of expec-tations around national curriculum, examination success, and subject-matter-driven learning.
In rigid circumstances, teachers perceive their job as consisting of thedelivery of a pre-determined scheme of work that they had little or no partin constructing. Given the constraints of time and the ever-present need toprepare learners for end-of-semester and end-of-year high-stakes examina-tions, rigid teachers prefer dealing with well-structured tasks, individualseatwork, and learning rooted in surface-level issues. In addition, they arethreatened by the consequences of working more openly, and worry inparticular about ceding control of learning to their learners. In discussionsabout Jonassen’s (1997, 2000) work, rigid teachers find it difficult to gener-ate examples of less well-structured tasks specific to their subject area, andshow high levels of resistance to the suggestion that they can and do have arole to play as learning-task designers in their classrooms. Teachers of thistype, it is suggested, conduct their work according to well-established andmechanical procedures; they are, as a result, at risk of fossilizing and even-tually burning out.
The second group of teachers implements a scheme of work decided inadvance but in which there is some room for manoeuvre about the way it isimplemented. Prudent and confident teachers claim to conduct fairly ill-structured activities in their classrooms, and are comfortable about allowinglearners to do small-group work. When discussing learning-task designmatters, these teachers can sometimes be helped to generate examples thatdisplay principled thought, but they are not easily convinced about changingtheir classroom practices. The sticking point is that these teachers aresuccessful in preparing learners for their tests and examinations and cannotfind compelling reasons to change what they do best. While it would not bewise to tinker with a ‘successful’ teacher’s working practices just for the sakeof change, prudent and confident teachers in this kind of situation can beblinded by their successes. For example, they can start with fairly open learn-ing-task designs on paper and then present them to their learners in such away that their planned outcomes become constrained. This can be doneknowingly because close-ended tasks are easier to implement and assess, orit can be done quite unwittingly when potentially innovative practices arefunnelled through an established procedure of classroom practice that finallyreduces all challenges to product-oriented outcomes that can be measuredeasily. To break this mould, teachers need to be able to move beyond theapplication of standardized measures of success and performance. Thisraises important issues in learning-task design about the framing and appli-cation of scoring rubrics that are customized to the specific characteristics ofwork undertaken in class.
The third group of teachers operates with a scheme of work that is largelydecided upon in advance but in which there is probably some room formanoeuvre in the way things are done. By and large, prudent-willing teach-ers are most comfortable implementing well-structured tasks with someoccasional small-group work undertaken in class. However, they can be
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 519
persuaded to experiment with more open learning-task designs and flexiblestudent-interaction patterns so long as this experimentation is done with theintention of improving learners’ performance in quizzes and final tests.
The preceding sketches hint that teachers in Singapore, and elsewhere,are at various stages of preparedness for a programme of professional devel-opment that attempts to intervene positively in learning-task design mattersat classroom level. Under these projected circumstances, I contend that thekind of action that is best suited here must not imply a sea change in peda-gogic practice. Rather, it should be sensitive to local and national concernsand explore avenues for fine-tuning approaches with the intention of deep-ening learners’ understandings of the subject matter they are expected todeal with on a daily basis.
I believe that teachers in Singapore, and in other contexts where similarcircumstances apply, could be helped to develop professionally as learning-task designers and implementers by taking the initiative to do two things.First, they need to monitor what they do in class and reflect on their actions.Farrell (2004) shows convincingly that active, reflective practice can assistbusy teachers cope with the demands of the profession. Thinking aboutteaching provides opportunities for teachers to make better choices aboutwhat they do, and to function more effectively given their limited time andresources. In addition, emerging learning-task designers need to find waysof sharing their teaching experiences at every opportunity. In this respect, itwould be extremely beneficial for colleagues to talk about their forthcominglessons. They could also be supported in their efforts to incorporate IT intheir work through one-to-one consultations with the professional develop-ment programme researchers and trainers. The second initiative involvesfinding ways to ensure the successful execution of planned learning tasks inclass by supporting learners in their work. Apart from scaffolding task-completion appropriately, teachers in Singapore are advised to make theirexpectations explicit at the outset of tasks. This can be done simply byexplaining in commonsense terms why subject-specific content is important,or by translating abstract notions, where possible, using general, non-technical language.
As teachers become more involved in, and understand, their work aslearning-task designers with IT, it is hypothesized that they can be ledthrough a programme of professional development to a point at which theyare extremely skilled and accomplished task designers. Furthermore, it isassumed that as teachers develop as learning-task designers they will do soin stages or phases. Figure 2, inspired by the findings of the Apple Class-rooms of Tomorrow project (Sandholtz et al. 1997), is a conceptual repre-sentation of the movement teachers could potentially be involved in as theybecome more adept at designing and implementing learning tasks. Fourinterrelated phases are proposed:
● at the point of Adoption, teachers design and implement teacher-centred tasks with IT and find it a challenge to modify their plans;
● at the stage of Adaptation, teachers start using IT to their advantagebut also begin to embrace student-centred and higher-order orienta-tions;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
520 P. A. TOWNDROW
● with Appropriation, teachers personal attitudes to IT change and theyare well on the path towards being confident experts and willing learn-ers in task design; and
● at the point of Invention, teachers are able to design, implement,modify, and evaluate tasks that involve multiple solutions, strategies,and perspective either in advance or during their execution, if neces-sary.
Figure 2. Stages of development in learning activity design (after Sandholtz et al. 1997).For the outcomes of this professional development programme to beachieved, it is critical for teachers to be helped to appreciate that IT makesit possible for them, and their learners, to play larger and more significantroles in planning and executing tasks that are centred on, and controlled, bythem. To avoid the charge of idealizing the potential of teachers to reorienttheir thinking towards curriculum design issues, educational policy-makersand school administrators must play their part in encouraging the changesin educational practice with IT that they propose and desire. If it acceptedthat teachers have a designer’s role to play, then space needs to be createdfrom within which this important function can be performed. An immediatefactor that could help in this direction would be for formal assessmentrequirements to be eased so the tasks that teachers design can be a part ofregular practice, and not done at the expense of attention to preparation onstandardized tests. Secondly, a look around any school staff room whereteachers sit in individual cubicles engrossed in silent work suggests that
Figure 2. Stages of development in learning activity design (after Sandholtz et al.1997).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 521
Table 1. Topic areas and questions for research relating to a programme ofteacher professional development in digital learning-task design.
Topics Questions
Learning-task design and implementation • How useful is it for teachers to describe and classify tasks by making reference to the structure and degree of certainty of the subject matter that they deal with?
• In the practice-oriented domain of learning-task decision-making, what factors do teachers need to consider when modifying tasks in real-time and/or at short notice? How can teachers be guided in making quick task-design decisions?
• Within a problem-based approach to digital task design, what are the surrounding cognitive, social, affective, and historical dimensions required to support learning and the modification of learning tasks? Are there any other properties that need to be considered in specific task-design contexts?
• How feasible and effective is it for teachers to work on successive versions of task designs?
• How can the expectations of teachers and learners be aligned in digital task design and implementation contexts?
• What counts as evidence of learning with IT?• How can teachers and learners self-assess their
performance in executing tasks?
Teacher professional development • How can teachers become aware of their role(s) as learning-task designers?
• In order to scaffold teachers’ management of the intellectual space surrounding more open and flexible types of learning, what kind of structure needs to be negotiated and designed that allows for the complexity of a learning task to be assessed, for authenticity to be established and for an appropriate balance to be struck between subject matter and its application to real-world contexts?
• How can teachers effectively monitor and reflect on task designs and implementations?
• Is it valid to claim that teachers pass through distinct but inter-related stages of development as task designers?
• How can educational policy-makers and school administrators support teachers in the task-design and implementation work?
• How can teachers learn to collaborate with their immediate colleagues in task-design work? How can good task-design practice be disseminated across school districts?
IT • What are the personal affordances of IT in terms of providing for multiple solutions, strategies, and perspectives in the retention and transfer of domain-specific subject matter?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
522 P. A. TOWNDROW
educational systems need to create opportunities for teachers to worktogether on task designs. That said, a great deal more needs to be knownabout fostering collaboration among teachers and successful learning activ-ity design and implementation with IT both within individual schools andacross school districts.
I have attempted in this paper to show how teachers can be assisted inovercoming disparities between the intentions of educational policy andpractice with IT through a staged programme of professional developmentthat focuses on learning-task design, modification, implementation, andevaluation. The proposals I have been outlining are grounded in observa-tions made of classroom practice in Singapore, but there are several generalprinciples relating to curriculum studies and teacher professional develop-ment that can be derived from this specific context. The assertion that teach-ers can and should use their discretionary classroom authority to theiradvantage by redirecting their attention away from the whats of instructiontowards an explicit consideration of the whys and hows of educational prac-tice was intended to help them find (or rediscover) a direction in their work.Teachers would be best advised not to confuse the desired goals of educationwith the means of achieving them.
IT gives teachers and learners unprecedented access to information in avariety of modes, and makes it possible for teachers and learners to apply,receive, analyse, evaluate, combine, manipulate, and create information innovel ways. However, more needs to be discovered about how teachers canbecome aware of their task-design role and how they can learn to exploit itspotential by making informed decisions based on desired outcomes andconditions pertaining to particular situations. Clearly, navigating the pathsleading to new educational landscapes with IT raises several pressing ques-tions. A summary of the topic areas and research questions around teachers’development as digital learning-task designers is outlined in table 1.
Acknowledgements
This paper is the result of research and development work undertaken aspart of the Digital Curricular Literacies (DCL) project funded by the Centrefor Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education,Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The DCL project team iscomposed of the following: Principal Investigators, Peter R. Freebody, JohnG. Hedberg, and Guo Libo; Collaborators, Chin Hui Li Christine, H.Doreen Tan, and Phillip A. Towndrow. I gratefully acknowledge the assis-tance of the following colleagues in the collection and analysis of DCL data:Lim Tze Mien, Chen Min Pyng, Ole C. Brudvik, Uma Natarajan, SamMing Shann Charmaine, Tiu Angela, Julie Lim Poh Gek, Sunita Shankar,and Muthukumar S. L. The DCL project is managed by Tiu Wendy.
Notes
1. I summarize at this point the arguments in Towndrow (2001).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
DIGITAL TASK DESIGNERS 523
2. The teacher’s name is a pseudonym.3. It is possible that Ms Koh did not make a conscious decision in this respect, but it still
remains clear that a teacher’s task-design decisions embrace what is included, and byimplication what is excluded. Kress (2003: 49–51) makes a similar point concerning thecentrality of design and the need to attend to the implications of both planned andunplanned events in relation to literacy and multi-modality in contemporary educationalcontexts. In all likelihood, Ms Koh probably thought that it was more efficient to showthe class how to compare plant and animal cells because she believed that the learnerswere not able to do so by themselves.
4. I am not interested in attempting to explain why Ms Koh did not use IT in her class or tospeculate about what some of her other choices might have been. Rather, my purpose isto show in the remainder of the paper what could have been possible if she had used IT,in particular, and how teachers like Ms Koh can be helped to make more informed learn-ing-task decisions that involve the strategic use of new technologies.
5. As an extension, the simultaneous use of multiple perspectives in difficult domains is alsorequired. See Spiro and Jehng (1990).
References
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R. (eds) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, andAssessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, abridged edn (NewYork: Longman).
Ashton, D. N. and Sung, J. (1997) Education, skill formation, and economic development:the Singaporean approach. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown and A. S. Wells (eds),Education: Culture, Economy and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 207–218.
CELLS alive! (2003) Plant cell organelles/animal cell organelles. Available online at: http://www.cellsalive.com/index.htm, accessed 8 October 2004.
Chiang, M. (1998) From Economic Debacle to Economic Miracle: The History of Development ofTechnical Education in Singapore (Singapore: Times Editions).
Cuban, L. (2001) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press).
Deng, Z. Y. and Gopinathan, S. (1999) Integration of information technology into teaching:the complexity and challenges of implementation of curricular changes in Singapore.Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 2(1), 29–39.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).
Farrell, T. S. C. (2004) Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflection Breaks for Busy Teachers(Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press).
Freebody, P. R., Hedberg, J. G. and Guo, L. (2003) Digital curricular literacies: case forsupport. Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Educa-tion, Singapore.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997) Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structuredproblem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology, Research and Development,45(1), 65–95.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology,Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Jonassen, D. H., Hannum, W. H. and Tessmer, M. (1989) Handbook of Task Analysis Proce-dures (New York: Praeger).
Kirk, D. and Macdonald, D. (2001) Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551–567.
Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age (London: Routledge).Lee, K. Y. (1998) The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Times Editions
and Singapore Press Holdings).Lim C. P., Khine M. S., Hew, T., Wong, P., Shanti, D. and Lim, B. (2003) Exploring criti-
cal aspects of information technologies integration in Singapore schools. AustralianJournal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 1–24. Available online at: http://www.ascil-ite.org/au/ajet/ajet19/lim.html, accessed 14 October 2004.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
524 P. A. TOWNDROW
Ministry of Education, Singapore (1997) Masterplan for IT in Education—Summary. Avail-able online at: http://www.moe.edu.sg/edumall/mpite/overview/summary.html,accessed 14 October 2004.
Morris, P. (1996) Asia’s four little tigers: a comparison of the role of education in theirdevelopment. Comparative Education, 32(1), 95–109.
Neo, B. S. and Soh, C. (1993) IT2000: Singapore’s Vision of an Intelligent Island (Singapore:Nanyang Technological University, School of Accountancy and Business, InformationManagement Research Centre).
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C. and Dwyer, D. C. (1997) Teaching with Technology: CreatingStudent-centered Classrooms (New York: Teachers College Press).
Shapiro, A. L. (1999) The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Chargeand Changing the World We Know (New York: Century Foundation).
Sharpe, L. and Gopinathan, S. (1997) Effective island, effective schools: repairing andrestructuring in the Singapore school system. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho(eds), Education in Singapore: A Book of Readings (Singapore: Prentice Hall), 369–383.
Spiro, R. J. and Jehng, J. (1990) Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: theory and technologyfor the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nixand R. J. Spiro (eds), Cognition, Education and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in Technol-ogy (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 163–205.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J. and Coulson, R. L. (1992) Cognitive flexibility,constructivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledgeacquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen (eds),Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum), 57–76.
Teo, C. H. (1999) World class high schools. Speech delivered at the Chinese High lecture,Chinese High School, 16 July. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1999/sp160799.htm, accessed 14 October 2004.
Tharman, S. (2002) IT in learning: preparing for a different future. Speech delivered atITopia Conference, Suntec City, Singapore, 24 July. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2002/sp24072002.htm, accessed 15 October 2004.
Tho, L. H., Ho, P. L. and Goh, N. K. (2001a) Interactive Science 1 (Singapore: SNP PanPacific Publishing).
Tho, L. H., Ho, P. L. and Goh, N. K. (2001b) Interactive Science 1, Workbook 1 (Singapore:SNP Pan Pacific Publishing).
Towndrow, P. A. (2001) The role of technology and technical training in shaping educa-tional policy: the Singaporean experience. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho(eds), Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today (Singapore: PrenticeHall) 18–32.
Towndrow, P. A. and Vallance, M. (2004) Using IT in the Language Classroom: A Guide forTeachers and Students in Asia, 3rd edn (Singapore: Longman).
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1997) Virtual cell. Available online at: http://www.life.uiuc.edu/plantbio/cell/, accessed 17 November 2004.
Watson, K. (1994) Technical and vocational education in developing countries: Westernparadigms and comparative methodology. Comparative Education, 30(2), 85–98.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s C
hica
go]
at 0
8:19
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
