St ritakontichtaskdesign

1. Toward a task design model for
telecollaborative language learning
Jozef COLPAERT & Evelyn SPRUYT
University of Antwerp, Belgium
Sint Rita Kontich
5 November 2019

2.  Look who’s talking …
 Let’s conceive a task …
 The TECOLA project
 Our task design model
 Q&A
On the menu today

3.  Close your eyes and take your neighbour’s hand …
 What were you thinking?
Task

4.  What are the qualities of a good task?
 To what extent do tasks depend on context?
 If so, what can we say about a task design process?
Star(t)ing point

5. What is the best language task you have ever conceived, given, seen or read...
 Is the exercise where the students have some specific words and phrases and in groups they should
play them with different emotions ( happiness, sadness, surprise etc ). Then they present them to
the others. The fanny think is that when you say something with different emotion, the same phrase
has different meaning.
 body language
 creative writing
 Anything with a role play element where students have to find out genuinely interesting information
about each other using the foreign language exclusively.
 The teaching with the system of whole language
 Emotion cards which helps with intonation.
 Learn or create a story and tell it to other students or perform it
 It is difficult to choose a particular task but I like those in which my students feel protagonists, in
which the students reach for themselves the objective that the teacher wants them to reach. I don't
like directed classes. I prefer that the teacher be a guide, an assistant.
 In a Dutch for foreigners class: letting studens smell different scents (e.g. spices, flowers, foods) and
then tell each other about memories they have about these scents or what the smells bring to mind
Survey

6. What is the best language task for telecollaboration you have ever
conceived, given, seen or read...
 Making mind maps .
 eTwinning
 moodle
 Skype calls with students who are due to meet and have prepared questions
for each other and follow ups with those who have previously met
 English language
 Drama
 If what you are referring to is the type of classes in which we connect via skype
or videoconferences, it seems very motivating to me since the students realize
that they are able to communicate with other colleagues, perceive the
teaching as something real and therefore the Learning will be productive and
motivating.
 The students on one side of the connection describe a painting to students on
the other side of the connection, who then have to draw the described
painting.
Survey

7. Survey

8. Survey

9. Survey

10. Survey

11. Survey

12. Survey

13. Survey

14. Survey

15.  Look who’s talking …
 Let’s conceive a task …
 The TECOLA project
 Our task design model
 Q&A
On the menu today

16.  Conceive a task for telecollaboration which
 fits more or less your lesson plan, syllabus or curriculum goals
 leads to a concrete effect or tangible/visible result
 represents an acceptable activity type
 meaningful and rewarding for the student
 useful for others
 leaves some degrees of freedom to redesign the task
Task

17.  Task preparation or redesign = best task
 Attention goes to the task preparation, not to task
execution for evaluation
 Less stressful, more creative  language production
and quality increase
 How to validate this hypothesis ?
Hypothesis

18.  Look who’s talking …
 Let’s conceive a task …
 The TECOLA project
 Our task design model
 Q&A
On the menu today

19. The TeCoLa project
The Erasmus+ TeCoLa project aims at enabling teachers (and teacher
educators) to make best pedagogical use of telecollaboration and
gamification for improved foreign language learning and teaching in
secondary schools. Special emphasis is on enhancing tasks and activities
related to intercultural communication (EU citizenship) and subject
integrated (vocational) language learning (CLIL). An overriding concern is
to explore solutions for coping with an increasing diversity among learners
regarding proficiency, socio-cultural and language background, learning
styles, interests and motivation, technological familiarity and availability.
www.tecola.eu

20.  Recent phenomenon (Ellis, Van den Branden etc.)
 Organization & conferences (www.tblt.org)
 González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT:
Researching technology and tasks. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
 But:
 Task design seen as product, not as process
 No real focus on mental acceptability
 Task ideas keep ‘falling from the sky’
TBLT

21. Challenges for telecollaboration

22. Models & theories
 Motivation:
 Self Determination, Dörnyei’s L2 Self, Personal Goal Theory …
 Integration of ICT:
 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, UTAUT)
 TPACK
 SAMR
 Design:
 UDL
 Distributed Design
 Skills:
 Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy

23. TPACK

24. TAM
 Technology Acceptance Model (Venkatesh et al.)
 Various versions > UTAUT

25. SAMR

27. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy

28.  Look who’s talking …
 Let’s conceive a task …
 The TECOLA project
 Our task design model
 Q&A
On the menu today

29. THEY MUST:
targeted competences in terms of required
knowledge, skills, insight and attitude
THEY WANT:
targeted requirements in terms of meaningfulness,
usefulness & reward
THEY CAN:
targeted activities
THEY MAY:
targeted degree of autonomy
SPECIFICATION
task features & execution process
Previous task New task
Pedagogical layer
Change or choose learning goal
Psychological layer
Add or change motivating feature(s)
Activity layer
Add or change activity type(s)
Autonomy layer
Change degrees of freedom
THEY WILL:
task concept
Learner characteristics
global, local, individual
Learning goals
Context:
affordances and limitations of context and
available technology
Learner autonomy
ANALYSIS
Task conceptualization model

30. THEY MUST

31. • Add one or more activity types to your task:
• TELL: present yourselves, talk/write about …
• only information
• INTERACT: convince, negotiate, plead, sell, teach …
• additional effect on the other (speech acts) other than sharing information
• DO: play game, do exercise, simulate…
• additional collaborative activity other than interacting
• MAKE: build an artefact
• concrete artefact as result
THEY CAN

32. • Examples of artefacts include: abstract, advertisement, animation, app,
audio, description, biography, blog, blog post, business plan, chart, checklist,
comparison, course content, (fashion/architecture) design,
diary, description, e-portfolio, Facebook group, film, flash cards, game,
google street view, graph, illustration, interview, journal, joke, knowledge
clip, label, list, media product, mind-map, mix, movie, plan, model, outline,
painting, performance, poem, podcast, ppt, presentation, prezi, puzzle,
reflection, remix, report, review, short story, simulation, song, speech,
spreadsheet, summary, subtitles, survey, test, travel plan, video, vlog, virtual
shop, vodcast, wiki, worksheet, quiz …
• Specification of MAKE activity: conceive, invent, devise, design, create, draw,
blue-print, construct, build, (re)mix, prototype, build, record, post, cast,
publish, produce, teach, sell, buy, curate…
MAKE ARTEFACTS

33. • Try to add/change one or more task features using two dimensions:
• three qualities:
• meaningful
• useful
• rewarding
• three levels:
• global or universal
• local or context-dependent
• individual
THEY WANT

34. • Authentic: universal
• Does the task represent a real-world activity?
• Acceptable: local
• Is the task perceived as logical, expectable and feasible within the school, the
curriculum, lesson plan or teacher’s approach? Is its evaluation perceived as fair,
clear and objective?
• Relevant: individual
• Is the learner likely to be confronted with this activity in his/her own life?
THEY WANT: meaningfulness

35. • Is there a concrete result for others: universal
• Friends, family, parents, learners worldwide …
• Is there a concrete result for the learning environment: local
• For the teacher, as content, tools, data, exercises etc.
• Is there a concrete result for the learner: individual
• Reusability of the result of the task for other purposes, fun …
THEY WANT: usefulness

36. • Universal innate psychological needs universal
• Basic: reward on effort
• competence, relatedness, autonomy
• Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, Vansteenkiste)
• Personal Goals local
• subconscious volitions as common denominators for the group
• Elicitation technique: Colpaert 2010
• Individual Self-image individual
• L2 SELF images (Dörnyei & Ushioda)
THEY WANT: reward (advanced level)

37. Quality/level Universal Local Individual
Meaningful (y/n) Authentic Acceptable Relevant
Usefulness (what?) Concrete result for
others
Concrete result for the
learning environment,
the teacher …
Concrete result for the
learner
Rewarding (to what extent?)
[advanced level]
Reward on effort.
Competence,
relatedness,
autonomy.
Personal goals as
common denominators
Ideal SELF
THEY WANT

38. • Determine the degrees of freedom for the learner:
• FIXED TASK
• tasks should be executed as such
• TASK WITH DEGREES OF FREEDOM
• learners can/should make some choices
• NEGOTIATED TASK
• learners discuss the task among themselves, with the teacher or with the other class and suggest
changes
• DESIGNED TASK
• learners design a task themselves
THEY MAY

39.  Task preparation or redesign = best task
 Attention goes to the task preparation, not to task
execution for evaluation
 Less stressful, more creative  language production
and quality increase
 How to validate this hypothesis ?
Hypothesis

40. THEY MUST:
targeted competences in terms of required
knowledge, skills, insight and attitude
THEY WANT:
targeted requirements in terms of meaningfulness,
usefulness & reward
THEY CAN:
targeted activities
THEY MAY:
targeted degree of autonomy
SPECIFICATION
task features & execution process
Previous task New task
Pedagogical layer
Change or choose learning goal
Psychological layer
Add or change motivating feature(s)
Activity layer
Add or change activity type(s)
Autonomy layer
Change degrees of freedom
THEY WILL:
task concept
Learner characteristics
global, local, individual
Learning goals
Context:
affordances and limitations of context and
available technology
Learner autonomy
ANALYSIS
Task conceptualization model

41.  Try to apply one or more criteria and send us your re-
designed tasks …
Task

42. Thank you!
www.jozefcolpaert.net
Jozef.colpaert@uantwerpen.be
Your questions ?