MSTRUCTIONAL LEADER INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER

TaskComplexity

Group work must becarefully planned andstructured to ensurelearning, but it isworth the extra effort.

By Nancy Frey and Douglas Fisher

Nancy Frey (nfrey@mail.sdsu.edu) is aprofessor of teacher education at San DiegoState University and a teacher leader at HealthSciences High and Middle College in San Diego,CA,

Douglas Fisher (dfisher@mailsdsu.edu) is aprofessor of teacher education at San DiegoState University and a teacher leader at HealthSciences High and Middle College.

They are the authors of Guided Instruction: Howto Develop Confident and Successful Learners(2010, ASCD).

Watch the Video!Watch a math teacher engageher students in group tasks atwww.nassp.org/p1031 I fisher.

56 1 Principal Leadership i MARCH 2011

Im just not sure they're really doinganything of value when they're ingroups."That is perhaps the reserva-

tion most frequently mentioned bysecondary school educators when thesubject of productive group workcomes up. Worried about the amountof instructional time that must bededicated to a group project, someteachers question whether it is betterto simply tell students what they needto know-even when they know thattelling alone isn't especially effective(Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi,2000). Other teachers possess a fixedidea about the task itself, believing in-correctly that for the work itself to beworthwhile, it must extend over sev-eral class periods. Still others expressconcerns about individual studentswho prefer to work alone, rather thanin a group.

Armed with these misgivings,many teachers can list the benefits ofgroup work and then apologeticallyexplain that "it just doesn't work forthe students I teach." Many of theirapprehensions focus on issues of taskcomplexity. Will there be logisticaland behavior problems if the taskis too easy or too difficult? Is thelearning worth the fuss? Are studentscapable of sustained group workwithout the constant presence of anadult?

An appropriate level of task com-plexity is key to ensuring that the timedevoted to group work is productive(Frey, Fisher, & Everlove, 2009). Indi-cators of high-quality, appropriate taskcomplexity include structures that el-evate academic language, a design thatrequires students to work together,grade-level work, and the opportunityfor productive failure.

Structure the TaskThoughtfullyGroup tasks require the samethoughtful design that goes intoother aspects of instruction. First andforemost, students must know howto interact with one another, howto seek help, and how to engage inthe academic language of the lesson.Secondary school teachers sometimesbelieve that they shouldn't have toteach about the norms of interac-tion because students "should knowhow to work together by now." Thatis true, but only to a point. Althoughthey may have had ample experiencewith group work in previous grades,they don't yet know how to work fora particular teacher. Therefore, wesuggest that teachers post, teach, andrevisit norms for interaction, espe-cially in how to debate and disagreewithout being disagreeable and howto seek, offer, accept, and decline helpgraciously. Students at all ages andexperience levels also benefit fromlanguage scaffolds that encouragethem to use academic language andvocabulary. Language frames-partial-ly constructed statements and ques-tions that frame original ideas-arehighly useful during productive groupwork. (See the February 2011 columnand video for more information onacademic language supports: www.nassp.org/pl02 11 fisher.)

A mathematics teacher at ourschool ensures that her students buildskills for communicating with oneanother. The video that accompaniesthis column shows her helping mathstudents accomplish a group taskduring the first days of school. Shereminds them to talk to one anotheras they work in groups of six to stackplastic cups in a pyramid shape with-out directly touching the containers.

Her students give directions to oneanother (e.g., "Pull your side, Mi-chelle" and "That'll work"), and threestudents even figured out how tosolve the problem of having two cupswedged tightly together. They alsorely on nonverbal communication,especially gestures, eye gaze, and bodylanguage. Although her students arestill in the early stages of learning howto communicate with one another,such complex tasks as this require thegroup to work together to accomplisha shared goal. As she reminds them,"Just because we're not doing mathproblems doesn't mean problem solv-ing was not involved."

It is important that teacherskeep task complexity in mind whenintroducing new routines to students.A class that is learning a new methodfor working in groups should not beadditionally challenged with demand-ing content at the same time. The taskcomplexity itself should be tempo-rarily lowered to make it possiblefor students to learn the processesand procedures of working togetherproductively. This is important pointfor administrators to take into accountwhen observing classroom instruction.If a task itself seems somewhat easy,ask the teacher why that is so. In manycases, it may be a conscious decisionto temporarily lower the cognitivedemand of the task so that studentscan focus on acquiring new process orprocedural knowledge.

Ensure Grade-Level WorkOne of the things that leaders shouldlook for while students are engaged ingroup work is the rigor of the task. Itreally doesn't matter how good the in-struction is if students in a ninth-gradeEnglish class are working on seventh-grade content. While students are

working productively with their peers,and have peer support and languagebrokers, they should be working ontasks that facilitate their understand-ing of grade-level concepts.

Guided instruction (see our Janu-ary 2011 column at www.nassp.org/pl0 111 fisher)-which involves theteacher using questions, prompts,cues, and direct explanations to raisestudents' achievement-is a goodstrategy to ensure appropriate levelsof work. In guided instruction, stu-dents can be grouped on the basis oftheir assessed needs and the teachercan focus on those needs in smallgroups.

For example, consider a task thatbiology students completed as partof their unit on energy in an ecosys-tem. The teacher gave each group ofstudents an envelope that containedlittle slips of paper with the names ofdifferent organisms in an ecosystem.Students were asked to sort the wordsin any categorical system that madesense to them. As group membersmoved words into categories, they hadto defend their placement to theirpeers. They were encouraged to use asentence frame, "This organism, -,belongs in the __ category because

." When Imani moved the paperwith the word bacteria to a new col-umn, she said, 'This organism, bacte-ria, belongs in a new category becauseit doesn't fit in any of these others."Her team members put their thumbsup to show their agreement.

Once students had their catego-ries, the teacher introduced technicalvocabulary, including autotroph andheterotroph. He asked students tore-sort their organisms on the basis ofthis new information. Spenser movedall of the papers back to a pile, saying,"These categories don't work for this.

If a task itself seemssomewhat easy, ask theteacher why that is so.In many cases, it maybe a conscious decisionto temporarily lower thecognitive demand of thetask so that students canfocus on acquiring newprocess or proceduralknowledge.

MARCH 2011 a Principal Leadership 1 57

NSTRUCTIONAL LEADER INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER

Productive group workisn't just pushing fourdesks together and thencalling it a day. A truermeasure of the value ofcollaborative learningis the complexity of thetask and how studentscognitively engage with it.

This organism, zooplankton, belongsin the heterotroph category becauseit can't make organic compounds.Instead, they eat other organisms."

During the period, the teacheradded additional words, such asdecomposer and producer, and askedhis students to continue their sorts. Indoing so, the students in this biologyclass completed tasks designed toensure their learning of grade-levelbiology concepts. And that's whatproductive group work should do: itshould give students an opportunityto consolidate their understanding ofrigorous concepts.

Design for Productive Failure"Failure" may seem antithetical toeducation, but we consider it an indi-cator of task complexity. In much thesame way that we teachers often learnfrom our own mistakes, so it is withthe learners in our classrooms. Thegrowing research on productive failurein learning is that middle and highschool students who initially fail at atask are more receptive to subsequentinstruction, as evidenced by increasedachievement and performance (Kapur,2008). It's important to note, however,that we don't want students to experi-ence this failure in isolation. The besttime to do so is during collaborativelearning.

A task designed with the possibil-ity of productive failure in mind mustbe sufficiently novel. In other words,it is not a mere reproduction of whatthe teacher just did. A problem withreproductive tasks is that they aresusceptible to the "divide and con-quer" approach-parallel independentwork-that so many groups engage in.When the task itself is already known,it's just a matter of following thesteps-no thinking required. Groups

in this mind-set merely divide up thetask, go their separate ways, then getback together to assemble the finalproduct.

For the task to possess the pos-sibility of productive failure, it mustrequire interaction and teamwork.Students working in a group that iswrestling with a task that is difficultenough to possibly fail will discuss thecontent, not just the task. They willuse academic language and vocabu-lary in ways that indicate they arecognitively engaged. Students will askquestions of one another, offer expla-nations and clarifications, and provideevidence to support their claims. Tobe sure, this quality indicator requiresgetting close to groups to hear howthey apply their knowledge to solveproblems. But that is essential to fullyunderstand the quality of learning thatis occurring in a classroom.

ConclusionProductive group work isn't justpushing four desks together and thencalling it a day. A truer measure ofthe value of collaborative learning isthe complexity of the task and howstudents cognitively engage with it.The complexity of the task ensuresthey have something to talk about; thestructure of the task provides themthe forum for doing so. IPL

REFERENCES0 Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Everlove, S.(2009). Productive group work: How to en-gage students, build teamwork, and promoteunderstanding. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.E Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure.Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424.N Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P, Dalton, S. S., &Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching transformed:Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, andharmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

58 1 Principal Leadership i MARCH 2011

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Task ComplexitySOURCE: Princ Leadership 11 no7 Mr 2011

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.naesp.org