The bad things kids (and adults, too) do with technology seem to get a ton of press. Kids “hacking” their school devices, playing games instead of doing learning activities, going to inappropriate sites, intentionally damaging equipment…
Besides, it's Valentines Day, and it's nice to remember that love isn't reserved for our partners and our families, but is also represented by how we show care for others.
So take a few minutes to explore this article.
And maybe think about:
- How might we shift focus in the public from kids being bad (especially with technology), to how they can also be very, very good?
- How do these examples give us ideas for our own classrooms?
- How can we engage students in academic content, while they get to contribute to something they find to be of social significance?
- How else might we leverage technology to show love and care for others?
Happy Valentines Day!
A great way to get better at Engaging Tasks is to use the criteria for great Engaging Tasks to critique and revise other Tasks. (I’m not sure that I would say that all Tasks are Engaging Tasks! – or, at least, they don’t all start out that way.)
For example, look at this Task:
Imagine that you are living during the Great Depression and that your classmates have decided to put together a time capsule for students of the future to use to learn and understand what life was like during the Great Depression.
Lets start by looking at this critically with an eye to the criteria for Engaging Tasks.
- Standards-based: Yes.
- All 3 pieces – Scenario, Role, & Task: Task, yes: put together a time capsule. Role: sort of: you are someone living during the Great Depression. Compelling scenario, not really: the Task doesn’t really provide much more of a context for doing this than you and your classmates have decided to do it…
- In the form of a “story”- no “teacher talk”: Not written like a little story. Reads like a teacher’s assignment. “Imagine that you are…” “your classmates” are teacher talk, and clues that the Task needs to be revised.
- HOTS – Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create: Could be, depending on how it is framed.
- Students: authentic or believable: Yes, people do leave time capsules for others to open in the future.
- Students: interesting or of significance: Mostly: some would clearly enjoy working on this, but there are others who would not. This could be because the Task doesn’t have all three pieces. Often the compelling scenario helps with this.
So if we were to revise this task, we would likely work on the following:
- Make sure the Task has a compelling scenario and a stronger role
- Rewrite it as a story, and remove the teacher talk
- Make sure the Higher Order Thinking focus is more clearly articulated in the activity the students need to complete
- Double check that the new version would seem significant and interesting to students (or at least more so than the current version)
A new version of the Task might look like this:
It is 1936 and as part of the New Deal, your town is building a new Town Hall. The mayor has issued a challenge to all the school children to help create a time capsule that will be put in the corner stone of the Town Hall then opened far in the future. Your teacher has broken your class into teams of 4 and 5 students and each team needs to help identify the best items to include in the time capsule. The best ideas will be included in the actual time capsule.
How does this version of the Task fare against the criteria? I’ll let you decide, but here are a couple of my thoughts. I’m hesitant to write tasks where the student is a student (I tend to find more engaging the ones where students can imagine themselves in a different role), but this Task already had them as students; whereas I didn’t mind revising this Task, I didn’t want to totally rewrite it. There is now a compelling scenario (new Town Hall and the Mayor’s challenge). The whole thing is written as a story (ok, there is a little teacher talk here, but not the author telling the reader, rather the teacher is a character in this story – see my comments above about students in the role of students…). And “Which is best?” is a short-cut question for getting to higher order thinking (analysis and evaluation).
How might you now get practice getting better with Engaging Tasks through revision?
Maybe you and a group of colleagues are working to write your own Engaging Tasks. You could swap drafts and critique each other’s, offering suggestions for revisions.
This Engaging Tasks Feedback Form might be helpful.
Or you could look for WebQuests with Tasks in need of critiquing and revising, and practice your skills on them.
Or you could use these sample elementary Engaging Tasks or these sample high school and middle school Engaging Tasks to practice critique and revision.
- Sample Elementary Engaging Tasks (pdf)
- Sample Middle School & High School Engaging Tasks (pdf)
- Engaging Tasks Feedback Form (pdf)
Here’s another example of an Engaging Task:
You have been hired by Paramount’s King’s Island to research the roller coasters of Ohio, and then to come up with an idea for a new coaster. King’s Island wants to build a new roller coaster, but needs to know what its competition is. It also wants you to examine its existing coasters to see what types of coasters it does not have. After you examine the competition, you will come up with an idea for a new coaster. You will submit this idea in writing and also with a drawing.
Engaging Tasks are an easy-to-implement, real world learning strategy. Instead of simply assigning a task or assignment to the students, an Engaging Task tells a little story (only a paragraph or so!) that gives the students a reason for doing the work.
If this is a good one, what makes it good?
I think there are 6 criteria for a really good Engaging Task:
- Does it relate to your curriculum? Is it Standards-based?
- Do you have the 3 pieces? (Scenario, Role, & Task)
- Is it in the form of a “story”? (no procedural steps, or “teacher talk”)
- Does it focus on Higher Order Thinking? (Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create)
- Will students find it authentic or believable?
- Would students find it interesting or of significance?
Lets look at this example through the lense of these six criteria.
Standards-based: Like many Engaging Tasks, this one comes from a WebQuest. In the Teacher Section of this WebQuest, the teacher/author explains that it is an upper elementary assignment to apply learnings from physics. But looking at the Process Page and Resources Page will show you that the content could also be data collection and data analysis. If you were teaching Complex Reasoning, it could also be an exercise for a student to demonstrate prowess in analysis or design.
All 3 pieces – Scenario, Role, & Task: An amusement park wants to build a new roll coaster. The students are roller coaster designers. They have to analyze the competition and design a new roller coaster. Yes, all three pieces.
HOTS – Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create: Yes, students have to analyze data that they collect, and create (design) a new roller coaster.
Students: authentic or believable: These students will be using real data from real amusement parks. If this was produced for students who live near these Ohio amusement parks, the Task is even more authentic!
Students: interesting or of significance: Students love roller coasters (or at least watching others on roller coasters)! It’s not unusual for a class to have a field trip to an amusement park as part of working on a project like this.
So it looks like this Engaging Task does a pretty good job of meeting the criteria!
Here is an example of an Engaging Task.
It is modern day, and you are on the jury for the trial of Macbeth. Macbeth is being tried for the murder of the King. You will be deciding whether or not Lord Macbeth is guilty or innocent, and how he should be held responsible for his actions. Be prepared to defend your decision to the other jury members.
Engaging Tasks are a really versatile and powerful instructional strategy with their roots in WebQuests. An Engaging Task is essentially a brief story that provides context and a reason for the students to learn what they are about to learn and do what they are about to do. (Don't you think this is way more interesting to a student than just asking her to write an essay about if they think Macbeth should be found guilty or not?)
There are three key pieces to an Engaging Task:
- The compelling scenario
- A role for the student
- The thing for the students to do
Take a second and look at the example above.
What's the compelling scenario? What's the context for the student's work?
What's the role of the student? Who is the student in the story?
What is the thing that the student has to do? What is the student expected to produce?
Go ahead. Take a little time and decide on your answers to these three questions. I'll wait for you…
So what did you decide? What did you say the scenario was? The trial of Macbeth? Who is the student? Did you say juror? And what does the student have to do? Did you say decide on guilt or innocence?
Notice a couple other things, too. Our little story is just a story and the student is just a character in that story (there is no reference to the class, or to the student being a student – they are just other jury members). And there are no directions in our little story (put step by step directions in a separate document). Part of what makes Engaging Tasks engaging is the fact that the student's imagination is turned loose in the task. Just like you don't want to go to a Civil War reenactment where the soldiers are wearing sneakers, you don't want your class or assignment sneaking back into your Task.
You can explore tasks by browsing through Webquests. See if you can identify the scenario, student role, and thing to do in each.
Are you looking for a teaching strategy that can hook and engage your students? One that can work with almost any content area? Then you're looking to use an Engaging Task.
Engaging Tasks are an easy-to-implement real world learning strategy.
Engaging Tasks are the part of a WebQuest that make them so engaging to students. But they are such a strong pedagogical strategy that they can be applied to nearly any subject or topic, don't need to be part of a WebQuest, and don't even have to be used for an activity that requires technology (although technology can be it's own motivator!)
WebQuest.org – THE place for everything about WebQuests – defines a WebQuest as an inquiry-oriented lesson format in wich most or all of the information that learners work with comes from the web. Some educators mis-identify a WebQuest as a series of low-level questions that students use the web to track down answers to, but this is far from a WebQuest. WebQuests require that students apply higher order thinking strategies.
WebQuests follow a specific format and include these 6 components (although sometimes one or two of them might be combined):
In my opinion, the part of a (good) WebQuest that makes it so engaging is the task. What makes a task so engaging?
Instead of simply charging students with an assignment, an Engaging Task tells a little story (only a paragraph or so!) that gives the students a reason for doing the work. The engaging task is made up of three parts:
- The compelling scenario
- A role for the student
- The thing for the students to do
Engaging Task Resources:
- Search for really good WebQuests
- A Taxonomy of WebQuest Tasks (also great for non-WebQuest Engaging Tasks!)