Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
The effect of task-based classroom observation on student teachers’
attitudes toward TBL generally
Kirsten Duckett
Georgetown University/Sungkyunkwan University
kirsten_duckett@yahoo.com
This paper discusses the results of a longitudinal survey of attitudes toward the
principles of task-based learning (TBL) among teachers in training enrolled in a
5-month certificate program in South Korea. The purpose of the study was to
determine the effect on attitudes toward TBL generally of participating in taskbased classroom observation. The attitude survey was completed by student
teachers at the beginning and end of their teacher training program. During the
term, one of four classes of student teachers executed classroom observation
tasks within the context of their Practicum course. An examination of the results
indicates that the experimental group developed more positive, open attitudes
toward TBL than the control groups.
Introduction and motivation
Teachers-in training may retain doubts about the advantages of utilizing activities or
techniques that they are studying in their own classrooms (Gebhard 2000:37).
Similarly, while student teachers may be exposed to and/or adopt new teaching
methods, critical assessment of classroom techniques may be delayed and new
teachers may remain unaware of the dynamics these techniques create. Professional
development for these teachers may benefit from close classroom observations within
a teacher training program (Walsh 2003). Without going beyond the program, the
Practicum course itselfi can offer a rich context for providing this type of observation
experience.
The current project was meant to explore a method of increasing the accessibility of
the insights that classroom observation brings by compartmentalizing the work of
observing closely through the use of observation tasks (OTs). In particular, the
objective was to measure the effect of participation in these tasks on teachers’
openness to the principles of task-based learning (TBL).
TBL is considered to be a modern and efficient teaching method. Although opinions
differ as to the boundaries of the definition of TBL, many educators espouse its
principles and the teacher training program in which this research was done was no
exception. Training teachers to organize tasks for their students was part of the
greater communicative curriculum and tasks were seen to be activities which involved
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
2
student autonomy, often problem-solving, which led to an outcome and usually
involved a reporting stage. As it was training for foreign language teachers, part of
the rationale for using tasks was related to the managerial interaction and the
negotiation of meaning involved in the interpretation and execution of the instructions
for the task assignmentsii.
Willis (1996:148) explains how teachers adopting TBL “involves examining existing
beliefs and trying to look at learning and teaching in a realistic light.” She further
specifies that ”…for the teacher who has just introduced and set up a task-based cycle
for the first time, the biggest challenge of all is possessing the strength of mind to
stand back with confidence and to let learners get on with their own learning”(Willis
1996:148) While it is important for all teachers to take perspective on the classroom
dynamic, this is particularly true with regard to TBL.
Background
The Practicum course of a 20-week TESOL certificate program in Seoul, South Korea
is the backdrop for this study. Similar to Urmston’s description of the educational
atmosphere in Hong Kong(2000:114), Korean students are relatively new to studentcentered, project-oriented and interactive learning methods. The newness of such
methods may cause stress to students, which may in turn intimidate teachers. The
following is a quote from one student teacher at the beginning of the certificate
program.
My opinion: As for task-based teaching, some shy Korean students feel stressed and
usually hesitate to speak voluntarily in a foreign language. So, it’s very important to
make the atmosphere of the classroom very friendly and comfortable, I think.
Growing out of a curricular commitment to task-based learning and urged on by the
observation that during the Practicum course some trainees become bored with
watching teaching demonstration after teaching demonstration, it was decided to
incorporate task-based observation into the already participatory Practicum
curriculum. The four tasks described below were assigned to one of four classes of
teacher trainees attending the 5-month program for EFL teachers in the autumn of
2004.
Description of methods
Four classroom observation tasks (OTs) were developediii based on Ruth Wajnryb’s
work (1992). These focus on 1) the use of the board and visual aids (BU), 2)
elicitation techniques (EL), 3) types of questions used by the teacher (TQ) and 4)
group work management (GW)iv. Each observation task included data collection and
analysis and a format for feedback on the OT itself. (See Appendix B for a copy of a
sample Observation Task form, including instructions and feedback sheet. The
procedure for each OT is described briefly in the endnotes.)
Beginning in Week 12, the trainees in the one experimental class completed one or
more OTs as part of their Practicum course where they practice-taught and watched
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 2
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
3
classmates practice-teaching once a week. Each of the 27 student teachers (STs) was
assigned a specific OT to execute on a specific day. Each time, there were twov STs
taking the role of special observer. They received instructions on the assigned OT, sat
at the back of the classroom, separated from the teacher(svi) and students and from
one another for the data collection stage. After the lessonvii, the observing STs sat
together to finish writing up their notes, to confer and to complete the feedback forms.
The notes and forms were duplicated with photocopies going to the observers, the
observed STs and the course instructor.
Objectively, the experimental group received more exposure to TBL than the control
groups by way of participation in the observation tasks themselves, but not for any
other reason. Otherwise, all instruction, all material and all courses were equivalent.
Identical pre- and post-tests (see Appendix A), were administered to the entire student
body (107) of the teacher-training program cited above in order to assess their
attitudes toward task-based learning. This survey took place in Weeks 5 and 20 of the
semester and consisted of a 15-item attitudinal questionnaire using a 5-point Likert
scale, accompanied by questions on age and teaching experience.
Because only matching sets of pre- and post-tests were utilized for analysis, the final
number of subjects in the data pool shrank to 52viii. This total was broken down
among the classes as follows: A 16, B 10, C 14, D 12. These groups were typical of
the student body as a whole and similar to one another. The make-up of the group
doing the OTs (A) was 88% female, 69% between the ages of 25 and 35 years. Fiftysix percent of group A reported having 3-5 years of part-time teaching experience,
while another 38% had been teaching for a year at most.
The 15 statements (indicated in this report by the letters a-o) chosen for the pre-/posttest were adapted from Wajnryb (1992) and intended to correspond to the generally
accepted principles of TBL outlined in paragraph 3 above and to the specific OTs
planned for the experiment. Additionally, statements were added to round out the list
and reduce the prominence of TBL as a focus for the respondent. Of the 15 items, the
‘key’ items that were expected to give the most direct indication of the respondent’s
attitude toward TBL were the following 6. The respondents’ reactions to these and
other statements are discussed more fully in the next section of this paper.
Key TBL items from the pre-/post-test survey
d
Good learning tasks should involve learners in problem solving or resolution.
g
Tasks are an effective way of organizing activities for students.
h
If teachers do not explain an activity thoroughly first, the students will waste their time.
k
Choice should be part of learning activities.
n
Student autonomy can be increased by task-based teaching techniques.
o
It is very important for students to finish the learning tasks which they are assigned.
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 3
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
4
Only the experimental class participated in the OTs. Of the 16 student teachers (STs)
qualifyingix in the experimental group (A), 11 participated in one OT and 5
participated in two. The distribution of the OTs is illustrated in Table A below.
Table A. Guide to observation tasks.
Observation tasks
(OTs)
Total
iterations
Iterations
corresponding
to qualifying
STs
Teacher Questions
(TQ)x
16
9
Board Use (BU)xi
8
6
Elicitation (EL)xii
2
2
Group Work (GW)xiii
8
4
Notes
This task seemed to be
the easiest for STs to
execute
This task was
determined to be too
difficult for the STs
Statistical methods
The statistics for this project base themselves on the raw Likert scale data from the
matched pre- and post-tests. Class by class, the scores have been tallied, averaged and
the standard deviation calculated. In a few cases, other statistical tests were used to
clarify results with high standard deviations. The per-item class mean scores were
compared between pre- and post-tests, and within the experimental group, each
student’s development from pre- to post-test response was reviewed.
Presentation and discussion of results
Unsurprisingly considering the curriculum of the certificate program, all groups
gained in their stated openness toward TBL. Nonetheless, development in the
attitudes within the experimental group (A) did progress differently than for the
control groups. Group A’s progress appeared to have a different focus and to be more
nuanced than the other groups’ and ultimately showed greater advancement toward an
adoption of the principles of TBL.
Results for the key TBL statements
Of the 6 ‘key’ TBL items described above, the responses at the post-test were distinct
for group A and the control groups as Table B illustrates. The scores representing the
most open attitudes toward TBL are shown in bold typeface.
Table B. Mean post-test responses for key TBL statements
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 4
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
Group
A
B
3.94 3.2
4.31 4.5
3.60 3.7
C
4.2
5
D
Questionnaire item
4.27 d Good learning tasks should involve learners in problem solving or
4.21 3.92
3.79 3.67
resolution
g Tasks are an effective way of organizing activities for students.
h If teachers do not explain an activity thoroughly first, the students
will waste their time.
4.13 3.56 3.50 3.58 k Choice should be part of learning activities.
4.06 3.9 3.69 3.33 n Student autonomy can be increased by task-based teaching
techniques.
4.13 3.5
4.14 3.75 o It is very important for students to finish the learning tasks which
they are assigned
5= strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree
As Table B indicates, group A ended the semester with the most open attitude to 4xiv
of the 6 key TBL statements. While group A was not as convinced[3.94, std dev
0.93] about the benefits of problem-solving (item d) as two of the three control
groups, group A did vote in favor of tasks generally (item g) as discussed more fully
below. They endorsed the value of completing a learning task (item o) and led the
respondent pool in their confidence in choice as an aid to learning (item k).
Additionally, group A was the most convinced that learner autonomy was aided by
task work (item n) and the least convinced of all the groups that allowing students to
struggle to sort out instructions was a waste of learning time (item h). All in all,
group A seemed quite open to TBL practices compared to the other groups at the end
of the experiment.
Development in attitudes toward TBL observed among the whole pool of teachers-intraining (STs)
Over the course of the TESOL program, all classes revealed openness to the tenets of
TBL. The greatest overall changes of opinion from the beginning to the end of the
program, as indicated via the Likert scales, occurred with regard to statements c, g and
k (See Table C below).
Table C. Greatest changes in mean opinion
All
Tested statement
groups
Pretest
mean
c Keeping the students focused depends
2.72
more on the materials than on the
teacher.
g Tasks are an effective way of organizing
activities for students
k Choice should be part of learning
activities
5= strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree
Kirsten A. Duckett
All groups
Posttest
mean
Change in
mean (all
groups)
2.63
-0.09
Change in
mean
Group A
only
-0.75
4.28
4.24
-0.04
0.25
3.54
3.69
0.15
0.55
Page 5
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
6
As mentioned above, experimental group A led the changes for key TBL statement k.
Statement c is not a key TBL statement, but rather expresses an opinion on the value
of teacher input versus materials. Here again, experimental group A led the change of
opinion on this item. While all groups indicated teacher input was not less important
than the materials, group A seemed the most sure of the value of the teacher’s
contribution (2.31).
Response to item g:
Tasks are an effective way of organizing activities for students.
With regard to item g, potentially the key TBL item, group A moved from an average
of 4.06 (Std Dev 0.93) at the pre-test to 4.31 (Std Dev 0.60) at the post-test, showing
an increase in confidence in tasks as effective tools to learning. Furthermore, this is
opposite to the trend among the control groups. Each of the other groups lost more
than 0.10 in the mean Likert rating although group B’s post-test average remained
high at 4.5 (Std Dev 0.71).
Development of attitudes observed specifically among the experimental group
Of all of the statements, the biggest change of opinion among the STs who had
participated in the observation tasks occurred with regard to statement e which dealt
with the process of teacher elicitation. Again, this is not a key TBL item, but the
results are interesting. See Table D.
e
When students don’t answer quickly, teachers should repeat the question.
Interestingly, all STs in group A started out either absolutely for (6%), absolutely
against (56%) or neutral (38%) on this topic: no one chose an intermediate Likert
option of 2 or 4. Resultingly, the standard deviation was quite high, at 1.26.
Table D. Data on responses to statement e.
Answer to
5
4
3
2
item e
Group A Pre1
0
6
0
test
Group A
1
6
5
4
Post-test
All groups
post
1
9
0
Mean
Mode
2
Standard
deviation
1.26
3.25
0.93
4
3.04
0.36
1
5= strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree
At the post-test, however, their views were more deliberate but less extreme; the mean
opinion was positive at 3.25, higher than the average for all the groups
combined(3.04).
ST quote: “I realized how important [student talking time is] in the class and what
kinds of questions T used to get the student’s response.”
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 6
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
7
Older and more experienced STs
While structured task-based observation was anticipated as being useful for all of our
teacher trainees, the value of the OTs to in-service teachers as a way of increasing the
challenge of the Practicum course was yet to be determined. Students who already had
significant teaching experience, for example, needed opportunities that were distinct
from their pre-service classmates.
The results of the current study indicated that older and more experienced students
changed their opinions lessxv (average 0.117xvi) over the course of the semester than
younger or less experienced classmates (average 0.344).
This evidence of strong ‘classroom schemata’ (Urmston 2000:112) did not, in this
case, preclude the adoption of openness to TBL as the following quotes from the 4
most experienced STs in group A demonstrate:
I realized the ratio of all categories of questions.
This observation made me think of teachers’ questions level of difficulty, object and
students’ reaction.
It gave me a chance to think about activity management.
Mirror-effect, It means I can analysize myself while I do this task.
Discussion of the observation task activity as such
Participant Response and Feedback
Many positive comments were made by STs about their level of concentration during
the OT. Below – and elsewhere in this section - are several quotes from experimental
group A, printed in italics.
I can concentrate on the lesson more.
This observation made me to analysis the use of materials and the way that teachers
use.
Actually it’s a little bit interesting!!
It made me focus on their teaching demo.
It could help me concentrate the class very well.
Affective considerations
As was evident from the ST quote in the introduction, some students have confidence
issues with task-based learning scenarios. It was satisfying, therefore, to find that the
observation tasks were viewed as more than simply sources of stress and even as
enjoyable activities.
I feel like I’m a special person who do something for the class. So that’s why I can
concentrate on the class more than before.
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 7
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
8
First of all, I liked to have a new experience to join the class.
I stayed back of the class, so I could see and hear classmates’ reactions to this
teaching demonstration.
Good experience!
A number of STs expressed a kind of positive frustration. While doing the
observation task, they were able to see the lesson clearly enough that they were
stimulated by it too. Yet they couldn’t join the lesson. For example, when asked
about what they disliked in doing the OT, one ST wrote:
I couldn’t join the interesting class.
On the other hand, until the observation routine was established, many of the
observing STs did seem stressed by being apart from the main classroom activity.
Many off-topic comments on the feedback forms suggested that they were having
troubles resisting the pull of the group and distancing themselves from the role of
student.
(stress) I couldn’t concentrate on the teacher’s instruction while writing.
I want to see another’s task sheet.
I was so busy to doing this task that I couldn’t observe the students’ reaction or
attitude during activities.
(off-topic answers for ‘What I liked most about this observation task’)
Movie. (it was quite interesting.)
Compliment was also good.(Very good job, Wow! Good! etc)
On the whole, the response to the OTs was positive. Comments from STs generally
fell into 3 categories: motivation, opportunity to analyze and the logistics of the
activity. The first two categories were generally assessed positively as the quotes
above indicate; only the latter category drew some negative comments as is discussed
in the next section.
Improvements needed in the study design
This project knew basically three points of weakness. One was the user-friendliness
of the materials; another was the time management involved in setting up and
rounding off the OT while giving adequate attention to the teaching demonstration at
hand; and the third had to do with the consistency of the instruction for the
observation tasks.
There were problems with the clarity of the materials not all of which were ironed out
during the course of the experiment. In some cases, it had to do with writing the
instructions flexibly enough to serve both pre-service and in-service teachers. In other
cases, lack of transparency was probably due to the level of language used. The OT
forms were piloted by native speakers of English who may have missed noticing
potential shortcomings in the instructions for use by non-native speakers. By
physically separating the observers during the lesson time, there was little opportunity
for them to seek clarification during the important data-collecting phase of the task.
Some questions were confusing to determine which categories would be proper. I
need more examples.
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 8
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
9
The time allotted wasn’t sufficient either before the observation task (10 min), to
understand the assignment, nor after the task (15 min), to discuss it properly with a
fellow observer nor with the observed teachersxvii. The amount of time needed to
digest the task was underestimated and, as a result, student teachers doing OTs felt
rushed and lacked confidence in their performance.
The time to understand this task was a little bit short.
If I get the observation paper a little bit earlier, it will be more effective to do the task.
If I had had a chance to write comments about it, it might have been better.
After the first week, experienced observers were relied on to instruct those doing the
OTs for the first time. It was not necessarily the same individual giving the
instructions to each new observer. Although the researcher personally conferred with
each observer at least briefly before, during and after their observation, confusion
based on misinformation may have gone unnoticed. In any case, consistency of the
instruction cannot be assured.
Indications for future work/development
This was an exciting project because it brought together a means of structuring the
observation time and maximizing students’ focus while simultaneously allowing STs
to consider the logistics of task work. In the future, the better the materials are
designed and the more appropriate time there is for preparation and debriefing, the
more productive these OTs will be to teachers-in-training. At first blush, however,
and despite the weaknesses, classroom observation tasks appear to be an effective tool
to open teachers-in-training to the advantages of TBL.
Conclusion
Generally, the inclusion of the OTs into the curriculum increased interest and
structure in the teaching demonstrations of the Practicum course. It provided an
additional perspective, variety of activity and increased ST responsibility. Initially
there was some hesitance about the purpose of the OTsxviii, but once the routine was
established, STs participated without undue stress.
The post-test survey results indicated that the student teachers who had participated in
the observation tasks were more amenable to the principles of task-based learning
than those in the control groups.
Appendices
A. Pre-/post-test survey
B. ObservationTask form (sample)
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 9
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
10
References
Gebhard, J. G. (2000) Seeing teaching differently through observation. In Gebhard, J.
G. And Oprandy, R. Language Teaching Awareness: A Guide to Exploring
Beliefs and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leshan, S. Becoming a student teacher through induction. IATEFL TTEd SIG
Newsletter 2004 (3):14-16.
Morris, Lori (2002) Age and Uptake in TESL Training: Differing Responses to
Declaratively and Procedurally-Oriented Grammar Instruction. Language
Awareness 11 (3):192-207.
Ur, Penny (1999) A course in Language Teaching. Trainee Book. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Urmston, Alan, (2003) Learning to Teach English in Hong Kong: The Opinions of
Teachers in Training. Language and Education 17 (2): 112-137.
Wajnryb, Ruth (1992) Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Walsh, Steve (2003) Developing Interactional Awareness in the Second Language
Classroom Through Teacher Self-evaluation. Language Awareness 12 (2):124142.
Willis, Jane (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning. New York: Longman.
i
In the context of this study, the Practicum consisted of demonstration lessons. In another program
where trainees teach genuine classes for their Practicum, the procedure would be similar. In the case
that the training program does not include a practicum, trainees could observe core/content classes on a
rotational basis to achieve the same opportunity for analysis.
ii
The basis for much of this study including the description of tasks comes from Wajnryb (1992).
iii
The OTs were piloted as follows: the researcher identified eight OTs from Wajnryb(1992) and
personally tested each one of them twice in observations of her colleagues’ classes. Of the eight, four
were selected based on ease of execution and timing during the lesson. The materials and instructions
for these were then adapted and piloted at least once by various members of the TESOL program
faculty on one another’s classes. Based on faculty feedback, further adjustments were made to the
materials for use by the STs later on in the same semester.
iv
The four observation activities that were selected for this project in the end were felt to be
conceptually accessible to both in-service and pre-service teachers as well as being manageable within
the course of a one-hour lesson. The OT focusing on teacher questions incorporated a listening task
during the phase that the STs were discussing the teaching of listening and the board use OT coincided
with practice teaching in reading. The elicitation OT was selected as a challenging task for
experienced teachers but was abandoned when in-service STs complained bitterly about it being too
hard. The group work management OT was chosen to complement strongly student-centered lessons
and to highlight task work within the classroom.
v
Gebhard (2000:47) recommends a minimum of two observers at a time.
vi
The teaching demonstrations are typically done in teams.
vii
All demonstration lessons within the Practicum class were followed by a general feedback session
among all members of the class. In the 10-15 minutes between the close of the lesson and the feedback
session, all parties considered the quality of the lesson separately before the full-class discussion.
viii
Student teachers who were absent from either the pre- or the post-test or who neglected to note
sufficient identifying information to match the two tests were excluded from the database.
ix
Only matching sets of pre- and post-tests were utilized for analysis. In the case of the experimental
group, this meant that 16 out of the total 27 students “qualified” as respondents.
x
Student observers doing the TQ OT were asked to copy down the first 20-25 questions they heard the
demonstrating teacher utter. Once they had enough data, they were to describe the questions the
teacher(s) had used according to form, function and level of difficulty and then draw conclusions about
any patterns they observed in how the teacher(s) were using questions.
xi
The board use OT asked observers to recreate the board (or the screen) in a drawing at intervals
during the lesson and then to draw conclusions about how the teachers was utilizing visual support in
the classroom.
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 10
2/16/2016
Observation Tasks for Teachers in Training
11
xii
In this OT, student observers were told to copy down verbatim what the demonstrating teacher(s)
said for the purpose of elicitation. Observers were to count the seconds that the teacher waited and
then to record the next occurrence, whether it was a response by the student or a repetition or
rephrasing by the teacher.
xiii
The OT form for this item was broken down into three sections corresponding to the beginning, the
middle and the end of group work. Within these sections, observers were asked to answer questions by
describing the students’ and especially the teacher’s actions. For example: “How does [the teacher]
deliver the instructions?” and “Who speaks [during the reporting phase]?” Observers are finally asked
to evaluate the group work management they have seen and compare their evaluation with another
observer’s.
xiv
The difference between A’s 4.13 and C’s 4.14 for statement o is not significant.
xv
Morris (2002) discusses in detail how older learners may be less affected by experiential learning
methods than their younger counterparts.
xvi
This figure represents the mean amplitude of change for the 15 survey items for each cohort.
xvii
See note vii above.
xviii
All the students in the experimental group knew that the observation activity was special for their
class and that it was not graded. Furthermore, they were not used to taking an evaluative role in the
lessons outside of group feedback sessions.
Kirsten A. Duckett
Page 11
2/16/2016