Chapter 15 page 368
These tasks differ markedly from more traditional teacher and text activities. They also differ from
the scripted interactions found in guided cooperation methods. These complex tasks require more complex
strategy use, and they have the potential to be highly motivating. The tasks are varied, challenging and
open-ended, and relevant to students’ lives. They arouse curiosity. As you learned in Chapter 11,
motivation can be enhanced by using tasks that have these properties. Therefore, complex tasks have the
potential to arouse intrinsic motivation.
Characteristics of complex tasks that promote core processes of effective collaborative learning.
Most complex tasks have several characteristics, which are listed in Figure 15.5. A task does not have to
have all of the characteristics below to be effective, but a task that has few or none of these characteristics
may not be very effective in promoting learning. These characteristics are summarized in Figure 15.5.
Characteristic #1. In effective complex tasks, students must use multiple strategies and diverse
knowledge (Cohen, 1994a). To promote positive interdependence, it is important that the task be complex
enough that no one student has all the knowledge and resources to successfully complete the task. For
example, when students are trying to investigate the question, “Why do I need to wear a helmet when I ride
my bicycle?” (Singer, Marx, Krajcik, & Chambers, 2000), they will likely find that all students in the
group have ideas that are relevant to tackling this question.
Characteristic #2. Effective tasks are also relatively challenging and open-ended. When tasks are
simple and have a single right answer, it is far too likely that a single student will produce the answer,
circumventing productive group processes (Cohen, 1994a). Challenging, open-ended tasks require students
in the group to share their diverse perspectives in order to reach the best solution.
Teachers sometime undermine their collaborative tasks by providing so much detail that they turn a
good open-ended task into a trivial task that requires no collaboration for completion (Cohen, 1994a). For
instance, consider a teacher who poses this problem:
“How much paint would it take to paint the walls in this room? The walls in this room cover
910 square feet. It takes 1 gallon of paint to paint 350 square feet, and you will need 2 coats
to completely cover the blue.”
Contrast this with a second version of the same problem:
“How much paint would it take to paint the walls and ceiling in this room?”
If the teacher poses the first problem, he has provided so much information that the groups may have little
to talk and think about. The students now know that gallons-of-paint-per-square-feet is a relevant number.
If the teacher had posed the second problem, they would have had to figure this out on their own. In the
first problem, the teacher has oversimplified the problem by providing the square footage of the walls,
instead of having the students work it out themselves. He has also removed the need to figure out how many
coats would be needed. Thus, the second question is more challenging, and it would probably evoke more
productive, engaged group talk.