Decontextualized and contextualized tasks

A decontextualized task is an activity in which the problem to solve is the task, itself. The purpose of providing a learner with a decontextualized task, generally, is to allow the learner to intentionally focus on one concept, skill, process, act, medium, or types of knowledge (e.g., declarative, procedural or dispositional), at a time. Such an approach can be beneficial in assisting learners with meaning construction or refinement, by helping them avoid cognitive overload. Yet, decontextualized activities are not inherently constructivist in nature. An educator must intentionally design a learning experience to include the conceptual space for a learner to construct meaning, rather than simply “receive” another’s meaning. Thus, although worksheets are a kind of decontextualized activity, they generally do not support constructivist learning, and thus do not qualify as the type of decontextualized activity that supports learning with

understanding.

A contextualized task is an activity in which the problem to solve is part of a larger task or context. The purpose of providing a learner with a contextualized task is to allow him or her to intentionally experience the whole context, in which specific concepts, skills, processes, acts, media, or types of knowledge are embedded within a physical and/or conceptual setting. This is beneficial because life is nearly always contextualized, and as such, learners have opportunity to learn the habits of mind essential to contextualized learning and application of ideas (e.g.,

perceiving patterns of useful information embedded in context). Yet, contextualized activities are not inherently constructivist in nature, either. As with decontextualized activities, an educator must intentionally design a learning experience to include the conceptual space for a learner to

construct meaning. Hence, the provision of drills within “play” or playful settings qualifies as neither, (a) A constructivist approach (instead, it merely asks learners to “memorize or adopt” another’s meaning in a passive sense) nor, (b) Is it what is meant by contextualization. This is particularly true within early childhood education. “Child-friendly” characters and settings, many of which draw upon clichés, are sometimes substituted for weighty contexts (see Authenticity, below). However, providing contextualized activities is not always straightforward.

There is a continuum of contextualized activity (Clough, 2006). At one end, is the highest form of context: “real life contribution”. This is defined not only by participation in the modes of inquiry and practices of a field, but also by contributions toward the advancement of disciplinary knowledge. Some say this is the only “true” context- particularly as it relates the fields of science and mathematics education. At the other end of the spectrum, is lack of context (i.e.,

decontextualization). As discussed above, this is characterized by tasks such as, the completion of drills and the execution of raw calculations, and through isolated tasks of a more constructivist nature, like “black box” activities (see Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998). In between these two extremes are what I have come to think of as “scaled contexts”. On the highly contextualized end, after “real life contribution”, is “real life practice”- this is signified by participation in the modes of inquiry and practices of a field, without contributions toward the advancement of disciplinary knowledge. This is followed by “immersive environments”- such as simulations and virtual laboratories, in which learners can submerge him or herself in virtual reproductions of contexts and conditions found in the non-virtual world. In my mind, this is the point at which contextualization, for purposes of education, begins. This degree of contextualization is followed by “playful games”- typically, game-based drills or other decontextualized activities, couched in terms of play or games. While these kinds of “contexts” are often fun and may provide a greater

aesthetic stir than typical drills, the degree of genuine contextualization they offer is fairly superficial. This is because, with each degree of decreased contextualization, tasks become less reflective of those enacted within real life disciplines. Hence, I consider neither “playful games”, nor the last degree- “decontextualization”, to provide educational context in a way that supports learning with understanding. While some degree of “fun contest” occurs within disciplines and everyday practices, the weight of such a context does not seem to strongly affect one’s ability to negotiate either a disciplinary field or everyday life. Likewise, while decontextualized activities, like raw skill or simple knowledge-execution, are a part of real life practice and disciplinary literacy, these tasks need not masquerade as anything other than what they are- one piece in helping learners construct and refine their understanding.

Decontextualized and contextualized learning experiences are both important, but each kind of provision contains common pitfalls. Within contextualized experiences, educators frequently assume learners have abstracted key ideas embedded in the contexts, without educators’ explicit reference to these ideas. Thus, educators must make key ideas explicit to learners by leading them to reflect, summarize, or otherwise focus on key ideas in context. If not, chances are ideas will remain embedded in context and important ideas will be lost to learners (Clough, 2006). As Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) put it, using the analogy of baseball, the coach (educators) must help the players (learners) to identify the concepts and skills, in this case batting, running, fielding, that make up the game.

Far more common in contemporary American education, is the presence of

decontextualized learning experiences. The concern with this is two-fold. First, context isn’t a bonus. When spending most of one’s time concentrating on a part without knowing the larger whole. Second, not only are decontextualized experiences used too frequently, but in my

experience these activities are very rarely constructivist in nature. Historically, the ways a teacher’s role has been defined, as giver of knowledge, makes it easy to forget that meaning, in fact, is personally constructed. The habit of primarily relying upon direct instruction and the assignment of worksheets to complete is rampant and unfortunate. While these techniques are not always negative, for the most part, the nature of these tasks fails to provide learners with the conceptual space required for meaning construction. Additionally, mistakes have been made in assuming so-called cognitive “process skills” (e.g., observing, measuring) devoid of content and/or regardless of context, are helpful for learners to know and practice. In truth, procedural knowledge devoid of context and content is meaningless, and isolated process skills do not reflect the way professionals or everyday people behave in real life (Bybee, 2002; Clough, 2006). Thus, educators must help learners “keep their eye on the game”, even when focused on developing specific skills or concepts (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 120).

It is, therefore, important for educators to design a program of learning experiences that moves between decontextualized and contextualized tasks (Clough, 2006). To break the common habit of providing excessive decontextualized tasks, some educators prefer to begin with ideas in context, and resort to increasingly decontextualized tasks as necessary for scaffolding. Helping learners to reflect on contexts, in order to identify embedded concepts, aligns with a

constructivist approach. However, there is no “right way”. Beginning with a decontextualized task, if the task is constructivist in nature, can be equally helpful to learners’ refinement of meaning. As such, some educators prefer to design tasks other than worksheets on which learners can focus their attention. Additionally, contextualization, or lack thereof, can be a part of

cognitive support whereby learners are able to construct and refine meaning within degrees of contexts that are most helpful in scaffolding their expanded understanding.