Seacrest: Logic task

The logic task asks ‘Can you work out what Mike should have for dinner?’ Students have to sequence a set of meals based on the clues they are given. Despite the differences in the interactions between the two tasks, shown in Table 66, there are some similarities to notice too. The teacher again begins an interaction with the Yellow group. Prompted to interact because he thinks someone is hoarding the clues the teacher again interrupts when at

132

least three of the four group members are focused on the clues. The teacher does not give any clear instructions, rather he points out what is wrong and makes a joke.

Arguably the similarity is that the teacher focuses on Yellow group early in the task, unnecessarily. They are in fact already focused on the task in hand, only the teacher does not pick up on this from their observation. However, there is a difference with the intervention in the reasoning task. The teacher has interacted with Yellow group to remind them of his presence, pre-emptively, in an effort to keep them on task. They are on task at that time; he wishes them to remain so. The use of humour suggests that he does not want the student he is addressing to lose face or become disaffected.

y51 This one's mine.

y52 Hey, anybody want these chicken wings? asked Grace. I don't like anything with meat in it.

y49 YUCK! cried Ruby...

y51 Don't look at me, moaned Jack. I hate any food with cheese...with cheese in it, on it. At that, he pushed away his cheeseburger.

y50 Ey, the table's not working.

Michael Right, see, now that's not going to be helpful, is it, if you - I bet you're the sort of person who hides jigsaw pieces just to put in at the last one. [Hold students accountable]

After visiting Yellow the teacher moves to the Green group. He initiates the

interaction with an open question which suggests that he has not got a preconceived idea of what he must do to help the group but instead wishes to find out what they need. His utterance gives students authority to tell him what they know.

133

Michael Sorry? What's this Tanya.[Give students authority] g53 She can't stand...

g54 She is...she em...she only eats yogurt.

Michael Right, so, who has yoghurt? [Problematization] g54 Tanya.

Michael No, but, who has the yoghurt? Mike has the yoghurt so Tanya gets Tanya's yoghurt – yes? [Problematization]

Because he doesn’t know what he needs to do to help before beginning the initiation, Michael takes his cue from the students and asks open questions to elicit both the difficulty and also to scaffold the next stage in the problem for them to work on.

Problematization utterances have been characterised broadly in this research. They

may be brief and form part of an IRF sequence. Alternatively, they may be more open-ended. The following extract shows a variety of problematizing utterances, following Engle and Conant’s (2002) initial definitions. The teacher then moves to the Red group, who have been focused and working independently in marked contrast to the reasoning task:

r63 Yeah, but we're on about Mike, not Jack. r62 Oh.

r62 YUCK, cried Ruby, making a face at the slice...ah, I can't read. Michael So she can't have pizza - she doesn't like pepperoni pizza does she?

[Problematization]

r63 And he doesn't like cheese. Well...

Michael Is there anyone we know for sure... [Problematization] r61 And he...he's...

r61 He's allergic to emmm yogurt.

134

Michael Mike can't have the yoghurt can he? Is there anyone who likes yoghurt? [Problematization]

Michael [Student puts hand up] No I mean here. [Problematization] r63 Tanya.

Michael So Tanya gets Mike's yoghurt so what does Tanya have? [Problematization]

r64 Salad. Salad! r63 Salad.

Michael So is there anyone who might like a salad? [Problematization]

Through modelling questions about the task in his exchange with the students, Michael gets them to start with Mike. His dinner is displaced and the students must work through the chain of clues to work out where each dinner goes. The teacher tackles

misconceptions, such as the clues and discussion only referring to the characters and not to the group members and then he leaves them with the next step in the problem to work out.

Finally, after visiting each group and ensuring they were all starting with Mike and to whom his meal should go, the Michael tried to get the students to work through the clues systematically to find the logical choice for all the dishes. The final group he visits is the Green group again; who have moved further in their working than the other groups did. Once he finishes talking to this group he stops all the groups by freezing the tables and has a mini plenary.

Michael

Right. Can I just stop you a second? We're nearly there. So, I just want to - because a few people have said: "Mr [Michael], I've got it, I've got it!" and they may or may not have the right answer, but they haven't thought about all the possibilities. You've got to explain to me who gets what for all of them, so Mike starts with yoghurt and he doesn't like yoghurt, so who gets the yoghurt? [Hold students accountable]

135 b59 Tanya.

Michael

Tanya gets yoghurt, because she says, "Well, yoghurt is the only thing I like on the menu.” Okay? Now, she has a salad, who might like the salad? [Problematization] r63 Grace.

Michael Grace, Grace might like the salad, because? [Problematization]

Michael

She doesn't like meat. Okay. Now well this is the one I, this is the looks of it. We'll just leave that to the side - it's important, but we'll just leave that one to the side. So you've still got Jack and Ruby and Mike to find out. Can you please just take a second - a few seconds to try and finish it. Off you go. [Problematization]

The teacher uses the mini-plenary to repeat the steps which he has modelled with each group and to set up the end of the task. He also models arranging the clues on the tables by using the teacher orchestration desk to manipulate the clues which are then represented on the interactive whiteboard. This is shown on the screen shot Figure 6.4. The three clues he has

talked about have been enlarged and he has made them overlap in a semi-circular pattern to show their relation to each other.

After the mini-plenary, the teacher spends the remainder of the group working time interacting with the Green group. The group is on task and discussing the problem, one

136

student, g56, even says the right answer but then does not follow this up in subsequent conversation. The teacher interacts by asking open questions by which they try to clarify the group’s thinking, repeatedly pressing them to back up back up their answers to his questions with reasons. This appears to be an effort to extend an able group to be more rigorous about their reasoning and echoes the instructions he gave them as early finishers in the reasoning task discussed in section 5.2.3. Although in that case he gave no support or clear direction as to how he expected the students to achieve this.

g56 Ruby gets the chicken wings and Jack gets the pepperoni pizza. g54 I can't even turn these!

g53 So what does Mike get? g56 Mike gets the cheeseburger.

g54 Mike doesn't get the cheeseburger, he doesn't like dairy. g53 He doesn't like dairy.

g56 Ruby gets the chicken wings and Jack gets the pepperoni pizza.

Michael All right, so Ruby's - Mike's not vegetarian. So who gets the chicken wings? [Problematization]

g56 Grace...no! Ruby, Ruby. g53 Ruby. Ruby, Ruby.

Michael Why does Ruby get the chicken wings? [Problematization] g56 Because em...

g53 Why does? She doesn't like pepperoni pizza.

Michael Right, she doesn't like pepperoni pizza, but what about Jack? [Problematization]

g56 Jack gets the cheeseburger.

137

Michael Jack's already got the cheeseburger, he doesn't like anything with cheese on. So could Jack have the cheeseburger - could Jack have the pizza? [Problematization]

g56 Yes, Jack gets the pizza. And then Mike... g53 What if...what does...

Michael Why would Jack have the pizza, because he doesn't like anything with - [Problematization]

g53 Cheese in it.

Michael What does pizza have on it? [Problematization] g56 Cheese.

g53 Cheese.

g55 Which means that emmm that...that... g53 Jack...gets the...

g54 He could have a hamburger! g56 Mike gets...

Michael So Jack had the chicken wings, but what would that leave Ruby with? There's cheeseburger and there's pepperoni pizza. [Problematization]

g55 He gets the... g55 That would leave... g56 Mike!? Mike?

g54 Pepperoni pizza! No! Cheeseburger, and emmm Mike gets the pepperoni pizza. g53 Ruby would get the...

Michael Just sort it out. [Hold students accountable]

Michael Tell them not me, tell them not me. [Hold students accountable]

The two final utterances are ones which echo the interaction with Green and Blue groups in the reasoning task. Once the task is finished the teacher asks groups to share

138

the answer and make sure that each student understands the reasoning behind this. However, in each case he does not give any instruction as to how to achieve this.

There are other similarities in the behaviours of the teacher between the tasks. His first interaction is with Yellow group to ensure they are on task. He maintains clear expectations of Red group to engage with the task and not simply push clues around. This repetition may be a factor in the decreasing number of procedural utterances (hold students

accountable and giving students authority). Brief reminders may be all that are needed once

good working norms have been established. Circumstantial support for this may be seen in the screenshot, Figure 4. Whilst the teacher’s attention is focused wholly on Green, the students in the three other groups are focused on the clues. At least one person from each group is gesturing to or touching a clue, other group members are showing signs of joint attention in their body language and gaze direction.