MRMICT

Occasionally, people ask me questions like, “Do you do task design in every lesson?” or “How does this work in other subjects like art or computing?” It’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that a new or different approach can be universally applied across all subjects. However, this often misidentifies what actually led to success. The success of a task-aware or task-design approach isn’t necessarily about the task itself; it’s about considering the task as part of the lesson as a whole.

For too long, teachers have ‘planned’ lessons by relying on websites or simply copying from the previous year, expecting that bolting on a downloaded task will naturally lead to understanding. I firmly believe that the success of this approach lies in the thinking we do as teachers—carefully considering each stage of the learning process.

To that effect, there is a growing tendency in education to ‘academise’ subjects where iterative practice, refinement, and hands-on engagement are fundamental. Whether it’s Art, DT, Computing, PE, or Music, these subjects do not thrive through worksheets or theory-heavy tasks alone but through doing. And yet, it is increasingly common to see a push for more traditional, theory-driven approaches in subjects that function very differently from disciplines like History or English.

This isn’t to say that disciplinary knowledge in these subjects lacks depth or rigour—far from it. But the way knowledge is built and mastered in practical disciplines is distinct, and our task design must respect that. As Turner (2023, p.47) highlights, “We need to truly value what makes a subject its subject.” That means thinking carefully about how knowledge is acquired, refined, and applied within each discipline, rather than defaulting to generic approaches that may not fit.

Iterative Practice and the ‘Academisation’ of Practical Subjects

Take music. So much of music education is rooted in the abstract ideas of ‘heart and soul’—I know that sounds cheesy, but when we listen to lyrics, chord progressions, and musical arrangements, we engage with incredibly complex structures. When it comes to learning an instrument, a child won’t master it by filling in a worksheet about musical notation alone. They need repeated, purposeful practice—playing, listening, and refining their technique.

Of course, theory tasks and retrieval practice have a role. Recalling key terms, recognising notes, or understanding structure can all support performance. But the heart of learning music lies in developing fluency through playing, experimenting with phrasing, and refining technique over time.

Art and DT follow a similar trajectory. You can teach colour theory through knowledge organisers and labelling tasks, but real understanding comes from mixing paints, experimenting with texture, and gradually developing control over a brush. Likewise, learning to saw wood safely in DT isn’t something you can master by reading about it—it requires doing, over and over, until both technique and confidence develop.

In PE, movement, coordination, and strategy are built through active participation and developed over years. As Enser (2021, p.62) notes when discussing effective teaching approaches, “Ensuring that teaching methods fit the subject rather than applying generic approaches across the board” is crucial. No athlete improves by solely analysing tactics on paper—there must be time for trial, error, and refinement.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Computing. Here, too, children can predict and label code or unpick syntax, but real understanding comes through implementing programs, problem-solving, and debugging. Computing is fundamentally about thinking, and children need to explore, tinker, and discuss their thought processes aloud.

And yet, in many schools, we see a creeping emphasis on writing-based retrieval activities or extended written reflections in these subjects, often under the guise of making learning more ‘academic’. The problem is that this risks pulling focus away from what really matters: the doing. Again, written tasks have a place, but balance is key.

What This Means for Task Design

Of course, retrieval tasks, explicit instruction, and structured reflection all have their place. The key is ensuring they serve the subject rather than distort it. In Computing, for example, debugging code is a disciplinary skill that develops through practical engagement—spotting patterns, testing solutions, and refining logic over time. A retrieval task on key terminology may help, but if it replaces the actual process of debugging, something has gone wrong.

The same applies in DT. If a lesson on mechanisms consists primarily of children writing definitions of levers and pulleys rather than handling them and seeing how they work in practice, we’re missing the point. The task must reflect the discipline: exploring, testing, and refining designs, not merely recalling facts about them.

The Early Years Parallel: Valuing Play as a Discipline

This issue extends beyond KS2 and beyond just ‘practical’ subjects. Play in the Early Years, for example, is another area where we risk over-academisation. Play is not simply a way to fill time—it is how young children explore the world, test ideas, and develop foundational social, cognitive, and motor skills.

As Grenier (2021, p.11) puts it, “Young children’s learning is often seen through the lens of what older children and adults do: writing, sitting at desks, and listening to explanations. But we need to focus on what young children actually do—how they explore, create, and think through play.”

Yet, in some settings, there is increasing pressure to formalise play, turning it into something that can be neatly measured or assessed in a traditional way. This leads to learning being funnelled into written tasks or rigidly structured activities, stripping away the very essence of play as a powerful learning process. Just as an artist learns by painting, and a musician by playing, young children learn through play—and we must protect that.

Final Thoughts

Not every subject needs to be made to look more ‘academic’ in a traditional sense. Different subjects demand different ways of knowing, different ways of developing fluency, and different ways of building confidence over time.

As Turner (2023, p.47) rightly says, “We need to truly value what makes a subject its subject.” That means respecting the disciplines we teach, ensuring that the methods we use align with how knowledge is best built and applied within them. It’s about using retrieval, explicit instruction, and structured tasks where they make sense—but not at the expense of the very practices that define each subject.

In short: let artists paint, musicians play, designers build, and children explore. Disciplinary approaches ensure subjects are taught in ways that honour their integrity rather than forcing them into a mould that doesn’t fit. Task design should serve the subject, not reshape it into something it isn’t.

As always comments and questions always welcome.

Karl (MRMICT)

References

• Enser, M. (2021) Powerful Geography: A Curriculum with Purpose in Practice. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational.

• Grenier, J. (2021) Working with the Revised Early Years Foundation Stage: Principles into Practice. Self-published.

• Turner, E. (2023) Simplicitus: The Interconnected Primary Curriculum and Effective Subject Leadership. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational