Reverse-engineering communication tasks Craig Lambert
This article introduces an approach to planning sequences of communication tasks that require learners to become personally involved in their learning. By drawing on their own ideas and experiences, as a product of earlier tasks in a given sequence, learners generate the content and resource material on which subsequent tasks operate. The article is intended to increase understanding of the potential of tasks as a planning tool in L2 education, and to provide practical examples for teachers and materials designers.
Communication tasks
Communication tasks are pedagogic tasks which operate through a planned diversion in the information held by learners, and which usually approximate to some degree to a real-world task which learners may have to complete outside class. The need to share information requires learners to communicate functionally in a second language (L2), and the real-world connection allows them to acquire task-speci>c language and skills. When they are well planned, communication tasks also provide learners with an opportunity to communicate actively on topics of interest and relevance to them. Two commonly discussed aspects of communication tasks are the distribution of task-essential information and the goal orientation of learners (Long 1989). Regarding information distribution, Long discusses ‘one-way’ tasks in which one learner holds all task-essential information and must communicate it to the other(s), and ‘two-way’ tasks in which task-essential information is distributed between learners, requiring them to share and integrate it (ibid.: 13). Regarding goal orientation, Long discusses ‘open’ tasks in which learners know that there is no ‘correct’ solution to the task, and ‘closed’ tasks in which learners know that there is only one or a small range of solutions (ibid.: 18). Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) combine these conditions to produce a typology of tasks based on the opportunities for interaction that they provide. A second typology of communication tasks is provided by Yule (1997). Yule proposes three task types (descriptive, instructional, and narrative) and argues that the discourse skills necessary for descriptive tasks are entailed in instructional tasks, and that the skills for both are entailed in narrative tasks. Whereas the typology of Pica et al. (1993) helps to understand how learners need to interact on individual tasks, Yule’s
18
ELT Journal Volume 58/1 January 2004 © Oxford University Press
articles
welcome
(1997) typology provides a basis for sequencing tasks developmentally. Although new approaches are emerging (e.g. Robinson 2001a; Skehan 1998), the typologies of Pica et al. 1993 and Yule 1997 provide a basis for organizing L2 instruction, and are relatively representative of current practice. In spite of the opportunities that communication tasks provide, however, many learners only do what is minimally required to complete them. Only the best learners—those who are personally motivated to complete the tasks—invest the e=ort necessary to ensure the quality of their performance. In other words, opportunity and e=ort are interdependent, and both must be taken into account to maximize performance in the classroom, and to avoid classes in which learners are only minimally engaged in tasks, or simply unwilling to complete them at all. The present article addresses this problem with an approach to sequencing tasks that requires learners to draw on their own ideas and experiences. The objective is to generate, as a product of earlier tasks in a given sequence, the content and resource materials on which subsequent tasks operate. The approach consists of ‘reverse-engineering’ common communication tasks.
Reverse-engineering communication tasks
Reverse-engineering is a metaphor borrowed from technology. It refers to a process by which companies keep up with new technology by developing products of their own modeled closely on those of a competitor. They acquire one of the products in question (e.g. software, a walkman) and break it down into its component parts. They then plan procedures for producing each part and assembling a similar product of their own. Communication tasks can also be reverse-engineered to promote learners’ involvement. After a communication task that is suitable to the needs of learners is identi>ed, the process of reverse-engineering the task consists of three basic steps: (1) identifying the component parts of the task, (2) designing and sequencing communication tasks to generate each component, and (3) re>ning these tasks into a instructional unit.
Identifying the task components
The task is >rst broken down into its simplest elements. These are usually of two types: (1) the content on which the task operates, and (2) the format or resource material by which this content is organized. Consider the schedule task in Appendix 1. This task consists of three four-by-four grids, with days of the week along the horizontal axis, and times of the day along the vertical axis. Four events are >lled into di=erent spaces in each, producing a set of divergent schedules which leaves only four common times free. The rubrics then provide each learner with an invitation which is only appropriate for a speci>c time, producing a task with very few ‘correct’ solutions. Thus, the three simplest elements of this task are: (1) the divergent grids (format), (2) the events >lled into the selected slots in them (content), and (3) the invitations (content).
19
Reverse-engineering communication tasks
articles
welcome
Designing communication tasks to generate the task components
In designing and sequencing communication tasks that will require learners to generate each of the task components, it is helpful to consider how they come into being in the real world. If considered in real-world terms, the components of communication tasks can usually be seen as outcomes of prior communication. In so doing, it is important to bear two things in mind: (1) some task components may be dependent on others in term of content, and thus have to be produced in a particular order; (2) some may also represent independent communication, and thus have to be produced in di=erent groups. Consider again the three components of the schedule task. In the real world, these schedules, appointments, and invitations would be the product of a >xed sequence of events: in the >rst the appointments would be determined; in the second they would be organized into a schedule; in the third, an appropriate invitation would be determined based on what had gone before. With this information in hand, a sequence of communication tasks can be designed to produce each component. An example could be: (1) each group member records one message requesting a time to meet (appointments); (2) each group listens to a set of messages and notes appointments (divergent schedules); (3) each group determines an event to which they will invite the others (invitations). Thus, three communication tasks have been designed which result in learners, based on their own ideas and interests, producing the components of the original task as an outcome of their performance.
Planning an instructional unit
The >nal step is organizing a coherent instructional unit in which learners produce the content and resource materials on which the original task operates before they perform it. The primary considerations in doing this should be: (1) the learners and teachers for whom the unit is being designed, and (2) the educational context (e.g. program goals, the learning objective, available resources, and administrative constraints) in which the instruction will take place (see Potential Pitfalls below). Figure 1 provides only one possible example of a reverse-engineered unit which produces the schedule task.
figure 1 A reverse-engineered descriptive task
Task 1: Plan a message inviting someone to do something you like and record it. Choose di=erent time slots from a blank schedule form. Then plan and record messages specifying who you are, what you want to do, and when you want to meet. Outcome: The events for the divergent schedules. Shull appointments into your schedule. Listen and write who you are going to meet, where you are going to meet, and what you are going to do in the appropriate time slot of a new blank schedule form. Outcome: The set of divergent schedules. Task 3: Plan an interesting event to which you would like to invite the class. Outcome: An invitation for each learner. Shund free times, and write in the appointments. Outcome: A learner-generated schedule task (cf. Appendix 1).
20
Craig Lambert
articles
welcome
At the beginning of the lesson, the class is divided into the same number of groups as members in each group (e.g. >ve groups of >ve). In the event that the number of learners in the class does not divide by itself, the number in one or more groups will need to be increased, and each extra learner will have to co-operate with another by sharing one role in the tasks throughout the sequence. After the groups are established, each learner is given a blank schedule form, and the groups complete Task 1 (see Figure 1). The tapes, each consisting of a sequence of messages requesting appointments, are then collected, shull in their schedules, and plan an event (Tasks 2 and 3). Groups are then ‘shund them more rewarding than other tasks. However, the tasks mentioned are all open-ended opinion tasks. How such an idea can be systematically incorporated into a range of task types is not discussed. Proposals have also been made for linking tasks in terms of their outcomes, albeit for very di=erent reasons. Nunan (1989: 118–30), for example, proposes a ‘notion of task continuity, where skills acquired or practised in one step are then utilized and extended in succeeding steps’. This involves ‘developing interlinked sets of activities in which succeeding steps are dependent on those which come before (either in terms of content or skills)’. His rationale is that ‘language is progressively restructured as learners move from global, comprehension-based activities to those involving language production and analysis’. Arnold (1991: 240–1) also advocates linking tasks in terms of their outcomes ‘so that authentic outputs from one task become authentic inputs to another one as a set of tasks becomes a type of project’. In contrast to Nunan, Arnold is concerned with making tasks more authentic by linking them as they would be in the real world. His rationale is that ‘rehearsal in the classroom of tasks to be performed in the target language will improve performance in the real world outside’ (ibid.: 1991: 237). In contrast, there are at least two rationales for reverse-engineering communication tasks. The >rst is to provide learners with a genuine role in the learning process. Although teachers specify the design elements of tasks (e.g. discourse demands and interactive conditions), learners contribute the content and resource materials on which they operate. The success or failure of lessons thus becomes a re?ection of the learners’ own ideas and expertise, rather than being solely the teacher’s 21
Reverse-engineering communication tasks
articles
welcome
responsibility. Learners may thus be more willing to go beyond the requirements of tasks to ensure the quality of their performance. In addition to promoting learners’ involvement in the classroom, however, reverse-engineering tasks may also improve learners’ retention of the language that they use on task. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) argue that learner-imposed needs will induce more involvement in performance than teacher-imposed needs, and that this increase in involvement will improve learners’ retention of the language they process on tasks through elaboration and associations with existing knowledge. Reverseengineering may provide one means of controlling these two levels of need.
Examples of reverseengineered tasks
The schedule task in the previous section is two-way and closed according to Pica et al. (1993), as task-essential information is distributed between learners, and there is only a small range of possible solutions. Furthermore, it is descriptive according to Yule (1997), as it requires learners to describe their schedules in order to >nd free times. Additional examples will show how tasks of a range of interactive (one-way/two-way; open/closed) and discoursal (descriptive, instructional, narrative) demands can be reverse-engineered.
Origami task
The task in Appendix 2 can be classi>ed as Instructional, One-way, and Open. It consists of three sets of instructions, in this case used for making origami. Each learner is given one set of illustrations, and is required to explain them so that the others can make the piece as they listen. In their simplest form, the components of this task are: (1) the three sets of instructions (content), and (2) the visual supports illustrating them (format). In the real world, these components would be the product of two events: in the >rst, the instructions would be determined; in the second, they would be represented in the visual supports. Communication tasks designed to produce each component might then be: (1) groups share ideas about things that they can do or make, and choose the best one; (2) the member whose skill is chosen instructs the others, who listen and make visual supports to represent each step. A possible unit for producing this instructional task is summarized in Figure 2.
figure 2 A reverse-engineered instruction task
Task 1: Discuss unique things that you can each do or make and choose one. Outcome: The sets of instructions. Task 2: One member teaches the others, who draw illustrations of each step. Outcome: The picture strips illustrating each set of instructions. Shurst two tasks are then completed, based on learners’ own ideas and talents (see Figure 2). However, in order to make the task similar in di;culty to the origami task, the instructor might require that the chosen instructions require 6–9 steps. 22
Craig Lambert
articles
welcome
It may also be bene>cial to require the content to be both new and interesting to the class. Groups are shurst, the story would be determined; in the second, it would be represented in pictures; in the third, the pictures would be scrambled to make the incorrectly ordered version. By creatively rearranging the order of these tasks, a possible unit for producing the story task is summarized in Figure 3. Task 1: Work cooperatively to make one scene of a story. Outcome: The individual pictures. Shudence and ?uency building); (4) reverse-engineered tasks require more time for learners to >gure out what to do than syllabuses with more transparent, repetitive pedagogies. This will be particularly problematic in programs with limited time for reaching oral skills objectives. For all of these reasons, it is essential that teachers and materials designers do not reverse-engineer communication tasks uncritically, but continually monitor how their materials are functioning with respect to their learners, teachers, and the goals and objectives of the program as a whole. Ongoing experimentation is often the key to >nding a contextually appropriate balance between di=erent approaches to materials planning, and to avoiding pitfalls such as those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is hoped that this article will provide the impetus for such experimentation. Received October 2002
References Arnold, E. 1991. ‘Authenticity revisited: how real is real?’ English for Specific Purposes 10: 237–44. Davies, N. 1982. ‘Training ?uency: an essential factor in language acquisition and use’. RELC Journal 13/1: 1–13. Laufer, B. and J. Hulstijn. 2001. ‘Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-induced involvement’. Applied Linguistics 22/1: 1–26. Long, M. 1989. ‘Task, group, and task-group interactions’. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 8/2: 1–26. Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pica, T., R. Kanagy, and J. Falodun. 1993. ‘Choosing and using communication tasks for language instruction’ in G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.) 1993.
24
Tasks and Language Learning. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Robinson, P. 2001a. ‘Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: a triadic framework for examining task in?uences on SLA ’ in P. Robinson (ed.). Robinson, P. 2001b. (ed.). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yule, G. 1997. Referential Communication Tasks. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. The author Craig P. Lambert is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Foreign Studies at The University of Kitakyushu in Japan. Email:
[email protected]
Craig Lambert
articles
welcome
Appendix 1 Schedule task (descriptive, two-
Student A: Invite the other members of your group to go shopping. >nd a time when you are all free to accept the invitation, and write the new appointment in your schedule. Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Morning
Amusement park with Eriko
Midday
Afternoon
Sunday
Video games at Fumi’s house Shopping with Keiko
Movie with Hiromi
Evening
Student B: Invite the other members of your group to go to dinner. Find a time when you are all free to accept the invitation, and write the new appointment in your schedule. Thursday Morning
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Badminton with Hirom
Midday
Shopping with Emi
Movie with Hiroko
Afternoon Evening
Concert with Ken and Akiko
Student C: Invite the other members of your group to go on a picnic. Find a time when everyone is free to accept the invitation, and write the new appointment in your schedule. Thursday
Friday
Morning
Saturday
Sunday
Aquarium with Aiko
Midday Afternoon Evening
Dinner with Jun
Movie with Mariko
Concert with Mayumi
25
Reverse-engineering communication tasks
articles
welcome
Appendix 2 Origami task (instructional, one-way, open)
Student A: Explain to your group how to make the origami piano below.
Student B: Explain to your group how to make the origami bird below.
Student C: Explain how to make the origami rabbit below to your group.
Graphics by Mariko Kiyoshima
26
Craig Lambert
articles
welcome
Appendix 3 Story task (narrative, one-way, closed)
Student A: Tell the following story so that your group members can order the pictures.
Students B and C: Listen to the story and order the pictures correctly.
Pictures by Yasuyo Hailes
27
Reverse-engineering communication tasks
articles
welcome
