T e c h n i c a l Re p o r t s

The Ce n t e r f o r Second Language Cl a s s r o o m Re s e a r c h

S o c i a l S c i e n c e Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , Un i v e r s i t y o f Ha wa i i a t Manoa
The o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d i n Te c h n i c a l Re p o r t s o f t h e Ce n t e r
f o r Second Language Cl a s s r o o m Re s e a r c h a r e t h o s e o f t h e a u t h o r s ,
a n d do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t t h e v i e ws o f t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e
Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , o f t h e Un i v e r s i t y o f Ha wa i i , o r of t h e
f u n d i n g a g e n c y . T h i s r e p o r t was p u b l i s h e d by t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e
Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , Un i v e r s i t y o f Ha wa i i a t Manoa. A l l r i g h t s
r e s e r v e d . No p a r t s o f t h i s Re p o r t may be r e p r o d u c e d i n any f or m
o r by a n y means wi t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r mi s s i o n of t h e
Di r e c t o r , S o c i a l S c i e n c e Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e . Un i v e r s i t y o f Ha wa i i
a t Manoa.
Ad d i t i o n a l c o p i e s o f t h i s a nd o t h e r T e c h n i c a l Re p o r t s may be
o b t a i n e d f o r $2. 00 e a c h , whi c h i n c l u d e s p r i n t i n g and p o s t a g e , by
w r i t i n g t o t h e Di r e c t o r . Ce n t e r f o r Se c ond Language Cl a s s r oom
Re s e a r c h . S o c i a l S c i e n c e Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , c / o Moore Ha l l 570,
1890 Eas t - Wes t Road, Un i v e r s i t y o f Ha wa i i a t Manoa, Ho n o l u l u ,
Ha wa i i 96822. U . S. A. Che c ks s h o u l d be made o u t t o t h e
' Re s e a r c h Co r p o r a t i o n o f t h e Un i v e r s i t y o f Ha wa i i ' .
Mi c h a e l H. Long, Ci ndy Br oc k, Graham Cr o o k e s , Ca r l a De i c k e ,
Lynn P o t t e r a nd Sh u q i a n g Zhang. 1984. TJLS aiS& aS.
f&asJLew Q ~ U L?&hxns u - . u n s QR B&&L
mrLi daaU in UD h U h sciuml GLZLSSSS in EiwaLL J3.z
m n I . 2 QX U L e d UuUs h ~~.
Mi c h a e l H. Long. 1985. B i b l i ~ m Re s e a r c h ~n S&WIJ<
m u G L a s u m hxz au! ~ s s r ~ SessLL L W 3 . & S
W i L i Q n .
Graham Cr o o k e s . 1986. U C ~ ~ S S J J ~ ML ~ QDL - A cXQ3.S--
W~1J J 3s r s Rsviss .
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Summer 1986
The Center for Second Language Classroom Research (CSLCR)
was established at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in the fall
of 1983. Administratively part of the University's Social Science
Research Institute (SSRI), it is a joint venture of SSRI and the
Department of English as a Second Language (ESL).
SSRI provides a 50% time position for the Center's Director,
(currently Dr. Craig Chaudron). who is a faculty member in the
Department of ESL, plus administrative and technical support.
Funded by outside grants and contracts, additional CSLCR staff
are drawn from the faculty and students of the Departments of
ESL, Linguistics, and Educational Psychology.
The work of the CSLCR includes research. curriculum
development and training projects in the general area of second
language (SL) education. This includes basic and applied research
on SL teaching and learning, on education through the medium of a
second language, and on classrooms where second dialects are
present (e.g. Hawaiian Creole English). English and other second
languages are included in this work. The Director of the Center
coordinates all research projects and actively pursues new
projects and collaborations with other agencies.
For their help in the preparation of this Report, the author
gratefully acknowledges (in alphabetical order) Craig Chaudron,
Dennis Day. Michael Harrington, Mike Long, Jack Richards, Ted
Rodgers and Charlie Sato.
CONTENTS
Introduction
'Task' as a unit of analysis
ESL uses of task
Content area use of task
Equivalence of content and SL uses of 'task'
Effects of task characteristics on language
use and language learning
Information transfer: one-way and two-way tasks
Background
Shared assumptions
Discourse topic
Convergence
Descriptive terms for tasks
Aspects of task complexity
Small group work on task complexity
Non-language work on task conplexity
Effect on sentence-level phenomena
L2 studies
Moderator variables
Group composition
Group size
Output mode
Sex of interlocutor
Personality/individual ability
Current language syllabus types and the
task-based syllabus
Background
Criticisms of structural syllabi
Alternatives to structural syllabi
Non-SL research concerning task organization
Human performance research
Task classification procedures in
human performance research
Human performance research concerning
communicative tasks
Job-related task classification
Small group research
Summary
Notes
References
iii
--. -
Since the middle 1970s (at least), the general ESL
pedagogical repertoire has contained a number of tasks which
focus on dyadic and small group communication (e.g. Allwright
1976, Geddes & tIcAlpine 1978, Byrne 1979). They mimic to some
extent the natural interaction between native speaker and non-
native speaker -- a major area of investigation in the developing
SLA field of the 1970s. These tasks are often referred to as
'information-gap activities' or 'communication tasks' (usually
without any attempt to define the terms). They play a major role
in courses constructed according to the tenets of the
"communicative movement" (Littlewood 1981: viii). or
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In addition, as a result
of their relevance to the forms of naturalistic second language
acquisition (SLA), some of these tasks have been found to be
useful for experimental research into SLA (e.g. Long 1980, Pica &
Doughty 1985, Long & Porter 19851, and studies of this sort are
increasing in number.
For example, a typical task of this sort was used by
Buckley, Samuda and Bruton (1978: 134) in a study of group work
(and subsequently in a study of error correction, Bruton & Samuda
1980), "Spot the Differencen:
[flop this task, each person is given a picture, depicting
the same scene, but each one differs from the others in two
small details...To solve the problem . . . the group has to
identify these differences without looking at any other
picture, apart from the one distributed to each individual
at the beginning.(134)
CLT has made extensive use of tasks. Unfortunately, the
design of tasks, like other aspects of materials design, has not
usually been regarded as an activity which could be informed by
reference to empirical research into the processes of SL
learning. Littlewood (1981) organizes a survey of what he terms
"communicative activitiesn purely according to surface
characteristics such as their social or functional aspects.
rather than their psycholinguistic characteristics or utility for
SL learning. Little reference is made to work which would justify
on empirical grounds the intuitively appealing use of these tasks
to facilitate second language learning.
Littlewood separates the activites into "functional
communicative activitiesn (FCAs) and "social interaction
activitiesn (SIAs). In FCAs, "the teacher structures the
situation so that learners have to overcome an information gap or
solve a problemn, and "the only aim is to exchange meanings
successfully in order to complete a task or solve a problemn
(21). In SIAs, there is a constraint that language chosen be
socially appropriate, unlike in FCAs.
Littlewood suggests (without evidence) that because of the
nature of the FCAs,
there is a wide range of communicative functions that
are unlikely to occur (e.g. greeting, inviting) ... the
situations ... bear little outward resemblance to those
[the learners] will encounter outside the classroom . . .
the learners1 social role is unclear and generally
irrelevant.(39)
FCAs may (it is said) be turned into SIAs through being made more
realistic -- requiring learners to "simulate the social roles
involved in the interaction" (43). Other SIAs are
1 ) classroom management activities in the L2;
2) content teaching in the L2;
3) the "conversation session", (for which the instructor
must be co-communicator, and must "provide materials which
are capable of sustaining interaction without the teacher's
presence"), and
4 ) role-playing and simulation.
It should be obvious that the SIAs are in fact the bulk of
language learning activity in a second language. As Littlewood
indicates, they are not distinct from "FCAsn: a student's
proficiency will determine whether or not the social appropriacy
of language is being coped with. little wood*^ survey may, then,
be taken as preliminary evidence that a large part of language
behavior in the SL classroom can be considered as a series of
tasks, or "communicative activitiesn.
The preceding section refers to tasks as most commonly
thought of in current SL education. This is a rather narrow view,
however, as many non-SL educators and researchers have also made
use of the term. The task as a unit of analysis is, of course.
one which is not only applicable to language classroom
activities, but also to the content classroom end the 'real world'.
Doyle (1983) provides an analysis of schoolwork in terms of
tasks, (which have less in the way of communication or
cooperation than those described in the preceding section). He
also provides a psychologically principled system for grouping
(academic) tasks.
Doyle (1983: 160) states
the concept of *work1 provides a useful metaphor for
approaching the study of what students do in school.
Consequently he views the curriculum as "a collection of academic
tasks" (a. Doyle 1979, 19801, and indicates that
[tlhe term "task" focuses attention on three aspects
of students' work: (a) the products students are to
formulate ... ; (b) the operations that are to be
used to generate the product...; and (c) the
"givensn or resources available to students while
they are generating a product.(1983: 161)
Tasks influence learners by directing attention to particular
aspects of content and specifying ways of processing information
to the extent that
the nature of exploratory behavior with respect to any
stimulus configuration is modulated by the tasks
in which the subject is involved at the time of
encounter.(Nunnally & Lemond 1973: 79)
Students learn
what a task leads them to do ... acquire information (facts,
concepts, principles and solutions)...[andl practice
operations (memorizing, classifying. inferring, analyzing)
used to obtain or produce the information demanded by the
task.(Doyle 1983: 162)
Doyle goes on (162-3) to draw on a body of work in
psychology concerned with the analysis of cognitive processes
underlying human aptitude and performance (Curtis & Glaser 1981,
Greeno 1976, Resnick 1976). This work relates to the cognitive
components of academic tasks (Anderson, Spiro & Montague 1977,
Calfee 1981). Within this domain, he cites in particular the work
of Greeno (1976) and Merrill & Boutwell (1973) as the basis for
his specification of "general categories of cognitive operations
that are involved in task accomplishment", e.g.
1 memory tasks in which students are expected to
recognize or reproduce information previously encountered...
2 procedural or routine tasks in which students are expected
to apply a standardized and predictable formula or
algorithm...
3 comprehension or understanding tasks in which students...are
expected to (a) recognize transformed ... versions of
information previously encountered, (b) apply procedures to
new problems... or (c) draw inferences from previously
encountered information or procedures...
4 opinion tasks in which students are expected to state
preference for something ... (162-3)
He notes that memory, procedural and comprehension process!
interfere with each other in accomplishing a given task.
Dovle's discussion of the characteristics of tasks in
context (i.e. the classroom) acknowledges that an additional
important part of the student's lwork* are those activities which
ape necessary for students to participate with others and to
decode teacher expectations and instructions.
It is of interest that a recent substantial work on the
nature of classroom content learning, produced independently of
Doyle, uses almost the same basic unit of analysis. Mohan ( 1 9 8 6 )
is an exploration of how the learning of a second language can be
coordinated with the learning of content (a topic of particular
concern to Canadian educational researchers, to content teachers
with students of limited English proficiency (LEP), as well as to
SL teachers generally). While observing that "current views of
language teaching can broadly be termed 'communicative'". Mohan
(1986: v) points out that language teaching lacks a satisfactory
understanding of the context for communicative discourse. He
recognizes that attention has been directed to such contexts in
their broadest sense as nculturally recognized social activities
in which language plays a rolew (ma). (He equates the latter
with speech events.) However, he suggests that there is not yet
an adequate general model of the relationship of activities to
discourse.[ll Mohan c.rgues that the structure of class roo^
instruction which is most helpful to the non-native speaker is
one which reflects the structure of human activities. Following
Dearden (1968). Mohan states that any human activity has two
aspects -- action and theoretical understanding:
[tlhe specific, practical side we term an action situation,
and the general, theoretical side we term background
knowledge.(1986:42)
Thus. to take a classroom example, solving an algebraic equation
is an action situation which requires (or leads to the learning
of) background knowledge, u. "rules for symbol manipulation and
proof procedures" (44). the two parts together constituting, for
Mohan, an 'activity': "a broad integrating idea relevant to all
teaching and learning" (45).
It should be clear from this description that if MohanVs
activity is placed alongside Doyle's version of 'task', the two
are identical except that Mohan has explicitly separated out the
role of background knowledge. Both researchers argue for the
extensive relevance and usefulness of their concepts, and for
many purposes, the terms 'task' and 'activity' as used by these
researchers could be used interchangeably (and Mohan indeed cites
other writers who use the term 'taskt, without apparently feeling
the need to make an explanatory comment.)
A further source of evidence for the utility of 'task1 (as a
conceptual unit) comes from a major review of research into
teacher planning and decision-making (Shavelson & Stern 1981).
Shavelson & Stern observe that while most teachers are trained to
plan instruction in the orthodox manner by specifying objectives,
determining students' entry behavior, choosing and sequencing
activities to result in attainment of objectives, and evaluating
outcomes, this is not in fact what teachers do in practice.
Research on teacher planning has found that the instructional
activity is the basic unit of planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979;
Peterson d.., 1978; Smith and Sendlebach, 1979; Yinger,
1977; Zahorik, 1975).(477)
What is the reason for the "mismatchw between the prescribed
model and what teachers actually do? Shavelson & Stern suggest
that the demands that classroom instruction place on the teacher
have the result that decisions about activities become of primary
importance, to the possible exclusion of other considerations.
(To prevent terminological confusion, Shavelson & Stern advise
following Doyle's 1980 usage, which they equate with 'activity'
as used by the researchers quoted immediately above.)
The findings cited by Shavelson & Stern are independently
supported by a study of Swaffar. Arena 4 Morgan ( 1 9 8 2 ) in SL
classrooms. In attempting to account for the failure of
comparative methods studies to show "clear, lasting superiority..
in terms of student performancen, Swaffar el. a]. investigated the
assumption that clasroom practices actually conform to given
teaching methods, philosophies or approaches. Structured
interviews of teachers conducting classes which utilized two
supposedly different methods showed that there was no clear
distinction between the classroom practices used across groups.
The authors observed that
[mlethodological labels assigned to teaching activities are.
in themselves, not informative, because they refer to a pool
of classroom practices which are universally used.(31)
What differences there are merely refer to the priorities
assigned to tasks:
defining methodologies in terms of characteristic activities
has led to distinctions which are ... not real ... not
confirmable in classroom practice.(32)
In conclusion they state:
any analysis of methodologies needs to commence in terms of
tasks1 -. This is the
way we, as foreign language teachers, interpret the
pragmatics of the classroom.(32)
The convergence of independent research which has thus been
found is good evidence of the potential strength and utility of
t a s k 1 as a major unit of analysis throughout all educational
research and design.
The area of research which is often referred to now as
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) grew out of work done in the
1970s concerned with naturalistic SL learning. Since it was often
assumed that all that was necessary for SL learning was
comprehensible verbal interaction between native speaker (NS) and
non-native speaker (NNS), the object of interest was the dyadic,
informal NS-NNS Tree' conversation. Many early SLA studies
merely placed NSs with NNSs and recorded the discourse which
followed, which was usually not oriented to a specific objective.
(For review see Long 1981.) However, obviously not all 'natural'
language acquisition situations are undirected -- indeed, many of
the beginner's encounters with the target language (TL) in ~ i U d
are specifically directed towards achieving particular goals:
making a purchase, obtaining directions, etc. At least part of
the intent of later SLA investigations has been to identify the
most productive aspects of dyadic interaction in the TL. These
investigations have therefore involved experimental conditions of
not only informal 'free' conversation, but also discourse engaged
in with a particular end in mind. Investigators have tended to
see the linguistic environment as a resource which, if
comprehensible, can in some way be learned from. Additionally,
however, it has been tentatively suggested that learners' SL
development is partly affected by their opportunities to
participate in L2 discourse (the "ouput hypothesis". Swain 1985).
If this is so, the structure and demands of the task with regard
to learners' production will also be relevant.
The following section reviews studies grouped as they relate
to particular task characteristics, and subsidiary factors.
Obviously, there are a great many criteria which could be used to
organize the complex domain of tasks. In the present case. given
that the utility of tasks for promoting second language learning
is a major concern, the principal criterion for task
classification must be psycholinguistic. with other
psychologically relevant factors coicing close behind. A
psycholinguistically motivated task characteristic would be one
which can be shown to affect the nature of language produced in
performing a task in ways which are relevant to SL processing and
SL learning. (As relatively little work has been done compared to
the complexity of the domain, first language communication
research and language production studies are also included where
results have general implications for future SL studies.)
Back~round The psycholinguistically-motivated task
characteristic to which most work has so far been devoted
concerns information transfer. In some tasks involving two or
more participants, it is necessary for di fferent Information held
by each participant to be shared verbally, in order for the task
t o be s u c c e s s f u l l y c o mp l e t e d . Suc h "two-way t a s k s " a r e c o n t r a s t e d
w i t h o t h e r s i n whi ch v e r b a l i n f o r ma t i o n t r a n s f e r i s a l s o
n e c e s s a r y f o r t a s k c o mp l e t i o n , b u t wher e t h e i n f o r ma t i o n i s
a l l o c a t e d s o l e l y t o one p a r t y , who i s r e q u i r e d t o c onve y i t t o
t h e o t h e r p a r t y , t h e r o l e of t h e l a t t e r b e i n g ma i n l y p a s s i v e . The
work o f Long ( 1 9 8 0 ) h a s d e mo n s t r a t e d t h e c o mp a r a t i v e a d v a n t a g e
t h a t two-way t a s k s h a v e o v e r one-way t a s k s i n terms o f t h e amount
of i n t e r a c t i o n a l mo d i f i c a t i o n t h e y n e c e s s i t a t e f o r s u c c e s s f u l
t a s k c o mp l e t i o n ( f o r NS-NNS d y a d s ) . Long compar ed t h e d i s c o u r s e
o f 16 NS-NNS d y a d s on a v a r i e t y of t a s k s wi t h t h a t o f NS-NS
d y a d s . S i g n i f i c a n t mo d i f i c a t i o n s were made i n t h e d i s c o u r s e
s t r u c t u r e o f NS s p e e c h , n o t a b l y i n i n t e r a c t i o n a l f e a t u r e s
( r e p e t i t i o n s , e x p a n s i o n s , c o n f i r ma t i o n c h e c k s , e t c . ) s o t h a t NS
u t t e r a n c e s we r e made mor e c o mp r e h e n s i b l e t h a n woul d o t h e r wi s e
h a v e be e n t h e c a s e . When two-way t a s k s were compar ed wi t h one-way
t a s k s , d i f f e r e n c e s be t we e n NS-NS and NS-NNS c o n v e r s a t i o n we r e
g r e a t e r on s e v e n o u t o f n i n e me a s u r e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n . I n two-way
t a s k s , i t may be a r g u e d t h a t NSs a r e o b l i g e d t o make g r e a t e r
e f f o r t s t o e n s u r e a s much a s p o s s i b l e of t h e i r d i s c o u r s e was
c o mp r e h e n s i b l e t o t h e i r NNS p a i r s , s o a s t o p e r mi t t h e d y a d s t o
c o mp l e t e t h e t a s k s . I n t h a t s u c h mo d i f i c a t i o n s i n c r e a s e
c o mp r e h e n s i b i l i t y . t h e y a l s o i n c r e a s e t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e
v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n c a n b e l e a r n e d f r om ( p r o v i d i n g t a s k d i f f i c u l t y
i s c o n t r o l l e d f o r , o r a n i n d e p e n d e n t me a s u r e o f s u c c e s s i s
p r o v i d e d ; see P i c a . Dought y & Young 1 9 8 6 ) .
T h i s l i n e o f r e s e a r c h was s u b s e q u e n t l y e x t e n d e d t o NNS-NNS
i n t e r a c t i o n . Va r o n i s & Ga s s ( 1 9 8 5 ) d e mo n s t r a t e d t h a t mor e
n e g o t i a t i o n o f me a ni ng t a k e s p l a c e i n i n f o r ma l NNS-NNS d i s c o u r s e
t h a n i n s i m i l a r NS-NNS d i s c o u r s e . S t u d i e s by Dought y & P i c a
( 1 9 8 4 , P i c a & Dought y 1 9 8 5 ) c o n s t i t u t e s u p p o r t f o r Lo n g ' s
f i n d i n g s f o r one-way v e r s u s t wo-ways t a s k s wi t h r e s p e c t t o NNS-
NNS d y a d s . I n P i c a & Dought y ( 1 9 8 5 ) t h e d i s c o u r s e of t e a c h e r -
f r o n t e d d i s c u s s i o n s was compar ed wi t h t h a t of s ma l l g r o u p ( n = 4 )
d i s c u s s i o n s , u s i n g
t wo t y p i c a l ESL c ommuni c a t i on a c t i v i t i e s f o c u s i n g on
d e c i s i o n - ma k i n g and v a l u e s c l a r i f i o a t i o n . ( 1 1 6 )
The t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d g r o u p i n g s were g i v e n
b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a on f i v e f a mi l i e s l i v i n g i n t h e t we n t y -
f i r s t c e n t u r y and t h e n [ we r e ] a s k e d t o s e l e c t t h e f a mi l y mo s t
e l i g i b l e t o a d o p t a c h i l d . ( P i c a & Dought y, i n p r e s s : 3 )
The s ma l l g r o u p s "had t o r e a c h a c o n s e n s u s a s t o wh i c h o n e of s i x
p o t e n t i a l r e c i p i e n t s woul d b e n e f i t mos t from a h e a r t t r a n s p l a n t " .
However , s i n c e i n e a c h c o n d i t i o n t h e r e l e v a n t i n f o r ma t i o n was
e q u a l l y s h a r e d , c o mp l e t i o n o f t h e t a s k d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h a t e v e r y
member p a r t i c i p a t e e q u a l l y . n o r t h a t u t t e r a n c e s be ma x i ma l l y
c o mp r e h e n s i b l e t o a l l member s. P i c a & Dought y r e p o r t t h a t
u t t e r a n c e s whi c h c o n t a i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n a l a d j u s t me n t s c o n s t i t u t e d
o n l y 65 of t h e t o t a l , i n t h e s ma l l g r o u p c o n d i t i o n .
A subsequent study (Pica & Doughty, in press) repeated the
design given above, this time with two-way tasks. Participants
were each provided with information concerning a small number of
flowers in a plot. Each participant received information
concerning different flowers, and had to exchange information
with others so as to arrive at a specification of the complete
plan of the flower-bed. Under these conditions, interactionally-
adjusted utterances accounted for 24% of the total in the small
group condition. (Other aspects of these experiments concerning
group membership and size are discussed below.)
L 2 Shared m t i o n a Gass & Varonis (1985) investigated a
"subset" (158) of Long's interactional modifications in one- and
two-way tasks. Their one-way task required one member of each
pair to describe a picture to the other member, without letting
it be seen, in suck a way that the picture could be drawn by the
member not describing. The two-way task was a "jigsaw" listening
task, in which participants listened separately to tapes of an
interview between a detective and two of four characters
suspected of a robbery, then came together to pool their
information to determine which suspect was the actual robber. In
the discourse produced, Gass & Varonis examined
nonunderstanding routines ... definetdl as those exchanges
in which there is some overt indication that understanding
between participants has not been complete.(1985: 151)
They refer to such exchanges as examples of "unaccepted input".
and found no difference in the number of indicators of unaccepted
input between one- and two-way tasks. They argue that the one-
way/two-way cut is not the only factor of importance, and that
the amount of shared information background is a factor too.
Since there is more shared background in the two-way task. they
state, it provides less chance of partial or complete
communication breakdowns: "the greater the shared set of
assumptions, the less need for negotiationn.[21
Varonis & Gasst result is consistent with that of Gaies
(1982). This study was a partial replication of Long (19811, with
one difference being that Gaies' NS-NNS pairs were acquainted
with one another, whereas Long's subjects had not been. Long had
found a significant difference in the degree of topic maintenance
(ratio of topic-continuing moves to topic-nominating moves) in
conversation, comparing NS-NNS dyads with NS-NS dyads. Gaies did
not find such a difference. He suggested that as a result of
participants' familiarity with each other, they brought greater
"shared knowledgew to the conversational interaction.
Consequently, there was less likelihood of complete communication
breakdowns, and resultant 'dropping' of topics.
-3 Dissgyrss & Q & C Crookes and Rulon (1985). using part of the
data base analysed in Long (1980). compared the discourse of NS-
NNS dyads engaged in free conversation with that which
accompanied the performance of two other two-way tasks, and
looked at changes in interlanguages (ILs) in the immediately
following discourse. The latter two tasks were of the type
loosely called 'problem-solving* (see below for a caveat
concerning the use of this term). In one, partners had to agree
on which of four items was the 'Odd Man Out' and in the other. on
the differences between two similar pictures ('Spot the
Difference'). A major concern of the study was the extent to
which NSs provided "feedback" to NNSs -- that is, were there
occasions when. following a non-target-like usage in the KNS's
IL, the NS partner provided a target language-like equivalent?
(Such occasions might be considered specially salient cases of
comprehensible input.) It was found that provision of such
feedback occurred significantly more often in the discourse
accompanying the problem-solving tasks than in free
conversations. However, in only one of these two tasks (the Odd
Man Out task) could more change in the ILs be observed than in
the free conversation condition. Thus while both provided a more
favorable environment for language learning than did free
conversation, it seemed possible that the nature of one of them,
and perhaps of the structure of the discourse it produced, was
more desirable than the other.
In addition, it had been hypothesized that differences
between conversation on the problem-solving tasks and free
conversation were also due to the extent that discourse topics
were continued rather than dropped. It seemed likely that if the
same linguistic material were used repeatedly in the course of a
conversation because the task entailed the recycling of discourse
topics, such a conversation would be potentially more useful to
the NNS than one in which many items occured once only. However.
of the two fproblem-solving' tasks, the one which had long
stretches of discourse on the same topic (Spot the Difference)
was the one which had less measurable effect on IL. A closer
examination of the linguistic content of sections of discourse
showed that the same linguistic material could appear in
different topic segments, and contrariwise, material in a single
topic segment could, in some circumstances, be quite varied and
non-repetitive. So selecting tasks according to whether they were
likely to generate long stretches of discourse on the same topic
would not appear to be a desirable procedure.[31
It is suggestive that of the two problem-solving tasks, the
one which was less productive of immediately observable IL
development (i.e. destabilization) was that in which the task
provided visual support to both members of the dyad. Even though
the pictures used were not identical, they were versions of the
same picture differing only in certain limited features. It could
be argued that the situation is analogous to the Gass 4 Varonis
study cited above, with regard to "shared assumptionsn.
That visual support can affect discourse is demonstrated by
Nurss & Hough (1985). who investigated young (L1) children's
production of oral narrative on different tasks.141 The initial
task was simply to tell an original story, without visual
stimulus. Subsequent tasks required children to tell a story
after reviewing a wordless picture story book; to respond orally
to a single picture with implied action by telling its story; to
dictate a story which applied to a single picture with implied
action; and to follow and give directions to make a product.
Significant differences favoring the no-picture situation were found:
in summary. ..telling an original story elicited a greater
quantity of language and somewhat more mature language
structures than the other tasks, although each task yielded
slightly different structures.(283)
L 4 S~~ysrrcence Another task-characteristic derives from the
work of Duff (1986). Duff examined the discourse produced by NNS
dyads doing 'problem-solving* and 'discussion' tasks (her terns).
On the basis of the type of interaction produced and the "focus
of one dyad member relative to another" (148) she argues for
regarding this sort of discourse as either 'convergent' or
'divergent1. For Duff " a problem-solving task" is one in which
"the shared goal of learners is to reach a mutually acceptable
solutionn (150). It is thus an example of a "convergent task
typew. Duff states that tasks such as 'discussion' nay be set up
so that pairs take (or are given) different positions on an issue
and are asked to defend them and attack that of their partner.
Such a task involves "opposite or independent goals for each
membern, and thus falls into Duff's "divergent task typen
category (150).
Duff indicates that in both cases, success requires speakers
to "acknowledge and incorporate the other's outputw (151). and
found that convergent tasks (such as problem-solving) will
produce more negotiation than divergent ones, because
both parties ... have vested interest or responsibility
in the ultimate decision or solution that is reached.(151)
Specifically, her results show that convergent activities lead to
frequent exchange of turns and nore communication units, whereas
divergent activities lead to longer turns of greater syntactic
complexity. (The latter type of activity may be desirable if
attention is being directed to 'output'.) Summarizing. Duff
states that
the extended discourse (long turns) in [discussion1
reduces opportunities for negotiation of input . . .
coupled with the greater syntactic complexity of
[discussionl, this reduces ... the amount of
comprehensible input available.(170)
By comparison, convergent activities (as manifested by problem-
solving activities in this experiment) produce more questions and
shorter turns. and thus, it may be assumed, more comprehensible
input is available in the discourse which accompanies their
performance.
Although Duff's work suggests the possibility of a
connection between task characteristics and overall syntactic
complexity of (oral) discourse generated, attempts to predict
sentence-level units of discourse from task-type may be
unsuccessful, as an exploratory study (Butler-Wall 1983) suggests.
In this instance, NS dyads performed a range of tasks, grouped by
the experimenter into five categories, for which psycholinguistic
motivation was not explicitly provided. The categories were:
narrative (e.g. 'tell a fairy tale'; descriptive (e.g. 'describe
your family memberst); expository (e.g. 'give directions to your
home'); speculative (e.g. discuss the future of the world in ten
years); and cooperative (e.g. 'play Odd Man Out'). The resulting
discourse was analysed in terms of a range of syntactic
structures: right and left dislocation, topicalization, clefting
and pseudoclefting, adverb preposing. extraposition, deletion
under identity, complex nounphrase shift, passive, and 'there'
insertion. Passive and 'there* insertion were found to appear in
many of the tasks at above a criterion level of 5% of T-units.
However, clear connections between task and frequency of use of a
particular structure did not appear.
Q e s c r i u L&g&s The terms 'problem-solvings and
discussion' are already in use to refer to tasks, though whether
the tasks these labels have been applied to are really different,
in terms of the language they produce or their potential for
facilitating L2 learning has yet to be established. Furthermore.
exactly what is meant by these terms may differ from one user to
another. An early L1 study is suggestive in this respect. Morris
(1966) found that group tasks could be differentiated in terms of
their effects on two types of group behavior: "production-
relatedn and "process-relatedn. "The type of task ... significantly
affected the distribution of almost 60% of the group activity"
(551), with a task which might superficially be characterized as
Discussion (anything of the form 'reach a consensus on the issue
of . . . I ) generating a high amount of 'process' activity, and a
Production task ('write a story about-' being low on this dimension.
Problem-Solving (e.g. 'develop a plan to . . . I ) tasks were found
to generate approximately equal amounts of each type of behavior.
(But note the way Morris uses the term 'problem-solving'.) Morris
refers to a "two-dimensional behavioral spacen, one dimension of
which reflects group behavior oriented towards the production of
the task product ("structuring an answer, producing specific
solutions"), the other dimension representing the processes (such
as "clarifying" and "explaining") involved in doing the task. All
three of his tasks can be located at different positions within
the behavioral space. This approach provides a way of
demonstrating empirically the differences between tasks, or of
validating a task category system, (depending on the nature of the
behavioral dimensions selected). Unfortunately, small group work
is "noteworthy for its diversity of task settings ... that have
only infrequently been replicated" (Mabry 1985:80).
The widely-used information-processing model of human
cognition incorporates the conception of limited processing
capacity. The atteutional demands of a task with multiple
components, or its overall complexity, can produce cognitive
strain, with detrimental effects on performance (overall, or in
one area). Attempts to address this aspect of task have until
very recently been mainly in L1 studies, and in areas not
specifically related to language. Relevant L2 studies have
focused on language production and elicitation, rather than
communication.
2.2.1 &mJ.J ~I!L?MP -1 xm task ix?mU&& Segal (1982: 334). in
(L1) work on small group behavior, provides some useful comments
on "task complexity". She notes
Ltlhe operational definition of task complexity has varied
with studies and has not been standardized. Two dimensions
of the variable are (1) the number of goals, and (2) the
number of paths to these goals (Fiedler, 1967; Shaw, 1976)
... A third dimension contributing to the complexity of the
task is the amount of specific, unequivocal infomation given
the decision maker (Driver and Streufert. 1969). These
dimensions are differentiated from those of difficulty
(Shaw, 1976) and uncertainty (Perrow. 1967; Thompson, 1967).
dimensions that appear to be a function of a specific unit's
resources rather than inherent in the task environment.
Segal reports that task complexity affects the sequence and
extent of recycling of topical units in discussions. Task
complexity, in terms of number of goals and the number of paths
to them, may therefore be a relevant factor in task design and
selection.
- 2 N Q . @ ~ & an $a& -1 Indicators of task
complexity which come from non-group research do not appear to go
against those mentioned above. For example, in Hogarth's (1975)
examination of decision-making tasks, complexity depends on the
number of attributes per alternative and the number of common
characteristics of the alternatives being considered (though it
is not clear which of these factors is more important, or whether
a multiplicative relation between them may exist: Onken, Hastie &
Revelle 1985: 15). With regard to cognitive strain, increases in
task complexity beyond processing capacity will result in not
only more errors, but a deliberation.
Other indications of task complexity
domain of 'task analysis':
may be derived from the
the study of performance on complex
encountered in school, to reveal the
involved.(Resnick & Ford 1978: 378)
tasks, such as those
psychological processes
An understanding of the relative complexity of tasks is, however,
not a principal aim of these investigations, so much as the
extraction from a complex task of elements or subprocesses which
can themselves be individually taught. Resnick & Ford distinguish
between rational and empirical analyses of tasks, and point out
that the sub-procedures used by those who perform a task are
often not those suggested by a purely logical or rational
analysis of the task -- a point to be borne in mind by SL
investigators of this area.
LLL! E m M 3- d - Ability to produce
discourse (and the quality of that produced) depends partially on
the demands of the subject matter -- its complexity and
familiarity. Obviously there is a trade-off: a topic of (in some
sense) 'high' complexity may nevertheless be handled fluently if
it is one the speaker often handles, and one of low complexity
may not be handled well If it is one the speaker rarely deals
with. Holmes (1984: 117) notes that in earlier studies of
language production (Ford 1982, Ford & Holmes 1978) subjects had
been required to talk on a topic of personal interest. As a
result, the counter-intuitive conclusion had been arrived at that
sentences are planned relatively independently ...
the detailed planning occurs basic clause by basic
clause.(117)
He comments that this conclusion may result from the fact that
research has been done principally on speakers who do not have
any chance to plan or practice. Consequently, in Holmes (1984)
the nature of the experimental task was altered (by comparison
with other related studies). Subjects were required to continue a
conventional story, the first few sentences of which they were
provided with. Detailed analysis of pauses and other phenomena
observed in the subjects' output indicate that under these
conditions
subjects [can] construct more highly integrated utterances.
which have been largely thought out and organized before
expression ... compared with the relatively unplanned
discourse of spontaneous speech.(129)
Holmes also cites a comparable study (Goldman-Eisler & Cohen
1970) which demonstrates that prepared speeches were more
syntactically complex (in terms of presence of passives) than the
discourse of spontaneous discussion. Thus any study which
considers syntactic features or the overall syntactic complexity
of discourse may need to control for topic familiarity and
preparation. (See also Ochs 1979 and Crystal 1980 on planned
versus unplanned discourse.)
L2 studies At least since the 1 9 7 0 ~ ~ SL researchers have
been making use of s variety of elicitation tasks to obtain data
(e.g. Naiman 1974, and for recent instances see e.g. Wagner 1983,
Dechert 1983.) However, the failure of some investigators to
consider the effects of elicitation task on the nature of the
language elicited has led to the conclusions of a number of
prominent studies (e.g. Dulay & Burt 1974. Bailey, Madden &
Krashen 1974) being identified as potentially artifactual
(Larsen-Freeman 1975, 1978). Other studies (e.g. LoCoco 1976)
have been weakened by failures to report details concerning
elicitation task-characteristics. (See Hood & Schieffelin 1978,
Hulstijn & Hulstijn 1984, Chaudron 1985 and Hull 1986.) Tarone
(1979), drawing on Labov (1969). has called for a much fuller
reporting of task, in addition to interlocutors, surroundings and
topic, than has generally been given. In her own work, she has
given specific attention to the relation between NNSsl language
and elicitation tasks used. In Tarone (1983) she reviewed a
variety of studies and concluded that IL can be viewed as a
continuum of styles, which are defined in terms of "the amount of
attention paid to language formn (152). She predicted that when
more attention is directed to language form, learners1 interlanguage
(IL) will be more influenced by target-language (TL) forms, and
when less attention is paid to form. IL will show less TL influence.
These predictions, as they apply to IL phonology, were
examined in Sato (1985). It was suggested (183) that styles may
be "concretizedn as communicative tasks (e.g. "spontaneous
conversation, oral reading, structured interview, elicited
intuition, elicited initation, etc."). Sato tested Tarone's
prediction that
acquisition of TL forms should take place first
in speech produced on more formal tasks.(Sato 1985: 183)
In this case-study of a Vietnamese boy acquiring English, the
Itasks' used were free conversation, reading of continuous text,
and elicited imitation. Of Satols three tasks, the "formaln task
(in Tarone's terms) is reading of continuous text, and it is this
one, according to Tarone, where evidence of learning should first
appear. But in fact. when word-final consonants were considered,
it was in the "vernacular stylen task: conversation, that (in two
of four samples) there was a greater incidence of TL-like
production. Sato concluded that it is not just attention paid to
language form, but also the attentional demands of other aspects
of the task: "recall and encoding of rhetorical structure,
lexical items, clause sequencing etc." which must additionally be
taken into account. An earlier investigation (Oyama 1976) into
the IL phonology of Italian immigrants to the US also compared
performance in casual speech and on an oral reading, and found
more TL-like pronunciation on the informal speech sample than on
the reading.
A follow-up study (Tarone 1984) failed to confirm Tarone's
predictions: IL is most influenced by TL in performance on tasks
which elicit informal speech (the vernacular speech style),
despite the fact that this is the style in which least attention
is supposed to be paid to language form. (Tarone explained the
result by reference to discoursal phenomena.) Finally, Parish,
Tarone & Taghavi (1986) recognize the fact that this line of
research is seriously threatened by its attempts to apply
sociolinguistic concepts to a psycholinguistic problem. Parish a
&. present a reanalysis of Tarone's (1984) data, and conclude
that task attentional demand is the principal predictor of
accuracy levels of IL forms, following (though not acknowledging)
Satols critique.
Alternative attempts to explain IL variability are to be
found in Ellis (1984, 19851, who places considerable importance
on possibility of planning: tasks which permit the utilization of
planned discourse will allow the production of I L discourse with
different characteristics to those which do not. The concept of
automaticity is also invoked (equated with ease of access to
linguistic knowledge, as in Bialystok 1982:183). However, until
investigators take to heart Sato's comments cited above. and make
detailed analyses of the full range of simultaneous demands made
on the cognitive system by the task of interest, =i?L LQ.C
explanations which just focus on speech style, or the prevalence
of planned discourse are likely to be unsatisfying.
a m w A factor which has been involved in a
number of investigations is the composition of the 'group1:
specifically, whether the participants include a teacher or not.
Long, Adams, McLean and Castafios (1976) reported that NNS
participants in a dyadic discussion task utilized a wider variety
of forms of communicative language (pedagogic moves, social
skills and rhetorical acts) than NNSs in a larger, teacher-
fronted group engaged in discussing the same question. The
discussion concerned "similarities and differences between man
and other animals" (139). The authors also suggested (following
Barnes 1973) that the pressures of a large group situation might
cause students' utterances to be briefer and less complex,
because of the more public nature of the setting -- Barnes'
"audience effect". They argued that this would encourage the
establishment of an impoverished linguistic environment, with
negative implications for learning.
Several recent studies by Pica and Doughty (1985, in press)
have also addressed this question. These compared teacher-fronted
and NNS group decision-making discussions, hypothesizing that
there would be more interactional modification in the latter
format. This was not the case for their one-way task, but when a
two-way task was used, significantly greater interactional
modifications did occur for the group (NNSs, n=4). Although Pica
& Doughty (in press) make it clear throughout that they were
comparing complete classes plus a teacher with small groups minus
a teacher, they observe (12) that "as the number of interlocutors
decreased, the amount of negotiation increased significantly ...
p<0.001)". It should be pointed out that despite this, size and
composition are confounded here.
Rulon & McCreary (1985) also compared teacher-fronted
classes with small groups and report findings similar to Pica &
Doughty's first study. Their task was to
complete an outline by listing and discussing the
advantages of the colonists and the British during the
American Revolution.(1985: 8 )
This too was a task whose structure did not require all
participants to take an equal part. or be obliged to fully
negotiate input so as to complete the task. One or two fluent or
knowledgable students could have dominated the discourse; less
able students could have opted out, to some extent. Rulon &
McCreary found no significant differences in length of speech
unit nor syntactic complexity between small group (n=3) and
teacher-fronted discussions, though they recognize problems with
their measure of speech unit (words/communication unit).
Clarification and coverage of content in small groups was
equivalent or better than in the teacher-fronted class, however.
2-32 sjzs In a study concerning group testing of oral SL
proficiency, the elementary observation that participants in
larger groups speak less has been documented (Liski & Puntanen
1983: 241).
Antony (1986) describes the discourse of NNS groups of size
two to five performing "task-based consensus activitiesn (for
which no definition is supplied). With regard to size, he
observes
[glroup size does not seem greatly to affect the number of wpm
[words per minute] of the group as a whole, so smaller
groups likely generate more wpm per student. Larger groups.
however, seem to introduce new ideas more quickly, more
simultaneous starts, and more brief overlaps. So while
smaller groups may provide more practice in speaking, larger
groups may well provide more valuable input.(1986: 5)
Antony observes that "nearly all the language producedw can be
classified as either metacommunicative, (u procedure and
organization / language problems), or "task-solvingn. He notes
that "Iflor language students a certain amount of this
metacommunication deals with correctness of form in the target
language (1986: 9)".[51 However, Antony states that "the vast
bulk" of his groups1 language is task-solving in nature, and goes
on to develop a functional analysis of the language used.
Since only one task was used. a knowledge of the relationship
between task type and functional characteristics of language
generated (if any) has yet to be determined.
L L 3 Outo-a Gass 4 Varonis (1985) compared their own study
with that of Doughty 4 Pica (1981)). and noted that comparison of
results in the two studies should take into account the differing
modes of ouput. The former study contains a one-way task whose
product requires pencil-and-paper work (drawing), whereas the
latter contains a task whose output involves object manipulation
(as also in Pica. Doughty & Young 1985). This variable, "medium of
response/psychomotor demandsn has been largely ignored in L2
studies of this kind so far. (But see Shortreed 1985; and for
non-SL work, see McGrath 1981, below.)
i n t e r l Q w Gass & Varonis (1985) also consider
the variable 'sex1:
in general, men signal unaccepted input more often than
women. This suggests that initially women, at least in
interactions with men, feel less confident in indicating a
lack of understanding ... [or] that they understood more and
did not need to negotiate meaning.Cl59-60)
Recent work in (L1) small group behavior suggests that task
content can favor the participation or success of one sex over
the other, but this is not necessarily the case when content is
selected to be neutral. All-male groups appear to differ from
all-female groups in terms of that functional quality of language
which may be used to establish dominance patterns, but
differences between male and female behavior decreases when the
group observed is mixed (Mabry 1985). Male-only groups appear to
produce more problem-solutions, female-only groups more creative
solutions (Wood, Polek & Aiken 1985).
7.3.5 f'er-vidu sbility SL studies which attempt to
predict discourse characteristics from task characteristics do so
on the assumption that individual difference variables are not
strong enough to eliminate such effects. If this is so, it is at
least partly a function of subject selection from normal, adult,
language-oriented groups. However, lability to communicate1 a a
factor which could influence such results one way or another, and
it has so far been taken for granted or ignored. This is probably
because communicative competence is seen principally in SL
research as a function of SL control, rather than a personality
variable. Within communication studies, however, it is seen as an
individual difference variable which affects comprehension and
overall communicative ability -- see e.g. Beatty & Payne (19841,
Wiseman & Abe (1986), Hale (1980); and compare Allwrightls remark
(1976: 10) that
a good communicatIor1 with a poor command of English may be
better able to cope with communication problems in English
than much more fluent speakers who are not good
communicators.
Current Lhs %ask-bas& 2zIJah~
The second language research which has been reviewed in the
preceding section has not existed in a vacuum. Its long-term
intent is to improve SL instruction. Such instruction has not. of
course, been held in abeyance while results of SLA research are
awaited. There has been a certain amount of cross-fertilization
and some investigators have given attention both to small scale
laboratory experiments into the characteristics of SL tasks, and
to task-related aspects of syllabus design. Arguably, a concern
with communication, and the role of "communicative activities"
both in the classroom and as a basis for naturalistic acquisition
of second languages is the basis for both a substantial portion
of the work reviewed in the preceding section, and for some of
that to be examined here.
Given the extensive utility of the concept *taskt outlined
in Section 1 , it is perhaps not surprising that attempts would be
made to use it as the basis for language syllabus design. The
principal reason for such attempts has been the mismatch between
what is known about the processes of language acquisition, and
the nature of language itself as a means of communication, on the
one hand, and the most common forms of language syllabus, on the
other. In this section, attention will be directed first to the
inadequacies of existing second language syllabi. Subsequently, a
number of counter-proposals based on tasks will be examined. As a
major function of a syllabus is selection and sequencing, an
underlying concern here is with what are appropriate units, and
how they may be grouped or sequenced. (The lack of information
available with regard to the latter point is the justification
for Section 4. )
Although in practice the structural (or grammatical)
syllabus is probably the most widely used SL syllabus throughout
the world, this is not because of its universal acclaim. The last
decade or so has seen it criticized by proponents of alternative
syllabi -- whose own proposals have in turn been criticized.
Current positions on appropriate syllabus forms vary widely.
The standard works of Halliday. McIntosh & Strevens (1964).
and Mackey (1965) contain what became the orthodox approach to SL
language syllabus design concerning selection and grading. There
was early opposition to this line from Newmark (1964. 1966)
Newmark 4 Reibel (l968), Reibel (l969), and Macnamara (1973). all
of whom argued against the selection and sequential arrangement
of "languaee data". However, unlike more prominent syllabi or
Methods both then in existence and to come (Richards 1984a). these
proposals had no international institutional backing, and thus
few practical manifestations (but see Newmark 1971 and Allwright
1976).
A subsequent, more substantial change in syllabus design was
provided by the widely-known notional (often *notional
/functional9) approach.
[A] ~ r a m m a t a a s v l l a b u is one which accords highest
priority to grammatical criteria and sees the structure of
language teaching as being principally provided by an
ordered sequence of grammatical categories
(*structures*) ...; a avllabua would seek to change
the balance of priorities by placing emphasis on the
meanings expressed or the functions performed through
language.(Wilkins 1981: 83)
The initial speculations of the principal exponent of notional
syllabi (Wilkins 1972) were subsequently tempered to a limited
set of circumstances (Wilkins 1974). and criticized by others who
had at first welcomed them (e.g. Widdowson 1971, 1978). In a later
paper, Wilkins drew attention to some misunderstandings
concerning the relative position of notions and structures. He
pointed out that a range of emphases is possible according to the
needs of the learners for whom the course is designed -- from a
principally grammatical syllabus all the way to a fully notional
syllabus, and that while he had argued (Wilkins 1976) against
some aspects of a grammatical syllabus,
[tlhe notion that an individual can develop anything other
than a rudimentary communicative ability without an
extensive mastery of the grammatical system is absurd.
(Wilkins 1981: 85)
Thus (with hindsight) notional/functional and structural (or
grammatical) syllabi are not seen as necessarily separate by
Wilkins, nor is one taken as superior to the other.
At present, as in the 60s. a substantial number of applied
linguists concerned with curriculum accept the idea that language
course organization should be based principally on formal
analyses of language structure. Of these, one group seems
prepared to accept a structural syllabus at least under some
circumstances (Brumfit 1984a. Widdowson 1984). Another group
(Yalden 1984, Allen 1984) has a conception of the syllabus as
including content, pragmatic, methodological and structural
elements. Within this section of applied linguists, then, there
is disagreement as to the units out of which a language syllabus
should be constructed. Other applied linguists reject the idea of
a fixed language syllabus, whatever its linguistic units (Breen
1984, Candlin 1984a. Long 1985).
There are a number of arguments against both purely
structural syllabi, and variants with notions, .cetera added
in. Wilkins (1972). referring to purely structural forms,
identified (1) negative effects on motivation for those learners
who need to be able to comtiunicate as soon as possible; (2)
inefficiency, in the idea that the whole of the grammatical
system is to be taught when not all learners would need it all;
(3) the subordination of meaning to form; and (4) the
artificiality of grouping structures according to form rather
than communicative content, with resultant negative pedagogical
effect.
Notional apects of the type of syllabus under consideration
have been criticized on psychological grounds, by some who would
probably prefer a purely structural syllabus. Thus, Brumfit
(1981: 91, 92) states "principles of organisation must be
answerable to a view of how language is learnt", but observes
that the principal proponent of notional syllabi does not (in
Wilkins 1976, 1981) address himself to learning theory. Brumfit
continues
until we have some way of saying ' X is a notion and Y is
not. and we can test them in the following ways', we are
talking about a vacuous concept.
Paulston (1981) also criticizes Wilkins' work for paying no
attention to a theory of language acquisition, and for being
based on logico-deductive reasoning, not empirical evidence. It
is certainly the case that no consideration was ever given to the
psychological reality of the units of notional-functional syllabi
until recently (see Cook 1985).
Similar arguments can also be advanced against the
structural component of a language syllabus -- in particular.
Brumfit's remark above applies here, too. In this type of
syllabus, the specifications of the language to be learned are
derived from a formal analysis of the language. largely unrelated
to and unmotivated by a view about how language is learned. Many
of the units of such formal grammatical analyses become
problematic when approached from a psychological or language
processing point of view (Clahsen 1980, Pienemann 1985, Ford
1982: 797). There is, in addition, extensive evidence against the
conception that learners move in a simple step-wise fashion to
control of a second language (see e.g. Schumann 1978, Felix 1981.
Bahns 1983, Gass 1983.)
From a pedagogical point of view. it may be argued (as does
Long 1985) that because structural syllabi are based on formal
analyses of language (target language (TL) forms, not
interlanguage (IL) forms), they result in lessons whose 'point'
is neither the activities the learner will be called on to
perform subsequently in the 'real world', nor the units in which
the L2 learner learns the language.
Besides selection, a major function that a syllabus performs
is sequencing. However, as Long (1985) notes, sequencing
decisions related to linguistic syllabi (whether overtly
linguistic: notional-functional/structural, or covertly
linguistic: situational) are based (sometimes) on needs analysis,
but more often on materials writers* intuitions. Even if
sequencing decisions were based on explicit criteria concerning
relative grammatical complexity, they would vary according to the
linguistic theory used. Of course, not only does no complete
grammar exist (even for English), no current major syntactic
theory has been shown to have psychological reality. (See Kenny
1980, Ortony 1975. Pullum 1986.) In practice, L2 syllabus
sequencing decisions are not based on proven psychological
complexity or learning difficulty,[61 nor on empirically-supported
judgments concerning valency, for either structures or notions.
Schinnerer-Erben (1981: 11). having reviewed a substantial body of
second language related work concerning sequencing, states that
[tlhe criteria which are commonly used to establish
traditional sequences are rather feeble. Difficulty is not
easily defined and it is of questionable value. Frequency/
utility is also difficult to establish and has not been
proven helpful in the learning process. And, natural
sequences do not really exist in sufficient detail to be
used as the basis for a precise order, nor have they been
shown to facilitate learning in a second language situation
However, she does not rule out the importance of organization
completely. After considering some aspects of (mainly
Ausubellian) cognitive learning theory related, however, to the
learning of content, she concludes
there is considerable evidence to show that organization
does facilitate learning, [butl...we cannot at present use
the criteria available to effectively organize the material.(25)
The alternatives to analytic syllabi are based on the
assumption that language (like other psychomotor skills, compare
Welford 1968, Levelt 1978) is something that may be acquired
holistically, rather than synthetically. This position is stated
by Newmark (1966). who asserts that
if the task of learning to speak English were additive and
linear ... it is difficult to see how anyone could learn
English.(77)
He maintains that "language is learned a whole act at a time,
rather than an assemblage of constituent skillsn. Newmark
conceived of a language course of an 'analytic* type, where large
nchunksn of language are presented and learned: the presentation
possibly on videotape, the learning through observation, and
practice through extensive use of roleplay. Reibel (1969) argued
for the irrelevance of sequencing to what was known about
language learning. Both identified a psychological basis for
their position in B a n d u r a * ~ Social Learning Theory (Bandura &
Walters 1963. Bandura 1977). a highly respectable, well-developed
and researched theory, which has been inexplicably ignored by
second language researchers (though not L1 researchers: see
Rosenthal & Zimmerman 1978).
Of current language courses which do not use synthetic
syllabi, some are based on Methods such as Counseling-Learning,
the Natural Approach, etc., which are accurately described as
"responses to innovations at the level of instructional theoryn
(Richards 1984b: 22). and are not responses to the inadequacies of
the synthetic syllabus. However, leaving these to one side (along
with the brief pioneering work of Allwright and Newmark), there
are some recent attempts to address this problem which should be
considered: Candlin (1984a). Long (1985). the Malaysian Language
Syllabus (Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia 1975; also Samah 1984)
and the Bangalore project (Prabhu 1983). Of these, the first two
are theoretical arguments and partial descriptions concerning a
language syllabus of this type based on 'tasks'; the third is a
practical example with little in the way of theoretical
rationale; and the status of the fourth is problematic.
The larger part of Candlin (1984a) provides a non-language
specific critique of the synthetic syllabus, detailing the
passive, alienated conception of the learner and authoritarian,
all-knowing picture of the teacher it presupposes. For examples
of the desirable alternative Candlin draws on the work of others.
in particular Long (1985). (See also Candlin 1984b).
For Candlin, a task is
one of a set of sequencable. differentiatable and problem-
posing activities which involve learners in some self-reliant
selection among a range of variably available cognitive and
communicative strategies applied to existing or acquired
knowledge in the exploration and attainment of a variety of
pre-specified or emergent goals via a range of procedures,
desirably interdependently with other learners in some social
milieu.(Candlin 1984b)
Long (1985) sees syllabus design in the broader context of
program design (as do Brumfit. Allen and others. by comparison
with the narrower conceptions of Wilkins and Widdowson). A major
part of current problems, he indicates, is the mismatch between
choices made in each area of program design. Even then, the
current options in syllabus design and teaching method have no
basis in SLA theory and research.
Long proposes Instead that 'task' be taken as the basic unit
of the syllabus, and defines task straightforwardly as
a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for other, freely
or for some reward ... by 'task' is meant the hundred and one
things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in
between.(Long 1985: 89)
He points out that it can serve to organize all four major stages
of syllabus design:
1) identifying learners' needs
2) defining syllabus content
3 ) organizing language acquisition opportunities
4) measuring student achievement.
Candlin, too, finds this point worthy of emphasis, saying
[a] first step towards achieving a syllabus of this second
type is to attempt this accommodation by making purposes,
content, methods (or, better, learning experiences), and
evaluation, interdependent.(Candlin 1984a: 9)
Long points out that in designing a task-based syllabus, stage 1
is simplified by the fact that occupational analyses already
exist (Dictionary of Occupational Titles, [DOTI, U.S. Dept. of
Labor 1965, 1977)[71. Target tasks thus identified would
need to be grouped by type. and pedagogical tasks could be
derived from such task types. Pedagogical tasks in turn could be
selected and sequenced to form a task syllabus. This aspect of
Long's work suggests an orientation towards VESL/ESP syllabi.
(See below. Section 4, for analyses of employment-related task
characteristics which should feed into this approach.)
Whereas selection of tasks is confined, for Long, to
"ensuring task types are adequately representedn, grading is more
of a problem. Variety, pace and duration are to be considered,
but obviously, difficulty is a prime consideration. The latter,
Long suggests, is determined by
1) number of steps needed
2) number of parties involved
3) presupposed knowledge
4) intellectual challenge
5 ) spatio-temporal displacement.
Because of the preliminary nature of the work, no support for
this (intuitively appealing) set of determinants of difficulty is
advanced, nor is any attempt made to define them in more
operational terms.
The Malaysian Language Syllabus (Kementerian Pelajaran
Malaysia 1975) and the Bangalore Procedural Syllabus (Prabhu
1983) are attempts to apply some unorthodox forms of syllabus
within the regular secondary education systems of two third world
countries. In neither case has implementation been as smooth or
as well-informed as might ideally have been wished.
The Malaysian case obviously antedates most of the
theoretical work discussed so far. Original implementation was
influenced by the British 'communicative approach' to language
teaching, though it has recently been reinterpreted by some as an
early attempt at a task-based syllabus. Following governmental
specification (in 1975) of three simple program goals, 24 general
objectives were listed by program developers, and the political,
business and educational establishments were asked to add. delete
or modify the list. The revised list was taken to constitute a
needs analysis (Richards 1984b). and used a s the basis for
constructing English language "products". (For further details,
see Rodgers 1984, Samah 1984.) An example of an objective is
"follow and understand a talk on specific topics"; an example of
a "classroom procedure" is
A foreign visitor has expressed interest in a poster showing
local tourist attractions. Describe the attractions shown on
the poster.(Malaysian English Language Syllabus 1975, cited
in Richards 1984b: 36)
The Bangalore project began in 1979. Early influences
were similar t o those of the Malaysian communicative syllabus.
Its major proponent states
[tlhere is...no syllabus in terms of vocabulary or
structure. [and] no preselection of language items...The
basis of each lesson is a problem or a task...Tasks consist
of such things as: interpreting a schedule, a map or a set
of rules; giving a set of directions...; drawing pictures
from instruction...(Prabhu 1983: 3)
By comparison with the suggestions of Long and Candlin, other
aspects of classroom structure are traditional. There i s
considerable emphasis on "receptive language", and classes are
'teacher-centered". Group work i s apparently discouraged "because
of the fear that learner-learner interaction will promote
'pidginization'" (Brumfit 1984b: 2 3 6 - 7 H 8 1 , and there is little or
no student-student communication.
The major problemt91 with the Bangalore project i s that no
rationale is provided for either the selection or the grading of
the 'tasks', let alone a coherent theoretical basis. Almost a s
serious, and a point which even sympathetic commentators such a s
Brumfit have noted, is the lack of hard information about the
success of the project. The recent work of Beretta (1986. Beretta
& Davies 1985) attempts t o redress the situation. Beretta &
Davies (1985) report results from a & comparison of intact
groups, where it i s specifically admitted that three out of four
"experimental" groups had "better qualified, more highly
motivated teachers", and were accustomed t o being observed and
treated a s "guinea-pigsn (123). The results are interpreted as
being not unfavorable to the Bangalore project. (See also Beretta
1986.)
In brief, neither o f these two programs can be ignored, but
a s yet their documentation, in terms of reports, evaluations,
syllabi, etc.. is insufficient evidence on which t o base
conclusions a s to the efficacy of task-based syllabi.
Some p a r t i a l a n s we r s t o t h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n s e e k i n g a
t h o r o u g h a p p r o a c h t o s e q u e n c i n g and s e l e c t i o n f o r a l a n g u a g e t a s k
s y l l a b u s a r e p e r h a p s t o be f ound i n work d o n e i n t h e a r e a s o f a )
human p e r f o r ma n c e r e s e a r c h a nd b ) s ma l l g r o u p r e s e a r c h . The
f o r me r may be o f p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e t o t h e d e v e l o p me n t o f t a s k -
s y l l a b i wi t h a VESL/ESP o r i e n t a t i o n , t h o u g h i t a l s o a d d r e s s e s
g e n e r a l p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e d e v e l o p me n t of t a s k t a x o n o mi e s . The
l a t t e r p r o v i d e s what a p p e a r s t o b e t h e l e a s t i n a d e q u a t e
d e s c r i p t o r s y s t e m f o r t a s k s c u r r e n t l y i n e x i s t e n c e .
um--uw--
Human p e r f o r ma n c e r e s e a r c h ( Du n n e t t e 4 Fl e i s h ma n 1982: x i )
i n v e s t i g a t e s human t r a i t s , a b i l i t i e s and p e r f o r ma n c e l e v e l s wi t h
a vi e w t o ma t c h i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e t a s k . T h i s a r e a i s
r e l a t e d a l mo s t e x c l u s i v e l y t o p s y c h o mo t o r t a s k s , mos t of whi ch
r e q u i r e l i t t l e o r no c o mmu n i c a t i o n . Th e s e t a s k s a r e t h u s s omewhat
d i s t a n t f r om t h o s e mos t commonl y u s e d i n l a n g u a g e r e s e a r c h , b u t
t h e p r o c e d u r e s u s e d t o c l a s s i f y t hem s h o u l d a p p l y g e n e r a l l y t o
t a s k t axonomy d e s i g n .
O f t wo ma j o r s u b d o ma i n s wi t h i n human p e r f o r ma n c e a n a l y s i s .
t h a t c o n c e r n i n g p r o c e d u r e s f o r d e v e l o p me n t o f t a s k t a x o n o mi e s h a s
t h e mos t p o t e n t i a l f o r t a s k s y l l a b u s d e s i g n . The s e c o n d s ubdoma i n
i n v e s t i g a t e s i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s a s t h e y a f f e c t t a s k
p e r f o r ma n c e . T h i s mi g h t b e o f mor e i n t e r e s t t o t h e l a n g u a g e
r e s e a r c h e r who makes u s e o f t a s k s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e s y l l a b u s
d e s i g n e r . It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t ( wi t h a few e x c e p t i o n s , e. g.
Ga s s & Va r o n i s 1 9 8 5 ) . SL r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e t e n d e d t o a s s ume t h a t
s u b j e c t s ' i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e r e l a t i n g t o
l a n g u a g e ( a n d c u l t u r a l ) e x p e r i e n c e we r e i r r e l e v a n t t o t a s k
p e r f o r ma n c e , s i n c e t h e a c t u a l out come o f t h e t a s k h a s u s u a l l y n o t
be e n a n i s s u e . But i f , f o r e x a mp l e , t a s k out come i s t o be u s e d a s
a me a s u r e o f c o mp r e t ~ e n s i o n ( P i c a d. 1 9 8 5 ) . i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r s
become mor e s i g n i f i c a n t . O f t h e t wo ar eas, l e s s wor k h a s b e e n
d o n e on t h e d e v e l o p me n t o f t a s k t a x o n o mi e s t h a n on d e v e l o p i n g
t a x o n o mi e s o f p e r s o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s j o b s ( Du n n e t t e 1982: 4).
Fl e i s h ma n ( 1 9 7 8 ) d e s c r i b e s wor k r e l a t e d t o d e v e l o p i n g
s y s t e ms f o r c l a s s i f y i n g t a s k s t h a t woul d i mp r o v e o u r
p r e d i c t i o n s a nd g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a b o u t f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g
human p e r f o ma n c e . . . [ Wl h a t we ne e d i s a l e a r n i n g a nd
p e r f o r ma n c e t h e o r y whi c h a s c r i b e s [ t o ] t a s k d i me n s i o n s
a c e n t r a l r o l e . ( 1 9 7 8 : 1 0 0 7 )
He r e f e r s t o t wo s t r a n d s of wor k c o n c e r n i n g " a b i l i t y
r e q u i r e me n t s w. a nd " t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s n . The f i r s t
c l a s s i f i e s and s e q u e n c e s t a s k s by t h e a b i l i t i e s t h e y demand of a n
o p e r a t o r . Ac c o r d i n g t o Fl e i s h ma n .
a limited number [of abilities] (nine or ten in the
psychomotor and nine in the physical proficiency areas)
seemed to account for most of the variance in several
hundred tasks.(1978: 1009)
However, these tasks, for example, nmultilimb coordination
ability, response orientation, rate controln, are principally
psychomotor in nature.
The second area of relevance, task characteristic
description, assumes tasks can be described and differentiated in
terms of the intrinsic objective properties they possess (such as
'goals. input stimuli, procedures, responses and stimulus-
response relationshipsn).
In order to differentiate among tasks, the components
of a task were treated as categories within which to
describe task characteristics or descriptors (e.g.
number of procedural steps, variability of stimulus
locations, number of output units).(1013)
Fleishman and colleagues have been able to predict performance on
tasks in terms of ability requirements (characteristics of the
operator) necessary for tasks varying in complexity on a number
of factors.
Fleishman and Quaintance (1984: 66s.) bring together an
extensive quantity of material concerned with the problem of
classifying human tasks. They state that there are four main
Issues In developing a classificatory system:
1 the set of descriptors must be selected with regard to
the theoretical and conceptual base;
2 tasks must be classified as reliably as possible;
3 qualitative or quantitative classification should be
chosen: classification may represent different types of
things, or differences in degree of common dimensions;
4 criteria for evaluation of the classificatory system must
be specified.
Concerning 1. Fleishman & Quaintance state:
[ilnitially. the relevant concepts should be reviewed
and translated into well-defined hypotheses bearing on
the nature of the attributes that should be considered
relevant within the classificatory system.(66)
After the domain has been specified,
some decisions must be made as to exactly what attributes
and descriptors are selected for evaluation.(66)
They indicate there are three lines of attack. Either (a)
'evaluate all relevant descriptorsn, or ( b ) a random sampling of
them, or (c)
attempt to specify significant attributes and
descriptors in the sense that they are likely to
differentiate the relevant classes and/or are of some
practical concern within the context of the classification
attempt.(66)
Concerning 2: Fleishman & Quaintance draw attention to the
interrelatedness of taxonomic issues:
the purpose for which classification is attempted has
implications for the definitions of tasks...[whichl
determine ... the appropriate conceptual bases for task
description and differentiation.(68)
They also emphasize that the descriptors serving to classify the
tasks should ideally be operationally defined, and at least
capable of objective identification. This may be compared to the
SL situation -- at present, for example, there is disagreement
concerning one of the task characteristics being used in SL
research, with some referring to 'one-way' versus 'two-way'
tasks, others to tasks in which information transfer is
'optional' or 'required', and yet others considering positions on
a continuum between one-way and two-way tasks. This would appear
to b e t h e sort of problem, though in a different domain, that
Fleishman and colleagues have begun to address.
Fleishman & Quaintance's third and fourth points are
obviously applicable to the development of a task taxonomy for
SLA/language syllabi, though little if any SL task-related
research addresses these points.[101 SL investigations
addressing these points will be necessary for a fully worked-out
task syllabus design program.
l!wuu research c o n c e w m u n i c a t i v e W
The main body of the. work reviewed in Fleishman & Quaintance
(1984) considers human abilities with respect to tasks, which are
often those that an operative in an industrial or military
setting would perform alone, or at least without extensive
communication with others. However, a small set of studies
concern performance, for which communication is required.
The initial objective (413) was
to define the domain of team performance by focusing on
performance dimensions that make effective, synchronized
work possible.
Nieva. Fleishman & Rieck (1978) proposed four major categories of
team performance functions:
1) orientation functions (processes for generating and
distributing information necessary to task accomplishment to
team members);
2) organizational functions (processes necessary for members
to coordinate actions necessary for task performance);
3 ) adaptation functions (processes occurring as team members
adapt their performance to each other to complete the task);
4) motivational functions (defining team objectives and
"energizing the groupw to complete the task).
Attempts were made (Shiflett, Price & Schemmer 1981, and
Shiflett, Eisner & Inn 1981) to validate this taxonomy. Thirteen
activities carried out in teams by Army motor crew and bridge-
construction platoons were videorecorded. The tapes were then
viewed by "naive judgesw who had been given "a short training
experiencew. Fleishman & Quaintance give an example concerning
just one aspect of one of the four dimensions measured:
"information exchange about member resources or constraintsw.
Tasks varied from "[a] very simple task requiring little exchange
of information about resourcesw, e.g. "loading troops onto a
truckw, to "Gal very complex task structure requiring [a] high
degree of information exchange about internal resourcesw, e.g.
"lOkm march on cloudy night in dense terrain; no loss of
equipment or personnelw. Judges were required to rate the tasks
they observed in terms of the tasks' demand for exchange of
information concerning resources and constraints, and in terms of
the level of information exchange that actually occurred. In most
categories, it is reported that subjects were able to "detect
reliablyn the functions. The lack of detailed reportage and
apparent unconcern for careful measurement of rater agreement
etc. is unsatisfactory. However, this study is an attempt to
attack problems of a parallel nature to those faced by language
task users.
Job-relatea classification Other research in the human
performance domain is summarized by Peterson & Bownas (1982). who
provide a review of "the major existing task taxonomic systemsn.
(See also Farina 1973.) This research may be linked to Long's
suggestion concerning use of the Dictionary of Occupational
Titles for derivation of pedagogical tasks from job descriptions.
in that if there are a limited number of descriptors which can
identify most jobs. it may be possible to make use of these in
the construction of pedagogic tasks for a VESL/ESP task syllabus.
The pioneer attempt at developing a job-related task taxonomy was
that of Fine (1963): the 'Functional Job Analysis (FJA)', which
formed the basis of early editions of the DOT. Peterson & Bownas
argue that
[tlhe FJA model classes jobs as a whole, rather than
investigating task structures within jobs ... it seems
unlikely that these rather broad constructs will offer much
value in determining specific job or task requirements.(55)
Subsequent investigations concerned the 'Position Analysis
Questionnnaire (PAQ)' (McCormick 1976, McCormick. Jeanneret and
Meecham 1972).
The PAQ evolved from an intitial attempt to determine
rationally all activities engaged in by workers. The
resulting instrument focuses most heavily on work behavior
in blue-collar skilled and semi-skilled manual jobs.
(Peterson & Bownas 1982: 56)
McCormick, Jeanneret & Meacham (1972) used the 183 item PAQ to
investigate 536 jobs. and, following factor analysis of the
responses arrived at 5 general factors and 27 factors specific to
topical subsections of the PAQ. Subsequent studies have used
larger and more representative job samples, and arrived at
slightly increased numbers of factors. Dunnette & Fleishman summarize:
[dlepending on the level of generality or specificity
desired, it appears that any given job may be described with
the Position Analysis Questionnaire according to 12 quite
general categories (e.g. clerical tasks, supervision tasks,
physical tasks, etc,) or according to 32 much more specific
categories (e.g. decision-making tasks, physical
coordination tasks, etc.).(1982: 4)
However, commenting on the balance of the PAQ, Peterson & Bownas
(57) observe that nmost of the PAQ's discriminatory power is
centered on blue-collar positionsn. Some of the factors derived
from it would be inapplicable not only to white-collar work, but
also to the sort of tasks used in SL research and syllabi.
Obviously, any attempt to make use of instruments like the PAQ
would need to consider modifications, or indeed whether it was
necessary to use the entire instrument.
!I2 SrmU m research
Small group research can be divided inti three major areas
(McGrath 1984: xiii): studies investigating ngroups as vehicles
for delivering social influencen; those dealing with "groups as
structures for patterning social interactionn; and "groups as
task performance systemsn. It is obviously the last section of
small group research which is of interest here. However,
there has really been very little study devoted to the ...
analysis of task differences, in a systematic way, that
takes into account how those differences affect group task
performance.(53)
McGrath summarizes and integrates the existing work in this area
(e.g. Carter, Haythorn & Howell 1950, Shaw 1973, McGrath & Altman
1966, Hackman 1968, Steiner 1972, and Laughlin 1980 u)
to provide the currently most fully developed task classification
scheme for small group work. He notes
Ideally, the categories of such a classification scheme
should be (a) mutually exclusive...(b) collectively
exhaustive...(c) logically related to one another ... [andl
(d) useful.(60)
The McGrath system provides four major categories: Generate.
Choose, Negotiate & Execute. McGrath argues that these are the
four general performance processes involved 'in group activities.
An activity's status with respect to each of these categories
enables it to be assigned to one of eight major types:
Generate
1 planning tasks
2 creativity tasks: such as brainstorming
Choose
3 intellective tasks: solving problems which have a correct
answer
4 decision-making tasks: where arriving at a consensus is
required
Negotiate
5 cognitive conflict tasks: viewpoint conflicts to be
resolved
6 mixed-motive tasks: negotiation/bargaining/coalition-
forming tasks
Execute
7 contests/battles/competitive tasks
8 performances/psychomotor tasks.
McGrath states that "the eight types can accommodate virtually
all tasks used in group researchw, and points out that tasks can
be additionally classified in terms of their cognitive, affective
and conative aspects, with types 1 & 2 being in some sense
maximally cognitive, type 5 most affective, and type 8 most
behavioral; and can be further classified in terms of their need
for or tendency to promote "cooperation or facilitative
compliancen, or "conflict or contrient interdependence".
The system appears to provide a useful preliminary framework
for locating almost all tasks mentioned so far. As such it may
help in organizing current and future SL task-related
investigations, and might serve as a possible nucleus for a
syllabus-oriented task classification system. It is not necessary
to conceive of this system as unitary nor complete, however.
Obviouslyi none of the categories are psycholinguistically
motivated, but it may be that additional descriptors which are,
such as 'information-structure'. can be added. The system gains
support from its adherence to basic principles of classification
system design (exclusivity, exhaustivity, etc). Whilst based on
extensive previous research, it has not, however, been developed
through the rigorous procedures outlined by Fleishman &
Quaintance, nor has any attempt been made to validate it
empirically.
It has been shown that the category 'task', as used by
researchers generally, is widely applicable and has psychological
reality. Much, if not most, of human purposeful activity, whether
in employment or in the classroom, can be seen as a series of
tasks -- some having a communicative aspect, others not.
Section 1 reviewed the use of 'task' as a psychologically
real term of analysis, both within second language studies and in
more general educational research.
Section 2 provided a sketch of what little is known
concerning the interaction of task characteristics and language.
Though task characteristics cannot predict the precise nature of
language generated, there are early indications that some affect
the language that task participants use. They thus affect
opportunities for language to be produced ('output'), the
linguistic environment ('input'), and opportunities for it to be
learned from ('intake'). This suggests that ideally, both
syllabus designers and SL researchers would be able to select
tasks whose potential for language learning (given particular
learner variables) would be known. At present, however, there is
disagreement even about information-transfer, one of the few task
characteristics so far identified as significant in terms of
language generated.
Section 3 further explored the applications of 'task', and
recapped the arguments against existing syllabi and those in
favor of task-based process syllabi. Organizational
considerations suggest that selection and sequencing are still
necessary, but this section concluded by indicating that no
specific answers to questions concerning task selection and
sequencing have yet been found.
Consequently. Section 4 considered research into human
performance and small group work. Researchers in the first of
these areas have preliminary methodology for the development of
task taxonomies, which may be of particular relevance to ESP/VESL
task syllabi. Work in the second area has suggested a taxonomy of
potential relevance to SL communicative task classification.
It is hoped that this review has demonstrated the
multivariate nature of tasks. For the second language researcher.
a knowledge of which variables are the most potentially
confounding, in addition to those of specific interest in any
particular investigation, should permit rational, principled
selection of experimental tasks.
For the syllabus designer, the principal problems have been
stated by Long: selection and sequencing. The complex nature of
tasks makes it obvious that there can be no mere linear
sequencing (or univariate classification). Language, in its
fullest sense, also cannot be reduced to a "linearly ordered
content domain" (Wilson & Brock, 1 9 8 5 ) . Theoretically motivated
and/or empirically based decisions must be taken concerning the
most appropriate groupings of tasks. Then within groups, perhaps
a reduced number of variables can be applied to rank tasks within
groups, or alternatively to specify what factors can be
manipulated to arrive at task variations of differing ranks.
Looking at the problem from the perspective of an individual task
-- ideally, it should be possible to identify the characteristics
of the task which would make it appropriate for a particular
learner-group at a particular stage in a sequence. etc. Each task
would be identifiable in terms of a set of variables, and each
could thus be conceived of as occupying a position in a
multidimensional grid.
On the basis of the relatively small number of studies
surveyed so far -- few of which have specifically addressed
themselves to the topic at hand with regard to language, it
should be clear that possibly only a small part of such a
multidimensional grid has yet been revealed. Other variables
affecting performance, and other significant task characteristics
are yet to be discovered. At the present time, some general
research questions are as follows:
m
What is the nature of the interaction between attention to
discourse and change in IL? In what way (if at all) do task
attentional demands interfere with learning? Are task attentional
demands a function of task complexity?
cQmkLu2
What are the most important components of task complexity? Do the
putative variables which alter task ranking within a type really
result in language which is different?
T T U L -
What criteria should be used to distinguish tasks? Is one-
way/two-way a dichotomy or a continuum, and are there other
information-structure factors of importance, e.g. visual support?
Are there other aspects of the task or discourse which have
positive or negative effects on the utility of the linguistic
environment, such as Duff's 'convergencet? What is the role of
shared information background in this respect? Do different tasks
permit the application of different learning strategies and thus
result in more or less learning?
LnLUL XsLE42 QuLluL
Is quality of linguistic environment a restricting factor on
learning7 Is quality of output in task discourse as important as
quality of input, i.e. what is the balance between intake and
practice in contributing to IL development? Do some tasks permit
more of one than the other, and should this be capitalized on?
S . ~ l h . b u ~ - a W a
What procedures should be used to derive pedagogical tasks from
job descriptions7 Given that there is to be no language-based
sequencing, how necessary is task-complexity-based sequencing? Is
there an "intrinsic motivationn factor in (some) tasks? Does it
outweigh their lack of relevance? How important is task content
in VESL/ESP situations7
This is, in fact, a very undelimited set of questions. No
one experiment, however well-conceived or complex, could possibly
be able to answer them all. At such an early stage, experimental
work is beginning to tackle one or two small corners of the
problem. Undoubtedly, work will go on at a number of sites,
relatively independently. This review will have succeeded in its
aims if it reminds researchers to take into consideration the
breadth of issues bearing upon the problem, and in so doing,
develop work which can be cumulative in nature, through
constructing investigations which are compatible with. and build
upon. those of others.
1 For specific studies, see Grosz (1982). Levinson (1979). and
Hutchinson (1978).
2 It should be mentioned, however, that there is no necessary
connection between non-understanding and negotiation. nor between
negotiation and acquisition.
3 A related aspect of discoursal quality would be cohesiveness.
L2 work has yet to consider this, but for L1 work see
Friedlander, Thibodeau, Nichols, Tucker & Snyder (1985).
4 Since this study involved not only L1 subjects, but subjects
who were young children (12 each from grades k to 3 , i.e.
approximate ages 5 to 8). results must be taken as no more than
intriguing, but a replication for adult L2 subjects would appear
to be called for.
5 It may be wondered whether the presence of metacommunicative
segments of task-based discourse (or even 'free' discourse) would
be an indicator of the potential of such discourse for SL
learning. The answer may relate to the overall purpose of the
interaction as perceived by the NNS. (See also Faerch 1985.)
6 See Pienemann & Johnston (1985) and Pica (1984) for some
arguments concerning this point.
7 See Miller. Treiman, Cairn & Boos (19801, for a critique of the
validity of DOT individual measures.
8 See Long & Porter (1985) for a review which allays such fears.
9 From a practical point of view. it has also been severely
hampered by the fact that there has been no institutional or
research support, with some instructors participating on an
unpaid, voluntary basis. The project will cease in 1987 when its
instigator. N. S. Prabhu, moves from Madras. (E. Ramani, personal
communication.)
10 S. Ross (p.c.1 i s currently conducting SL task research which
makes use of tasks classified on differences of degree on a
common dimension; some such (unreported) attempts are made in the
Bangalore project ( A . Beretta, p.c.).
REFERENCES
Allen, J. P. B. 1984. General-purpose language teaching: a
variable focus approach. m u m e n t a 118, 61-74.
Allwright, R. 1976. Language learning through communication
practice. Documents 7613.
Anderson, R. C., R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (eds.). 1977.
SchoolLng a & u~J&dg. e. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Antony, T. 1986. Characterizing student-student interaction.
N u c ~ ~ Q . Central University of Venezuela.
Bahns, J. 1983. On acquisitional criteria. International Review
of AD- w i s t i c a 21, 1, 57-68.
Bailey, N., C. Madden & S. D. Krashen. 1974. Is there a 'natural
sequence1 in adult second language learning? mm
21 9 235-243.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social m. NY: General Learning
Press.
Bandura, A. & R. Walters. 1963. &Lial JAaULbg &
develoDment. New York: Holt.
Barnes, D. 1973. L a n c u w classroom. London: Oxford
University Press.
Beatty, M. J. & S. K. Payne. 1984. Listening comprehension as a
function of cognitive complexity. h m u n i c a t i o ~ Mono~raDha
51, 25-47.
Beretta, A. 1986. Focus on the Bangalore classroom: an empirical
study. Paper presented at the 20th. annual TESOL convention,
Anaheim CA.
Beretta, A. & A. Davies. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore
project. 39, 2, 121-127.
Bialystok, E. 1982. On the relationship between learning and
using linguistic forms. A ~ ~ l i e d w i s t i c a 3 , 3, 181-206.
Breen, M. P. 1984. Process syllabuses for the language classroom.
Documents 118. 47-60.
Brumfit, C. J. 1981. Notional syllabuses revisited: a response.
W u l s t i c a 2, 1, 90-92.
Brumfit, C. J. 1984a. Function and structure of a state school
syllabus for learners of second or foreign languages with
heterogeneous needs. ElJ 118. 75-82.
Brumfit, C. J. 1984b. The Bangalore procedural syllabus. U
38, 4, 233-241.
Bruton, A. & V. Samuda, 1980. Learner and teacher roles in the
treatment of oral error in group work. BEE JW 11, 2 9
49-63.
Buckley, P., V. Samuda & A. Bruton. 1978. Sensitizing the learner
to group work - a method. h&ztAxd P l ?
E d u c a t i u 1 , 123-152.
Butler-Wall, B. 1983. Optional syntax in oral discourse: evidence
from native speakers of English. In C. Campbell, V.
Flashner, T. Hudson & J. Lubin (eds.1. ~ . f
b ~ e l - Jfesearch EQCUW vol. 2, 16-47.
Los Angeles: UCLA.
Byrne, D. 1979. Teach- x&?j&hg &&i,JLs. London: Longman.
Calfee, R. 1981. Cognitive psychology and educational practice.
In D. C. Berliner (ed.1. a research d u s & d ~ Q
vol. 9. Washington DC: AERA.
Candlin, C. N. 1984a. Syllabus design as a critical process. U
pocumenta 118, 29-46.
Candlin, C. N. 1984b. Implementing process curricula in ESL: the
issue of 'task'. Paper presented at the 18th. annual TESOL
Convention colloqium on syllabus/curriculum design, Houston TX.
Carter. L. F., W. W. Haythorn & M. Howell. 1950. A further
investigation of the criteria of leadership. J~u'a af
A b n o r m l &xl& P s v c h o l u 46, 350-358.
Chaudron, C. 1985. Intake: on models and methods for discovering
learnerst processing of input. Studies in Seconcl-
A c a u i s i t a 7, 1, 1-14.
Clahsen, H. 1980. Psycholinguistic aspects of L2 acquisition. In
S. W. Felix (ed.1. &yelov- lizxmxk aul
issues. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Clark, C. M. & R. J. Yinger. 1979. Teacherst thinking. In P. L.
Peterson & H. J. Walberg (eds.), Research sz.n B w .
Berkeley CA: McCutchan.
Cook, V. J. 1985. Language functions, social factors, and second
language learning and teaching. U t e r n & S m z d Ik~J-af a
Avvlied m s t i c a 23, 3, 177-198.
Crookes, G. V. & K. A. Rulon. 1985. ~ o r ~ o r a t i o n corrective
feedback j=& NSINNS - . Technical Report #3,
Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social
Science Research Institute. Honolulu HI: University of
Hawaii.
Crystal, D. 1980. Neglected grammatical factors in conversational
English. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (eds.),
Studies a Lin~uistics Randol~h w. London:
Longman.
Curtis. M. E. & R. Glaser. 1981. Changing conceptions of
intelligence. In D. C. Berliner (ed.1. f i ey i s ~ sd PUSZSSA i n
education vol. 9. Washington DC: AERA.
Dearden, R. F. 1968. W psvch o l ~ g y d education . London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Dechert, H. W. 1983. How a story is done in a second language. In
C. Faerch & G. Kaspar (eds. 1 . i n t e r l w
icati-. London: Longman.
Doughty, C. 4 T. Pica. 1984. Information gap tasks: do they
facilitate second language learning? Paper presented at the
18th. annual TESOL Convention, Houston, TX.
Doyle, W. 1979. Classroom tasks and students' abilities. In P. L.
Peterson & M. J. Walberg (eds. 1 . QB L ~ B s U ~ K .
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Doyle. W. 1980. Student mediating responses in teacher
effectiveness. Final Report ( 0 - 0 6 4 3 ) , Department of
Education, N. Texas State University.
Doyle. W. 1983. Academic work. d Educational Research
53, 2, 159- 199.
Driver, M. J. & S. Streufert. 1969. Integrative complexity: an
approach to individuals and groups as information-processing
systems. AdminIsGrative Science Quarterly 14, 2, 272- 285.
Duff, P. A. 1986. Taking task to task. I n R. R. Day (ed.),
xaum lm. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
Dulay, H. C. & M. K. Burt. 1974. Errors and strategies in child
second language acquisition. TESOL ~~ 8, 2. 129- 136.
Dunnette, M. D. 1982. Critical concepts in the assessment of
human capabilities. In Dunette & Fleishman.
Dunnette, M. D. & E. A. Fleishman. 1982. W p g ? e
u ~ d u c t i v i & y . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. 1984. The role of instruction in second language
acquisition. In D. N . Singleton & D. G. Little,
l e a r n u g informal -texts. Dublin: IRAAL.
Ellls. R. 1985. A variable competence model of second language
acquisition. 23. 1. 47- 59.
Faerch, C. 1985. Meta talk in FL classroom discourse. SLUUSS b
ww 7s 2, 184-199.
Farina. A. J. J r . 1973. Development of a taxonomy of human
performance: a review of descriptive schemes for human task
behavior. JQ& Catalog Selected Documents L&I Ps~choloav
3. 23 (MS. no. 318).
Felix, S. 1981. The effect of formal instruction in second
language acquisition. I&amLug 31, 1, 23-43.
Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A theory e f f e c t i y m . NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Fine, S. A. 1963. A f u n c t i m a m U bx!~& &z&e RILR sd
m m . HSR-RM-6312. McLean, VA: Human Sciences
Research.
Fleishman, E. A. 1978. Relating individual differences to the
dimensions of human tasks. 21, 12, 1007-1019.
Fleishman, E. A. & M. K, Quaintance. 1984. sd luauan
u-. NY: Academic Press.
Ford, M. 1982. Sentence planning units: implications for the
speaker's representation of meaningful relations underlying
sentences. In J. Bresnan (ed.1. T& m r e s e n t a i o n &
m u w. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ford, M. & V. M Holmes. 1978. Planning units and syntax in
sentence production. 6 . 35-53.
Friedlander, M. L., J. R. Thibodeau, M. P. Nichols, C. Tucker &
J. Snyder. 1985. Introducing semantic cohesion analysis: a
study of group talk. &aU B e h a v i w 16. 3. 285-302.
Gaies. S. J. 1982. NS-NNS interaction among academic peers.
Studiex & Second 5, 1, 74-61.
Gass, S . 1983. Interlanguage syntax state of the art: language
transfer and language universals. Paper presented at the
17th. annual TESOL Convention. Toronto.
Gass, S. & C. Madden. 1985. Ln second L m u u a u e ~c~u~sU&B.
Rowley MA: Newbury House.
Gass. S. & E. M. Varonis. 1985. Task variation and nonnative/
nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass & Madden.
Geddes, M. & J. McAlpine. 1978. Communication games 2. In S.
Holden, W U k U a c t i o Q - London:
Modern English Publications.
Goldman-Eisler, F. & M. Cohen. 1970. Is N, P, and PN difficulty a
valid criterion of transformational operations? U R ~ L Q
Verbal L e w a V e r b d Behav- 9, 161-166.
Greeno, J. G. 1976. Cognitive objectives of instruction. In D.
Klahr (ed.), d m t r u c t i o ~ . Hillsdale NJ:
Erlbaum.
Grosz. B. J. 1982. Discourse analysis. In R. Kittredge & J.
Lehrberger (eds.), m. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hackman, J. R. 1968. Effects of task characteristics on group
product. &c.waal cd E X @ U W md P s ~ . 49 162-
187.
Hale, C. L. 1980. Cognitive complexity-simplicity as a
determinant of communication effectiveness. l ? m ~ ! u m L m
Monoeraphfl 47, 4. 304-311.
Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh & P. Strevens. 1964. Zbs?
b U u a g s L e u . London: Longman.
Hogarth, R. M. 1975. Decision time as a function of task
complexity. In E. Wedt & K. Vlek (eds.1. U -
probabL1- and d e c i s i m making. Dordrecht-Holland:
Reidel.
Hood, L. & B. B. Schieffelin. 1978. Elicited imitation in two
cultural contexts. Utd&U&z cd LhB hs!JAih ZQc
Cornoarat- Develo&ms& 2. 4-12.
Holmes, V. M. 1984. Sentence planning in a story continuation
task. md 27, 2, 115-134.
Hull. J. 1986. Task variation in interlanguage performance: does
it affect monitoring? jh&j.ng 5, 1. Department of
ESL, University of Hawaii.
Hulstijn, J. & W. Hulstijn. 1984. Grammatical errors as a
function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge.
Lanizuafzc W 34, 2. 87-112.
Hutchinson, T. 1978. The practical demonstration: an analysis of
the effect on discourse structure of a visual display.
PracticaJ Paver4 Ln Engl.bA hnglugs Education 1. 1-42.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum).
1975. Lmuwa&% &.Uahu Ln !hhudan S c h o o h
x i n ~ a t a n m. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka/
Kementerian Pelajaran.
Kenny. F. T. 1980. Theoretical formalism and the experimental
study of natural language. &~..~hU~sd..k
B e s e a r Q 9, 1, 73-112.
Labov. W. 1969. The study of language in its social context.
Studium Genet-& 23, 30-87.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1975. The acquisition of grammatical morphemes
by adult ESL students. T BQL , m t e r l v 9, 409-430.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1978. Implications of the morpheme studies for
second language acquisition. LCL 39/40. 93-102.
Laughlin, S. R. 1980. Social combination processes of cooperative
problem solving; groups as verbal intellective tasks. In M.
Fishbein (ed. ) , ProgPess Ln SQQIBJ. JBYX&XY (vol. 1.1 s
Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Levelt, W. J. M. 1978. Skill theory and second language teaching.
Studies A&I &QQ& kaguags A C Q - 1. 1, 53-70.
Levinson, S. C. 1979. Activity types and language.
17, 365-399.
Liski, E. & S. Puntanen. 1983. A study of the statistical
foundations of group conversation tests in spoken English.
33. 2 . 225-246.
LoCoco, V. 1976. A comparison of three methods for the collection
of second language data. in 8,
59-86.
Littlewood, W. 1981. kul &g. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. 1980. Input, interaction and second language
acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Long, M. H. 1981. Questions in foreigner talk discourse.
31, 135-157.
Long, M. H. 1985. The design of classroom second language
acquisition: towards task-based language teaching. In K.
Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (eds.1. P&&J.Ung 3 -
3econjj m u - . London: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H., L. Adams, M. MaLean & F. Castafios. 1976. Doing
things with words: verbal interaction in lockstep and small-
group classroom situations. In R. Crymes & J. Fanselow
(eds.), b B. Washington DC: TESOL.
Long, M. H. A P. A. Porter. 1985. Group work, interlanguage talk
and second language acquisition. I3LW.L Q i z i ~ L u 19, 2, 207-228.
Mabry. E. A. 1985. The effects of gender composition and task
structure on small group interaction. Small l &m~ Behavior
16, 1, 75-96.
Mackey, W. F. 1965. L a n ~ u a g e teach- analvsis. London: Longman.
Macnamara, J. 1973. Nurseries, streets and classrooms: some
comparisons and deductions. dQuznal 57. 250-254.
McCormick, E. J. 1976. Job and task analysis. In M. D. Dunnette
(ed.1. &udh.& U U h & MW- u m .
Chicago: Rand McNally.
McCormick, E. J., P. R. Jeanneret & R. C. Meecham. 1972. A study
of job characteristics and job dimensions as based on the
position analysis questionnaire (PAQ). ~QUXUI i Z A&~ L I &~
56. 347-368.
McGrath, J. E. 1984. G r o u ~ s : interaction a& -.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McGrath, J. E. & I. Altman. 1966. ~ 0 x 2 research; svnth-
a critiaue m. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Merrill. M. D. & R. C. Boutwell. 1973. Instructional development:
methodology in research. In F. N. Kerlinger (ed.1, Review
Q research e d u c a w vol. 1. Itasca. Ill.: P. E.
Peacock.
Miller, A. R., D. J. Treiman, P. S. Carin & P. A. Roos. 1980.
m u a v a - w a m
pictionarl a h ~ ~ a t i o n a l Titles. Washington DC: National
Academy Press.
Mohan, B. 1986. Language content. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Morris. C. G. 1966. Task effects on group interaction. JQLUXUJ a
Persot&.it& a 4, 545-554.
Naiman, N. 1974. The use of elicited imitation in second language
acquisition research. rn 29 1-37.
Newmark, L. 1964. Grammatical theory and the teaching of English
as a foreign language. In U U.Ql -2 92 L h
Eni~lish m ~ u a g e a L b Associati~g ZQC
F5!zs&n 2LtukQL ULbx-
Newmark, L. 1966. How not to interfere with language learning.
UW Journal a AusiLmn L,inguL&Us 32. 1 , 77-83.
Newmark, L. 1971. A minimal language teaching program. In P.
Pimsleur & T. Quinn (eds.1, U second
uu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newmark, L. & D. A. Reibel. 1968. Necessity and sufficiency in
language learning. LeYAmt &LC A B l U
u u i s t i g 2 6, 145-164.
Nieva, V. F., E. A. Fleishman & A. Rieck. 1978. Team dimensions:
their identity , their measurement and their relationships,
(Final technical report, ARI contract DAHC 19-78-C-001).
Washington DC: ARRO.
Nunnally. J. C. & L. C. Lemond. 1973. Exploratory behavior and
human development. In H. W. Reese (ed.), ~ ~ c e s In child
W o ~ m e n t ~ b h a v i w . , vol. 8. NY: Academic Press.
Nurss. J. R. & R. A. Hough. 1985. Young children's oral language:
effects of task. 78, 5 . 280-
285.
Ochs, E. 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givbn
(ed.1, a d l2i au! W. NY:
Academic Press.
Onken, J . , R. Hastie & W. Revelle. 1985. Individual differences
in the use of simplification strategies in a complex
decision-making task. &ur.n&l 7 2>x&ctmJ-w
p e r c e u p e r f o r m 11, 1, 14-27.
Ortony. A. 1975. Language isn't for people: on applying
theoretical linguistics to practical problems. W Q
XducationU u e a r c h 45. 3, 485-504.
Oyama, S. 1976. A sensitive period for the acquisition of a
nonnative phonological system. % P s v c h U ~
5, 261-283.
Parrish. B.. E. Tarone & R. Taghavi. 1986. Article usage in
interlanguage: a study in task-related variability. Paper
presented at the 20th. annual TESOL convention. Anaheim CA.
Paulston, C. B. 1981. Notional syllabuses revisited: some
comments. ApDlied 2, 1. 93-95.
Perrow, C. 1967. A framework for the comparative analysis of
organizations. 4 - m Bevieu 32, 2, 194-208.
Peterson, N. G. & D. A. Bownas. 1982. Skills, task structure and
performance acquisition. In Dunnette & Fleishman.
Peterson. P. L., R. W. Marx & C. M. Clark. 1978. Teacher
planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement.
American Educationa.1 Research 15, 417-432.
Pica, T. 1984. First language transfer and second language
complexity as factors in syllabus design. J' &3J& -&
18, 4, 689-704.
Pica, T. & C. Doughty. 1985. Input and interaction in the
communicative language classroom: a comparison of teacher-
fronted and group activities. In Gass & Madden.
Pica, T. 4 C. Doughty. In press. Effects of participation
pattern and task variation on negotiated interaction in the
second language classroom. Paper presented at the 7th. AILA
Congress, Bruxelles. To appear in J. Fine (ed.1, Discourse.
u v s i s m. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Pica, T., C. Doughty & R. Young. 1986. The input of interaction on
input comprehension. Paper presented at the 20th. annual
TESOL convention. Anaheim CA.
Pienemann, M. 1985. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (eds.).
- du- a - -
flcauisitioq resear&. London: Multilingual Matters.
Pienemann, M. & M. Johnston. 1985. Factors influencing the
development of language proficiency. Ms.
Prabhu, N. S. 1983. Procedural syllabuses. Paper presented at the
RELC Seminar, Singapore, April 1983.
Pullum, G. 1986. Why linguistic theory is not a theory of the
human capacity for language. Paper presented at a meeting of
the University of Hawaii Linguistics Society, March 1986.
Reibel, D. A. 1969. Language learning analysis. -tiona.l
Journal ADDlied 7, 4s 283-294.
Resnick, L. B. (ed.). 1976. pature a intell-. Hillsdale
NJ: Erlbaum.
Resnick, L. B. & W. W. Ford. The analysis of tasks for
instruction: an information-processing approach. In A. C.
Catania & T. A. Brigham (eds.1. 3DDlied b e h a v i a
m. NY: Irvington.
Richards, J. C. 1984a. The secret life of methods. ZL%QL QULGSLU
18, 1, 7-23.
Richards, J. C. 1984b. Language curriculum development. U
J o u r n a 15, 1. 1-29.
Rodgers. T. S. 1984. Communicative syllabus design and
implementation: reflection on a decade of experience. In
J. A. S. Read (ed.). a avllabus m.
Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Rosenthal, T. L. & B. J. Zimmerman. 1978. a hauling arul
NY: Academic Press.
Rulon, K. & J. McCreary. 1985. Negotiation of content: teacher-
fronted and small group interaction. In R. R. Day (ed.),
m. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
Samah, A. A. 1984. The English language (communicational)
curriculum for upper secondary schools in Malaysia:
rationale, design and implementation. In J. A. S. Read
(ed.), Trends &yll&gu &~UQ. Singapore:
Singapore University Press.
Sato, C. J. 1985. Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In
Gass & Madden.
Schinnerer-Erben, J. 1981. Sequencing redefined. W
4, 1-29.
Schumann. J. H. 1978. I~M w & n A W XQr
Rowley MA: Newbury House.
Segal, U. A. 1982. The cyclical nature of decision making. Sffla.ll
G ~ O U Q Behavior 13. 3. 333-348.
Shavelson. R. J. & P. Stern. 1981. Research on teachers1
pedagogical thoughts, judgments and behavior. Review a
B d u c a t i o n d Besearch 51. 4. 455-498.
Shaw, M. E. 1973. Scaling group tasks: a method for dimensional
analysis. d SU d Ss l s xt d
3, 8.
Shaw. M. E. 1976. Sma l l gr au Lhs
behaviu. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Shiflett, S., S. Price & F. M. Schemmer. 1981. W a
d -- w. (ARRO
interim report 3068.) Washington DC: ARRO.
Shiflett. S., E. Eisner & A. Inn. 1981. f i c t i f i c a a U
- d - U v i t i e ~ . (ARRO final report 3068).
Washington DC: ARRO.
Shortreed, I. 1985. The effects of task complexity and
proficiency on foreigner talk discourse and communication
strategies in NS/NNS interaction. Ms. Dept. of Language
Education, University of British Columbia.
Smith. E. L. 4 N. B. Sendleback. 1979. Teacher intentions for
science instruction and their antecedents in program
materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.
Steiner. I. D. 1972. a ~ r ~ d u ~ t i ~ i t ~ . NY: Academic
Press.
Swaffar, J. K., K. Arens & M. Morgan. 1982. Teacher classroom
practices: redefining method as task hierarchy. Modern
LQLEXLL 66s 1 s 24-33.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its
development. In Gass & Madden.
Tarone, E. 1979. Interlanguage as chameleon.
29, 2, 181-91.
Tarone, E. 1983. On the variability of interlanguage systems.
ADDlied 4. 142-163.
Tarone. E. 1984. Variability in interlanguage use: a study in
style shifting in morphology and syntax. Paper presented at
the 18th. annual TESOL Convention. Houston TX.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. action. NY: McGraw-Hill.
U. S. Department of Labor. 1965. P i c t i o w
w. Washington DC: Department of Labor.
U. S. Department of Labor. 1977. a ~ c c u ~ a t i d
(2nd. edn.). Washington DC: Department of Labor.
Varonls. E. M. & S. Gass. 1985. Nonnative/nonnative conversations:
a model for negotiation of meaning. w s t i c s 6.
1 s 71-90.
Wagner, J. 1983. Dann du tagen eineeee -- weise Platte -- an
analysis of interlanguage communication in instructions. In
C. Faerch & G. Kaspar (eds.1. h
- . London: Longman.
Welford, A. R. 1968. a m. London: Methuen.
Widdowson, H. G. 1971. The teaching of rhetoric to students of
science and technology. U e U
h a
7, reprinted in Bx~lorationa a &~Dlied
- . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Notional-functional syllabuses: 1978, part
4. In C. H. Blatchford & J. Schachter (eds.1. U W 2.
Washington DC: TESOL.
Widdowson, H. G. 1984. Educational and pedagogic factors in
syllabus design. JUJ 118, 23-28.
Wilkins, D. A. 1972. Grammatical, situational and notional
syllabuses. In Association Internationale de Linguistique
Appliqube (ed.), Proceedin&-i a 3 x L
C o n ~ r a Q -. Heidelberg: Julius Groos
Verlag.
Wilkins. D. A. 1974. Notional syllabuses and the concept of a
minimum adequate grammar. In S. P. Corder & E. Roulet
(eds.), uD1iet.l Uaguistica.
AIMAV/Didier.
Wi l k i n s , D . A . 1976. No t i o n a l s v l l a b ~ & z a . Oxf or d: Oxf or d
Un i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
Wi l k i n s , D. A. 1981. No t i o n a l s y l l a b u s e s r e v i s i t e d . A ~ ~ l i e d
Li n ~u i s t . l . SLa 2, 1, 83-90.
Wi l s on. M. & R. D. Br oc k. 1985. S p e l l a b i l i t y : a l i n e a r l y o r d e r e d
c o n t e n t domai n. E d w a L h n &l B s s W &urlUL 229 2 ,
297- 307.
Wi seman, R. L . & H . Abe. 1986. Co g n i t i v e c o mp l e x i t y and
i n t e r c u l t u r a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s : p e r c e p t i o n s i n Amer i can-
J a p a n e s e d y a d s . I n M. L . McLaughl i n ( e d . ) , C o mmu o ~ c a t i o . ~
Yearbook 3. Be v e r l y H i l l s CA: Sa g e .
Wood, W. , D. P o l e k & C. Ai t k e n . 1985. Se x d i f f e r n c e s i n g r o u p
t a s k p e r f o r ma n c e . & u n d Q ES&QLUULY and ~sJ..al
Ps vchol . aex 48, 1, 63- 71.
Ya l d e n , J . 1984. S y l l a b u s d e s i g n i n g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n : o p t i o n s i n
ELT. ELT Document s 118, 13- 22.
Yi n g e r , R. J . 1977. A s t u d y o f t e a c h e r p l a n n i n g : d e s c r i p t i o n and
t h e o r y d e v e l o p me n t u s i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c and i n f o r ma t i o n
p r o c e s s i n g mode l s . Un p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Mi c hi ga n S t a t e Un i v e r s i t y .
Za h o r i k , J . A . 1975. Te a c h e r s 1 p l a n n i n g mode l s . Ed u c a t Lo mJ
LSXI&JSLLQ 339 134- 139.