A framework of communication task types (Pica et al 1993, 2009)

The above framework is championed by Pica et al. (1993, 2009). Pica et al. (2009: 172) argue that their framework (typology of task types) aims to characterise and organise communication tasks from other classrooms activities. The organisation and characteristics of the tasks are clustered based on a specific contribution (s) that a particular task provides towards the learner’s language learning. In this regard, Pica et al. (2009: 174) provide information regarding the typology of only communication task types rather than tasks in general. Pica et al. argue that communication tasks are comprised of five task types as discussed in previous sections. (see section 3.5.2.3, on page 147). In addition, Table 3:5, on page 144, provides a descriptive information on five tasks that are summarised in Table 4:1, on page 208.

In light of the above, Van den Branden, Bygate and Norris (2009: 1-2) stress the view that the framework as advanced by Pica et al. (1993) has been influential in advancing TBLT knowledge especially, by inspiring L2 teachers and researchers, across the world, to work with tasks. As a result, in 2009, this framework was reproduced in, Task-Based Language Teaching. A Reader, a collection 20 key articles, and chapters that shaped the field and discourse of TBLT at that time (see further, Van den Branden, Bygate & Norris 2009). On one hand, Ellis (2003b: 211) maintains that

in order to design suitable TBSs, there is a need for syllabus designers to incorporate a variety of language functions and aspects to determine a range of task types in a syllabus. According to Ellis, the integration of such types of tasks is a basis for classifying tasks on psycholinguistic perspectives. Ellis (2003b: 214) maintains that a psycholinguistic classification of tasks plays a complementary role to other types of task classifications that are based on, for instance, pedagogical, rhetorical and cognitive perspectives as discussed from section 3.5.2.1 to 3.5.2.3, from page 145 to page 147 respectively.

Subsequently, regarding syllabus design as identified by other scholars, for example, Van den Branden et al. (2009: 8), similarly, Ellis (2003b: 214) proposes a task classification type that is based on a psycholinguistics perspective, specifically the framework advanced by Pica et al. (1993). According to Pica et al. (1993: 18), the pedagogical claim of their framework is that the opportunities that L2 learners are given in comprehending the input, the provision of feedback after production and the modification of their output is crucial in determining learners’ interlanguage development. In order to exploit the above claim, Pica et al. maintain that there is a need for categories of their framework (see Table 4:1, on page 208), to interact in order to realise their intended effect(s) on L2 learners as discussed in section 3.5.2.4, on page 148 (see also, Ellis 2003b: 213).

The genesis of the framework by Pica et al. (1993, 2009), is derived from the characteristics and definitions of tasks as a concept (see section 3.4, on page 121, for views on task definitions). Pica et al. (1993: 11-12) identify two silent features about a task. These include, on one hand, a task as an interactional activity that is carried out, either orally or/and actions, by participants(s), in this context, L2 learners. On the other hand, this activity needs to have a communication goal or outcome. Pica et al. maintain that in order for the participants to attain the goal while carrying out (performing) the activity, participants are required to seek assistance so that their message is understood or for participants to clearly understand messages from other participants. According to Pica et al. (1993: 12), seeking assistance is one of the ways for L2 learners increase their chances to “activate and apply comprehension and production processes.” Furthermore, for above processes to be realised, Pica at al., advise L2 teachers and researchers to provide learners with detailed tasks that can evoke learners’ other experiences rather than focus only on carrying the activity to attain a set goal.

Pica at al., assume that detailed tasks enhance teachers’ objectives towards L2 learners by promoting efficient language learning. Basing on the above assumptions, Pica et al. propose a framework that illustrates the activity and goal features in the communication task in order to

realise the possible activity and goal speculations on L2 comprehensions, production, and opportunities for feedback as far as SLA is concerned. In additions, Pica et al. (1993: 13) are of the view that for the purpose of enhancing communicative activities and goals between participants and their interlocutors during communication, Pica et al. postulate the activity and goal features into two broader specify. These include interactional activity as well as the communicational goal. Pica et al. elaborate further the above two specify with regard to categories, such as (i) interactant relationship, (ii) interactional requirement, (iii) goal orientation, and (iv) outcome options.

According to Pica et al. (1993: 13, 2009: 179), interactional activity is composed of two categories, interactant relationship, and interactional requirement. On one hand, Pica et al. relate the former to responsibilities that task participants play during task performance. Such responsibilities include information holder, requester and/or information supplier in order to complete a given task with a set goal(s) (see, for example, Hasan 1985: 58, for similar views). The interactant relationship among participants can either be mutual or independent one. Pica et al. maintain that continuous mutual relationship of information requester and supplier leads to the exchange of information in two ways compared to when the mutual relationship breaks down or is differentiated (independent), the flow of information turns to be one-way, that is to say from, a supplier to the requester. In relation to Robinson’s (2001a: 30) TCF, this flow of information is regarded as [+/- one-way flow] feature. On one hand, Pica et al. (1993: 13) argue that interactional requirement is premised on the assumptions whether, during task performance, it is obligatory or an option to request or supply task-related information among participants. Pica et al. stress the view that task support exchange of information among participants promote more interaction among the participants (see, for example, Hasan’s (1985: 54) previous views of focused interaction), compared to tasks that give a participant options or choices to or not to contribute towards information exchange during task performance. This is the feature that Robinson (2010: 257) relates to [+/- negotiation not needed] feature. On the other hand, Pica et al. (1993: 13) stress the view that the communication goal category of their framework is comprised of two sub-categories.

These include goal orientation and outcome options. According to Pica et al. (1993: 15), the former is related to the convergence/ collaboration or divergence/ independence requirement among participants performing a task towards attaining a goal. This feature is similar to Robinson’s (2005: 2) [+/- convergent solution] feature. Then, the latter is related to various outcomes from the tasks that participants are likely to meet during task performance to attain a goal of a given task. Robinson (2011b: 6) refers this feature as [+/- open solution]. According to Pica et al. (1993: 31), there are two types of task outcome options, the closed and open task options. The former involves

tasks responds to only one acceptable outcome, whereas the latter deals with task outcomes which as more than one and so forth.

Therefore, basing on the previously noted claim of the framework as advanced by of Pica et al. (1993, 2009) and in relation to typology of task types, the above interplay between interactional activity and communicational goal, Pica et al. (2009: 183) point out the view that jigsaw and information gap tasks, respectively, appear to be the most effective tasks compared to opinion exchange tasks which are considered the least effective in providing L2 learners with opportunities to comprehend the input, the provision of feedback after production and the modification of their output with an aim of determining learners’ interlanguage development.

However, according to Ellis (2003b: 216), the above task classification, as proposed by Pica et al. (1993, 2009), is only suitable for the selection of tasks (This is exemplified in Chapter Four). In addition, Ellis argues that the other task classifications discussed above are based on the specific organisational principles. Therefore, in this instance, Ellis advances a general framework for task classification. According to Ellis, his framework is based on key task dimensions. Ellis states that such a framework is mainly underpinned by psycholinguistic, rhetoric and cognitive typologies, as discussed above. Thus, Table 3:9, on page 160, summarises Ellis’s general framework for task classification, as well as, for task grading and sequencing procedures.

In light of the above, Robinson (2011b: 5) stresses the view that there are other various proposals and approaches on how to analyse task so that their characteristics can be identified for effective pedagogical planning. Robinson considers task analysis as a vital process in the designing of pedagogical tasks for L2 learners with divergent language learning motives. With reference to Robinson (2011b: 5), Gagne (1962: 90) maintains that task analysis is one way of improving training problems that provide techniques, such as task components, sequencing of tasks and their subsequent subtasks, intra-task transfers and so forth. According to Gagne, such techniques are influential in the designing of effective language learning programmes. Accordingly, Robinson (2011a: 5-12) is of the view that Gagne’s (1962) thoughts are a foundation that advances a number of approaches for analysing tasks with an aim of characterising the attested tasks based mainly on their components. Such approaches include behaviour descriptive approach, information-theoretical approach, and ability required approach among others. In addition, Robinsons contends that the above approaches are used in different stages of language programme development(s) as well as the delivery of task-based instruction across contexts.

While exemplifying his contentions, Robinson (2011a: 5-12) argues for example that behaviour descriptive approach is used to analyse and classify tasks based on observing participation and non- participation procedures. On the other hand, the information-theoretic approach, according to Robinson (2011a: 7) involves information processing as well as cognitive processes in terms of input, output, interaction for task completion, mainly in educational domains. Lastly, according to Robinson (2011a: 8), the ability requirements approach is based on human cognitive abilities required to perform tasks effectively. To summarise his contentions, Robinson (2011a: 9) sums the above approaches on a dynamic and systematic Figure 3:4 below that represents issues that are discussed in various sections of this thesis. Specifically, Robinsons clusters the approaches along domains of aspects that are addressed by a particular approach as discussed above.

Figure 3:4: Task classifications and sequencing procedures

Source: Modified from Robinson (2011a: 9)

However, Robinson (2007a: 10) maintains that due to challenges in implementing the above analytical methodologies to task classifications and sequencing decisions across the above stages and various domains, Robinson suggests that the learning (pedagogical) tasks need to be designed, classified and sequenced based on the information-theoretical criteria. According to Robinson, the aim of using the information-theoretical criteria is to make an increase in L2 processing demands to the tune of the target task level(s).

In this respect, therefore, the subsequent section is a continuation of an attempt to address questions posed in section 3.3, on page 117, regarding the organisational principles in relation to TBS syllabus design and decisions, specifically, the basis on which TBSs select the learning content as discussed below.

Stage Domain Analysis Outcomes

[1] Needs identification

Target task & performance- referenced test specifications Behaviour, activity, and discourse descriptive Real-world L2 use and performance Pedagogical task sequences Information- theoretic Target task description [2] Syllabus design Task aptitude profiles Ability requirements Pedagogical task design [3] Learner Assessment