- Email: [email protected]
Cycle and activity structures in second language instruction
pp.
System, Vol. 22, No. 3. 319-339, 1994 Copynght 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Prmted m Great Bntam. All rights reserved 0346-25 I X/94 $7.00 f 0.00
Pergamon
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION JOHN GIBBONS Department
of Linguistics,
University of Sydney
In second language instruction, language learning activities appear to have stages which follow a predictable sequence. The same can also be said of larger units of instruction, referred to here as “cycles”. Cycles and activities therefore can be viewed as having structures which consist of sequenced stages. This paper is an attempt to describe these structures which underlie second language instruction. While influences from many sources are acknowledged, the descriptive framework used here is that of the Genre, in the form developed in Systemic Linguistics_ The paper provides a general description, then goes into greater depth, detailing the different forms these genre structures take, with illustrations from published material, recordings of classroom discourse, and teachers’ notes. The cycle is divided into focused and unfocused types, and the means of combining the two types are discussed_ Finally the paper discusses how such descriptions can be used in research into language instruction, in developing instructional materials, and in teacher development. A number of research questions arising from the descriptions are discussed.
INTRODUCTION When observing lessons or examining material which teaches second languages, it is apparent that these move through a series of stages. Closer observation may reveal that each individual activity consists of a number of stages, and that these activities themselves constitute the stages of larger units. A comparison could be made with a typical non-fiction book. The book consists of a number of chapters, which are not randomly ordered. There is an introduction section, a conclusion section, and the remaining chapters are sequenced in a developmental fashion. If we examine the chapters themselves, we find that they too have an internal structure, most having an introduction, a conclusion and internal development. In the following discussion the larger unit (like our metaphorical book) is the instructional cycle; the smaller unit (like our metaphorical chapter) is the activity. The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for analysing the staged structure of cycles and activities. If such a framework can be arrived at, it may help us to better characterize some of the differences between more successful and less successful language instruction, and enable us to transmit this information to teachers and curriculum designers. 319
320
JOHN GIBBONS
This paper then is concerned with second language instruction (i.e. where language itself is the main goal, rather than a medium for other learning). The purpose of the paper is primarily descriptive, it attempts to provide a framework for the analysis of some discoursal aspects of second language instruction. Such description is of interest in its own right, but it also provides a tool for applied purposes. In order to investigate which instructional patterns are most effective in promoting language learning, we first need a number of templates through which instructional patterns can be analysed. This paper is an attempt to build towards one such template. Discourse Analysis has been applied to second language instruction in two main areas. First it has been used to analyse the target discourse (spoken and written) which learners need to master-Widdowson is perhaps the best known exponent of this. The second application is the discourse analysis of second language instruction processes, most typically the investigation of classroom language interaction. This paper is of the second type and is an attempt to arrive at an analysis of common structures which underlie certain curriculum elements, namely lesson planning, instructional material and classroom language. Two discoursal units are analysed, the llCtilli@ and the instructional cyclcl (the latter is a larger unit constituted by activities). The analysis concentrates upon generic discourse structures (it does not address the many other aspects of activities and cycles). The paper follows a traditional pattern of sources, description, discussion. The paper is intended to stimulate debate, rather than being a final or definitive description.
THE DESCRIPTIVE
FRAMEWORK
Cycle and activity structures are often assumed, but little discussed, among teachers and curriculum designers. In the literature on second language instruction, there is limited discussion of genres of second language instruction. Writing on the cycles is mostly concerned with the focused cycle. This has been described (in a less complete fashion) as the “Presentation-Practice-Production” model: the best description of this that I am aware of is in Paulston and Bruder ( 1976). Brumfit ( 1978) discusses alternative orderings of stages in instruction. The role of input and output phases (used in the cycle descriptions) is discussed in the second language acquisition based literature on language teaching. The importance of the input phase is now well supported by second language acquisition studies (see for example Ellis, 1986); however, there was a time when this period was underrepresented in much second language instruction. Postovsky (1977) and many subsequent writers have made a convincing case, based in part on research evidence (e.g. Gary and Gary, 198 l), for an increased role for meaningful and activity based exposure to language. For a time indeed the pendulum swung against the output phase of the instructional cycle, and scholars such as Krashen ( 1982) argued that active use was sometimes unnecessary and could be negative in its effects. An alternative view is emerging through the research of Swain (1985), McLaughlin (1987), Day and Shapson (1990) and others, who provide evidence that there may be a need for both input and output phases in instruction.
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
321
The activity or task as a unit of description is used in a number of classroom interaction observation instruments, for example, by Mitchell et al. (1981). It was used by Jarvis (1968), who divided activities into stages called “categories”. In the COLT instrument, developed at OISE (see Allen et al., 1990, pp. 78-79) there is an activity unit, divided into “episodes”. In these observation instruments, and in other similar instruments, no common underlying structure for activities is predicted and each type of activity is described as a separate type-in other words the possibility of an underlying generic (in the sense of genre-based) structure is not raised. I believe that the limitations upon the discussion of cycle and activity structures in the second language instruction literature are a consequence of the absence of a suitable framework through which to analyse and discuss them. The framework presented here has emerged from three major fields of enquiry: discourse analysis, education and the psychology of learning. The text/discourse analysis is based on the work of Halliday and writers influenced by him-particularly Sinclair and Coulthard, Hasan, and Martin. Of particular value was the notion of “genre” (see below) and the well developed descriptive framework associated with it in Systemic Linguistics. The content of the framework used here, the “meat on the bones”, comes from writers on educational curriculum, particularly Taba, and from psychologists of learning, particularly Vygostsky. It is impossible to do justice to all these authorities in a few pages. It is hoped that the descriptions given through the paper and the examples will clarify the concepts.
Discourse analysis The general approach of this paper comes from the school of linguistics founded by Halliday. There are also some concepts used in the description that are derived directly from Halliday. Among the best known of these are the three macro-functions of language, the Interpersonal, the Ideational and the Textual (see Halliday, 1973; 1985). Another insight which proved useful is the “hierarchy of periodicity”. This is the observation that patterns are reproduced in similar forms at different levels of linguistic structure. This concept not only assists in language description, it also explains why one rank is mistaken for another when they have similar periodic patterns. For example it is common for there to be a confusion between the two levels of cycle and activity described below, since there are strong periodic similarities in their structure. The key descriptive mechanism used here is the notion of genre. Hasan in Halliday and Hasan (1985: pp. 52-65) provides a readable introduction to the concept of genres (readers who require more information about genre than can be presented here are referred to Hasan). Martin’s (1991) definition of genre is “a staged goal oriented social process”. A genre is an overall plan for a discourse type, or a “script” in the sense in which this term is used in schema theory/artificial intelligence. The plan consists of an ordered sequence of steps or stages, through which people move when engaged in certain social activities. Each particular discourse or social activity is regarded as an instance of a discourse type or genre. Another concept from Hasan that is used here is that of “structure potential”. In essence this means that some elements of a genre are obligatory, some are optional,
322
JOHN GIBBONS
and some recur and are therefore iterative. So each occurrence of a genre will reveal aspects of the potential structure of that genre. Hasan (1985) also provides some of the orthographic conventions that will be used here to represent generic structure. These are: ( ) an optional element x”y x precedes y x”y x may precede or follow y (..is unordered relative to..) The style of the description in Figure 1 is based largely upon Martin (1991). In particular it uses his system/structure distinction. The “hierarchical structure” corresponds to his “structure”, and the “content choices” correspond to “system”. Another concept drawn from Martin is the synoptic/dynamic contrast, whereby synoptic elements are relatively fixed and predictable, while dynamic elements are contingent, that is they tend to be based on momentary need and are often interactive. The final concept from Martin is that of macro and micro levels of structure, each of which may contain a number of ranks. The two levels are not directly structurally related, although the micro constitutes the macro. In the description which follows, the cycle and activity levels display such a structural discontinuity, since activities are not organized in fixed numbers or patterns into the bottom ranks of cycles. Cycles then are macro level structures, while activities are micro level structures. Within the study of education, one of the best known descriptions of discourse structure is that of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Certain of their insights are used here, particularly the distinction between Boundary and Teaching exchanges. However, when attempting to describe the cycle and activity units, a problem was encountered in attempting to use Sinclair and Coulthard’s model and other models for the analysis of second language instruction based upon it such as those of Willis (1981) and Lorscher (1986). Their analysis is based exclusively upon classroom discourse. This is a well justified research orientation, but for my purposes it does not facilitate the analysis of the conceptual generic structure discussed by Martin (see above) nor the relation of language of the classroom to wider curriculum goals. Particularly problematic is the use of the “lesson” as a unit for analysis. Although the curriculum is ultimately realized in the lesson, the lesson is not the primary underlying unit of organization in instruction-a lesson may cover a number of curriculum goals, or a curriculum goal may require a number of lessons. An analogy would be a page of a novel. While the page has clear boundaries delimited by margins, it is not a unit of the content of the novel, since a change in typeface would change the content of individual pages. In Hallidayan terms, lessons and pages are textual units, but the ideational units are educational goals or book chapters. The lesson might be regarded as a time constraint upon instruction, an administrative unit, or questionably as a learning unit based on attention curves, given the well established practice in second language instruction of beginning a lesson with a “warm up” activity, and ending with one that demands less intense concentration. A failure to acknowledge this incongruent relationship between curriculum goals and lessons can produce distortions in real teaching-for example the so-called “RSA lesson” (produced for assessment purposes for the Royal Society of Arts Diploma in Teaching English as a Foreign Language) is sometimes criticized on the grounds that some examinees assume that a lesson is a natural unit in which to cover a single language item.
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
Educational
323
descriptions
We have noted that genre based discourse analysis takes as its starting point the principle that discourse structures arise to meet particular purposes or objectives-they are “goal oriented”. The literature on objectives in education is particularly rich. Writers such as Mager (1962) and Taba (1962) have influenced what is in the descriptions-their constituents and contentsrather than the structural aspects of the descriptions. However, since these writers look at educational subject areas other than second language instruction, they take a rather different viewpoint from that found here. One important structural insight from education is that, as we have noted above, a single goal is not always covered in a single lesson. Another insight is that data needed to describe larger units of instruction such as those discussed in this paper can be found in curriculum documents, learner material and teacher notes, not only in classroom processes which are one (albeit central) manifestation of such structures. Recent discourse analysis of second language instruction has focused mainly on classroom processes (for example see Chaudron, 1988) leaving aside these other manifestations of structure.
Psychology
of learning
There is a substantial psychological literature on phases and stages of learning. Shuell (1990) surveys a wide range of such material written over the last century in many different schools of psychology. Most include an initial phase of exposure to the new information/skill, a second “sorting out” and practice stage, and final phase in which the information/skill is integrated and becomes automatic, corresponding to the genre stages discussed here. Further information, and descriptions of allied Vygostskian work can be found in Collins et al. (1989) and Day et al. (1989). In addition to overall genre concepts, learning theory provides evidence for the introduction stage, which is proposed below for both cycles and activities. Ausubel’s “advance organizer” is clearly closely related to the review and orientation aspects of the introduction (see Ausubel, 1978). Ausubel, discussing reading, views the advance organizer as a conceptual bridge between what the reader already knows and the new material that it is hoped s/he will grasp and learn. Another important source for the content of the descriptions here is professional experience, particularly working with R. K. Johnson, Jerri Willet and Jennie Evans. An earlier less developed version of this work written for teachers is available in Gibbons (1989).
THE DESCRIPTIVE
MODEL OF INSTRUCTIONAL
CYCLES AND ACTIVITY
GENRES
Discourse structures such as the activities and cycles presented in Figure 1 mostly arise as consensus responses to purposes, situations and needs. Humans are always capable of innovative or simply different responses, so such descriptions are canonical rather than being exhaustive. This truism holds for other descriptions, such as that of Sinclair and Coulthard. These units are also “structure potential”-there can be reasons for omitting or re-ordering almost any element of structure.
WORK
STAGE
ACTIVITY
PHASE
CYCLE
I
INTRODUCTION"
I
I
SETUP"
INPUT" I
ACTIVITY
CYCLE
I
I OUTPUT" I
structure
PERFORMANCE"
Hierarchical
I
OUTCOME"
I
I
decisioar
CONCLUSION"
CONCLUSION I
Fig. 1. The descriptive framework for activities and cycles.
+
-3
stage type
-3
activity type
goal type
phase type
cycle type
-c
dynamic
synoptic
instructional
boundary
(goal based)
dynamic
synoptic
instructional
boundary
unfocused
focused
Content choices
* hmingeualuauon fi feedback 0E”rriC”lYrn 6elor”rc work type intern* nexternal 1monmrprcd”ot op@Jin*“mod”a,,oa 0oricot*tion sreview preparation - dlrectionr *entities 0checka
n4-lJl-rll--l7Jll-r4-7
Ranks (each constituted by the rank below)
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
325
The framework proposed in Figure 1 has two levels, each consisting of three ranks. This means a total of six ranks, each constituted by the rank below. The Hierarchical Structure displays the constituency relationships between the ranks. The Content Choices show how the elements at each rank can be grouped together into classes; for example at the Phase and Stage ranks the Introduction and Conclusion elements are boundary units, while the remainder are instructional. The other choices will be explored, and the constituents above will be described and exemplified in the two sections which follow. Of interest are the periodic similarities between the two levels. The Phase and Stage ranks both contain Introduction and Conclusion elements, and the Goals and Work that constitute them are similar. These more textual elements show periodicity. (The same can be said of the synoptic/dynamic distinction, which is more interpersonal in function, since it distinguishes degrees of interaction.) The more ideational components however, the core of the instructional behaviour, are clearly differentiated between levels. Given these periodic similarities, the activity is given first to avoid confusion-it is common for the cycle to be mistaken for an activity.
DESCRIPTIONS Activities The first description is of the lower level-that of the activity. Its structure is presented in Figure 2. The description which follows assumes that activities are all performed by learners. While this is possible for all activities, in reality some are more frequently performed by teachers-perhaps the most common examples are the description part of focus work, and the feedback element of EVALUATION (even though both can be done by learners if they are given access to appropriate information, especially if they are working in groups). Here stages are in BOLD CAPITALS, nature of the work is in lower case.
work in NORMAL
CAPITALS
and the possible
As noted above, the distinction between synoptic and dynamic used in Figure 2 derives from the work of Martin (1991). In the second language curriculum, synoptic elements are typically presented in the student’s textbook, while dynamic elements are more likely to be either in the teacher’s notes, or not pre-planned at all. The Dynamic aspects are divided into two columns. This is because those elements to the right are contingent upon the contingent-the interventions, feedback and curriculum decisions are contingent upon the checks and evaluation. The activity and cycle structures will be exemplified using a telephone language theme. In particular, the activity structure will be exemplified by exercise 2 in the extract from Smith et al. (1982: 48) given in Figure 3.
326
JOHN GIBBONS
INTRODUCTION OPENING MOTIVATION ORIENTATION REVIEW SET UP PREPARATfON organisation information DIRECTIONS description exemplification control ENTITIES verbal non-verbal other
--->
CHECK ---> access comprehension
---> CHECK access semiotic (comprehension) --->
(INTERVENE)
(INTERVENE)
PERFORMANCE INTERNAL PERF. deploying: knowledge/information (n.b. nature and location) cognition skills & strategies EXTERNAL PERF. -> MONITOR productive (interactive)
--->
(INTERVENE)
OUTCOME (LEARNING) CONCLUSION EVALUATION --> analyse productA compare to target+ assess cause of differences from target
FEEDBACK cognitive evaluative
CURRICULUM DECISIONS Fig. 2. The activity
genre
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
327
NOTES Look at these examples from the conversations: i
Good afternoon. This is Oriental Airlines. Can I speak to M.rs Lora Dos Santos, please? ii Good afternoon. This is Oriental Airlines. Can I speak to Mr Laurence Pan, please? How to makea call Note that when Simon is making a call, he starts with a greeting, identifies himself, then asks for someone.
I This
Greeting
Identifmtion
Request
Good morning Good afternoon Good evenina Hallo -
This is. . . .
Can I tpaakto . . .. (please)?
is a clear, safe way to make a call.
EXERCISE 2 Makethese talk The time is:
4 p.m. 9 a.m. 2.45 p.m. 5 p.m.
You are:
You want:
Mr Jones
the nurse
The Entee Uub Mr Kim’s assistant
sury the shift supervisor
Jar Jam Engineering Conwnv
thepersonnel officer
Fig. 3. An example of an activity.
An INTRODUCTION it is suggested, involves an opening, a framing move of the type discussed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), often a formula such as “right” on a rise-fall intonation. A review recycles parts of previous instruction that are relevant to the activity; in the example, the content of the Notes would be reviewed (if they had not been examined immediately prior to the activity). The orientation attempts to help learners anticipate and be prepared for what is to come; in this example a teacher might say “Now let’s practise those ways to begin a call”. In motivation there is an attempt to arouse the learners’ interest in the activity and their commitment to its successful completion, in this case perhaps by learners raising real life problems they have had with using this particular language on the telephone.
32x
JOHN GTBBONS
In the SET UP stage all the ground work is laid which will permit a successful PERFORMANCE of the activity. The PREPARATION work in the SET UP is concerned with the physical organization of the classroom, and the supplying of any information needed for the activity. In the example the learners could be organized into pairs, with writing necessities if the activity is to be prepared in writing first, as is suggested in the teacher’s notes. ENTITIES are any “things” used during a performance-these may be verbal (often texts to be acted upon in various ways), or non-verbal entities such as pictures or real objects. DIRECTIONS are intended to show learners what to do during the performance; this can involve describing or giving an example of what is expected (description and exempl@ution). It is sometimes the case in output activities that the language used during the performance is subject to some degree of control-it can be prescribed or guided. The DIRECTION and ENTITY elements in most activities interact, so the display should not be read as implying an ordering between them. In the example the main (verbal) ENTITY required for the .performance is the text in Figure 4; extension telephones could also be used. The description and exemplification of the forthcoming performance is assumed to be transferred from the focus “Notes” which precede this exercise (it is common for focus material to play a double role both as exemplification of the language item, and as guidance for an output activity). The only DIRECTION needed here therefore is being told to use the language forms already provided (control), to write or act the telephone introductions. The CHECK is not in the course materials, as is mostly the case with dynamic stages, but a good teacher or group leader would check that learners had accessed the appropriate part of the text book, and that they comprehended the DIRECTIONS. The PERFORMANCE stage is the heart of the activity, where learners perform whatever it is that is intended to promote their learning of the target language. In the PERFORMANCE stage of the example, learners would INTERNALLY deploy the information on telephone language available to them in the book (“before the eye” information). and their (“behind the eye”) existing knowledge of telephone language, both the English telephone language already acquired (consciously or unconsciously), and perhaps their experience of using a telephone in their mother tongue (particularly if they are adult learners). Note the varied nature and locations (before and behind the eye) of this knowledge/information. The EXTERNAL manifestation of this internal deployment is interaction with their partner to arrive at a correct version, which might well involve some discussion, MONITORING and INTERVENTION in their partner’s performance as well as their own (common manifestations would be repair and clarification sequences). The PRODUCT OUTCOME of the activity would be the final version of the telephone calls, perhaps tape recorded or performed before the class. The desired LEARNING OUTCOME of this is of course increased mastery of the telephone language, and more general interaction features of spoken language through the interactive process itself. The CONCLUSION of the activity should involve some EVALUATION of the learner’s success in completing the activity. FEEDBACK might be cognitive-telling the learner where any problems or mistakes lie-and/or evnluutive-“well done”. In learner directed instruction a model for comparison might be obtained, and considerable learning could result from the process of comparison. EVALUATION of the student’s performance may lead to
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
CURRICULUM DECISIONS language later. The CLOSURE tone to signal completion.
329
such as skipping the next exercise or recycling the same is often a formulaic expression such as “O.K.” on a falling
The focused cycle First the distinction between focused and unfocused instruction needs to be made, in order to motivate and explain the differences in the nature of the two variants of the cycle. The difference can be summarized as a decision as to whether the learner’s attention is directed to a language item, or to something other than language itself. A language item here can be a sound (e.g. a phonological segment), the linguistic realization of a notion or a function, a genre, or a part of the grammar of the target language, among others. For a substantial discussion of this distinction see Harley et al. (1990: pp. 57-115). The focused and unfocused approaches to language teaching are based on a deep schism among applied linguists as to whether languages are best learned by a process of exposure and use, allowing learners to pick their own path through the complex structural machinery of a language (Bell, 198 l), or whether languages are best learned when presented in an analysed, and often sequenced, manner. This is not the place for this debate, but in reality most language teaching involves both approaches. The distinction is established and demonstrated in language teaching in the organization of publishers’ catalogues into (mostly focused) coursebooks, and the (largely unfocused) remainder, in the division of teachers’ timetables into “language” and “four macro-skills” sections, and in many other ways. The distinction is not absolute, as it is sometimes difficult to allocate instruction to a single category, but it can be very useful in practice for the understanding and analysis of language teaching. The two main variants of the cycle will now be presented with explanation. The focused cycle is shown in Figure 4. 8yNOP72C
in a more accessible
nynarnc
INTRODUCTION MOTIVATION ORIENTATION REVIEW INPUT CUMPREHENSlON LANGUAGEFCCUS highlighting exemplification explanation FAMIUARITY
CHECK
OUTPUT
GUIDEDA FREE CONCLUSION EVALUATlON FEEDR4CK CURRICULUM
Fig. 4. The focused cycle.
DECISIONS
format along
330
Phases are in BOLD CAPITALS, case.
JOHN GIBBONS
goals are in CAPITALS,
and activity types are in lower
A typical focused cycle, in this case continuing the previous theme of telephone language, might proceed as follows. First there might be a discussion as to when learners need to use the telephone in the second language (if appropriate), and what telephone language they would like to learn. This is a typical ORIENTATION, getting the learners thinking about the language point that is to come, and relating it to their lives. They might also consider whether this has produced any difficulties for them in the past, thus attempting to encourage MOTIVATION to learn the new language. They might also REVIEW greetings and farewells, since versions of these occur in telephone language. All these parts of the INTRODUCTION are highly contingent, for instance some groups of learners will not be using the telephone in a second language. Others will not need to review greetings, and some will not need motivating since telephone language is an urgent necessity for them. This means that whole elements may be quite different in nature, or missing in different circumstances, hence the ‘dynamic’ categorization. This explains why such introductions are not normally present in published materials, but need to be imparted in teacher education. The INPUT phase consists of COMPREHENSION and FOCUS activities. COMPREHENSION here refers to the normal practice of providing some form of coherent discourse, i.e. a spoken or written text, which contains the language item that is the focus of the instruction. Normally this comprehension text will make transparent the meaning/use of the language item, as well as a typical context of use. In the case of telephone language this would probably be one or more recordings of short telephone conversations. FOCUS activities have as their objective what Rutherford (1987) refers to as “consciousness raising”-getting learners to attend to the language that is the focus of the cycle. Such attention need not involve intellectualization or explanation. In the case of telephone language it might involve replaying individual utterances from the beginning and end of the conversation, with an instruction such as “listen to how she answers the phone”-this is highlighting. It might involve the teacher or learners providing other examples not from the text-exemplificafion-or it might involve some description and analysis by teacher or learners-an explanation-such as-“notice that when we answer the phone we say ‘Deidre Chen’ not ‘I am Deidre Chen”‘. All three, or only one or two of these techniques might be used. The FAMILIARITY CHECK relates to the overall purpose of the cycle (i.e. it is not a check on comprehension of a single text-this relates to the activity level). Its purpose is to determine whether the item that is the focus of the cycle is familiar, partly learned, or even fully learned. There is a consequent Dynamic possibility of abandoning or immediate restructuring of the cycle on the basis of this information. The next phase is OUTPUT (but note that a direct move to output in this manner has been challenged in recent times by Krashen among others as noted in the section on the Descriptive Model). It consists of three forms of output, controlled, free and guided. CONTROLLED OUTPUT consists of activities in which the language forms expected from the learner are
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
331
pre-determined. In our telephone conversation class the learners might like the opportunity to simply repeat some of the expressions after the voice on the tape. Certain drills similarly determine the exact form of words expected; an example is the exercise used earlier to illustrate the activity. In GUIDED OUTPUT the learner is given guidance, a push in a certain direction, but there is no single right answer. In our telephone conversation example, the learner might be given a function script to role play a telephone conversation. In FREE OUTPUT the only constraint should be that imposed by the situation or task itself, involving no other compulsion towards specific language forms. So learners might be asked to make a real telephone call in the second language to an international hotel to ask if a MS X has checked in. Finally the Cycle needs to be drawn to a CONCLUSION. An EVALUATION can be made in order to determine the success or failure of the cycle-i.e. whether the language item has been mastered or not. FEEDBACK may be available to the learners on a range of issues that have contributed to the learning process as well as the learning itself-for example “We did the exercises really well, but when we came to the real calls there were a few problems weren’t there. We may need to do some work on the introductions”. This comment also implies a CURRICULUM DECISION concerning the need for further work on this item. Such decisions are usually made on the basis of the evaluation. The term “Activity Type” has been used this far without definition. Within the framework established above it is now possible to describe it. Within COMPREHENSION there are various types of comprehension activity which might be performed. Rivers and Temperley (1978: pp. 98-109) for instance provide a substantial taxonomy of listening activities. Within CONTROLLED OUTPUT there are various types of drill such as repetition, transformation, or re-ordering-Finocchiaro and Bonomo (1973) give a useful outline of controlled output activity types. As we have just seen, within the LANGUAGE FOCUS goal, one type of activity is highlighting. It can be seen that these various activity types draw their content and character from the goal that they serve, as is shown in Figure 1, whilst retaining the common structure given in Figure 2. The unfocused cycle The outline description
of the unfocused
cycle is given in Figure 5
The essence of unfocused instruction is that the learner’s attention is directed to something other than language. Most discourse structures are functionally oriented--that is to say, they have evolved as an appropriate way to perform real world functions. Therefore, while one would expect similarities in structure, differences in ostensible purpose (focused as against unfocused) would be manifested as structural differences. This is the case here, so while the unfocused cycle has strong similarities to the focused cycle, certain constituents are different. An important point concerning this cyclical structure is that it is relevant only to unfocused instruction which is integrated in some way, i.e. where one activity feeds into another (good examples can be found in the Quartet series by Grellet et al., 1982-1983. Some of the ways in which such integration is done are discussed in Low, 1989). Therefore this structure is not found in collections of unintegrated activities with a common theme-indeed these collections often lack a formal structure.
132
IOHNGIBBONS
syno3Yrac
lN.JNAWLC
INTRODUCTION MOTIVATION ORIENTATION REVIEW INPUT
coMPREHENslm NONLANGWliGE FOCUS FAMILIARITY CHECK OUTPUT DEVELOPMENT PRoDlJCTlcN EDITING CONCLUSION SUMMARY EVALUATION FEEDBACK CURRICULUM DECISIONS
Fig. 5. The unfocused cycle.
The most frequent type of non-language focus is of course informution-much modern language teaching material is content based (see for example Brinton et al., 1989). Another non-language focus is pleasure, for example through games. Both of these assume that language is learnt effectively in an incidental fashion when the learner’s attention is elsewhere. Rather different in nature are cycles designed to teach skills/strategies, for example a cycle designed to teach learners to inference or induce meaning from available clues when they do not have enough language to cope with a particular comprehension need. The unfocused cycle will now be described in more detail, using as an example a unit of work based on an airport. The phrases of the cycle rarely contain only input or only output. At the activity rank, both are constantly required. The input/output labelling refers to the overall orientation of the phase. The INTRODUCTION to an unfocused cycle will introduce learners to the non-language focus of that cycle. If the focus is information, then there may be a REVIEW of information already provided on that issue, an attempt to arouse learners’ interest in the topic-i.e. MOTIVATION-and/or an attempt to raise to consciousness the learners’ existing knowledge of the topic-ORIENTATION. For example, in introducing the airport material learners might discuss whether they had visited an airport and if so, what their impressions were (orientation), and whether they would like to learn more about how an airport works (motivation). The INPUT phase will provide access to the new information, skill, etc., and attempt to get the learner to engage with it, so that it is taken in. This may entail one or more texts/activities. In our airport example, this might involve a comprehension activity on an introductory text on the airport, followed by more specific (spoken or written) input on such topics as air traffic control, the airport fire service, airport noise, customs, etc. If only a part or an aspect of the material accessed is important, or only part will be actively used in an OUTPUT phase, then some form of FOCUS activity may be used to encourage learners to attend to the main purpose of the cycle. As with the focused cycle, some form of FAMILIARITY CHECK should be used
CYCLE
AND ACTIVITY
STRUCTURES
IN SECOND
LANGUAGE
INSTRUCTION
to ensure that the INPUT is appropriate to the learner. If the language material is either already familiar or completely outside the experience force reworking of the cycle.
333
and content of the new of the learner, this may
In traditional unfocused language teaching it was common for input and output to be unconnected, and therefore not to constitute a cycle. The desirability of integrating unfocused activities is now widely accepted however. The OUTPUT phase of an unfocused cycle may contain a number of activities. In an information based cycle, a traditional combination might be a discussion of the information and a piece of writing on a theme. In the case of the airport material obvious possibilities (in each case using the previous input to feed the output) include role plays of Customs officers discovering drugs, a discussion on airport noise, and writing up a visit to the airport (using all the information provided during the cycle). Before any public display (such as performing before the class) these might include DEVELOPMENT and EDITING activities. Similarly a written text may go through a series of DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION activities, with evaluation and feedback followed by EDITING (prepared oral language can be subjected to editing as well as writing). In the airport example, the students’ writing might be carefully edited before being published or displayed on the wall. This editing process, while not having a pre-determined language focus, directs learner attention to specific language that has either not been learned or has not been adequately deployed. The advantage of editing is that its unequivocal target is improving communication, but this is done through the manipulation of form, making it an ideal language learning procedure if properly handled. The CONCLUSION phase concludes the whole cycle, it is a “what have we learned” conclusion, not the evaluation of a single text, which is done within the activity genre, at a lower rank. It is similar in nature to the conclusion of the focused cycle.
Combining focused and unfocused work-some speculations As we noted earlier in this paper, focused and unfocused instruction tend to be done separately, both through timetabling conventions, and through published materials. This separation has been questioned in recent times, since some research has provided evidence that, as Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985: p. 321) state “a combination of form-oriented and meaning-oriented teaching [by which they clearly mean unfocused language teaching] was more beneficial than form-oriented teaching alone”, while for example Harley (1989) argues that the combination is more effective than unfocused learning alone. The question which then arises is-what type of structures might be used to combine focused and unfocused instruction in a purposeful fashion? The generic structure options are (as we shall see below) constrained by the way in which language items for focus are selected. One possibility has already been mentioned above. The editing process within the unfocused cycle can involve a form of focused work, centred upon perceived weaknesses in language performance, although this is not focused work as it is conventionally conceived since the ostensible target is not the learning of particular language, but improvements in a piece of spoken or written language. A difficulty with this process is the provision of access to the information needed to edit effectively.
334
JOHN GIBBONS
Brumfit (1978) proposes something rather similar but more structured, namely the use of error analysis as a means of selecting items for focused work. He suggests giving learners an unfocused output activity, and following it by an error analysis of what learners cannot achieve in the unfocused activity-in other words an analysis of where their language breaks down. The problem area is then the target of focused work. As I understand Allwright (19X4), he proposes a similar approach. This appears to work well in situations which are well endowed with teacher expertise and material resources. It has some potential disadvantages however. Firstly the focused instruction cannot be pre-planned, and therefore a centrally planned educational system cannot provide necessary material in advance. Secondly, it demands that the teacher has the knowledge and time to perform the difficult tasks of error analysis and the provision of remedial material. This may mean that Brumfit’s suggestion is inappropriate to some teaching situations, for example the many third world education systems that are centrally planned and not well resourced. An alternative approach is that taken in material such as Quartet where the course is predominantly unfocused but language items of interest are drawn from the unfocused material for focused work. In Quartet these items are focused upon at the teacher’s discretion since focused activities are available only in the teacher’s book. This pre-planned inclusion of focused work avoids heavy demands upon the teacher, but is probably less well founded in learner need than an error analysis approach. In reality of course, if teachers work on a similar curriculum with similar groups of learners over a period of time they may be able to predict and prepare for language problems that will arise in predominantly unfocused instruction, so that needs based focused work can be built in, or taken ‘off the shelf’ as required, either for the whole class or for individuals. Another basis for selecting particular items for focus comes from second language acquisition studies which predict when learners are ready to acquire certain language items. To summarize, there are several possible criteria for the selection language items for focus. Among the most important are: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
editing analysis of learner errors interest/perceived needs predicted learner errors/difficulties language acquisition based predictions development.
of language
from unfocused
needed at the learner’s
activity of
next stage of
Given that there appear to be grounds for the integration of focused and unfocused cycles, the question is-how can this be managed in terms of structure? One possibility is to begin with a complete unfocused cycle, select a particular language item from that cycle, and make that item the focus for a following focused cycle:
UNFOCUSED
CYCLE”SELECTION”FOCUSED
CYCLE
Another structure that seems to fit the limited information available at present is in Figure 6. This structure does not permit an error analysis based selection of the item for focus since
CYCLE
AND
ACTIVITY
STRUCTURES
IN SECOND
LANGUAGE
Unfocused
INSTRUCTION
335
Focused
INTRODUCTION INPUT LANGL14GEmuS FAMILIARITY CHECK ~DOUTPUT GUIDED OUTFIJT OUTPUT CONCLUSION
Fig.
6. Integrated cycles.
there is no initial output in which errors can be detected. This integrated structure consists of an unfocused INPUT from which the language item is drawn for subsequent focused teaching. Therefore the INPUT serves a second role as the comprehension part of the focused input. If the FAMILIARITY CHECK shows that the language item has not already been learned, the item is then focused upon and practised. This focused work is followed by an unfocused OUTPUT linked to the original INPUT, which gives some opportunity to use the focus item. The CONCLUSION should provide evaluation and feedback on outcomes of both the focused and unfocused activities. The advantage of the Figure 6 structure is that in theory it permits prior focused teaching of language items needed for the successful production of unfocused output, thereby possibly extending the range and quality of such output.
SOME USES OF THE FRAMEWORKS It is a truism of Applied Linguistics that an understanding of social and linguistic processes and phenomena is a necessary pre-requisite to gaining adequate control over them. This perception underlies the following part of this paper. Research
A core question in research into language instruction is-what constitutes effective language instruction? One factor in ineffective language instruction may be the unjustified omission or under-representation of part of a cycle or part of an activity. Common examples are: in cycles-no input or inadequate input before output, and no guided output before free output; in activities-failure to check access to entities (such as the right exercise), and directions that are inadequate to enable a learner to perform an activity. The framework presented here may enable researchers to locate, classify and analyse such differences in curriculum, and facilitate the comparison between more and less effective language teaching practices. It may also provide a framework for investigation and trial of new forms of generic structure. A number of research questions of this kind are raised in the final part of this paper. Development
of materials
In reality much language teaching material is produced to a formula. Therefore it is imperative to have well developed and well articulated models so that these formulae can be discussed,
336
JOHN GIBBONS
criticized and improved-there seems little doubt that they will be used. Experience of writing language teaching materials shows that cycle and activity structures of the kind discussed in this paper are often assumed, but it can be useful to have them consciously accessible as a checking procedure which can reveal deficiencies. On the other hand, material that is written to a strict formula can become tedious for both learner and teacher, and can stifle the creativity of the material writer. These structures are best used as a support rather than a straitjacket. Teacher development The strictures on rigidity apply equally to teacher behaviour. Nevertheless these generic structures can be of considerable use to beginning teachers, in helping them design their lessons-one common first demand is “where do I start”. One response of teacher educators has been to supply the crude ‘Presentation-Practice-Production’ model; the more sophisticated multi-level model presented here, if adapted appropriately to teacher needs, may bring improvements. The models given here have also proved useful in helping experienced language teachers to reflect on their practice (in workshops for foreign and community language teachers). A good example of one use to which the frameworks might be put can be found in the Joint Chief Assessors’ Report on the 1989 assessments of demonstration classes given by candidates taking the Diploma in the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language to Adults (awarded by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate with the Royal Society of Arts). Omitting the numerical codes, the report noted the following on page 2: “STRENGTHS IN FAILING CANDIDATES: ability to establish/maintain rapport personality, presence, general style voice-audibility, ability to project, modulation general shape and balance of activities suitability of aids, materials and methods for the class and its level voice-speed,
clarity of diction
encouragement of learners involvement of and attention to individuals suitability of materials and methods for teaching what is to be taught organization of physical resources WEAKNESS IN FAILING CANDIDATES anticipation of learner’s difficulties self awareness suitability of aids, materials and methods for the class and its level giving of instructions checking of student’s grasp of concept appropnate treatment of learners’ errors timing [twice] pace extent to which specified aim or sub-aims are achieved timing”
What is interesting about this is that the “strengths” of failing candidates include many aspects which can be pre-planned and prepared-in our description the synoptic aspects. The “weaknesses” by contrast include several elements such as CHECKING and appropriate treatment of learners errors i.e. INTERVENING, which are contingent or dynamic. Once this
SECONDLANGUAGEINSTRUCTION
CYCLEANDACTIVITYSTRUCTURESIN
337
analysis is arrived at, a solution can be sought. Dynamic aspects such as these are of course difficult to learn; possible avenues are structured observation, and carefully targeted microteaching.
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
The intention of this paper has not been to present the structures discussed here as in any way final or resolved. The literature and discussion concerning them is very limited, as is research on them. Too often the structures of instructional cycles and activity genres are hidden agenda items in language instruction. While they are present in so many places, they are rarely discussed. Yet they may have flaws, either because the curriculum designer and implementer (often the material writer and the teacher, respectively) have failed to appropriately implement the structures, or because these generic structures themselves are inadequate. Indeed, the descriptions and the structures presented here are imperfect and require further development. However it is hoped that the structural characteristics of the description may prove a useful framework within which to begin the long overdue investigation of, and debate about, generic structures in second language instruction. Some possible research questions follow. 1. What is the level of structure above the cycle? 2. What is the best order of elements in a cycle? The cycles presented above are given in their most common order, but other orders are possible. A derivative research question is-what differences flow from different orders? 3. How might these generic structures be manifested in a learner centred approach? They are, as we have noted, highly functional responses to instructional needs, so it seems likely that learners would find them helpful structures by which they could organize their self instruction. The problem would be to make them accessible to learners as one of the options available for organizing their learning. 4. Are other types or variants of both cycle and activity structures already in use or of possible use?
REFERENCES ALLEN, P., SWAIN, M., HARLEY, B. and CUMMINS, .I. (1990) Aspects of classroom treatment: toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In Harley et al., The Development of Second Language Projiciency, pp. 57-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ALLWRIGHT, R. (1984) Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In Singleton, D. and Little, D. (eds), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts, pp. 3-18. Dublin: Irish Association for Applied Linguistics. AUSUBEL, 48,252-258.
D. (1978). In defence of advance
BELL, R. (1981) An Introduction Batsford.
organizers:
a reply to the critics.
to Applied Linguistics: Approaches
Review ofEducational
Research,
and Methods in Language Teaching. London:
JOHN GIBBONS
33x
BRINTON, D., SNOW, M. and WESCHE, Newbury House.
M. (1989) Content-Based
BRUMFIT. C. (1978) Communicative language Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CHAUDRON, C. (1988) Second Lqyuuge University Press.
teaching:
Second Lung.qe
an assessment.
C/assrooms: Raeurch
In Strevens,
Imtruction.
New York, NY:
P. (ed). 1n Honour of’ A. S.
on Teaching und Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge
COLLINS, A., BROWN, J. and NEWMAN, S. (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In Resnick. L. (ed.), Krzou+ng ,!,ecrming und Instruction:Essuys in Honour ofRobert Glaser, pp. 453494. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DAY, E. and SHAPSON, S. (1990) Integrating formal and functional approaches in language teaching immersion: an experimental study. Paper presented at 9th World Congress of Applied Linguistics Thessaloniki, Greece. Forthcoming in Language Learning.
in French (AILA)
DAY, J., CORDON, L. and KERWIN, M. (1989) Informal instruction and the development of cognitive skill: a review and critique of research. In McCormick, C.. Miller. G. and Pressley, M. (eds), Cognitive Strategy Research: From Basic Research to Educational Applications, pp. 83-103. New York, NY: Springer. ELLIS, R. (1986) Understanding Second Luquuge FINOCCHIARO, Company.
M. and BONOMO.
FRANK. C., RINVOLUCRI.
Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
M. (1973) The Foreign Language Learner. New York, NY: Regents Publishing
M. and BERER, M. (1982) Challenge to Think. Oxford: Oxford University
GAGNI?. R. (1977) The Conditions ofletrrning.
Press.
New York. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
GARY, J. and GARY, N. (198 I) Caution: talking may be dangerous to your linguistic health: the cahe for a much greater emphasis on listening comprehension in foreign language instruction. IRAL, 19, l-3. GIBBONS,
J. (1989) Instructional
GRELLET,
F., MALEY, A. and WELSING.
cycles. English Teaching Forum XXVII. 3, 6-l 1. W. (1982-1983)
Quartet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HALLIDAY,
M. A. K. (1973) Explorations
in the Functions oflangucqe.
HALLIDAY,
M. A. K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
London: Edward Arnold.
HARLEY, B., ALLEN, P., CUMMINS, J. and SWAIN, M. (1990) The Development @Second Languqe Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HARLEY, B. (1989) Second language proficiency Freudenstein, R. (ed.), Error in Foreign Languages: Fremdensprachenforschung der Philipps-Universit%t.
Proficiency.
and classroom treatment in early French immersion. Analysis and Treatment. Marburg: Informationszentrum
In fiir
HASAN, R. (1985) The structure of a text. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (eds) Language. Context and Text: Aspects of Language in u Sock&semiotic Perspective, pp. 52-69. Geelong, Vie.: Deakin University Press. JARVIS, G. (1968) A behavioural observation Modern Lar~guage Journal, 52,335-341. KRASHEN,
system for classroom
(I 982) Principles and Practice in Seumd Ltinguqe
S.
foreign-language
skill acquisition
Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon
activities.
Press.
LORSCHER, W. (1986) Conversational structures in the foreign language classroom. In Kasper, G. (ed.). Learning, Teuching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom, pp. I l-22. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. LOW, G. (1989) Appropriate design: the internal organization of course units. In Johnson, Language Curriculum, pp. 135-154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MCLAUGHLIN,
B. (1987) Theories oj’second-lunguoge
MAGER, R. (1962) Preparing Instructional
Leurning. London: Edward Arnold.
Objectives. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
MARTIN. J. (1991) English Text: System und Structure. Amsterdam: MITCHELL, Observationa/
John Benjamins.
R., PARKINSON, B. and JOHNSTONE, R. (1981) The Foreign Study. Stirling: Department of Education, University of Sterling.
MONTGOMERY, C. and EISENSTEIN, ESL. TESOL Quarterly. 19, 2.
R. K. (ed.) The Second
Languuge
M. (1985) Real reality revisited: an experimental
CIassroomt
communicative
An
course in
PAULSTON, C. B. and BRUDER, M. (1976) Teaching English us (I Second Language: Techniques und Procedures. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. POSTOVSKY, V. (1977) Why not start speaking later? In Burt, M., Dulay, H. and Finocchiaro, on English as n Second Language. pp. 17-26. New York, NY: Regents Publishing Company.
M. (eds), Viewpoints
339
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
RIVERS, W. and TEMPERLEY, M. (1978) A Practical New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Guide to the Teaching
of English
as a Second
Learning
London: Longman.
or Foreign
Language.
RUTHERFORD,
W. (1987) Second Language
Grammar:
and Teaching.
SHUELL, T. (1990) Phases of learning. Review of Educational Research, SINCLAIR,
J. and COULTHARD,
Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University
SMITH, P., GIBBONS,
60,531-547.
M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: Press.
J. and WESTCOTT,
The English
K. (1982) Career English. Walton-on-Thames:
used by Teachers
and
Thomas Nelson.
SWAIN, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. TABA, H. (1962) Curriculum
Development:
Theory and Practice.
WILLIS, J. R. (1981) Spoken Discourse in the ELT Classroom.
New York, NY: Harcourt,
Unpublished
Brace and World.
MA thesis. University of Birmingham.
System, Vol. 22, No. 3. 319-339, 1994 Copynght 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Prmted m Great Bntam. All rights reserved 0346-25 I X/94 $7.00 f 0.00
Pergamon
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION JOHN GIBBONS Department
of Linguistics,
University of Sydney
In second language instruction, language learning activities appear to have stages which follow a predictable sequence. The same can also be said of larger units of instruction, referred to here as “cycles”. Cycles and activities therefore can be viewed as having structures which consist of sequenced stages. This paper is an attempt to describe these structures which underlie second language instruction. While influences from many sources are acknowledged, the descriptive framework used here is that of the Genre, in the form developed in Systemic Linguistics_ The paper provides a general description, then goes into greater depth, detailing the different forms these genre structures take, with illustrations from published material, recordings of classroom discourse, and teachers’ notes. The cycle is divided into focused and unfocused types, and the means of combining the two types are discussed_ Finally the paper discusses how such descriptions can be used in research into language instruction, in developing instructional materials, and in teacher development. A number of research questions arising from the descriptions are discussed.
INTRODUCTION When observing lessons or examining material which teaches second languages, it is apparent that these move through a series of stages. Closer observation may reveal that each individual activity consists of a number of stages, and that these activities themselves constitute the stages of larger units. A comparison could be made with a typical non-fiction book. The book consists of a number of chapters, which are not randomly ordered. There is an introduction section, a conclusion section, and the remaining chapters are sequenced in a developmental fashion. If we examine the chapters themselves, we find that they too have an internal structure, most having an introduction, a conclusion and internal development. In the following discussion the larger unit (like our metaphorical book) is the instructional cycle; the smaller unit (like our metaphorical chapter) is the activity. The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for analysing the staged structure of cycles and activities. If such a framework can be arrived at, it may help us to better characterize some of the differences between more successful and less successful language instruction, and enable us to transmit this information to teachers and curriculum designers. 319
320
JOHN GIBBONS
This paper then is concerned with second language instruction (i.e. where language itself is the main goal, rather than a medium for other learning). The purpose of the paper is primarily descriptive, it attempts to provide a framework for the analysis of some discoursal aspects of second language instruction. Such description is of interest in its own right, but it also provides a tool for applied purposes. In order to investigate which instructional patterns are most effective in promoting language learning, we first need a number of templates through which instructional patterns can be analysed. This paper is an attempt to build towards one such template. Discourse Analysis has been applied to second language instruction in two main areas. First it has been used to analyse the target discourse (spoken and written) which learners need to master-Widdowson is perhaps the best known exponent of this. The second application is the discourse analysis of second language instruction processes, most typically the investigation of classroom language interaction. This paper is of the second type and is an attempt to arrive at an analysis of common structures which underlie certain curriculum elements, namely lesson planning, instructional material and classroom language. Two discoursal units are analysed, the llCtilli@ and the instructional cyclcl (the latter is a larger unit constituted by activities). The analysis concentrates upon generic discourse structures (it does not address the many other aspects of activities and cycles). The paper follows a traditional pattern of sources, description, discussion. The paper is intended to stimulate debate, rather than being a final or definitive description.
THE DESCRIPTIVE
FRAMEWORK
Cycle and activity structures are often assumed, but little discussed, among teachers and curriculum designers. In the literature on second language instruction, there is limited discussion of genres of second language instruction. Writing on the cycles is mostly concerned with the focused cycle. This has been described (in a less complete fashion) as the “Presentation-Practice-Production” model: the best description of this that I am aware of is in Paulston and Bruder ( 1976). Brumfit ( 1978) discusses alternative orderings of stages in instruction. The role of input and output phases (used in the cycle descriptions) is discussed in the second language acquisition based literature on language teaching. The importance of the input phase is now well supported by second language acquisition studies (see for example Ellis, 1986); however, there was a time when this period was underrepresented in much second language instruction. Postovsky (1977) and many subsequent writers have made a convincing case, based in part on research evidence (e.g. Gary and Gary, 198 l), for an increased role for meaningful and activity based exposure to language. For a time indeed the pendulum swung against the output phase of the instructional cycle, and scholars such as Krashen ( 1982) argued that active use was sometimes unnecessary and could be negative in its effects. An alternative view is emerging through the research of Swain (1985), McLaughlin (1987), Day and Shapson (1990) and others, who provide evidence that there may be a need for both input and output phases in instruction.
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
321
The activity or task as a unit of description is used in a number of classroom interaction observation instruments, for example, by Mitchell et al. (1981). It was used by Jarvis (1968), who divided activities into stages called “categories”. In the COLT instrument, developed at OISE (see Allen et al., 1990, pp. 78-79) there is an activity unit, divided into “episodes”. In these observation instruments, and in other similar instruments, no common underlying structure for activities is predicted and each type of activity is described as a separate type-in other words the possibility of an underlying generic (in the sense of genre-based) structure is not raised. I believe that the limitations upon the discussion of cycle and activity structures in the second language instruction literature are a consequence of the absence of a suitable framework through which to analyse and discuss them. The framework presented here has emerged from three major fields of enquiry: discourse analysis, education and the psychology of learning. The text/discourse analysis is based on the work of Halliday and writers influenced by him-particularly Sinclair and Coulthard, Hasan, and Martin. Of particular value was the notion of “genre” (see below) and the well developed descriptive framework associated with it in Systemic Linguistics. The content of the framework used here, the “meat on the bones”, comes from writers on educational curriculum, particularly Taba, and from psychologists of learning, particularly Vygostsky. It is impossible to do justice to all these authorities in a few pages. It is hoped that the descriptions given through the paper and the examples will clarify the concepts.
Discourse analysis The general approach of this paper comes from the school of linguistics founded by Halliday. There are also some concepts used in the description that are derived directly from Halliday. Among the best known of these are the three macro-functions of language, the Interpersonal, the Ideational and the Textual (see Halliday, 1973; 1985). Another insight which proved useful is the “hierarchy of periodicity”. This is the observation that patterns are reproduced in similar forms at different levels of linguistic structure. This concept not only assists in language description, it also explains why one rank is mistaken for another when they have similar periodic patterns. For example it is common for there to be a confusion between the two levels of cycle and activity described below, since there are strong periodic similarities in their structure. The key descriptive mechanism used here is the notion of genre. Hasan in Halliday and Hasan (1985: pp. 52-65) provides a readable introduction to the concept of genres (readers who require more information about genre than can be presented here are referred to Hasan). Martin’s (1991) definition of genre is “a staged goal oriented social process”. A genre is an overall plan for a discourse type, or a “script” in the sense in which this term is used in schema theory/artificial intelligence. The plan consists of an ordered sequence of steps or stages, through which people move when engaged in certain social activities. Each particular discourse or social activity is regarded as an instance of a discourse type or genre. Another concept from Hasan that is used here is that of “structure potential”. In essence this means that some elements of a genre are obligatory, some are optional,
322
JOHN GIBBONS
and some recur and are therefore iterative. So each occurrence of a genre will reveal aspects of the potential structure of that genre. Hasan (1985) also provides some of the orthographic conventions that will be used here to represent generic structure. These are: ( ) an optional element x”y x precedes y x”y x may precede or follow y (..is unordered relative to..) The style of the description in Figure 1 is based largely upon Martin (1991). In particular it uses his system/structure distinction. The “hierarchical structure” corresponds to his “structure”, and the “content choices” correspond to “system”. Another concept drawn from Martin is the synoptic/dynamic contrast, whereby synoptic elements are relatively fixed and predictable, while dynamic elements are contingent, that is they tend to be based on momentary need and are often interactive. The final concept from Martin is that of macro and micro levels of structure, each of which may contain a number of ranks. The two levels are not directly structurally related, although the micro constitutes the macro. In the description which follows, the cycle and activity levels display such a structural discontinuity, since activities are not organized in fixed numbers or patterns into the bottom ranks of cycles. Cycles then are macro level structures, while activities are micro level structures. Within the study of education, one of the best known descriptions of discourse structure is that of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Certain of their insights are used here, particularly the distinction between Boundary and Teaching exchanges. However, when attempting to describe the cycle and activity units, a problem was encountered in attempting to use Sinclair and Coulthard’s model and other models for the analysis of second language instruction based upon it such as those of Willis (1981) and Lorscher (1986). Their analysis is based exclusively upon classroom discourse. This is a well justified research orientation, but for my purposes it does not facilitate the analysis of the conceptual generic structure discussed by Martin (see above) nor the relation of language of the classroom to wider curriculum goals. Particularly problematic is the use of the “lesson” as a unit for analysis. Although the curriculum is ultimately realized in the lesson, the lesson is not the primary underlying unit of organization in instruction-a lesson may cover a number of curriculum goals, or a curriculum goal may require a number of lessons. An analogy would be a page of a novel. While the page has clear boundaries delimited by margins, it is not a unit of the content of the novel, since a change in typeface would change the content of individual pages. In Hallidayan terms, lessons and pages are textual units, but the ideational units are educational goals or book chapters. The lesson might be regarded as a time constraint upon instruction, an administrative unit, or questionably as a learning unit based on attention curves, given the well established practice in second language instruction of beginning a lesson with a “warm up” activity, and ending with one that demands less intense concentration. A failure to acknowledge this incongruent relationship between curriculum goals and lessons can produce distortions in real teaching-for example the so-called “RSA lesson” (produced for assessment purposes for the Royal Society of Arts Diploma in Teaching English as a Foreign Language) is sometimes criticized on the grounds that some examinees assume that a lesson is a natural unit in which to cover a single language item.
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
Educational
323
descriptions
We have noted that genre based discourse analysis takes as its starting point the principle that discourse structures arise to meet particular purposes or objectives-they are “goal oriented”. The literature on objectives in education is particularly rich. Writers such as Mager (1962) and Taba (1962) have influenced what is in the descriptions-their constituents and contentsrather than the structural aspects of the descriptions. However, since these writers look at educational subject areas other than second language instruction, they take a rather different viewpoint from that found here. One important structural insight from education is that, as we have noted above, a single goal is not always covered in a single lesson. Another insight is that data needed to describe larger units of instruction such as those discussed in this paper can be found in curriculum documents, learner material and teacher notes, not only in classroom processes which are one (albeit central) manifestation of such structures. Recent discourse analysis of second language instruction has focused mainly on classroom processes (for example see Chaudron, 1988) leaving aside these other manifestations of structure.
Psychology
of learning
There is a substantial psychological literature on phases and stages of learning. Shuell (1990) surveys a wide range of such material written over the last century in many different schools of psychology. Most include an initial phase of exposure to the new information/skill, a second “sorting out” and practice stage, and final phase in which the information/skill is integrated and becomes automatic, corresponding to the genre stages discussed here. Further information, and descriptions of allied Vygostskian work can be found in Collins et al. (1989) and Day et al. (1989). In addition to overall genre concepts, learning theory provides evidence for the introduction stage, which is proposed below for both cycles and activities. Ausubel’s “advance organizer” is clearly closely related to the review and orientation aspects of the introduction (see Ausubel, 1978). Ausubel, discussing reading, views the advance organizer as a conceptual bridge between what the reader already knows and the new material that it is hoped s/he will grasp and learn. Another important source for the content of the descriptions here is professional experience, particularly working with R. K. Johnson, Jerri Willet and Jennie Evans. An earlier less developed version of this work written for teachers is available in Gibbons (1989).
THE DESCRIPTIVE
MODEL OF INSTRUCTIONAL
CYCLES AND ACTIVITY
GENRES
Discourse structures such as the activities and cycles presented in Figure 1 mostly arise as consensus responses to purposes, situations and needs. Humans are always capable of innovative or simply different responses, so such descriptions are canonical rather than being exhaustive. This truism holds for other descriptions, such as that of Sinclair and Coulthard. These units are also “structure potential”-there can be reasons for omitting or re-ordering almost any element of structure.
WORK
STAGE
ACTIVITY
PHASE
CYCLE
I
INTRODUCTION"
I
I
SETUP"
INPUT" I
ACTIVITY
CYCLE
I
I OUTPUT" I
structure
PERFORMANCE"
Hierarchical
I
OUTCOME"
I
I
decisioar
CONCLUSION"
CONCLUSION I
Fig. 1. The descriptive framework for activities and cycles.
+
-3
stage type
-3
activity type
goal type
phase type
cycle type
-c
dynamic
synoptic
instructional
boundary
(goal based)
dynamic
synoptic
instructional
boundary
unfocused
focused
Content choices
* hmingeualuauon fi feedback 0E”rriC”lYrn 6elor”rc work type intern* nexternal 1monmrprcd”ot op@Jin*“mod”a,,oa 0oricot*tion sreview preparation - dlrectionr *entities 0checka
n4-lJl-rll--l7Jll-r4-7
Ranks (each constituted by the rank below)
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
325
The framework proposed in Figure 1 has two levels, each consisting of three ranks. This means a total of six ranks, each constituted by the rank below. The Hierarchical Structure displays the constituency relationships between the ranks. The Content Choices show how the elements at each rank can be grouped together into classes; for example at the Phase and Stage ranks the Introduction and Conclusion elements are boundary units, while the remainder are instructional. The other choices will be explored, and the constituents above will be described and exemplified in the two sections which follow. Of interest are the periodic similarities between the two levels. The Phase and Stage ranks both contain Introduction and Conclusion elements, and the Goals and Work that constitute them are similar. These more textual elements show periodicity. (The same can be said of the synoptic/dynamic distinction, which is more interpersonal in function, since it distinguishes degrees of interaction.) The more ideational components however, the core of the instructional behaviour, are clearly differentiated between levels. Given these periodic similarities, the activity is given first to avoid confusion-it is common for the cycle to be mistaken for an activity.
DESCRIPTIONS Activities The first description is of the lower level-that of the activity. Its structure is presented in Figure 2. The description which follows assumes that activities are all performed by learners. While this is possible for all activities, in reality some are more frequently performed by teachers-perhaps the most common examples are the description part of focus work, and the feedback element of EVALUATION (even though both can be done by learners if they are given access to appropriate information, especially if they are working in groups). Here stages are in BOLD CAPITALS, nature of the work is in lower case.
work in NORMAL
CAPITALS
and the possible
As noted above, the distinction between synoptic and dynamic used in Figure 2 derives from the work of Martin (1991). In the second language curriculum, synoptic elements are typically presented in the student’s textbook, while dynamic elements are more likely to be either in the teacher’s notes, or not pre-planned at all. The Dynamic aspects are divided into two columns. This is because those elements to the right are contingent upon the contingent-the interventions, feedback and curriculum decisions are contingent upon the checks and evaluation. The activity and cycle structures will be exemplified using a telephone language theme. In particular, the activity structure will be exemplified by exercise 2 in the extract from Smith et al. (1982: 48) given in Figure 3.
326
JOHN GIBBONS
INTRODUCTION OPENING MOTIVATION ORIENTATION REVIEW SET UP PREPARATfON organisation information DIRECTIONS description exemplification control ENTITIES verbal non-verbal other
--->
CHECK ---> access comprehension
---> CHECK access semiotic (comprehension) --->
(INTERVENE)
(INTERVENE)
PERFORMANCE INTERNAL PERF. deploying: knowledge/information (n.b. nature and location) cognition skills & strategies EXTERNAL PERF. -> MONITOR productive (interactive)
--->
(INTERVENE)
OUTCOME (LEARNING) CONCLUSION EVALUATION --> analyse productA compare to target+ assess cause of differences from target
FEEDBACK cognitive evaluative
CURRICULUM DECISIONS Fig. 2. The activity
genre
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
327
NOTES Look at these examples from the conversations: i
Good afternoon. This is Oriental Airlines. Can I speak to M.rs Lora Dos Santos, please? ii Good afternoon. This is Oriental Airlines. Can I speak to Mr Laurence Pan, please? How to makea call Note that when Simon is making a call, he starts with a greeting, identifies himself, then asks for someone.
I This
Greeting
Identifmtion
Request
Good morning Good afternoon Good evenina Hallo -
This is. . . .
Can I tpaakto . . .. (please)?
is a clear, safe way to make a call.
EXERCISE 2 Makethese talk The time is:
4 p.m. 9 a.m. 2.45 p.m. 5 p.m.
You are:
You want:
Mr Jones
the nurse
The Entee Uub Mr Kim’s assistant
sury the shift supervisor
Jar Jam Engineering Conwnv
thepersonnel officer
Fig. 3. An example of an activity.
An INTRODUCTION it is suggested, involves an opening, a framing move of the type discussed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), often a formula such as “right” on a rise-fall intonation. A review recycles parts of previous instruction that are relevant to the activity; in the example, the content of the Notes would be reviewed (if they had not been examined immediately prior to the activity). The orientation attempts to help learners anticipate and be prepared for what is to come; in this example a teacher might say “Now let’s practise those ways to begin a call”. In motivation there is an attempt to arouse the learners’ interest in the activity and their commitment to its successful completion, in this case perhaps by learners raising real life problems they have had with using this particular language on the telephone.
32x
JOHN GTBBONS
In the SET UP stage all the ground work is laid which will permit a successful PERFORMANCE of the activity. The PREPARATION work in the SET UP is concerned with the physical organization of the classroom, and the supplying of any information needed for the activity. In the example the learners could be organized into pairs, with writing necessities if the activity is to be prepared in writing first, as is suggested in the teacher’s notes. ENTITIES are any “things” used during a performance-these may be verbal (often texts to be acted upon in various ways), or non-verbal entities such as pictures or real objects. DIRECTIONS are intended to show learners what to do during the performance; this can involve describing or giving an example of what is expected (description and exempl@ution). It is sometimes the case in output activities that the language used during the performance is subject to some degree of control-it can be prescribed or guided. The DIRECTION and ENTITY elements in most activities interact, so the display should not be read as implying an ordering between them. In the example the main (verbal) ENTITY required for the .performance is the text in Figure 4; extension telephones could also be used. The description and exemplification of the forthcoming performance is assumed to be transferred from the focus “Notes” which precede this exercise (it is common for focus material to play a double role both as exemplification of the language item, and as guidance for an output activity). The only DIRECTION needed here therefore is being told to use the language forms already provided (control), to write or act the telephone introductions. The CHECK is not in the course materials, as is mostly the case with dynamic stages, but a good teacher or group leader would check that learners had accessed the appropriate part of the text book, and that they comprehended the DIRECTIONS. The PERFORMANCE stage is the heart of the activity, where learners perform whatever it is that is intended to promote their learning of the target language. In the PERFORMANCE stage of the example, learners would INTERNALLY deploy the information on telephone language available to them in the book (“before the eye” information). and their (“behind the eye”) existing knowledge of telephone language, both the English telephone language already acquired (consciously or unconsciously), and perhaps their experience of using a telephone in their mother tongue (particularly if they are adult learners). Note the varied nature and locations (before and behind the eye) of this knowledge/information. The EXTERNAL manifestation of this internal deployment is interaction with their partner to arrive at a correct version, which might well involve some discussion, MONITORING and INTERVENTION in their partner’s performance as well as their own (common manifestations would be repair and clarification sequences). The PRODUCT OUTCOME of the activity would be the final version of the telephone calls, perhaps tape recorded or performed before the class. The desired LEARNING OUTCOME of this is of course increased mastery of the telephone language, and more general interaction features of spoken language through the interactive process itself. The CONCLUSION of the activity should involve some EVALUATION of the learner’s success in completing the activity. FEEDBACK might be cognitive-telling the learner where any problems or mistakes lie-and/or evnluutive-“well done”. In learner directed instruction a model for comparison might be obtained, and considerable learning could result from the process of comparison. EVALUATION of the student’s performance may lead to
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
CURRICULUM DECISIONS language later. The CLOSURE tone to signal completion.
329
such as skipping the next exercise or recycling the same is often a formulaic expression such as “O.K.” on a falling
The focused cycle First the distinction between focused and unfocused instruction needs to be made, in order to motivate and explain the differences in the nature of the two variants of the cycle. The difference can be summarized as a decision as to whether the learner’s attention is directed to a language item, or to something other than language itself. A language item here can be a sound (e.g. a phonological segment), the linguistic realization of a notion or a function, a genre, or a part of the grammar of the target language, among others. For a substantial discussion of this distinction see Harley et al. (1990: pp. 57-115). The focused and unfocused approaches to language teaching are based on a deep schism among applied linguists as to whether languages are best learned by a process of exposure and use, allowing learners to pick their own path through the complex structural machinery of a language (Bell, 198 l), or whether languages are best learned when presented in an analysed, and often sequenced, manner. This is not the place for this debate, but in reality most language teaching involves both approaches. The distinction is established and demonstrated in language teaching in the organization of publishers’ catalogues into (mostly focused) coursebooks, and the (largely unfocused) remainder, in the division of teachers’ timetables into “language” and “four macro-skills” sections, and in many other ways. The distinction is not absolute, as it is sometimes difficult to allocate instruction to a single category, but it can be very useful in practice for the understanding and analysis of language teaching. The two main variants of the cycle will now be presented with explanation. The focused cycle is shown in Figure 4. 8yNOP72C
in a more accessible
nynarnc
INTRODUCTION MOTIVATION ORIENTATION REVIEW INPUT CUMPREHENSlON LANGUAGEFCCUS highlighting exemplification explanation FAMIUARITY
CHECK
OUTPUT
GUIDEDA FREE CONCLUSION EVALUATlON FEEDR4CK CURRICULUM
Fig. 4. The focused cycle.
DECISIONS
format along
330
Phases are in BOLD CAPITALS, case.
JOHN GIBBONS
goals are in CAPITALS,
and activity types are in lower
A typical focused cycle, in this case continuing the previous theme of telephone language, might proceed as follows. First there might be a discussion as to when learners need to use the telephone in the second language (if appropriate), and what telephone language they would like to learn. This is a typical ORIENTATION, getting the learners thinking about the language point that is to come, and relating it to their lives. They might also consider whether this has produced any difficulties for them in the past, thus attempting to encourage MOTIVATION to learn the new language. They might also REVIEW greetings and farewells, since versions of these occur in telephone language. All these parts of the INTRODUCTION are highly contingent, for instance some groups of learners will not be using the telephone in a second language. Others will not need to review greetings, and some will not need motivating since telephone language is an urgent necessity for them. This means that whole elements may be quite different in nature, or missing in different circumstances, hence the ‘dynamic’ categorization. This explains why such introductions are not normally present in published materials, but need to be imparted in teacher education. The INPUT phase consists of COMPREHENSION and FOCUS activities. COMPREHENSION here refers to the normal practice of providing some form of coherent discourse, i.e. a spoken or written text, which contains the language item that is the focus of the instruction. Normally this comprehension text will make transparent the meaning/use of the language item, as well as a typical context of use. In the case of telephone language this would probably be one or more recordings of short telephone conversations. FOCUS activities have as their objective what Rutherford (1987) refers to as “consciousness raising”-getting learners to attend to the language that is the focus of the cycle. Such attention need not involve intellectualization or explanation. In the case of telephone language it might involve replaying individual utterances from the beginning and end of the conversation, with an instruction such as “listen to how she answers the phone”-this is highlighting. It might involve the teacher or learners providing other examples not from the text-exemplificafion-or it might involve some description and analysis by teacher or learners-an explanation-such as-“notice that when we answer the phone we say ‘Deidre Chen’ not ‘I am Deidre Chen”‘. All three, or only one or two of these techniques might be used. The FAMILIARITY CHECK relates to the overall purpose of the cycle (i.e. it is not a check on comprehension of a single text-this relates to the activity level). Its purpose is to determine whether the item that is the focus of the cycle is familiar, partly learned, or even fully learned. There is a consequent Dynamic possibility of abandoning or immediate restructuring of the cycle on the basis of this information. The next phase is OUTPUT (but note that a direct move to output in this manner has been challenged in recent times by Krashen among others as noted in the section on the Descriptive Model). It consists of three forms of output, controlled, free and guided. CONTROLLED OUTPUT consists of activities in which the language forms expected from the learner are
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
331
pre-determined. In our telephone conversation class the learners might like the opportunity to simply repeat some of the expressions after the voice on the tape. Certain drills similarly determine the exact form of words expected; an example is the exercise used earlier to illustrate the activity. In GUIDED OUTPUT the learner is given guidance, a push in a certain direction, but there is no single right answer. In our telephone conversation example, the learner might be given a function script to role play a telephone conversation. In FREE OUTPUT the only constraint should be that imposed by the situation or task itself, involving no other compulsion towards specific language forms. So learners might be asked to make a real telephone call in the second language to an international hotel to ask if a MS X has checked in. Finally the Cycle needs to be drawn to a CONCLUSION. An EVALUATION can be made in order to determine the success or failure of the cycle-i.e. whether the language item has been mastered or not. FEEDBACK may be available to the learners on a range of issues that have contributed to the learning process as well as the learning itself-for example “We did the exercises really well, but when we came to the real calls there were a few problems weren’t there. We may need to do some work on the introductions”. This comment also implies a CURRICULUM DECISION concerning the need for further work on this item. Such decisions are usually made on the basis of the evaluation. The term “Activity Type” has been used this far without definition. Within the framework established above it is now possible to describe it. Within COMPREHENSION there are various types of comprehension activity which might be performed. Rivers and Temperley (1978: pp. 98-109) for instance provide a substantial taxonomy of listening activities. Within CONTROLLED OUTPUT there are various types of drill such as repetition, transformation, or re-ordering-Finocchiaro and Bonomo (1973) give a useful outline of controlled output activity types. As we have just seen, within the LANGUAGE FOCUS goal, one type of activity is highlighting. It can be seen that these various activity types draw their content and character from the goal that they serve, as is shown in Figure 1, whilst retaining the common structure given in Figure 2. The unfocused cycle The outline description
of the unfocused
cycle is given in Figure 5
The essence of unfocused instruction is that the learner’s attention is directed to something other than language. Most discourse structures are functionally oriented--that is to say, they have evolved as an appropriate way to perform real world functions. Therefore, while one would expect similarities in structure, differences in ostensible purpose (focused as against unfocused) would be manifested as structural differences. This is the case here, so while the unfocused cycle has strong similarities to the focused cycle, certain constituents are different. An important point concerning this cyclical structure is that it is relevant only to unfocused instruction which is integrated in some way, i.e. where one activity feeds into another (good examples can be found in the Quartet series by Grellet et al., 1982-1983. Some of the ways in which such integration is done are discussed in Low, 1989). Therefore this structure is not found in collections of unintegrated activities with a common theme-indeed these collections often lack a formal structure.
132
IOHNGIBBONS
syno3Yrac
lN.JNAWLC
INTRODUCTION MOTIVATION ORIENTATION REVIEW INPUT
coMPREHENslm NONLANGWliGE FOCUS FAMILIARITY CHECK OUTPUT DEVELOPMENT PRoDlJCTlcN EDITING CONCLUSION SUMMARY EVALUATION FEEDBACK CURRICULUM DECISIONS
Fig. 5. The unfocused cycle.
The most frequent type of non-language focus is of course informution-much modern language teaching material is content based (see for example Brinton et al., 1989). Another non-language focus is pleasure, for example through games. Both of these assume that language is learnt effectively in an incidental fashion when the learner’s attention is elsewhere. Rather different in nature are cycles designed to teach skills/strategies, for example a cycle designed to teach learners to inference or induce meaning from available clues when they do not have enough language to cope with a particular comprehension need. The unfocused cycle will now be described in more detail, using as an example a unit of work based on an airport. The phrases of the cycle rarely contain only input or only output. At the activity rank, both are constantly required. The input/output labelling refers to the overall orientation of the phase. The INTRODUCTION to an unfocused cycle will introduce learners to the non-language focus of that cycle. If the focus is information, then there may be a REVIEW of information already provided on that issue, an attempt to arouse learners’ interest in the topic-i.e. MOTIVATION-and/or an attempt to raise to consciousness the learners’ existing knowledge of the topic-ORIENTATION. For example, in introducing the airport material learners might discuss whether they had visited an airport and if so, what their impressions were (orientation), and whether they would like to learn more about how an airport works (motivation). The INPUT phase will provide access to the new information, skill, etc., and attempt to get the learner to engage with it, so that it is taken in. This may entail one or more texts/activities. In our airport example, this might involve a comprehension activity on an introductory text on the airport, followed by more specific (spoken or written) input on such topics as air traffic control, the airport fire service, airport noise, customs, etc. If only a part or an aspect of the material accessed is important, or only part will be actively used in an OUTPUT phase, then some form of FOCUS activity may be used to encourage learners to attend to the main purpose of the cycle. As with the focused cycle, some form of FAMILIARITY CHECK should be used
CYCLE
AND ACTIVITY
STRUCTURES
IN SECOND
LANGUAGE
INSTRUCTION
to ensure that the INPUT is appropriate to the learner. If the language material is either already familiar or completely outside the experience force reworking of the cycle.
333
and content of the new of the learner, this may
In traditional unfocused language teaching it was common for input and output to be unconnected, and therefore not to constitute a cycle. The desirability of integrating unfocused activities is now widely accepted however. The OUTPUT phase of an unfocused cycle may contain a number of activities. In an information based cycle, a traditional combination might be a discussion of the information and a piece of writing on a theme. In the case of the airport material obvious possibilities (in each case using the previous input to feed the output) include role plays of Customs officers discovering drugs, a discussion on airport noise, and writing up a visit to the airport (using all the information provided during the cycle). Before any public display (such as performing before the class) these might include DEVELOPMENT and EDITING activities. Similarly a written text may go through a series of DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION activities, with evaluation and feedback followed by EDITING (prepared oral language can be subjected to editing as well as writing). In the airport example, the students’ writing might be carefully edited before being published or displayed on the wall. This editing process, while not having a pre-determined language focus, directs learner attention to specific language that has either not been learned or has not been adequately deployed. The advantage of editing is that its unequivocal target is improving communication, but this is done through the manipulation of form, making it an ideal language learning procedure if properly handled. The CONCLUSION phase concludes the whole cycle, it is a “what have we learned” conclusion, not the evaluation of a single text, which is done within the activity genre, at a lower rank. It is similar in nature to the conclusion of the focused cycle.
Combining focused and unfocused work-some speculations As we noted earlier in this paper, focused and unfocused instruction tend to be done separately, both through timetabling conventions, and through published materials. This separation has been questioned in recent times, since some research has provided evidence that, as Montgomery and Eisenstein (1985: p. 321) state “a combination of form-oriented and meaning-oriented teaching [by which they clearly mean unfocused language teaching] was more beneficial than form-oriented teaching alone”, while for example Harley (1989) argues that the combination is more effective than unfocused learning alone. The question which then arises is-what type of structures might be used to combine focused and unfocused instruction in a purposeful fashion? The generic structure options are (as we shall see below) constrained by the way in which language items for focus are selected. One possibility has already been mentioned above. The editing process within the unfocused cycle can involve a form of focused work, centred upon perceived weaknesses in language performance, although this is not focused work as it is conventionally conceived since the ostensible target is not the learning of particular language, but improvements in a piece of spoken or written language. A difficulty with this process is the provision of access to the information needed to edit effectively.
334
JOHN GIBBONS
Brumfit (1978) proposes something rather similar but more structured, namely the use of error analysis as a means of selecting items for focused work. He suggests giving learners an unfocused output activity, and following it by an error analysis of what learners cannot achieve in the unfocused activity-in other words an analysis of where their language breaks down. The problem area is then the target of focused work. As I understand Allwright (19X4), he proposes a similar approach. This appears to work well in situations which are well endowed with teacher expertise and material resources. It has some potential disadvantages however. Firstly the focused instruction cannot be pre-planned, and therefore a centrally planned educational system cannot provide necessary material in advance. Secondly, it demands that the teacher has the knowledge and time to perform the difficult tasks of error analysis and the provision of remedial material. This may mean that Brumfit’s suggestion is inappropriate to some teaching situations, for example the many third world education systems that are centrally planned and not well resourced. An alternative approach is that taken in material such as Quartet where the course is predominantly unfocused but language items of interest are drawn from the unfocused material for focused work. In Quartet these items are focused upon at the teacher’s discretion since focused activities are available only in the teacher’s book. This pre-planned inclusion of focused work avoids heavy demands upon the teacher, but is probably less well founded in learner need than an error analysis approach. In reality of course, if teachers work on a similar curriculum with similar groups of learners over a period of time they may be able to predict and prepare for language problems that will arise in predominantly unfocused instruction, so that needs based focused work can be built in, or taken ‘off the shelf’ as required, either for the whole class or for individuals. Another basis for selecting particular items for focus comes from second language acquisition studies which predict when learners are ready to acquire certain language items. To summarize, there are several possible criteria for the selection language items for focus. Among the most important are: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
editing analysis of learner errors interest/perceived needs predicted learner errors/difficulties language acquisition based predictions development.
of language
from unfocused
needed at the learner’s
activity of
next stage of
Given that there appear to be grounds for the integration of focused and unfocused cycles, the question is-how can this be managed in terms of structure? One possibility is to begin with a complete unfocused cycle, select a particular language item from that cycle, and make that item the focus for a following focused cycle:
UNFOCUSED
CYCLE”SELECTION”FOCUSED
CYCLE
Another structure that seems to fit the limited information available at present is in Figure 6. This structure does not permit an error analysis based selection of the item for focus since
CYCLE
AND
ACTIVITY
STRUCTURES
IN SECOND
LANGUAGE
Unfocused
INSTRUCTION
335
Focused
INTRODUCTION INPUT LANGL14GEmuS FAMILIARITY CHECK ~DOUTPUT GUIDED OUTFIJT OUTPUT CONCLUSION
Fig.
6. Integrated cycles.
there is no initial output in which errors can be detected. This integrated structure consists of an unfocused INPUT from which the language item is drawn for subsequent focused teaching. Therefore the INPUT serves a second role as the comprehension part of the focused input. If the FAMILIARITY CHECK shows that the language item has not already been learned, the item is then focused upon and practised. This focused work is followed by an unfocused OUTPUT linked to the original INPUT, which gives some opportunity to use the focus item. The CONCLUSION should provide evaluation and feedback on outcomes of both the focused and unfocused activities. The advantage of the Figure 6 structure is that in theory it permits prior focused teaching of language items needed for the successful production of unfocused output, thereby possibly extending the range and quality of such output.
SOME USES OF THE FRAMEWORKS It is a truism of Applied Linguistics that an understanding of social and linguistic processes and phenomena is a necessary pre-requisite to gaining adequate control over them. This perception underlies the following part of this paper. Research
A core question in research into language instruction is-what constitutes effective language instruction? One factor in ineffective language instruction may be the unjustified omission or under-representation of part of a cycle or part of an activity. Common examples are: in cycles-no input or inadequate input before output, and no guided output before free output; in activities-failure to check access to entities (such as the right exercise), and directions that are inadequate to enable a learner to perform an activity. The framework presented here may enable researchers to locate, classify and analyse such differences in curriculum, and facilitate the comparison between more and less effective language teaching practices. It may also provide a framework for investigation and trial of new forms of generic structure. A number of research questions of this kind are raised in the final part of this paper. Development
of materials
In reality much language teaching material is produced to a formula. Therefore it is imperative to have well developed and well articulated models so that these formulae can be discussed,
336
JOHN GIBBONS
criticized and improved-there seems little doubt that they will be used. Experience of writing language teaching materials shows that cycle and activity structures of the kind discussed in this paper are often assumed, but it can be useful to have them consciously accessible as a checking procedure which can reveal deficiencies. On the other hand, material that is written to a strict formula can become tedious for both learner and teacher, and can stifle the creativity of the material writer. These structures are best used as a support rather than a straitjacket. Teacher development The strictures on rigidity apply equally to teacher behaviour. Nevertheless these generic structures can be of considerable use to beginning teachers, in helping them design their lessons-one common first demand is “where do I start”. One response of teacher educators has been to supply the crude ‘Presentation-Practice-Production’ model; the more sophisticated multi-level model presented here, if adapted appropriately to teacher needs, may bring improvements. The models given here have also proved useful in helping experienced language teachers to reflect on their practice (in workshops for foreign and community language teachers). A good example of one use to which the frameworks might be put can be found in the Joint Chief Assessors’ Report on the 1989 assessments of demonstration classes given by candidates taking the Diploma in the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language to Adults (awarded by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate with the Royal Society of Arts). Omitting the numerical codes, the report noted the following on page 2: “STRENGTHS IN FAILING CANDIDATES: ability to establish/maintain rapport personality, presence, general style voice-audibility, ability to project, modulation general shape and balance of activities suitability of aids, materials and methods for the class and its level voice-speed,
clarity of diction
encouragement of learners involvement of and attention to individuals suitability of materials and methods for teaching what is to be taught organization of physical resources WEAKNESS IN FAILING CANDIDATES anticipation of learner’s difficulties self awareness suitability of aids, materials and methods for the class and its level giving of instructions checking of student’s grasp of concept appropnate treatment of learners’ errors timing [twice] pace extent to which specified aim or sub-aims are achieved timing”
What is interesting about this is that the “strengths” of failing candidates include many aspects which can be pre-planned and prepared-in our description the synoptic aspects. The “weaknesses” by contrast include several elements such as CHECKING and appropriate treatment of learners errors i.e. INTERVENING, which are contingent or dynamic. Once this
SECONDLANGUAGEINSTRUCTION
CYCLEANDACTIVITYSTRUCTURESIN
337
analysis is arrived at, a solution can be sought. Dynamic aspects such as these are of course difficult to learn; possible avenues are structured observation, and carefully targeted microteaching.
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
The intention of this paper has not been to present the structures discussed here as in any way final or resolved. The literature and discussion concerning them is very limited, as is research on them. Too often the structures of instructional cycles and activity genres are hidden agenda items in language instruction. While they are present in so many places, they are rarely discussed. Yet they may have flaws, either because the curriculum designer and implementer (often the material writer and the teacher, respectively) have failed to appropriately implement the structures, or because these generic structures themselves are inadequate. Indeed, the descriptions and the structures presented here are imperfect and require further development. However it is hoped that the structural characteristics of the description may prove a useful framework within which to begin the long overdue investigation of, and debate about, generic structures in second language instruction. Some possible research questions follow. 1. What is the level of structure above the cycle? 2. What is the best order of elements in a cycle? The cycles presented above are given in their most common order, but other orders are possible. A derivative research question is-what differences flow from different orders? 3. How might these generic structures be manifested in a learner centred approach? They are, as we have noted, highly functional responses to instructional needs, so it seems likely that learners would find them helpful structures by which they could organize their self instruction. The problem would be to make them accessible to learners as one of the options available for organizing their learning. 4. Are other types or variants of both cycle and activity structures already in use or of possible use?
REFERENCES ALLEN, P., SWAIN, M., HARLEY, B. and CUMMINS, .I. (1990) Aspects of classroom treatment: toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In Harley et al., The Development of Second Language Projiciency, pp. 57-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ALLWRIGHT, R. (1984) Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In Singleton, D. and Little, D. (eds), Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts, pp. 3-18. Dublin: Irish Association for Applied Linguistics. AUSUBEL, 48,252-258.
D. (1978). In defence of advance
BELL, R. (1981) An Introduction Batsford.
organizers:
a reply to the critics.
to Applied Linguistics: Approaches
Review ofEducational
Research,
and Methods in Language Teaching. London:
JOHN GIBBONS
33x
BRINTON, D., SNOW, M. and WESCHE, Newbury House.
M. (1989) Content-Based
BRUMFIT. C. (1978) Communicative language Hornby. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CHAUDRON, C. (1988) Second Lqyuuge University Press.
teaching:
Second Lung.qe
an assessment.
C/assrooms: Raeurch
In Strevens,
Imtruction.
New York, NY:
P. (ed). 1n Honour of’ A. S.
on Teaching und Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge
COLLINS, A., BROWN, J. and NEWMAN, S. (1989) Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In Resnick. L. (ed.), Krzou+ng ,!,ecrming und Instruction:Essuys in Honour ofRobert Glaser, pp. 453494. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DAY, E. and SHAPSON, S. (1990) Integrating formal and functional approaches in language teaching immersion: an experimental study. Paper presented at 9th World Congress of Applied Linguistics Thessaloniki, Greece. Forthcoming in Language Learning.
in French (AILA)
DAY, J., CORDON, L. and KERWIN, M. (1989) Informal instruction and the development of cognitive skill: a review and critique of research. In McCormick, C.. Miller. G. and Pressley, M. (eds), Cognitive Strategy Research: From Basic Research to Educational Applications, pp. 83-103. New York, NY: Springer. ELLIS, R. (1986) Understanding Second Luquuge FINOCCHIARO, Company.
M. and BONOMO.
FRANK. C., RINVOLUCRI.
Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
M. (1973) The Foreign Language Learner. New York, NY: Regents Publishing
M. and BERER, M. (1982) Challenge to Think. Oxford: Oxford University
GAGNI?. R. (1977) The Conditions ofletrrning.
Press.
New York. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
GARY, J. and GARY, N. (198 I) Caution: talking may be dangerous to your linguistic health: the cahe for a much greater emphasis on listening comprehension in foreign language instruction. IRAL, 19, l-3. GIBBONS,
J. (1989) Instructional
GRELLET,
F., MALEY, A. and WELSING.
cycles. English Teaching Forum XXVII. 3, 6-l 1. W. (1982-1983)
Quartet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HALLIDAY,
M. A. K. (1973) Explorations
in the Functions oflangucqe.
HALLIDAY,
M. A. K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
London: Edward Arnold.
HARLEY, B., ALLEN, P., CUMMINS, J. and SWAIN, M. (1990) The Development @Second Languqe Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HARLEY, B. (1989) Second language proficiency Freudenstein, R. (ed.), Error in Foreign Languages: Fremdensprachenforschung der Philipps-Universit%t.
Proficiency.
and classroom treatment in early French immersion. Analysis and Treatment. Marburg: Informationszentrum
In fiir
HASAN, R. (1985) The structure of a text. In Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (eds) Language. Context and Text: Aspects of Language in u Sock&semiotic Perspective, pp. 52-69. Geelong, Vie.: Deakin University Press. JARVIS, G. (1968) A behavioural observation Modern Lar~guage Journal, 52,335-341. KRASHEN,
system for classroom
(I 982) Principles and Practice in Seumd Ltinguqe
S.
foreign-language
skill acquisition
Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon
activities.
Press.
LORSCHER, W. (1986) Conversational structures in the foreign language classroom. In Kasper, G. (ed.). Learning, Teuching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom, pp. I l-22. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. LOW, G. (1989) Appropriate design: the internal organization of course units. In Johnson, Language Curriculum, pp. 135-154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MCLAUGHLIN,
B. (1987) Theories oj’second-lunguoge
MAGER, R. (1962) Preparing Instructional
Leurning. London: Edward Arnold.
Objectives. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
MARTIN. J. (1991) English Text: System und Structure. Amsterdam: MITCHELL, Observationa/
John Benjamins.
R., PARKINSON, B. and JOHNSTONE, R. (1981) The Foreign Study. Stirling: Department of Education, University of Sterling.
MONTGOMERY, C. and EISENSTEIN, ESL. TESOL Quarterly. 19, 2.
R. K. (ed.) The Second
Languuge
M. (1985) Real reality revisited: an experimental
CIassroomt
communicative
An
course in
PAULSTON, C. B. and BRUDER, M. (1976) Teaching English us (I Second Language: Techniques und Procedures. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. POSTOVSKY, V. (1977) Why not start speaking later? In Burt, M., Dulay, H. and Finocchiaro, on English as n Second Language. pp. 17-26. New York, NY: Regents Publishing Company.
M. (eds), Viewpoints
339
CYCLE AND ACTIVITY STRUCTURES IN SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION
RIVERS, W. and TEMPERLEY, M. (1978) A Practical New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Guide to the Teaching
of English
as a Second
Learning
London: Longman.
or Foreign
Language.
RUTHERFORD,
W. (1987) Second Language
Grammar:
and Teaching.
SHUELL, T. (1990) Phases of learning. Review of Educational Research, SINCLAIR,
J. and COULTHARD,
Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University
SMITH, P., GIBBONS,
60,531-547.
M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: Press.
J. and WESTCOTT,
The English
K. (1982) Career English. Walton-on-Thames:
used by Teachers
and
Thomas Nelson.
SWAIN, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. TABA, H. (1962) Curriculum
Development:
Theory and Practice.
WILLIS, J. R. (1981) Spoken Discourse in the ELT Classroom.
New York, NY: Harcourt,
Unpublished
Brace and World.
MA thesis. University of Birmingham.