This paper focuses on the role of instructions during the accomplishment of an oral task in the English language classroom. The study is part of a four-year project originating from the observation that, when accomplishing oral tasks, students often engage in parallel interaction (Galaczi, 2008) that resembles a series of prompted monologues. The project is grounded on the assumption that the way oral tasks are designed and set-up might be problematic and that it should be possible to design meaningful tasks which promote co-constructed, collaborative interaction in the language classroom.

To address this issue, the project engaged school teachers and researchers in the exploration of task design and in the analysis of the task interaction accomplished by the students. Over the years, tasks have been designed, implemented and revised (Ellis, 2003) through an iterative process of three cycles. So far, findings show that task design affects pupil interaction. Specifically, results indicate that “less is more”, in that comprehensive instructions and the use of many instructional materials may hinder the pupils’ interaction (Berggren et al., 2019). What is missing from the research conducted so far is a focus on the role played by instructions during task accomplishment.

In the present dataset we focus on 6 pairs of first year EFL students enrolled in two upper secondary schools in Sweden. The students engaged in a task that was designed based on results from previous cycles, which suggested that brief instructions, the use of artefacts and a problem to be solved are features that might be conducive to a more engaged interaction among the participants. The task revolved around the story behind a person found during an excavation. In the present study, we track occurrences in which the pupils orient to the written instructions as they engage in the task. With the methodological tools afforded by conversation analysis (Sidnell, 2010) we describe the unfolding interaction, with a particular focus on the sequential environment in which such occurrences emerge and on their function.

Our preliminary findings suggest that pupils orient to the instructions when they are uncertain about their interpretation of the task and when they are in disagreement regarding their emerging hypotheses. The orientation to the task instructions therefore seems to have three main functions: (a) checking the pupils’ interpretation of the task in order to determine what to do next; (b) verifying their understanding of the scenario described in the instructions; and (c) checking their own hypotheses. The findings illustrate the pupils’ emic concern for the progressivity of the task, while relying on the epistemic authority (Heritage, 2013) of the task instructions as repositories of what it means to accomplish the target task.

Overall, the study contributes to the literature on task-based instruction and speaks to the need of bridging the gap between practice and theory by promoting the collaboration of teachers and researchers.

References

Berggren, J., Haglind, M., Löfquist, A., Nyström, K., Anfält, H., Finnson, G., Johansson, E., & Rönquist, A. (2019). En språngbräda till bättre undervisning – att använda ett teoretiskt ramverk för att konstruera uppgifter. Lingua, 1/2019, 8–12.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119.

Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 370–394). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell