• Information gap tasks (= Learner A communicates unknown information to Learner B; also known as one-way tasks because the transfer of information is uni-directional)
  • e.g. Spot the difference
  • e.g. Blackboard drawing task
• Jigsaw tasks (= Both Learner A and Learner B possess information which they must exchange in order to solve the problem; also known as two-way tasks because the transfer of information is bi- or multi-directional)
  • e.g Activities A-D from Section 3 of the Iceman unit
• Information transfer tasks (= reproducing written or spoken information in graphic or tabular from)
  
  • e.g. Focus-type exercises
  • e.g. Blackboard drawing task
• Opinion gap tasks
  • e.g. debates
• Reasoning tasks
  • e.g. Map reading task

Notice that some tasks are in fact hybrid forms of these basic task types. For example, the blackboard drawing task is actually both an information gap and an information transfer task, since learners in the audience have to bridge an information gap by telling the person at the blackboard what the story is and the person at the blackboard has to translate these verbal instructions into a graphic form on the blackboard.

In the course of solving these problems, learners should have to engage in the kinds of repair strategies (see the Repair examples page) that are thought to promote second language acquisition.

Notice also that tasks can be characterized in terms of certain psycholinguistic properties. For example, two-way tasks (tasks in which both participants possess information that is necessary for the ultimate solution of the problem the learners are working on) are thought to be acquisitionally more productive than one-way tasks (tasks in which only one of the participants possesses information that is necessary for the ultimate solution of the problem the learners are working on). This is because two-way tasks are thought to force both parties to engage in interaction, while one-way tasks only set up the possibility that both parties will interact. This reduces the amount of negotiation of meaning that occurs. In addition, convergent tasks (tasks which require learners to come to a consensus) have been found to be superior to divergent tasks (tasks which encourage a divergence of opinion) because the former tend to promote more negotiation. Finally, closed tasks (tasks to which there is a clear solution) have also been found to be better than open-ended tasks (tasks to which there is no clear solution) at promoting conversational modifications. Finally, note that at least one author argues that what is important is not so much the task type as how a class is configured. According to this position, pair work is superior to small groups in ensuring learner participation (Foster, 1998).

Discussion Issues:

	Have you used any of the task types identified at the top of this page in your teaching? If so, which of these task types have you used most frequently and why?
	Did you notice whether the tasks that you have used were successful in eliciting the kinds of conversational modifications discussed in the previous paragraph?
	How do you react to the summary of empirical results reported in the previous paragraph? Do you find it intuitive or counter-intuitive that, for example, closed tasks are acquisitionally preferable to open tasks?
	Does this finding from SLA research support or contradict your own educational prefences? In other words, in terms of what you consider to be good teaching, do you think students should always be given problems to which there are always clear-cut answers, or are problems to which there are only ambiguous answers also valuable?
Note: If you have not logged into WebBoard since starting your browser, you should do it here before clicking on the WB links above. Use the "BACK" button on your browser to return to this page...

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23.

Pica, T, R. Kanagy and J. Falodun (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes and S.M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 9-34.