The other day I was observing a friend of mine teach a lesson on routines. The classic lesson where we teach students the lexical group of routine activities such as wake up, take a shower, go to school, etc., together with adverbs of frequency, always, usually, often, never, and some present simple. The teacher ended the lesson in a free-practice activity in which he had students, in pairs, talk to each other about their routines.
During the feedback session, I mentioned that, while a free-practice activity such as the one he created works, perhaps having a communicative task instead would be best.
At that moment, the very moment I implied that the teacher’s task was not communicative, Socrates, an awarded English teacher, stepped into the class and said:
– Ah! You say this task was not communicative, is that it, Bruno?
Sensing the trap I was about to fall into, I replied:
– Yes, asking students to talk about their routines is not a communicative task.
– I see. For you to say such a thing, it means you must certainly know what a communicative task is, then.
– I suppose.
– Enlighten me, then, because I don’t know. What is a communicative task?
– A communicative task, Socrates, is a task during which communication happens.
– Interesting. We’re now climbing up a step in Plato’s hierarchy of ideas. Communicative is an adjective and, for us to be able to adjectify something, we must first understand the core meaning of its noun, should there be one.
– Agreed.
– What is communication, then?
– Communication, the way I see it, is the act of exchanging information between two or more people.
– Is the exchange of any kind of information communication, Bruno?
– What do you mean?
– For example, if I tell you: 25 sheep, wood, my dear best friend, tomorrow. Are we communicating?
– I don’t think we are.
– Good, so do we mean to say that there’s only communication when the message, or information, has meaning to the receiver?
– We could say that.
– And by this, we say that there are messages with meaning and messages without meaning?
– Correct.
– We’re then only concerned about the messages with meaning, correct?
– Yes, I guess so.
– But now, I believe we can say that there are at least two different kinds of meaning. Don’t you think?
– Elaborate, please.
– We could say, for example, that there is objective meaning, as in the meaning created by stringing together words to create sentences, and we also have subjective meaning, as in the meaning that the message has to an individual and is relevant to their lives. Could we say that, Bruno?
– I believe we can.
– Which of them do you reckon would be best when thinking about communicative tasks?
– In that sense then, when we are talking about a communicative task, I believe it is wise to think of subjective meaning, the one that has relevance to the individuals’ lives.
– I think it would be best. Now then, you said that having students talk in pairs about their routines is not communicative, correct?
– Correct.
– Isn’t one’s routine extremely relevant to themselves and their lives?
– You’re right.
– So why isn’t this task communicative?
– Because the exchange of information here is irrelevant. It is irrelevant to the listener to know about the speaker’s routine.
– Agreed. So how do we establish relevance of meaning?
– I believe the relevance of meaning has to be established in the exchange, not only in the production.
– So you mean to say that the message has to be relevant to the listener as well?
– That’s how I see it.
– How would you, then, finish this lesson in a communicative way?
– Well, I would ask students to get into small groups and schedule a coffee break with their peers.
– And why would that be different from talking about one’s routine?
– Because that way these routines would be relevant to the speakers and listeners.
– Because they have to listen carefully so they can reach a consensus on when and where to meet.
– Would students actually go out and have this coffee afterward?
– No, not really. And I don’t see how that’s important.
– Alas! It is incredibly important! If students are playing make-believe, the meaning of the messages being exchanged is nothing but a farce! A mimicry of real life and, thus, not in one bit actually relevant to the speakers nor the listeners. Your activity seems to me just as meaningless as the other teacher’s, but worse; you have concocted a subjective meaning and you forcefully injected it into your students’ interaction!
– Come on, I meant no harm and you know it.
– I do! However, we’re now on crossroads.
– Absolutely.
– On the other hand, it seems we can somewhat pinpoint what a communicative task seems to be: an activity in which the exchange of meaningful information for the listener and speaker occurs.
– I can second that.
– We have also found out that we use the word ‘meaningful’ here meaning ‘actually relevant to the listener’s life’. Subjective meaning, we called it.
– I see where you’re going with this.
– So then, tell me, where are we going with this?
– We now have to design a task that is, in fact, communicative so that we can wrap up this conversation.
– That’s where you got me wrong, Bruno. I’m not looking for answers, just better questions. Thank you for the chat!
– Oh, you…
By that time, the teacher I was giving feedback to was long gone in REM sleep. Perhaps we should’ve cut the conversation short at the start? Or maybe not?
