One-on-One Oral Communication Model for Instructors
One-on-One Oral Communication Model for Instructors
Olivia Barone and Clarissa Eagle
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
Abstract
The Defense Language Institute regularly utilizes the one-on-one communication model for rapid language acquisition. Moving students through the various language levels of learning in a predetermined time frame that requires rigorous planning along with linguistic benchmarks. The DLI has developed and provided access to an abundance of reference materials for reading and listening; to date, however, there remains no standardized questioning models where the oral modality is concerned. This document is intended to support a structured transition through the various levels in speaking by providing instructors with model questions for immediate use. These questions, cross-referenced with updated Bloom’s Taxonomy educational objectives, are organized into several major categories: language level, topic, and linguistic task.
Keywords: One-on-one communication model, FORTE, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR), interpersonal communication, oral modality, role play
Introduction
This paper introduces a comprehensive teaching tool designed to support instructors in facilitating one-on-one oral communication sessions. The development of this project was driven by the recognized need for instructor materials that specifically support oral communication. While many resources exist for other language modalities, there is a scarcity of tools tailored to the oral modality, especially for one-on-one instruction. This tool therefore addresses a critical gap in instructional materials, and was specifically designed for the one-on-one oral instruction and practice at the Defense Language Institute (DLI).
Effective communication is fundamental to language learning, particularly in instructional settings where personalized engagement can significantly enhance the learning experience. Both Swain’s Output Hypothesis and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis emphasize the importance of interactive, personalized communication in language acquisition. Long, for instance, underscores the necessity of "negotiation for meaning" during oral interactions between teacher and student, which he views as essential for effective language learning (Long, 1996). As Ismail and Samad (2010) explain, “the feedback learners receive on their language production when they attempt to communicate could contribute to language acquisition, as this would push learners to reformulate their productions to make them comprehensible” (p. 88). This personalized engagement, through feedback and the ensuing conversational adjustments, helps learners modify their output, thereby improving their learning outcomes. Similarly, Swain's Output Hypothesis (2000) points to the importance of producing language (speaking or writing) in the learning process. Her research indicates that when learners engage in meaningful, personalized interaction, they are encouraged to adjust and refine their language use, leading to a deeper attention to and processing of language forms. This focus on form “may serve the function of helping students to understand the relationship between meaning, forms, and function in a highly context-sensitive situation” (Swain, 1998, p. 69).
Building on these ideas, Ellis (2008) argues that communication tasks tailored to the learner's proficiency level are particularly effective in enhancing language acquisition. He suggests that personalized tasks, which engage learners individually in meaningful communication, not only foster active participation but also significantly contribute to their overall language development. This aligns with the shift in language teaching from a structural to a communicative approach, which “represents a fundamental change in the goals of language teaching, focusing on the ability to use language effectively and appropriately in real-life situations” (Brumfit, 1986, p. 7).
These theoretical foundations have directly informed the development of the oral communication model presented here. The model is meticulously organized by task and language level, and cross-referenced with Bloom’s Taxonomy to ensure comprehensive cognitive engagement. The primary goal of this project is to design task-based oral situations that elicit quality targeted speech at all levels of cognition. Effective oral communication tasks must be designed with the desired outcomes in mind, recognizing that simple questions can elicit cognitively complex answers and vice versa. This comprehensive chart was developed to guide instructors in oral communication instruction for the military language program, but may be altered by instructors to be used in traditional classroom settings.
Developing the Model for One-on-One Oral Communication
The methodology behind our research began through a collaboration of two DLI instructors brainstorming questions that elicit specific types of speech via a range of real-world communicative tasks. After the initial development of the guide, we first tested these questions and task-based situations by generating the most straightforward response to each one. Based on the minimum complexity level of the language generated, each task or questions was classified according to Bloom’s Taxonomy model. We then ensured that each question or task was aligned with the desired oral linguistic outcome. Once the first version of the tool was in place, both instructors used the model nearly daily with varying groups of students over the course of fifteen months, from July 2020 through September of 2021. Experiences with the success or failure of aspects of the guide were discussed weekly, and the guide was adjusted and honed over that time period. Pertinent qualitative information was shared from our teaching experiences and daily notes to construct the final guide, at which point we presented our research at the Language Learning & Teaching Colloquium (LLTC) at the DLI. As the information became available institution-wide, qualitative assessment of the tool following its release, as gathered from informal instructor feedback, was entirely positive.
The chart was organized by task and language level and then cross-referenced with Bloom’s Taxonomy, ensuring that even individuals with minimal language experience can progress from basic recall to higher-order thinking skills such as evaluation and creation. We focused on five grammatical tasks aligned with the FORTE topics used in military instruction (family, occupation, recreation, travel & education), emphasizing that activities must change to meet different goals. The process involves taking familiar subjects and asking real, meaningful questions that correspond to language proficiency levels while also allowing learners to apply cognitive skills at all levels. As students progress through the questions, they move from simple conversations to more complex linguistic tasks such as narrating, describing, and discussing topics extensively. By framing our questions and tasks to target specific outcomes, guided by Bloom’s Taxonomy, we aim to enhance oral communication skills in the classroom. This initiative addresses the lack of a structured guide for oral communication in our discipline, aiming to diversify skills and promote effective communication across all language levels.
Developed by educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom in 1956, Bloom's Taxonomy is a framework that categorizes cognitive skills into hierarchical levels. This taxonomy has profoundly influenced educational practices, offering educators a structured approach to developing curriculum, assessments, and instructional strategies that promote higher-order thinking skills. Bloom's Taxonomy not only helps educators understand the progression of cognitive development but also serves as a guide for creating educational objectives that challenge students to think critically and deeply. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a hierarchical framework for cognitive skills, ranging from basic recall to complex creation. This taxonomy is integral to the design of our teaching tool, ensuring that questions are categorized to promote various levels of thinking at different stages of language proficiency. Bloom’s original taxonomy consists of six major categories, each representing a different level of cognitive complexity:
Remembering: The foundational level, involving the recall of facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers. This stage is critical for building a base of knowledge that students can draw upon as they progress to more complex cognitive tasks.
Understanding: At this level, learners demonstrate comprehension by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and stating the main ideas. Understanding goes beyond memorizing; it involves grasping the meaning and significance of the information.
Applying: This stage involves using knowledge in new situations by applying acquired facts, techniques, and rules in a different context. Application shows that learners can transfer their learning to various situations, demonstrating practical use of their knowledge.
Analyzing: In this level, learners break down information into components to understand its structure. This includes identifying parts, relationships, and organizational principles. Analysis involves critical thinking as students discern how parts relate to one another and to the overall structure.
Evaluating: Here, learners make judgments about the value of ideas or materials. This level requires the ability to assess criteria and standards, critique, recommend, and justify decisions. Evaluation involves higher-order thinking as students must combine their knowledge and analytical skills to form reasoned opinions.
Creating: The highest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, involving the generation of new ideas, products, or ways of viewing things. Creating requires synthesizing information and concepts to construct something original or to propose alternative solutions. This stage emphasizes innovative thinking and the ability to put elements together in a novel way.
Researchers at the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching have revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to be more action-oriented. The updated model emphasizes actions students undertake, such as "remembering" instead of "comprehending" (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Despite these updates, we chose to adhere to the original model, as it aligns better with the nature of language learning and the cognitive demands of oral communication. Each question and task in this guide are tagged with its corresponding Bloom’s Taxonomy level, facilitating structured progression through language proficiency stages.
Educators use Bloom’s Taxonomy to develop curricula that foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills. By designing learning activities and assessments that correspond to each level of the taxonomy, educators can ensure students’ progress from basic knowledge acquisition to higher-order thinking. For example, a science curriculum might begin with memorizing scientific terms (Remembering), proceed to explaining scientific concepts (Understanding), applying these concepts in experiments (Applying), analyzing data from these experiments (Analyzing), evaluating the results (Evaluating), to finish with having students design their own experiments (Creating). Bloom’s is also used to guide the creation of assessments measuring a range of cognitive skills. Multiple-choice questions might assess Remembering and Understanding, while essays and project-based assessments can evaluate higher-order skills like Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating. For instance, an essay question might require students to analyze a historical event’s causes and effects (Analyzing) and argue its significance in a broader context (Evaluating).
Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, teachers can design instructional strategies that encourage deeper learning. For example, educators can use questioning techniques that prompt students to think at different cognitive levels. Instead of just asking students to recall facts (Remembering), teachers might ask them to explain concepts (Understanding), solve problems (Applying), compare and contrast ideas (Analyzing), critique arguments (Evaluating), or propose new solutions (Creating). This framework remains a cornerstone of educational theory and practice, offering a structured approach to developing students’ cognitive abilities (Bloom, 1956). By providing a clear hierarchy of cognitive skills, it helps educators design curricula, assessments, and instructional strategies that promote comprehensive cognitive development. Whether in its original form or the revised version, Bloom’s Taxonomy continues to be an invaluable tool in fostering students’ critical thinking and lifelong learning skills.
The approach to this oral communication guide assumes that all learners, regardless of language proficiency, are capable of complex thought processes. This is crucial for maintaining motivation and engagement in adult learners (Martel, 2013). For example, instead of asking simple factual questions like "Who are the members of your family?", we might ask, "Who do you consider 'family'?" This question encourages critical thinking about the concept of family without requiring advanced language skills. Learners can still list simple nouns in response: “Soldiers, best friend, etc.” It is also essential to frame questions in a way that aligns with students' language abilities at various proficiency levels, even as they engage critically with the task. For instance, at level 0+, students can list words without necessarily interconnecting them. Questions such as "What are the first words that come to mind when you think about your boss? What about someone you love?" help students analyze different roles without demanding complex language structures.
Success in language learning is closely tied to the appropriateness of linguistic tasks relative to students' capabilities. Skehan (1998) discusses how tasks that are too difficult or too easy may hinder language learning. Appropriately leveled tasks, however, maximize learner engagement and facilitate optimal cognitive processing, leading to more effective language acquisition. Success in language learning depends therefore on tasks that are appropriately challenging relative to learners' capacities, enabling meaningful use of language (Eagle 2017). Likewise, Robinson’s (2001) research on task complexity argues that success in language learning is influenced by the alignment between task complexity and the learner's cognitive capabilities. He emphasizes that “[p]atterns of abilities need to be matched to learning tasks and conditions in order to be effective, and often they are not” (p. 385). Tasks that are too challenging may overwhelm learners, whereas appropriately complex tasks promote better language performance and learning outcomes. However, most research to date has focused on the type of task and its complexity – that is, how difficult or intricate a task is in terms of its structure, the number of steps involved, or skills required – rather than the cognitive demands of the task.
By catering to adult intelligences and avoiding false dichotomies between critical thinking and language competence, we can design questions that stimulate thought and encourage meaningful responses, even at lower proficiency levels. For example, asking "What kind of things do you use on a camping trip?" at the 0+ level can incite simple recall. At level 1, asking "What are the first words that come to mind when you think of someone you love?" requires initial analysis. At level 1+, "What is the most popular restaurant in your town/city and what makes it popular?" prompts evaluation. At level 2, "Describe one of your favorite hobby, how do you do it and why do you like it?" targets the Apply and Evaluate modalities. At level 2+, "What movie or TV show plot have you recently enjoyed and if this could have ended differently, what would the alternative ending be?" engages Synthesis.
Traditionally, news topics are often reserved for high-level language learners, although they can be effectively used at all levels. At a 0+ level: "What news topics appeal to most people?" (understanding and evaluation). At a level 1: "What types of news stories are not discussed enough, in your opinion?" (analysis). At level 1+: "What types of news stories are popular in your culture? If you don’t know, imagine." (evaluation). At level 2: "What is the most important news story today?" (description). At level 2+: "What kind of news story is getting attention today that shouldn’t?" (evaluation). At level 3: "Talk about a popular news story in the US from the perspective of a person from your target culture. What details stay the same and what details change?" (analyze). Hypothetical questions can also be framed to match proficiency levels. For example: level 1 "What would you like to be doing now if you could be somewhere other than here?" (apply), and level 1+: "Imagine you are a character in a film you like, what would you do differently?", would incite a present tense response. Role-play scenarios also vary by level: level 0+ "You are newly employed in a target language culture X, your new co-workers are asking you about the US, what words do you use to describe the US for them?" (analyze), level 1+ "Your friend is sick, you go to the doctor, discuss his symptoms and make a basic appointment." (apply), level 2: "Your phone battery runs down just as you are checking in for a flight, your tickets are online, so resolve the issue with airline staff." (understand, apply). Level 2+: "You are in the middle of a card game and suddenly realize that your playing partner is not following the same rules, what do you do?" (evaluate, apply). Level 3: "You are captured in X country, you escape, you have no ID or money. Your interlocutor is the captain of a cruise ship going back to the US, convince him/her to take you back." (create).
Because oral communication is one of the hardest modalities for students to master, effective oral communication tasks must prompt students to speak spontaneously in the foreign language, properly scaffold students to produce desired speech outcomes, address the intimidation and gaps in vocabulary and grammar knowledge faced by beginners, and cater to students' intelligences and interests.
Effective oral communication tasks must be designed with specific outcomes in mind, ensuring that questions are structured to elicit desired responses. Our primary goal was to design task-based oral activities that incite quality targeted speech. The process involved taking well-trodden subjects and framing authentic questions, which student will want to answer. This includes considering language proficiency levels and allowing learners to apply their adult intelligences at all proficiency levels. Our comprehensive chart guides instructors in creating questions that move beyond basic recall to more complex cognitive tasks, fostering a richer learning experience. Incorporating all levels of Bloom's Taxonomy in language learning encourages complex thought processes, caters to adult intelligences, and sets students up for success by aligning tasks with their linguistic capabilities. This approach enhances language competence and ensures that learners remain motivated and engaged in their language learning journey.
Conclusion
This teaching tool provides a structured framework for one-on-one oral communication sessions, ensuring that instructors at the Defense Language Institute and beyond can effectively support their students in achieving higher levels of language proficiency. In the hopes of further testing and understanding the value of this tool, we feel it is ready for release, and just as with Bloom’s research, is open to further evolution.
Model Questions for Oral Communication Chart
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans, Green.
Brumfit, C. J. (1986). The practice of communicative teaching. Pergamon Press.
Eagle, C. (2017). Student perception of learning in the French CBI classroom. In K. Clausen, R. Beaulieu, J. Hill, N. Snyder, & K. Cruz Pallares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the Action Research Network of the Americas (ARNA). ARNA. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
Martel, J. (2013). Saying our final goodbyes to the grammatical syllabus: A curriculum imperative. French Review, 86(6), 1122-1132.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press.
