Dr. Ken Beatty
It’s your first day of work at a new office and, because you’re eager, you arrive early and locate your cubicle. Looking around to make sure you’re alone, you race around madly to each desk, snatching up everyone’s stapler so you can hide them all in your filing cabinet. As other workers trickle in, mystified conversations erupt about the missing staplers only to be silenced by your ominously evil “Bwahahahaha!” cry of triumph.
Seriously? No. In office environments and most other work environments, we mostly stress cooperation and collaboration, which make it all the more mystifying why our classrooms so often stress competition.
Competition is normal and healthy but it is not the only way to meet objectives or to educate students. Imagine suddenly informing your language class students that they have one minute to prepare for a long-distance foot race. What would be their reactions? Most would claim that they were not properly prepared, having worn the wrong clothes and shoes. Some would immediately eye the other students and size up the chances of success. Those who were most able might welcome the challenge, thinking their chances of winning were good; competition tends to reaffirm current abilities. Those who were least able would rebel at the task, refusing to participate, not bothering to make an effort, or adopting a tactical approach, such as by finishing the race but only just—perhaps walking instead of running.
In the classroom, students may display this range of behaviors in reaction to competitive tasks, from withdrawal and feigned indifference to the confidence that provides intrinsic motivation. But this haphazard range of responses can be improved by engaging students in more collaborative activities that mirror modern workplace practices and provide opportunities to take advantage of each student’s individual special skills and contributions.
The difference between competition and collaboration is generally clear, but what’s the difference between collaboration and cooperation? A cooperative task is one that can be divided up into separate parts with each student completing his or her part independently. Cooperation is more like a relay race in which each team member contributes with the rest of the team doing little more than offering a bit of advice or cheering on the side. In contrast, a collaborative task is one in which all members of a team must work closely together to achieve a goal, such as in a tug-of-war.
In the language classroom, the type of activity, whether competitive, cooperative, or collaborative, is not intrinsically important; in fact, variety is good. But what is important is the quantity and quality of language interactions that are required to complete a task. In both competitive and cooperative activities, students tend to largely work alone and talking to others is not necessary.
Two simple tasks
In workshops around the world, I often give teachers two simple alphabet tasks to illustrate the language differences between competitive and collaborative tasks. In the first task, teachers are required to work individually and silently, listing one animal for each letter of the alphabet. The only stimulus material is a picture of an alligator with the words, “A is for Alligator.” Often, a group of teachers at the back of the room opt out, crossing their arms and thinking that the task is too simple or too impossible; they are unwilling to try. I’ve neither earned their trust nor am able to compel them to comply.
This attitude tends to disappear with the second task in which teachers continue, but are allowed to work in a pairs or small groups and are additionally shown an image depicting a collage of animals—although not one for every letter of the alphabet. The contrast is striking. From the solemnity of the first task, the room is suddenly enveloped in heated conversations and laughter. More importantly, three key language-learning functions take place, as can be seen in this dialogue between a trio of teachers in Bogota, Colombia. The first teacher points at one of the animals.
Teacher 1: “Oh! I know that one. It’s an elk!”
Teacher 2: “Don’t be ridiculous, that’s not an elk. It’s a deer!”
Teacher 3: “You’re both wrong. It’s a moose.”
Teacher 1: “What’s the difference between a deer and a moose?”
Teacher 3: “A moose is bigger and its horns—”
Teacher 2: “Not horns, they’re called antlers.”
Teacher 3: “Yes, that’s right. Its antlers are flat, not just pointy.
What is happening in this short dialog? As in the exchanges heard among countless other participants, the task promotes peer-teaching, negotiation of meaning, and scaffolded learning. Peer-teaching is important because it shifts the center of knowledge in the classroom from the teacher to the students, who can often explain ideas to their peers in ways that are easier to understand. Asking questions of a peer is also less threatening, and students with prior knowledge get opportunities to share information that, collectively, likely exceeds that of the teacher.
Negotiation of meaning occurs when students sort out their ideas, trying to establish differences such as a moose being bigger than a deer. Scaffolded learning takes place when students discuss subtleties, such as defining horns and antlers; one idea builds on another and naturally expands into other areas, such as the qualities of flatness and pointiness.
The vital point is that none of this language learning and language practice was mandated in the task. Rather, it is the natural outcome of the task. Students teach each other and learn from each other as an unconscious by-product of collaboration.
But what about those stolen staplers? Besides the excessive sense of competition, what else is wrong with that scenario? We recognize the ethical shortcomings in the employee’s behavior. Less able students who are forced to constantly compete in the classroom and find themselves unable to be the best may develop unethical solutions to improving their performance. This can range from plagiarism to subverting others’ work, believing (falsely) that they can only win if others lose. Collaborative activities are more likely to foster group cohesion and a sense of one’s place in society. Instead of stealing staplers, a collaborative-oriented employee would be more likely to bring in a box of chocolates to build relationships with fellow employees.
We should teach in a way that helps create the world we want to live in (with more chocolate).
Dr. Ken Beatty, TESOL Professor at Anaheim University in California, has taught in Asia, Canada, the Middle East, and the U.S. and lectures widely on language teaching and learning from the elementary through university levels. He has given 200+ teacher-training sessions in 25 countries and is author of 130+ textbooks, including books in the Pearson series Learning English for Academic Purposes (LEAP).
Dr. Ken Beatty, TESOL Professor at Anaheim University in California, has taught in Asia, Canada, the Middle East, and the U.S.A. and lectures widely on language teaching and learning from the elementary through university levels. He has given 200+ teacher-training sessions in 25 countries and is author of 130+ textbooks, including books in the Pearson series Learning English for Academic Purposes (LEAP).
