If you want to write a language learning scenario, the difficult part is not writing more dialogue. It is turning a familiar situation into a structure where the learner has a goal, the other person reacts, and different responses can change what happens next. Sparrway’s Restaurant scenario began as a tiny test. It later became the reference model used to structure new scenarios and prepare instructions for AI generation.

For this Creator Story, we spoke with the project author who worked on Restaurant from its early concept to the current reference model.

Why did you choose a restaurant as the first situation?

Question: Why did Restaurant feel like the right place to start?

Answer: “I had experienced difficulties with booking tables, especially by phone. On the phone it can be hard both to express your own thought and to understand the questions from the person on the other side. These are also very common situations. That is why we chose the restaurant.”

The starting point was a real communicative problem, not a grammar topic. The learner needs to book a table, answer questions, clarify details and react when circumstances change. A Sparrway scene is therefore built around a communicative goal.

What did the first version look like?

Question: How complex was the first Restaurant scenario?

Answer: “It was minimal. There were probably two or three steps and only one branch. It was an elementary test, really just a first conceptual version.”

The small version exposed the difference between a scripted dialogue and an interactive scenario. A script can assume the next reply. A real conversation cannot.

Question: What became the hardest part as the scenario grew?

Answer: “Probably the amount of information. Different branches and different levels create a very large volume of data, and all of that has to be structured properly.”

More branches alone do not create a better experience. Each branch needs a reason to exist and must remain connected to the communicative goal.

Why did the scenario need more branches and NPC reactions?

Question: What changed after the first conceptual test?

Answer: “The important change was that we needed more branches, more variations in the learner’s responses and more NPC reactions. The conversation with the NPC, this role-play experience, had to feel complete and closer to how we imagined the same situation in real life.”

This moved the work away from one correct dialogue. A learner might express the same meaning in several ways, omit a detail or ask for an alternative. The NPC participates in the situation rather than acting as a grammar examiner.

A booking can therefore become a sequence of actions: request a table, give the number of guests, clarify the time, respond when the preferred option is unavailable and confirm the arrangement. Branching exists to let the learner experience consequences of communication.

Where does a mini-game belong?

Question: How did you decide where to place a mini-game?

Answer: “There has to be logic. We did not want to insert a mini-game simply because one was required. One step should follow another. For example, when the user is waiting for something, that can be a natural place for a game. It can also be connected with the menu, such as matching words. There has to be logic and structure.”

Sparrway therefore does not treat mini-games as isolated exercises. Waiting for a table or working with a menu can create a natural opening for a short contextual task. If an activity has no connection with the situation, it should not be inserted simply to add variety.

What would you do differently if you started again?

Question: If you were building the first scenario today, what would you change?

Answer: “I would first build the structure properly and define what the scenario should consist of. I would determine the branching, the steps, the depth of those steps and the other parameters before writing the dialogue. Then I would build the scenario inside that structure so that we understood where we were going.”

The first version developed differently.

Answer: “At the beginning we had to improvise as we went along, find mistakes and correct them. Now that we understand the width and depth of the structure and what is required, the approach would be much more structured. We would fit the dialogue into that model.”

This is the central lesson for anyone trying to write a language learning scenario. Start with architecture, not lines of dialogue.

Define the real situation, the learner’s goal, the sequence of actions, possible branches and the depth needed for the level. Then decide what information matters and how the NPC can react. Dialogue comes after those decisions.

How did Restaurant become a reference for AI generation?

Question: What role does Restaurant play in Sparrway now?

Answer: “We are doing a lot of work on instructions for artificial intelligence so that AI can create analogous scenarios based on our examples. We took this scenario as a reference foundation for creating new scenarios.”

Restaurant provides a structured example of what a Sparrway scenario needs to contain. The model is already being transferred to another real-life situation.

Answer: “A scenario for buying medicine at a pharmacy is now being developed using the parameters that were defined in the Restaurant scenario.”

Restaurant is becoming a reference for how future scenarios can be generated and structured. The reusable asset is the communicative model behind the script: the goal, relevant information, NPC reaction and conditions for continuing.

What should a first-time scenario creator take from this?

Begin with a situation you know well enough to recognise what can genuinely go wrong. Define one clear communicative goal. Break it into actions. Decide where alternatives and clarification are realistic. Only then write dialogue and add supporting activities where the story gives them a natural purpose.

A small first version is useful. The original Restaurant test had only a few steps and one branch. Treat that version as a model to test, not as the final structure.

Sparrway followed that path. The early dialogue exposed structural questions. Those questions led to branches, NPC reactions, clearer scenario depth and a model that can now support other locations and AI-assisted scenario creation.

FAQ

Start with a real situation and define what the learner needs to achieve. Break that goal into communicative actions before writing dialogue. Then decide where clarification, alternatives or misunderstanding can realistically occur. A short prototype with a few steps is enough to test the structure before you add more branches and NPC reactions.

A scripted dialogue normally assumes a fixed sequence of lines. An interactive scenario allows the learner’s response to affect what happens next. The NPC may clarify, offer another option or react to missing information. The structure therefore needs goals, branches and transition logic, not only natural-sounding dialogue.

There is no useful fixed number. A branch should represent a meaningful difference in the interaction, such as an unavailable booking time, missing information or an alternative offer. Adding branches only to make a scenario larger creates unnecessary complexity. The required depth should follow the communicative goal and learner level.

AI can help generate scenario content, but Sparrway’s approach is to give it a defined model and reference examples rather than request an unrestricted conversation. Restaurant is being used as a reference foundation for instructions that can support generation of new scenarios while preserving the required communicative structure.

Explore the Sparrway scenario catalogue to see how real-life situations can become structured interactive language practice.