DiscussionThis paper discusses inte

Discussion

This paper discusses interview data casting light on the feasibility of task-based teaching for Hong Kong secondary schools. The data suggest that there is a need for a pragmatic interplay between methodological principles and the dynamics of school
classrooms. A soft or weak version of task-based teaching seems to be a preferred option in the Hong Kong school context, with ‘task’ being interpreted modestly along the lines of communicative practice (Carless, 2004; Tong, 2005). The kind of flexible methods that may prove most feasible could be termed ‘situated task-based approaches’, drawing on the cultures and settings in which they occur so that they can be context-sensitive. The study suggests that features of a situated task-based approach could include the following:
grammar instruction in the pre-task stage of a task cycle; task-supported teaching along the lines of the PPP approach; tasks related to examination requirements; and alternatives to oral tasks, including highlighting reading and writing.
In terms of the critiques put forward by Bruton (2005) and Swan (2005), cited earlier in the paper, the core issue of the source of input in task-based teaching seemed to be tackled by teachers providing direct grammar instruction in the pre-task stage or as part of a PPP sequence. Informants who advocated PPP did not address, however, its limitations, for example, its failure to account for learners’ developmental readiness (Ellis, 2003) and students’ ability to use forms correctly in controlled practice but not in later free production. Furthermore, such teaching strategies may not be compatible with task-based teaching as conceived in the literature and may indicate that teacher education has not been successful in resolving myths or fallacies about TBLT and CLT (cf. Thompson, 1996). The potential of listening and reading tasks, for example, in providing learners with input was a strategy
that seemed to be underplayed.

I now make some suggestions for the further development of task-based teaching for schools in Hong Kong and elsewhere, at the level of principles of pedagogic practice; and outline some associated issues requiring further investigation. Firstly, more clarification is still required concerning the role of grammar instruction in task-based approaches, an area that seems to be simultaneously confusing and a fundamental part of teachers’ instructional roles. For example, more attention could be afforded to the post-task phase of the task cycle – an aspect that the data indicated was not being well-exploited. The post-task stage, with its explicit focus on form, might also be integrated with more varied approaches to grammar instruction, including inductive and consciousness-raising tasks (e.g. Mohamed, 2004). The post-task phase can also contribute to reminding students of the solid learning that should have been accomplished and that while the task may have been enjoyable, there were serious learning aims underpinning it. More analyses are needed of the post-task stage in school contexts, particularly as adolescents’ interest may be waning by this stage and in view of the constraints of lessons of short duration, such as 35–40 minutes.

Hasil (Inggris) 1:

DiscussionThis paper discusses the interview data casting light on the business feasibility of task-based teaching for Hong Kong secondary schools. The data suggest that there is a need for a pragmatic interplay between methodological principles and the dynamics of schoolclassrooms. A soft or weak version of task-based teaching seems to be a preferred option in the Hong Kong school context, with ' task ' being modestly interpreted along the lines of communicative practice (Carless, 2004; Tong, 2005). The kind of flexible methods that may prove the most feasible could be termed ' situated task-based approaches ', drawing on the cultures and settings in which they are occur.4womenonly so that they can be context-sensitive. The study suggests that features of a situated task-based approach could include the following:grammar instruction in the pre-release stage of a task task cycle; task-supported teaching along the lines of the PPP approach; tasks related to examination requirements; and alternatives to oral tasks, including highlighting of reading and writing.In terms of the critiques put forward by Bruton (2005) and Swan (2005), earlier.now cited in the paper, the core issue of the source of the input in the task-based teaching seemed to be tackled by teachers providing direct grammar instruction in the pre-u.s. task stage or part of a PPP sequence. Informants who advocated the PPP did not address, however, its limitations, for example, its failure to account for learners ' developmental readiness (Ellis, 2003) and students ' ability to use forms correctly controlled in practice but not in later free production. Furthermore, such teaching strategies may not be compatible with the task-based teaching us conceived in the literature and may indicate that teacher education has not been successful in fallacies or myths about Registrar TBLT and CLT (cf. Thompson, 1996). The potential of listening and reading tasks, for example, in providing learners with the input was a strategythat seemed to be underplayed.I now make some suggestions for the further development of task-based teaching for schools in Hong Kong and elsewhere, at the level of principles of pedagogic practice; and outline some associated issues requiring further investigation. Firstly, more clarification is still required concerning the role of grammar instruction in task-based approaches, an area that seems to be simultaneously confusing and a fundamental part of teachers’ instructional roles. For example, more attention could be afforded to the post-task phase of the task cycle – an aspect that the data indicated was not being well-exploited. The post-task stage, with its explicit focus on form, might also be integrated with more varied approaches to grammar instruction, including inductive and consciousness-raising tasks (e.g. Mohamed, 2004). The post-task phase can also contribute to reminding students of the solid learning that should have been accomplished and that while the task may have been enjoyable, there were serious learning aims underpinning it. More analyses are needed of the post-task stage in school contexts, particularly as adolescents’ interest may be waning by this stage and in view of the constraints of lessons of short duration, such as 35–40 minutes.