She describes a class that begins w

She describes a class that begins with a PeW task on things in an unknown person's pocket, with the pedagogic purpose being the focus on the notion of
possibility as expressed in English, not form. The table to be filled in on the basis of the input is "mined" with adjectives for possibility, at this point. The goal for the students is to deduce facts about the person. Of course, the potential planned outcome of this initial task will be fairly specific but the interaction very much not so, and the feedback is on the outcome of the deductions, including the mined language. Having created the need to express possibility, the teacher gradually introduces various modals in subsequent teacher-fronted episodes, "leading from behind" (p.120). Finally, when the students prepare a poster, again, the oral discourse may be very open and not the focus of attention, with the pedagogic purpose being the use of the modals in the posters. During the cycle, the peers really work collaboratively on the written medium of a very focussed type through the spoken medium, which is not the focus of attention.

Willis (1996) also includes reading tasks in her framework. Apart from the pre-reading, reading and post-reading framework being fairly typical of
reading pedagogy (Nuttall, 1996), it is actually more limited since it theoretically excludes the individual
task completion option. But, more seriously, it is not clear if the purpose is the reading, or the interaction and the collaboration on the reading. In this respect, Davis (1997) hazards that PeW on reading texts may actually interfere with individual reading. And when it comes to listening at the lower levels, Willis (1996) discards her original framework and includes typical pre-teaching and teacher-fronted tasks, but with no planning and report stages to ensure accuracy, presumably because the students could not cope. This contradicts the central cycle of Willis's version of TBLT and its rationale, which is the core of her book.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Dia menggambarkan sebuah kelas yang dimulai dengan tugas PeW pada hal-hal dalam saku orang tak dikenal, dengan tujuan dikukuhkan menjadi fokus pada gagasan kemungkinan seperti yang dinyatakan dalam bahasa Inggris, bukan bentuk. Tabel harus diisi berdasarkan umur, jenis input "ditambang" dengan kata sifat untuk kemungkinan, pada titik ini. Tujuan untuk siswa adalah untuk menyimpulkan fakta-fakta tentang orang. Tentu saja, hasil direncanakan potensial dari tugas awal ini akan cukup spesifik tapi interaksi sangat tidak begitu, dan umpan balik pada hasil pemotongan, termasuk bahasa ditambang. Setelah membuat kebutuhan untuk mengekspresikan kemungkinan, guru secara bertahap memperkenalkan berbagai modal di berdinding guru episode berikutnya, "memimpin dari belakang" (p.120). Akhirnya, ketika siswa mempersiapkan poster, sekali lagi, wacana lisan mungkin sangat terbuka dan tidak fokus perhatian, dengan tujuan dikukuhkan menjadi penggunaan modal di dalam poster. Selama siklus, teman-temannya benar-benar bekerja sama pada media tertulis jenis sangat difokuskan melalui media diucapkan, yang tidak fokus perhatian. Willis (1996) juga termasuk membaca tugas dalam kerangka nya. Selain pra-membaca, membaca dan membaca pasca kerangka yang cukup khas membaca pedagogi (Nuttall, 1996), hal ini sebenarnya lebih terbatas karena itu secara teoritis tidak termasuk individu task completion option. But, more seriously, it is not clear if the purpose is the reading, or the interaction and the collaboration on the reading. In this respect, Davis (1997) hazards that PeW on reading texts may actually interfere with individual reading. And when it comes to listening at the lower levels, Willis (1996) discards her original framework and includes typical pre-teaching and teacher-fronted tasks, but with no planning and report stages to ensure accuracy, presumably because the students could not cope. This contradicts the central cycle of Willis's version of TBLT and its rationale, which is the core of her book.