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.

Secondly, more explicit links could be built and articulated between tasks and examinations. Teachers’ suggestions that examinations were a barrier to task-based approaches were not fully convincing to me in that high-stakes public examinations in Hong Kong have been moving in a more task-based direction for some years. For example, a high pro file recent innovation involves school-based assessment in which students read books and view movies then carry out oral tasks through individual presentations and group interactions (Davison, 2007); these tasks are assessed by the students’ own teachers and count for 15% of the public examination mark. Such a development may have immediate impact on the teachers of examination classes (i.e. years 10 and 11) but may take longer to impact on the earlier years of secondary schooling, underscoring the notion that washback may operate quite slowly (Cheng, 2005).

Potential synergies between TBLT and exams could be reinforced if tasks are developed that embody some of the principles of task-based approaches and also serve as practicing the skills and sub-skills demanded by high-stakes tests. This might support a more direct relationship between examinations and task-based teaching. Issues requiring further investigation include the extent to which teachers may use examination requirements as a pretext or justification for the kind of approach that they personally favour; is most accepted in their social setting; or is most practical to implement. A useful point of reference may be the Japanese context, where teachers have prepared their students through a grammar-translation method even though no translation is required in the key exam (O’Donnell, 2005) and as Watanabe (1996) suggests, teacher factors may outweigh the influence of examinations. In other words, it may be teacher beliefs and school practicalities rather than examinations that are a more significant barrier to task-based approaches. Has the role of examinations as a constraint to communicative pedagogies sometimes been over-stated? Related to this is the issue of the relationship between an examination and how teachers prepare students for it. The extent to which teachers use or need to use a task-based mode of instruction to train students for a task-based examination requires further investigation.

Thirdly, the balance between oral and other types of task requires further consideration and investigation. Task-based research has predominantly focused on oral production which may have contributed to teachers’ misinterpretations of the primacy of oral tasks, particularly through pair or group work. Group work, in particular, has limitations in monolingual school language classrooms in view of issues, such as noise, off-task behaviour and regression to the mother tongue (Carless, 2002). A situated task-based approach may demand a varied repertoire of activities, including greater attention to individual tasks. A useful strategy might be to focus more on reading and writing tasks to cohere better with examinations and contribute to a clarification of the perception that task-based approaches overemphasize speaking. Whilst the task-based literature does include discussion of other modes, for example, narrative writing (Ellis and Yuan, 2004) or extensive reading (Green, 2005), more analyses relevant to schooling still need undertaking.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

DiskusiMakalah ini membahas wawancara data pengecoran cahaya pada kelayakan berbasis tugas mengajar untuk sekolah menengah Hong Kong. Data menunjukkan bahwa ada kebutuhan untuk interaksi pragmatis antara prinsip-prinsip metodologis dan dinamika ruang kelas sekolah. Versi berbasis tugas mengajar lemah lembut atau tampaknya menjadi pilihan yang lebih disukai dalam konteks sekolah Hong Kong, dengan 'tugas' diinterpretasikan sederhana sepanjang baris yang komunikatif praktek (Carless, 2004; Tong, 2005). Jenis fleksibel metode yang mungkin terbukti paling layak bisa disebut ' terletak tugas berbasis pendekatan', menggambar pada budaya dan pengaturan di mana mereka terjadi sehingga mereka dapat context-sensitive. Studi menunjukkan bahwa fitur dari pendekatan berbasis tugas terletak dapat mencakup berikut: tata bahasa instruksi dalam tahap pra-tugas siklus tugas; didukung tugas mengajar sepanjang garis pendekatan PPP; tugas-tugas yang terkait dengan persyaratan pemeriksaan; dan alternatif untuk tugas lisan, termasuk menyoroti membaca dan menulis.Dalam hal kritik yang diajukan oleh Bruton (2005) dan Swan (2005), dikutip di awal kertas, masalah inti sumber input dalam pengajaran berbasis tugas tampaknya ditangani oleh guru-guru yang memberikan pengajaran tata bahasa langsung dalam tahap pra-tugas atau sebagai sebahagian daripada urutan PPP. Informan yang menganjurkan PPP tidak alamat, namun, keterbatasan, misalnya, kegagalan untuk memperhitungkan didik perkembangan kesiapan (Ellis, 2003) dan kemampuan siswa untuk menggunakan bentuk praktek dikontrol dengan benar di tapi tidak di produksi kemudian gratis. Selain itu, strategi pengajaran seperti itu mungkin tidak kompatibel dengan berbasis tugas mengajar sebagai dikandung dalam literatur dan mungkin menunjukkan bahwa pendidikan guru belum berhasil menyelesaikan mitos atau kesalahan tentang TBLT dan CLT (rujuk Thompson, 1996). Potensi mendengarkan dan membaca tugas, misalnya, dalam memberikan peserta dengan masukan adalah strategi yang tampaknya akan mengabaikan.Aku sekarang membuat beberapa saran untuk pengembangan lebih lanjut berbasis tugas mengajar sekolah di Hong Kong dan di tempat lain, di tingkat prinsip dikukuhkan praktek; dan menjelaskan beberapa masalah terkait yang memerlukan penyelidikan lebih lanjut. Pertama, penjelasan lebih lanjut masih diperlukan tentang peran tata bahasa instruksi dalam pendekatan berbasis tugas, daerah yang tampaknya secara bersamaan membingungkan dan bagian mendasar dari peran instruksional guru. Sebagai contoh, lebih banyak perhatian dapat diberikan ke tahap siklus tugas tugas pasca-aspek yang menunjukkan data tidak sedang dimanfaatkan dengan baik. Tahap pasca tugas, dengan fokus eksplisit pada bentuk, mungkin juga dapat diintegrasikan dengan lebih beragam pendekatan instruksi tata bahasa, termasuk tugas induktif dan penggalangan kesadaran (misalnya Mohamed, 2004). Fase pasca tugas juga dapat berkontribusi untuk mengingatkan siswa padat pembelajaran yang harus diselesaikan dan bahwa sementara tugas mungkin telah menyenangkan, ada serius belajar bertujuan tiang pondasi. Lebih analisis yang diperlukan dari tahap pasca tugas dalam konteks sekolah, khususnya sebagai remaja bunga dapat menyusut pada tahap ini dan mengingat kendala pelajaran dari durasi pendek, seperti 35-40 menit.Kedua, link lebih eksplisit bisa dibangun dan diartikulasikan antara tugas dan ujian. Saran guru yang ujian penghalang untuk pendekatan berbasis tugas yang tidak sepenuhnya meyakinkan saya bahwa taruhan tinggi ujian umum di Hong Kong telah bergerak ke arah yang lebih berbasis tugas selama beberapa tahun. Sebagai contoh, sebuah inovasi terbaru tinggi pro file melibatkan penilaian berbasis sekolah di mana siswa membaca buku dan menonton film kemudian melaksanakan tugas-tugas lisan melalui presentasi individu dan interaksi kelompok (Davison, 2007); tugas ini dinilai oleh para guru sendiri siswa dan menghitung untuk 15% dari tanda pemeriksaan publik. Pembangunan seperti mungkin memiliki dampak langsung pada guru kelas pemeriksaan (yaitu tahun 10 dan 11), tetapi mungkin memakan waktu lebih lama untuk dampak pada tahun-tahun awal sekolah menengah, menggarisbawahi gagasan washback yang dapat beroperasi sangat lambat (Cheng, 2005).Potensi sinergi antara TBLT dan ujian bisa diperkuat jika tugas dikembangkan yang mewujudkan beberapa prinsip dari pendekatan berbasis tugas dan juga berfungsi sebagai berlatih keterampilan dan sub-kecakapan yang dituntut oleh taruhan tinggi tes. Ini mungkin mendukung hubungan lebih langsung antara ujian dan pengajaran berbasis tugas. Isu-isu yang memerlukan penyelidikan lebih lanjut termasuk sejauh mana guru dapat menggunakan persyaratan pemeriksaan sebagai alasan atau pembenaran untuk jenis pendekatan yang mereka secara pribadi mendukung; paling diterima dalam pengaturan sosial mereka; atau paling praktis untuk menerapkan. Berguna titik acuan mungkin konteks Jepang, mana guru telah mempersiapkan siswa mereka melalui metode tata bahasa terjemahan yang meskipun tidak ada terjemahan yang diperlukan dalam ujian kunci (O'Donnell, 2005) dan sebagai menunjukkan Watanabe (1996), faktor-faktor guru mungkin lebih besar daripada pengaruh ujian. Dengan kata lain, mungkin keyakinan guru dan sekolah praktis daripada pemeriksaan yang lebih signifikan penghalang untuk pendekatan berbasis tugas. Peran ujian sebagai kendala untuk teknik pengajaran yang komunikatif kadang-kadang telah over dinyatakan? Berkaitan dengan hal ini adalah masalah hubungan antara pemeriksaan dan bagaimana guru mempersiapkan siswa untuk itu. Sejauh mana guru menggunakan atau harus menggunakan modus berbasis tugas instruksi untuk melatih siswa untuk berbasis tugas pemeriksaan lebih lanjut memerlukan penyelidikan.Thirdly, the balance between oral and other types of task requires further consideration and investigation. Task-based research has predominantly focused on oral production which may have contributed to teachers’ misinterpretations of the primacy of oral tasks, particularly through pair or group work. Group work, in particular, has limitations in monolingual school language classrooms in view of issues, such as noise, off-task behaviour and regression to the mother tongue (Carless, 2002). A situated task-based approach may demand a varied repertoire of activities, including greater attention to individual tasks. A useful strategy might be to focus more on reading and writing tasks to cohere better with examinations and contribute to a clarification of the perception that task-based approaches overemphasize speaking. Whilst the task-based literature does include discussion of other modes, for example, narrative writing (Ellis and Yuan, 2004) or extensive reading (Green, 2005), more analyses relevant to schooling still need undertaking.