Issues in Teachers’ Reinterpretation

of a Task-Based Innovation in
Primary Schools
DAVID CARLESS
Hong Kong Institute of Education
Hong Kong SAR, China

Although task-based teaching is frequently practiced in contemporary

English language teaching, it is underresearched in state school set-
tings. This article contributes to filling this gap in the literature by using
qualitative case study data to explore how a task-based innovation was
implemented in three primary school classrooms in Hong Kong.
Analysis of classroom observation and interview data shows how the case
study teachers reinterpreted a new curriculum in line with their own
beliefs and the practical challenges occurring in their school contexts.
Drawing on classroom episodes, the article highlights three issues that
proved problematic when the tasks were implemented: use of the
mother tongue, classroom management or discipline problems, and
the quantity of target language produced. Implications for the design
and implementation of task-based pedagogies in primary school con-
texts are discussed.

M uch of the research into task-based teaching has focused on adult

classes in ESL contexts. As Candlin (2001) observes, however, little
empirical research has been conducted on task-based teaching in school
EFL1 contexts. This article seeks to fill that gap by using qualitative case
study data to analyse how a task-based innovation was implemented in
the Hong Kong primary school context. This cross-curricular innovation,
the so-called target-oriented curriculum (TOC),2 was a form of out-
comes-based education in which students progressed toward specified
learning targets by carrying out tasks (Carless, 1997; Clark, Scarino, &

1
Postcolonial Hong Kong has characteristics of both a second and a foreign language
context, but the distinction is not central to this article.
2
TOC has now been superseded by a reform called Learning to Learn (Curriculum
Development Council, 2001). For studying English, task-based approaches still form a promi-
nent component of the new syllabus, although the term TOC is no longer used.

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 38, No. 4, Winter 2004 639

Brownell, 1994; Morris, 2000). TOC was based on constructivist learning
principles and argued that pupils needed to be involved in developing
their own learning. Task-based teaching and learning were central to this
philosophy.
For studying English, task-based approaches, referred to as task-based
learning, are also a key component of recent syllabi (Curriculum Devel-
opment Council, 1997, 2002) that replaced the communicative syllabi,
which were adopted in name but not widely implemented in the
classroom (Evans, 1996). The task-based syllabus was seen as enhancing
the communicative one, which was largely unsuccessful because tradi-
tional textbooks did not complement the communicative approaches, a
large number of teachers were either untrained or not trained to teach
the subject, and coursework focused on passing examinations that did
not support communicative approaches (Evans, 1996; Lai, 1993). Both
task-based and communicative orientations toward teaching contrasted
with earlier practice that was traditional and teacher centred, and often
included a decontextualised focus on grammatical form, or what the
Education Commission (1994) describes as a concentration on “the
formal features of the language at the expense of encouraging students
to use the language” (p. 25).
To begin to analyse an innovation’s success, it is necessary to learn how
teachers are carrying it out in classrooms at schools where the innovative
curriculum is supposedly being implemented. Curriculum mandates
frequently do no match classroom practices (e.g., Fullan, 1999; Markee,
1997). Moreover, although task-based teaching is very much in vogue, it
is underresearched in young learner classrooms. I therefore discuss the
notion of task and indicate how the Hong Kong primary school context
has interpreted it. Then I describe the research context and outline the
qualitative research methods used to discover how teachers reinter-
preted the task-based innovation. I present three critical classroom
episodes and focus on three problematic issues arising from teachers’
reinterpretations: using the mother tongue (MT), dealing with disci-
pline challenges, and producing the target language (TL). I also analyse
the extent to which task-based reasonably describes what was going on in
the classrooms under discussion and sketch some issues for further
research.

NOTION OF TASK
The definition of task has received much attention in the literature
(e.g., Breen, 1987; Bygate, 2000; Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Candlin,
1987; Ellis, 2000, 2003; Skehan, 1998, 2003). Skehan (1998) defines tasks
using four criteria: Meaning is primary, it works toward a goal, it is

640 TESOL QUARTERLY

outcome-evaluated, and it is related to the world outside the classroom.
Skehan’s definition is well accepted for the ESL adult context. Turning
toward task-based teaching with young learners, Cameron (2001)
summarises tasks’ key features as follows: They have coherence and unity
for learners (from topic, activity and/or outcome), meaning and pur-
pose for learners, clear language-learning goals, a beginning and an end,
and involve the learners actively. Because young learner contexts have
limited English language resources, they are more likely than speakers
who have had greater TL exposure to be involved in what Skehan (1996)
refers to as “weak” forms of task-based teaching (p. 39). In a weak
approach, tasks are roughly comparable to the production stage of a
presentation-practice-production method.
TOC defines task using five main elements (Clark, Scarino, & Brownell,
1994; Curriculum Development Council, 1997):
• a purpose or underlying real-life justification for doing the task that
involves more than simply displaying knowledge or practicing skills
• a context in which the task takes place that may be real, simulated, or
imaginary
• a process of thinking and doing
• a product or the result of thinking and doing
• a framework of knowledge and skills
TOC distinguished tasks from exercises, which were defined as “learning
activities that help acquisition of specific information and skills” (Educa-
tion Department, 1994, p. 19). Exercises were intended as language
input during the pretask stages of task-based teaching (Curriculum
Development Council, 1997). Ellis (2003) points out, however, that
distinguishing exercises from tasks is not easy because some activities
may contain features of both.
The three definitions of tasks just outlined have a great deal in
common and some differences. For example, both the Skehan and TOC
definitions highlight real-world aspects (context in TOC), while Cameron
does not mention this aspect explicitly. Some of the features, for
example, language goals, process and product (TOC), or beginning and
end (Cameron, 2001), are useful for defining tasks, but they are not
exclusive to task-based teaching (Widdowson, 1998). I return to the issue
of definitions in the concluding section.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

As a development within communicative approaches (Littlewood,

2004; Nunan, 1999), implementing task-based syllabi entails some familiar

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 641

issues: using MT during pair- or group-work activities, dealing with
classroom management challenges, and issues in producing TL. Al-
though I deal with the themes separately, they obviously overlap when,
for example, pupils overuse MT during a task, thereby challenging
classroom management and reducing TL production.

Mother Tongue Use

If one of the main purposes of task-based teaching is to stimulate

communication in the TL, one might think that using the MT was a
barrier, what Prabhu (1987) referred to as “a last resort” (p. 59). More
recently, however, a more complex picture has emerged of the tension
between using MT and using TL.
Carless and Gordon (1997) used data reported by a group of in-
service Hong Kong primary school teachers experimenting with task-
based teaching. The teachers identified pupils’ use of Cantonese as the
most prominent difficulty that occurred during tasks because this
practice conflicted with the teachers’ espoused goal of learners using
English. Nikolov (1999), researching young learners in Hungary in an
opportunistic sample of 111 classes, found that during pair or group
work, students used the MT more frequently than English, although she
claims that most of the children’s discourse was on-task. She concludes
that she was shocked by how infrequently children in her corpus heard
or used English during pair or group work. Pinter (1999), also research-
ing young Hungarian learners, in this case 10 pairs of high achieving 10-
year-olds, found that students frequently used MT, in particular when
working out what to do prior to commencing the task and when they did
not know words or expressions in TL. In Turkish secondary schools,
Eldridge (1996) found that most code switching was purposeful and
related to pedagogical goals, and that higher and lower achievers code
switched with about the same frequency.
Similar to Nikolov (1999), Swain and Lapkin (2000) were surprised
that learners used MT more frequently during communicative tasks than
they had anticipated. In a study of French immersion in secondary
school, they found that students used MT in around 25% of the turns,
but that only around 12% of the turns were off-task. Although Swain and
Lapkin noted that teachers tended to view this phenomenon negatively,
deeper analysis of transcripts led them to conclude that learners used the
first language for important cognitive and social functions, for example,
discussing strategies for how to carry out the task, and that using the MT
judiciously could help them to acquire TL vocabulary and syntax.

642 TESOL QUARTERLY

Classroom Management

For teachers dealing with large classes of children, handling noise or

indiscipline is a central issue, particularly in those contexts where
teacher-fronted activities are the norm and pair or group activities are
less universally practised. Tensions arise when facilitative teacher roles in
task-based teaching conflict with prevailing cultural norms that indicate
a more authoritative teacher persona (Carless, 1999; Ellis, 1996; Kramsch
& Sullivan, 1996). For example, case studies involving extended class-
room observation (Tsui, 2003) illustrate how important discipline is to
language teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. One of the teachers
Tsui observed, for instance, had difficulty distinguishing between noise
that foreshadowed disciplinary problems and noise that indicated high
levels of involvement.
Willis (1996) claims that the larger the class, the more logical task-
based teaching is for language practice, noting that she has observed
successful pair work in classes with as many as 80 students. She also
points out that noise levels may often rise because teachers have allotted
too much time to a task and advises that allowing all students time to
finish is sometimes not feasible. Li (1998), in a discussion based on
teacher self-reported data about implementing communicative approaches
in South Korea, argues that large classes accentuate noise and indisci-
pline during group activities. As one respondent in her study observed,
“when everyone starts to talk, the class can be very noisy. . . . Some kids
like to play around during group-work time” (p. 692). Similarly, Cameron
(2001) notes that teachers must skillfully manage group and pair work to
make activities well structured and motivating rather than a noisy time
for some and a time to opt out for others. Tomlinson (1988) argues, and
this may still remain valid, that communicative approaches have had
little impact in state schools because they encourage activity, noise,
initiative, and disorder, which usually conflict with the normal ethos of
schooling.

Target Language Production

The considerable discussion in the literature concerning the quantity

and quality of language that students produce during tasks is based
primarily on adult ESL learners. School foreign language contexts have
received relatively little attention, although notable exceptions are Kowal
and Swain (1994), and Swain and Lapkin (2000, 2001). In his critique of
task-based interaction, Seedhouse (1999) points out that students often
focus on completing the task and that, as a result, they sometimes

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 643

produce only the modest linguistic output necessary to complete it.
Seedhouse suggests that tasks might actually encourage students to
communicate at a level beneath their full potential.
An extreme example of lack of language production occurred during
the piloting for the current study, when I observed a lesson in which the
teacher set up a group activity that required pupils to complete a survey
of their group members using the question, “How do you come to
school?” To my surprise, the students completed the task in silence
because, as I later discovered, the learners already knew how their
friends came to school (mainly on foot) and saw no need to use spoken
language to complete the task. The problem seemed to lie partly in the
task design, which neglected communicative intent, but also in the
students seemingly being unaware that the teacher wanted them not only
to complete the task, but also to practise English. A possible solution lies
in Lin and Luk’s (2002) analysis of how a Hong Kong teacher (Tracy)
found ways to improve student engagement and participation by making
explicit to them the rationale and learning objectives behind the tasks
she asked them to do.
Task-based learning can also hinder language production because it
requires young learners to make or do something. To reduce the
likelihood of TL use grinding to a halt under such circumstances,
Cameron (2001) suggests a number of strategies; for example, pupils
could decide what materials they need for their making and doing and
request them from the teacher, the teacher can participate by moving
around the classroom and reinforcing key language items, or students
can recite or listen to rhymes or songs in the TL to give them
background exposure.
In summary, past research reports on the extent of MT use, tensions
between involving students in tasks while maintaining an orderly class-
room, and organizing tasks to maximise students’ linguistic participa-
tion. A number of the studies, however, relied solely on teachers’ self-
reported data, and others involved only limited periods of classroom
observation. These limitations in the findings’ detail and depth under-
score the need for the current study’s methodology, which employed
sustained classroom observation triangulated with teacher interview
data. The research questions guiding the study are (a) What are the
teachers’ attitudes and understandings toward task-based teaching? (b)
How are the teachers attempting to implement task-based teaching and
what issues emerge from these attempts?

644 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHOD
The data presented in this article are part of a larger study that
investigated how three Cantonese native-speaking English teachers in
different primary school settings implemented the task-based innovation
TOC in their classrooms. I used case study as an investigative technique
because it enabled me to probe deeply into the teachers’ viewpoints and
actions, thereby helping me to understand the implementation from
their perspectives. Pupils’ perspectives on task-based learning, although
immensely valuable, were not a focus of the current study. Case study
data facilitate working hypotheses (Lincoln & Guba, 2000) or “fuzzy
generalisations” (Bassey, 2001, p. 5) that can be transferred to other
contexts.
I selected the informants for the study based on my perceptions of the
following relevant attributes: young and capable teachers in their late 20s
or early 30s, open-minded in responding to change and therefore willing
to engage with the innovation, confident enough in their teaching to be
observed in the classroom, professionally motivated to take part in the
study, cognisant of the study’s demands and willing to participate on that
basis, and comfortable interacting in English, the medium of the
interviews.
Data for the study were collected using classroom observation, focused
interviews, and an attitude scale. Each classroom was observed for five or
six consecutive English lessons in three observation cycles during the
school year. Seventeen lessons were observed for each teacher, making a
total of 51 lesson observations. This method permitted me to observe
each classroom over an extended period and to observe lessons on
different topics, which enabled me to develop a rounded impression of
what was going on in the classrooms. It also helped to mitigate, as far as
possible, observer paradox problems or atypical, one-off display lessons.
All lessons were audiotaped on a single tape recorder, which was
sufficient because it was not intended to record the specific discourse of
pairs or groups of pupils. Instead, I circulated around the classroom,
listened in to what pupils were doing and recorded observations in my
field notes. This procedure limits what can be said about the kind of
language used during tasks. I focused on collecting qualitative data using
field notes and lesson transcriptions, although I did collect quantitative
data using a tailor-made classroom observation schedule (not discussed
in this article).
I conducted a series of six semistructured interviews, lasting between
40 and 60 minutes, with each of the three teachers, totalling around 15
hours of interview data, which I transcribed verbatim to deeply immerse
myself in the data. The arrangement and focus of the interviews is
outlined in Table 1.

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 645

 TABLE 1
Arrangement and Focus of Interviews

Interview Focus

Baseline interview Collect relevant background information about teacher

and school
Three postobservation interviews Seek views on relevant issues emerging from the lessons
just observed
Summative interview Probe the main issues arising from the ongoing data
analysis
Postanalysis interview Seek respondent validation or disconfirmation of the
data analysis
Note. A 5-point Likert attitude scale was developed to measure the respondents’ orientation to
English language teaching and TOC. An overall orientation toward TOC was computed for the
three teachers and a wider sample of primary school English teachers. The attitude scale is not
a focus of this article, but I refer to it briefly when discussing the teachers’ orientations toward
task-based teaching.

I began analysing the qualitative data when hunches emerged during

the data collection process and later more systematically analysed the
data using reduction and synthesis. Data from the 51 lesson observations
was reduced using focused summaries pertaining to the research ques-
tions and other emerging issues. Next, codes were assigned to the
interview transcripts and the classroom observation summaries. From
these codes a number of themes were identified; for example, all three
teachers mentioned discipline tensions when carrying out task-based
teaching. Once such a theme was identified, all data touching on it from
the different research tools was pooled and further analysed. Pooling all
data on a given theme helped me to identify evidence that might support
or disconfirm a particular line of argument.
Making sense of the data through “an organised construction”
(Holliday, 2002, p. 100), I moved repeatedly from data to emergent
findings and compared informants’ interpretations with their classroom
actions. To enhance trustworthiness, I asked the respondents and other
associates both in Hong Kong and overseas to give feedback on the data
analysis and the emerging propositions. The drafting and redrafting
process of writing was itself also a method of inquiry, discovery, and
analysis (Richardson, 2000). In view of the unavoidable subjectivity in
qualitative (and other forms of) research (Peshkin, 1988), I endeavour
to distinguish the primary data from my own interpretation so that
readers can judge the arguments for themselves, mindful that my
constructions are among the many possible interpretations of reality
(Holliday, 2002).

646 TESOL QUARTERLY

THE CONTEXT AND TEACHERS
Primary schooling in Hong Kong, where the study took place, starts at
age 6 and lasts for 6 years. Chinese, mathematics, and English, the three
main primary school subjects, dominate the curriculum. Teaching is
generally traditional and textbook oriented, and innovative pedagogies,
often derived from Western models, are usually viewed as unnecessary or
impractical (Adamson & Morris, 1998). English is the sole foreign
language in the Hong Kong primary school curriculum, and it is usually
taught for between seven and nine 35-minute lessons per week (Carless
& Wong, 2000). It is the only primary school subject taught using
English, although the extent of TL use can vary according to the
teachers’ and pupils’ English language abilities (Lin, 1990, 2000; Penn-
ington, 1997). Concerns about perceived declining English language
standards among teachers and students have led to controversial bench-
mark tests of teacher language proficiency (Glenwright, 2002).

Teachers’ Experience
Table 2 introduces the teachers who participated in the study. Alice
(all names are pseudonyms) is a trained and experienced teacher in a
middle management position in her school, responsible for developing
TOC for the subject of English. She describes one of TOC’s aims as “to
let pupils participate actively, to use activities to arouse their interest. . . .
To make learning more like real life, to involve them in learning by
doing” (Month 3). She describes task as follows: “Task is an activity; in the
task, pupils should have the chance to use the language meaningfully, to
interact with each other, not just read after the teachers or repeat
something. The most important thing is to let them use the language”
(Month 3). She seems to have developed her own personal understand-
ing of task-based teaching and has identified a number of task features
(active participation, real-life relationship, learning by doing, putting
language and meaning into use).
Betty was in her third year of teaching, and because she had only just
begun formal training, she had not yet been exposed to methodologies
such as communicative approaches. She says that one of her main roles
as a teacher is “to provide input” to the pupils, such as teaching
vocabulary and grammar. She also believes in the need for student
discipline: “The discipline should be settled before the lesson starts. . . .
If the discipline is lost then I think the lesson cannot be continued”
(Month 4). This emphasis on traditional input and discipline prompted
some hesitations about carrying out activities or tasks that might require
her to relinquish disciplinary control. Turning to her perspective on

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 647

 TABLE 2
Teachers’ Qualifications and Teaching Specifications

Teaching Standard
Teacher Qualifications/training a experience of pupils Class taught

Alice Teaching certificate (English); 8 years Above average P1 class (Year

completed 16 week full-time inservice 1), 33 pupils,
course on communicative approaches aged 6–7
Betty BA (music) untrained; undergoing 2 years Average P2 class (Year
part-time in-service training 2), 31 pupils,
aged 7–8
Connie Teaching certificate (English); 5 years Slightly below P1 class (Year
B.Ed (UK); started M.Ed average 1), 26 pupils,
aged 6–7
a
The teaching profession in Hong Kong does not yet exhibit a high degree of professionalism
in training and qualifications. According to the Education and Manpower Bureau (2002), at the
primary school level, 52.4% of teachers do not hold degrees and 9% are untrained, and many
subjects are taught by teachers not trained in that particular subject: 41% of English teachers
are not trained to teach English.

tasks, her stated definition is that task “mainly has objectives and it can
link the pupil ability of understanding, conceptualising, that kind of
communication” (Month 4). In my view, this definition is vague and does
not distinguish tasks from other approaches that would also contain
objectives. In none of the interviews was she able to clearly define tasks
nor to distinguish between a task and what under TOC would be
regarded as an exercise. Betty’s preliminary understanding was consist-
ent with her recent entry into the teaching profession and lack of
training, which meant she did not have the background in communica-
tive approaches shared by the other teachers.
Connie is well qualified academically, has been trained in the theory
and practice of communicative approaches, and holds the position of
panel chair for English (similar to head of department). Her perspective
on task-based teaching is illustrated by the following quotation:

I think we should try to motivate the pupils, try to increase their interest in
learning. I think putting the knowledge in use is quite important in TOC. I
think it should be more lively, not just a classroom situation, not just learn this
but know that it is useful and they can use it. (Month 5)

I interpret Connie as having developed a sound personal understanding

and interpretation of some of the innovation’s key elements. Although,
like Alice, Connie did not use TOC terminology directly, she touched on
some relevant elements, for example, “knowledge in use” (cf. purpose in
TOC), “not just a classroom situation” (cf. context in TOC).

648 TESOL QUARTERLY

Teachers’ Knowledge and Attitudes

In addition to their understandings, the interview data and the

attitude scale also gauged the teachers’ attitudes toward task-based
teaching. The attitude scale data showed that of the three teachers,
Connie was the most positively oriented (very positive) toward task-based
approaches, Betty the least positively oriented (neutral stance), and Alice
somewhere in between (quite positive).

FINDINGS

Classroom episodes were chosen to illustrate the key issues already

identified: using MT, managing the classroom, and producing TL in the
lessons. Additional interview and classroom data provide the teachers’
perspectives on those issues.

Classroom Episodes

The following classroom episodes present critical incidents (Tripp,

1993) that illustrate the main challenges for implementing task-based
teaching in the classrooms under discussion. The episodes were selected
because they contained lessons from which challenges identified by the
teachers emerged most prominently.

Episode A

This episode was taken from a double lesson lasting 70 minutes during
the second cycle of observing Alice’s classroom. It illustrates discipline
problems, widespread use of MT, and lack of English language produc-
tion. Alice took some plates of fruits to the classroom and invited
selected students to carry out an open pair work dialogue in front of the
class with the following main components:

Smell this. Is it nice?

Yes it is / No it isn’t.
What is it?
It is a [name of fruit].

To create an information gap, the student smelling the fruit was

blindfolded. While the students were carrying out this open pair work,
the teacher told them that they were too noisy and delivered a number of
disciplinary warnings and exhortations both in English and in MT. In an

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 649

attempt to maintain order, one strategy she used was, “If you are noisy, I
won’t choose you [to come and smell the fruit].” Four pairs of pupils
were chosen to demonstrate the activity at the front of the class, then
pupils worked in six groups (five or six students per group). Three
groups carried out the task with the plates of fruit, while three groups did
a written workbook exercise, and after 8 minutes they transposed their
roles.
With respect to implementing this task, I contemporaneously re-
corded the following comment in my field notes:

The activity provokes a lot of noise and excitement, particularly from the
boys. Somewhat disappointingly, it generates hardly any English3 at all from
the groups near to me. Some of the other groups appear to be using a bit
more English, but the overall level of noise makes it difficult to hear what is
being said. Somewhat surprisingly the three groups chosen to do the
workbook exercise first, do it willingly and show no resentment at being
forced to wait their turn for the ‘fun’ part. Perhaps, they quite like getting
down to some solid written work. (Field notes, Book 2, p. 29)

In the postlesson interview, Alice identified as a task4 “interviewing

their friends to ask about smells and other feelings.” She expressed
satisfaction with the lesson: “I like the part of smelling something and
asking their friends ‘is it nice and what is it?’” She also highlighted two
issues related to this lesson. First, she stated that she was unhappy about
the extent of noise generated but wished to provide the opportunity for
pupils “to put language into use.” With respect to this issue she stated, “I
am quite liberal. I can accept the noise during activities more easily than
most of my colleagues. They think I am rather Westernised, less
traditionally Chinese.” Second, regarding pupils’ use of MT she said, “I
don’t like them using Cantonese and encourage them to use English, but
some are just lazy and will prefer to use their mother tongue”
(postobservation interview, Month 7).

Episode B

This episode was taken from the third cycle of observing Betty’s
classroom. It shows the teacher’s concerns about discipline problems
and pupils’ use of MT. The language focus for this lesson was responding
to the questions:

3
My field notes indicated that noise and excitement were frequently correlated with using
MT, irrespective of the pupils’ English language proficiency.
4
The extent to which the tasks in these episodes meet the TOC definition could be
critiqued, for example, in terms of purposefulness or contextualization (see Littlewood, 1993).
I return to this issue in the conclusion.

650 TESOL QUARTERLY

 Where is s/he? Where are they? What is s/he doing? What are they doing?

The learners practised these structures using a text from the course book
about a family going to the beach. Later in the same lesson, the teacher
showed some authentic photographs of various people carrying out
activities, for example, Betty playing the piano in church, some pupils
and teachers having a picnic, and a group of teachers having a meal in a
restaurant. After some teacher-fronted, whole class discussion of one of
the photos, the teacher distributed more photos so that the pupils could
try in groups to answer the four designated questions for the photos they
had been given.
My field notes record that the pupils were stimulated by the authentic
photos and became quite animated, so not surprisingly, in addition to
using English, a number of pupils commented in Cantonese. I thought
this activity succeeded because pupils were motivated, involved in the
activity, and challenged to generate their own English interpretations of
the photos.
Betty perceived that “using the given photos to answer their partner’s
question” was a task. She noted two contrasting aspects of the pupils’
response to this activity. On the one hand, she was pleased that “the
photos catch the students’ attention and they love to see the pictures,”
but, on the other hand, she interpreted the lively response somewhat
negatively in her comment that “discipline problems were caused when
the teacher showed the photos. Sometimes doing the group work is
difficult because they just use the opportunity to talk in Cantonese”
(postobservation interview, Month 7).

Episode C

This episode is taken from the second cycle of observing Connie’s

classroom in a double lesson lasting 70 minutes. It illustrates the uneven
distribution of turns in the oral part and the lack of language production
during the time-consuming drawing activity. The language focus was

What can you see? I can see a ______.

The students then carried out the following task. The class divided into
groups of five or six pupils, and the group leaders looked out of the
classroom window while their classmates remained in their normal seats.
The group leaders then rejoined their groups and reported what they
had observed, in response to the group’s repeatedly asking, “What can
you see?” After the students had completed this oral activity, they made a
drawing of what the group leaders had seen from the window and
labelled it with an English caption.

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 651

 My field notes identified the activity as successfully involving students
in language use, although for the oral part, I noted that only certain
individuals used English; the group leaders were active but the other
pupils were restricted to repeating the single utterance, “What can you
see?,” and in practice some of them did not contribute any English
speech at all. Although I was aware that learning might be taking place
without students actually saying anything, the extent of pupil involve-
ment in the task did seem to me to run counter to the teacher’s stated
aims of language practice and communication.
For the drawing part of the activity, which lasted for a lengthy 32
minutes, my field notes identified a variety of pupil responses:

A few of the pupils are discussing (mainly in English) with the teacher, one or
two are discussing what they can see with me in English, some others are
writing in English what they can see. The majority are still drawing/colouring
or chatting with their neighbours in Cantonese. (Field notes, Book 2, p. 106)

Connie stated that describing the things which could be seen from the
window was a task. She expressed satisfaction with the oral part: “Some of
the pupils can really ask and answer the questions during the activity.”
She expressed some reservations about the drawing activity: “They like
doing the drawing and colouring, but it takes so much time and I wonder
if they are really learning anything” (postobservation interview, Month 9).

Interviews and Additional Classroom Data

Teachers’ perspectives help to illuminate the three issues under

analysis. The teachers held differing views on the value of using MT in
the classroom, but they all noted the tensions they felt between their
desire to carry out activities that engaged the learners’ interest and to
maintain an orderly classroom. All teachers saw tasks as a means of
getting students to use English and were frustrated when they felt that
not all students were benefiting from the opportunity.

Use of MT

In their postanalysis interviews, all three teachers expressed views on

how often pupils used MT during tasks, both as a general phenomenon
and specifically in relation to the episodes already described. Alice was
very much against pupil’s using MT because she believed that her high
ability pupils should be able to cope with tasks in English. The other two
teachers, with lower ability pupils, stated that pupils could use MT under
certain circumstances, such as when they were working out what to do

652 TESOL QUARTERLY

(cf. Pinter, 1999). In their open-ended interview responses, the three
teachers noted a number of reasons pupils use MT. Alice stated that
“some are just lazy, but others do have difficulties in using English”
(Month 16); Betty believed that “they use Cantonese because they find it
facilitates the activities” (Month 14); Connie argued that “it depends on
the activity type. If the rules or instructions are too complicated, they will
use Cantonese to solve their problems and to make themselves clear”
(Month 15). Overall, based on their interview responses, I categorised
the teachers’ views on recourse to MT as follows:
• Because of limited English proficiency (Alice, Betty, Connie)
• To facilitate the activity (Alice, Betty, Connie)
• Because the activity was too complicated (Betty, Connie)
• Expressing their feelings, arguing or complaining (Connie)
• Laziness (Alice) or lack of initiative (Betty)
Although all the teachers tended to discourage pupils from using MT,
they did note some constructive uses for it. For example, Alice noted that
more able students would use Cantonese to teach the less able ones
through, for example, explanations, reminders, or corrections. Connie
suggested that pupils use MT to reduce anxiety, particularly Primary 1
pupils, whom she perceives as being quite nervous. She also suggests that
the less able students could ask the teacher questions in Cantonese, and
the teacher would then try to respond in English. Connie was the only
teacher who used a systematic reward system to encourage TL use (and
good behaviour) during activities.
The teachers’ own models of TL/MT use in the classroom also
seemed to influence the students. Alice, with high ability pupils, used
English for instruction but not for disciplining students; Betty frequently
used MT for explanations, as a social lubricant, and for humorous
purposes; Connie believes strongly that English should be taught using
English, and even though her pupils were of quite low ability, she rarely
used MT during whole-class interaction. Overall, the teachers provided
no evidence that they had explicitly discussed with pupils when they
might usefully employ MT, and the teachers’ general strategy appeared
to be gently discouraging MT use and occasionally turning a blind eye or
being preoccupied with other classroom matters.

Discipline Challenges

In the discussion of Episodes A and B, I noted tensions between the

desire to carry out activities and a wish to maintain a quiet, orderly
classroom. All three teachers referred to such dilemmas in the inter-
views. For Alice, a recurrent theme throughout the 17 lesson observations

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 653

was difficulties in controlling the classroom discipline, particularly
during activities. In all three postobservation interviews, she expressed
dissatisfaction with students’ behaviour, especially those naughty boys.
She did, however, reiterate her belief in motivating pupils to put
language into use and commented on the tensions: “There is a bit of
conflict between using the language and discipline. It’s unavoidable
having noise when they are talking in groups; some teachers and
principals may not accept that” (summative interview, Month 10).
Tensions between activities and discipline also occurred in Betty’s
lessons, albeit from a contrasting perspective. Alice emphasised activities
somewhat at the expense of discipline, while Betty stressed discipline
somewhat at the expense of activities. Betty also referred to the difficulty
of monitoring performance during activities, observing that “it is hard
for the teacher to monitor the students, especially as there are many
pupils in the class. It is hard to tell whether they actually do the activity or
not, especially for pair work or group work” (postobservation interview,
Month 9). In the interview data, Betty repeatedly referred to a need to
focus on discipline, when to my eyes the class seemed very well behaved.
Betty’s doubts about providing less controlled activities that allow pupils
more freedom seem to resonate with the Korean teacher’s perceptions
that Li (1998) discusses.
Connie expressed satisfaction that pupils could behave “acceptably”
but also involve themselves actively in the lessons. “I always believe that
students should be quiet in class, but in carrying out activities you have to
tolerate some noise” (postanalysis interview, Month 15). She noted some
conflict between the cultural desire for a quiet classroom and the
necessity to tolerate some noise. In fact, she highlighted her belief that
the teacher’s tolerance for noise during activities is important and
specifically identified developing this tolerance as something that had
improved her teaching.

TL Production

Task-based teaching’s main aim, according to these teachers, is to

require pupils to use English. Tensions arose when students did not meet
these expectations to the teachers’ satisfaction. Alice was satisfied when
pupils were communicating through English. Under two circumstances,
however, she saw limitations in language production. In some tasks, only
certain individuals used English; in Episode A, for example, only eight
pupils did the open pair work, although more would have liked to do so.
On other occasions, the nature of tasks limited language production, as
when pupils constructed a zoo from cardboard cutouts, for example.
Alice commented on this task: “Sometimes the activities are quite time-

654 TESOL QUARTERLY

consuming without much English language learning, but they do learn
other things, some concepts like which animals go together, and also
they learn to cooperate in problem solving” (postobservation interview,
Month 10).
Betty observed that during stages of some tasks, not all pupils could
participate, and if the activity was motivating, the less involved pupils
could find it frustrating: “Sometimes it is difficult for everyone to
participate in an activity since it is basically done by one or two students
in the group” (postobservation interview, Month 9). Betty also identified
a task asking students to combine watercolours as being interesting and
enjoyable but not leading to much TL production. She also reflected on
whether she sometimes discouraged language production: “Often I
dominate the activities. I speak too much and could do more to get the
pupils to speak” (postobservation interview, Month 9).
Connie noted that through TOC tasks, pupils had developed their
oral skills: “In TOC approach, they are already accustomed to talking a
lot in English in class and this helps improve their results in oral
examinations” (postobservation interview, Month 10). She did, however,
identify tasks that limited language production, such as the task dis-
cussed in Episode C, where only group leaders were producing language.
Table 3 summarises the main teacher orientations toward the implemen-
tation issues; where applicable, “⫹” indicates a largely positive process or
outcome and “⫺” indicates a negative one.

TABLE 3
Summary of Teacher Views on Implementation Issues

Teacher MT use Discipline Language production

Alice ⫹ Facilitates peer Willing to tolerate ⫹ Some communication

support; facilitates some indiscipline. through English.
activities. ⫺ Some tasks time-consuming
⫺ Denotes laziness. and not producing much
language.
Betty ⫹ Facilitates activities; Desires to maintain ⫹ Beginning to reflect on the
social lubricant. tight control. issue.
⫺ Denotes lack of ⫺ Some tasks dominated by
initiative. teacher or a few students.
Connie ⫹ Facilitates activities; Seeks balance ⫹ Notes improvement in oral
reduces anxiety. between good skills.
⫺ Used for arguing or behaviour and ⫺ Some domination by
complaining. noisy activities. individuals or other lack of
language production.

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 655

DISCUSSION
The findings on these three issues need to be considered in view of
broader professional perspectives. With respect to MT use, my interpre-
tation of the data tentatively supports Swain and Lapkin’s (2000)
conclusion that MT use is a complex issue. Allowing students to use MT
during tasks may affect their conduct positively (e.g., working out how to
do the task) or negatively (e.g., irrelevant chitchat). Swain and Lapkin
duly recommend that teachers neither encourage nor discourage pupils
from using MT. The three teachers have adopted a similar approach,
making essentially pragmatic judgements about when they would toler-
ate or gently discourage students from using MT. To go beyond ad hoc
decision making in the young learner classroom, however, these issues
merit further exploration: What kinds of MT dialogue generated by
young learners might facilitate second language development (Swain &
Lapkin, 2000, 2001)? What guidance might teachers provide to pupils on
the extent and desirability of using MT during tasks (Eldridge, 1996)?
What tasks might involve, for example, language analysis in which the
teacher might recommend that students use MT? Although these
questions need to be investigated, frictions clearly remain between
viewpoints that see MT use as a barrier to developing TL and those that
see it as a potential support.
The second issue, classroom management and discipline, has been
underexplored in the literature on task-based teaching, but it is impor-
tant for many teachers, particularly those who teach in more traditional
contexts. The study showed tensions between maintaining a quiet,
orderly classroom, according to local school cultures, and a wish to carry
out oral English tasks. I interpreted the data as showing that concerns
over noise and discipline inhibited implementing task-based teaching. In
traditional contexts, teachers often handle teacher-fronted instruction
better than they handle communicative tasks (Li, 1998), a challenge that
further exacerbates the difficulties of implementing task-based teaching.
This issue may become increasingly important as English language
teaching in primary school contexts expands in China, Japan, South
Korea, and Taiwan (Ho & Wong, 2003).
In such contexts, teachers should learn to tolerate constructive noise,
as Connie hinted. For example, Tsui (2003) shows how an expert Hong
Kong secondary school teacher deals with discipline by distinguishing
between off-task noise (not permitted) and on-task noise (permitted). In
this case, the distinction facilitates achieving instructional objectives
rather than simply reinforcing the teacher’s authority. Good teaching is
characterised not by establishing routines, such as discipline, but by
possessing the judgement that informs executing the routines with some
flexibility (Tripp, 1994; Tsui, 2003). Senior teachers and school princi-

656 TESOL QUARTERLY

pals can support teachers by reassuring them that a noisy classroom will
not, in itself, be viewed unfavourably.
Another factor that may prompt discipline problems is how students
perceive activities or tasks. Students, I suggest, may view activities as a lull
from serious instruction and an opportunity to take a break. Barkhuizen’s
(1998) study of South African secondary school language students
revealed that they preferred mechanical learning activities over commu-
nicative-type activities, a finding that surprised their teachers. This
finding recalls Episode A, when groups of pupils willingly carried out a
traditional workbook exercise while their classmates did the fruit-tasting
task. Are certain types of learner more disposed toward learning through
tasks or group work, while other learners are more oriented toward
traditional classrooms (Barkhuizen, 1998)? Indeed, a traditional educa-
tional context may precondition pupils somewhat to resist task-based
approaches. How might teachers resolve the tensions between societal or
cultural expectations of classroom roles and the need to involve pupils
actively in language use (Carless, 1999; Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996; Tsui,
2003)? All three teachers grappled with this issue, and, to my mind, only
Connie resolved it satisfactorily by tolerating some noise while maintain-
ing vigilance toward pupils drifting off-task.
The third issue relates to TL production. All three teachers saw task-
based teaching as providing the opportunity for pupils to practise using
English, and they expressed concerns over activities that enabled only a
few students to use language. In my view, tasks in which some pupils may
remain silent have limitations, although as Breen (2001) points out,
nonparticipating learners can learn from others’ participation. Another
issue affecting TL production was spending too much time on nonlin-
guistic activities, such as making things, colouring, or drawing. Although
a certain amount of drawing or colouring is generally accepted as good
primary practice (Rixon, 1991), tasks must be carefully designed and
implemented so that nonlinguistic elements such as drawing do not
outweigh English language aspects.
The study’s research design limits more detailed analysis of the
language produced. I would reaffirm Seedhouse’s (1999) call for more
transcripts of task-based interaction, particularly those focused on young
learners. Issues for further exploration include the following: How can
teachers help young learners to optimise their language production
when completing tasks (Seedhouse, 1999)? If some learners are not
actively producing TL, to what extent is that a problem? How can
teachers maximise language use in activities that primarily involve
drawing, colouring, or making something (Cameron, 2001)? Teachers
might have different expectations for language production from young
learners than from more mature learners.

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 657

CONCLUSION

Through TOC and recent English syllabi (Curriculum Development

Council, 1997, 2002), the Hong Kong government has put in place
approaches that it refers to variously as “task-based” (1997, p. 50) or
“task-based learning” (1997, p. 49; 2002, p. 95). Using extensive field-
work and interviews, this article has shown how teachers have filtered
and interpreted the innovation, with particular emphasis on three issues
that challenged implementing it. The teachers’ filtering process in-
cluded reconciling task-based approaches with their own understandings
of tasks, their young pupils’ limited language resources, which made
reversion to MT or lack of TL production difficult to avoid, and their
belief that discipline or order are important, which may deter non–
teacher-fronted teaching. I characterise the teachers’ perspectives on
tasks as follows:
• A task is an activity that involves using language, communicating
within a situation that is authentic rather than just based in the
classroom.
• But certain activities challenge implementing tasks by causing stu-
dents to become noisy, usually speaking in MT, meaning that
students may produce little TL.
• This off-task noise causes some tensions for the teachers and their
colleagues, particularly because their traditional school context does
not expect noise.
One of the issues foregrounded at the outset was the nature of task.
Given the weakly developed interlanguage systems of 6–7-year-olds, the
young learners in the classrooms under discussion were given principally
language practice activities. If English language structures are not
pretaught, then beginning learners will probably not have sufficient
English language to use during tasks and may have no alternative other
than to complete the task using MT. Following from this observation, I
suggest that, for the Hong Kong context, the weaker form of task-based
teaching that the three teachers practised is more feasible than the
stronger task-based learning, where the syllabus would focus on the tasks
themselves, and the TL would emerge from the tasks. In the more
traditional Hong Kong context, the teachers had difficulty operationalising
the concept of task in TOC.
A large-scale survey of TOC provides wider evidence on implementing
task-based approaches in the Hong Kong primary context that cross-
validates the cases discussed in this article. Using questionnaire surveys,
interviews, and classroom observations, Clark, Lo, Hui, Kam, Carless,
and Wong (1999) found that teachers had difficulty interpreting and

658 TESOL QUARTERLY

implementing tasks. Questionnaire data from their study indicated that a
slight majority of teachers favoured traditional as opposed to task-based
teaching; interview data revealed widespread misunderstandings about
the nature of TOC tasks; and classroom observations indicated that
teachers rarely implemented activities that met the TOC definition of
task.
The task-based approach in the Hong Kong context is, I believe,
incongruent with generally accepted understandings of task and more
closely conforms to what readers in other contexts may refer to as
language practice activities, communicative teaching, or communicative tasks. In
view of this potential mismatch, if the Hong Kong government insists on
using the term task to denote communicative language practice, then a
more suitable term might be task-supported teaching. Task-supported
teaching refers to a weak version of task-based instruction that enables
students to practice communicating using language items that the
teacher has introduced in a traditional way (Ellis, 2003). This term seems
to better characterise what I observed in the classrooms than the term
task-based learning used in the government documentation (Curriculum
Development Council, 1997, 2002).
The fact that the teachers reinterpreted the task-based innovation
underscores a point from the literature on change management: Teach-
ers’ knowledge and experiences are central to the change process, but
they are often neglected (Cohen, 2002). Teachers mould innovations to
their own abilities, beliefs, and experiences; the immediate school
context; and the wider sociocultural environment. At a time when
English language teaching is expanding in primary schools in the Asia
Pacific region (Nunan, 2003), more studies are needed of how educa-
tional practices are reinterpreted according to learners’ age and profi-
ciency levels, the sociocultural realities of schooling, and the teacher’s
training and beliefs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Bill Littlewood, Paul Stapleton, Martin Bygate, Jill Bell, and the
two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful engagement with previous versions of
this article.

THE AUTHOR
David Carless is a senior lecturer in the English Department at the Hong Kong
Institute of Education. His main research interests are classroom-based research, the
management of educational change, and assessment for learning.

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 659

REFERENCES
Adamson, B., & Morris, P. (1998). Primary schooling in Hong Kong. In J. Moyles &
L. Hargreaves (Eds.), The primary curriculum: Learning from international perspectives
(pp. 181–204). London: Routledge.
Barkhuizen, G. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teach-
ing/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85–108.
Bassey, M. (2001). A solution to the problem of generalisation in educational
research: Fuzzy prediction. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 5–22.
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy
(Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23–46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Breen, M. (2001). Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language
classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New
directions in research (pp. 112–140). Harlow, England: Longman.
Bygate, M. (2000). Introduction to special issue on tasks in language pedagogy.
Language Teaching Research, 4, 185–192.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, &
M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and
testing (pp. 1–20). Harlow, England: Pearson.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Candlin, C. (1987). Language learning tasks. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.),
Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Candlin, C. (2001). Afterword: Taking the curriculum to task. In M. Bygate,
P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,
teaching and testing (pp. 229–243). Harlow, England: Longman.
Carless, D. (1997). Managing systemic curriculum change: A critical analysis of Hong
Kong’s Target-Oriented Curriculum initiative. International Review of Education, 43,
349–366.
Carless, D. (1999). Perspectives on the cultural appropriacy of Hong Kong’s Target-
Oriented Curriculum (TOC) initiative. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12, 238–
254.
Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT
Journal, 56, 389–396.
Carless, D. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary
schools. System, 31, 485–500.
Carless, D., & Gordon, A. (1997). Primary English teachers’ attitudes towards the
implementation of task-based teaching. Journal of Basic Education, 7, 139–159.
Carless, D., & Wong, P. M. (2000). Teaching English to young learners in Hong
Kong. In M. Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern
languages in Europe and beyond (pp. 209–222). Graz, Austria: European Centre for
Modern Languages.
Clark, J., Lo, Y. C., Hui, M. F., Kam, M., Carless, D., & Wong, P. M. (1999). An
investigation into the development and implementation of the TOC initiative with special
reference to professional competencies, professional development, and resources: Final report.
Hong Kong SAR, China: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Clark, J., Scarino, A., & Brownell, J. (1994). Improving the quality of learning: A
framework for Target-Oriented Curriculum renewal. Hong Kong SAR, China: Institute
of Language in Education.
Cohen, R. (2002). Schools our teachers deserve: A proposal for teacher-centred
reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 532–537.
Curriculum Development Council. (1997). Syllabuses for primary schools: English
language primary 1–6. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

660 TESOL QUARTERLY

Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: The way forward in
curriculum development. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.
Curriculum Development Council. (2002). English language education: Key learning
area curriculum guide (primary 1–secondary 3). Hong Kong SAR, China: Government
Printer.
Education Commission. (1994). Report of the working group on language proficiency.
Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.
Education Department. (1994). General introduction to target-oriented curriculum. Hong
Kong SAR, China: Author.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2002). Teacher survey. Hong Kong SAR, China:
Government Printer.
Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal, 50,
303–311.
Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? ELT
Journal, 50, 213–218.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4, 193–200.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Evans, S. (1996). The context of English language education: The case of Hong
Kong. RELC Journal, 27, 30–55.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.
Glenwright, P. (2002). Language proficiency assessment for teachers: The effects of
benchmarking on writing assessment in Hong Kong schools. Assessing Writing, 8,
84–109.
Ho, W. K., & Wong, R. Y. L. (Eds.). (2003). English language teaching in East Asia today:
Changing policies and practices. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to
promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50, 199–212.
Lai, C. (1993). Communication failure in the language classroom: An exploration of causes
(Research Report No. 25). Hong Kong SAR, China: City University of Hong Kong.
Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–697.
Lin, M. Y. A. (1990). Teaching in two tongues: Language alternation in foreign language
classrooms (Research Report No. 3). Hong Kong SAR, China: City Polytechnic of
Hong Kong.
Lin, M. Y. A. (2000). Deconstructing “mixed code.” In D. S. C. Li, A. Lin, & W. K.
Tsang (Eds.), Language and education in postcolonial Hong Kong (pp. 179–194).
Hong Kong SAR, China: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Lin, M. Y. A., & Luk, J. (2002). Beyond progressive liberalism and cultural relativism:
Towards critical postmodernist, sociohistorically situated perspectives in class-
room studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 97–124.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). The only generalisation is: There is no generalisation.
In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method (pp. 27–44).
London: Sage.
Littlewood, W. (1993). Cognitive principles underlying task-centred TL learning. In
N. Bird & M. Ingham (Eds.), Language and content (pp. 39–55). Hong Kong SAR,
China: Institute of Language in Education.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions.
ELT Journal, 58, 319–326.

ISSUES IN TEACHERS’ REINTERPRETATION OF INNOVATION 661

Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Morris, P. (2000). The commissioning and decommissioning of curriculum reforms:
The career of the Target-Oriented Curriculum. In B. Adamson, T. Kwan, & K. K.
Chan (Eds.), Changing the curriculum: The impact of reform on primary schooling in
Hong Kong (pp. 21–40). Hong Kong SAR, China: Hong Kong University Press.
Nikolov, M. (1999). Natural born speakers of English: Code switching in pair- and
group-work in Hungarian primary classrooms. In S. Rixon (Ed.), Young learners of
English: Some research perspectives (pp. 72–88). Harlow, England: Longman & the
British Council.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational
policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 589–613.
Pennington, M. (1997). Projecting classroom language use in a group of bilingual
graduates of a BATESL course. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10, 222–235.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17,
17–22.
Pinter, A. (1999). Investigations into task-related strategy use with young learners of
English. In S. Rixon, (Ed.), Young learners of English: Some research perspectives (pp.
1–17). Harlow, England: Longman & the British Council.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 923–948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rixon, S. (1991). The role of fun and games activities in teaching young learners. In
C. Brumfit, J. Moon, & R. Tongue (Eds.), Teaching English to children: From practice
to principle (pp. 33–48). Harlow, England: Longman.
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149–156.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,
268–286.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the
first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue:
Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching
pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 251–274). Harlow,
England: Pearson.
Tomlinson, B. (1988). Conflicts in TEFL: Reasons for failure in secondary schools.
Institute of Language in Education Journal, 4, 103–110.
Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement.
London: Routledge.
Tripp, D. (1994). Teachers’ lives, critical incidents, and professional practice.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies, 7, 65–76.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. (1998). Skills, abilities and contexts of reality. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 18, 323–333.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Longman.

662 TESOL QUARTERLY