| Teaching Articles Home |

Volume 35
Professional Teaching Articles
April 2009
Article 1

Formats
PDF
SWF

Title
Perspectives on the English Language Education of Hong Kong’s New Senior Secondary (NSS) Curriculum

Author
May Lai-Yin Wong
University of Hong Kong

Bio
Dr. May L-Y Wong is an honorary assistant professor in the school of humanities (linguistics) at the University of Hong Kong. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in corpus linguistics. Her research interests focus on using corpora to address Chinese and English grammar as it relates to theory, language description and second language acquisition. She also researches into English language teaching and learning in the secondary school context.

Abstract
The paper explores issues relating to the New Senior Secondary (NSS) English curriculum in view of professional perspectives from curriculum design and task-based principles. To underline the roles played by learners and teachers in curriculum development, this paper looks at curriculum from a social contextual perspective as defined by Graves (2006; 2008). The NSS curriculum was designed to provide greater flexibility for secondary schools to cater for learners’ varied interests, needs and capabilities, with the first-ever incorporation of an elective part of both language arts and non-language arts modules (e.g. poems and songs, popular culture, social issues, etc.) for learning English both creatively and practically. This study attempts to assess the innovation by considering the availability of resources and teacher education programs, roles of teachers and learners, and assessment schemes. The government has made available a series of teacher training programs and a wide range of resource books and materials packages for use by teachers. The paper argues that learners have recently shown some sign of compliance with task-based teaching, and that small-class teaching could optimise the implementation of the innovative curriculum. The use of school-based assessment in place of public examination in gauging English proficiency is a welcome change.

Keywords: English language education; curriculum; task-based teaching and learning; Hong Kong senior secondary schools; language arts; small-class teaching

Setting the scene: Hong Kong context
Over ninety-five per cent of Hong Kong’s population is Cantonese-speaking ethnic Chinese (Howlett, 1997, ch. 24). However, English has always held an important position in Hong Kong. It is primarily used in government, the media, employment and education, and is generally seen as a key to economic advantage (Li, 1999). Given the superior status of the English language in the former British colony, it is unsurprising that issues relating to the use of English in education or government have always had serious repercussions for the local community. A recent government move to impose Chinese medium of instruction on the majority of Hong Kong’s secondary schools, for example, was met with strong resistance from parents (Bolton, 2003, p. 96-97; Schneider, 2007, p.139). As Miller et al. (2007, p. 220) rightly observe, ‘[t]he linguistically homogeneous nature of the local population, and the continued but restricted uses enjoyed by English (in addition to its long history as the language of the colonial power) make for a complex situation when making decisions about language planning policy and school curricula guidelines’.

This paper focusses on the New Senior Secondary (NSS) English curriculum proposed by the Hong Kong government in response to the new academic structure: three-year junior secondary education, three-year senior secondary education, four-year university education. The paper aims to consider issues relating to the NSS English curriculum in view of professional perspectives from curriculum design and task-based principles. It is organised as follows. In sections 2 and 3, the definitions of curriculum and task-based teaching and learning – which are crucial to the understanding of the curriculum in question – are discussed. Section 4 describes major features with particular reference to the newly introduced elective part of the curriculum. The NSS English education system is then explored in greater detail in section 5 in terms of the availability of resources, teacher education programs, roles of teachers and learners and assessment in support of the curriculum. Section 6 concludes with a discussion of the challenges that might lie ahead for language teaching professionals. While the main audience for this paper will be practitioners in Hong Kong itself, hopefully many elsewhere will follow the thinking behind the innovations with great interest.

Curriculum
Curriculum refers to a set of processes which plan what is to be taught/learned, implementing it and evaluating it (Hall & Hewings, 2001, p. 1; Richards, 2001, p. 2). To underline the roles played by learners and teachers in curriculum development, this paper looks at curriculum from a social contextual perspective as defined by Graves (2006, 2008). Graves advances a different view of curriculum, ‘one that retains the three core processes of curriculum – planning, implementing and evaluating – but renames the middle one ENACTING to reflect the agency of teachers and learners in the classroom’ (2008, p. 152; original emphasis). This concept of curriculum can also be found in Snyder et al. (1992), who describe curriculum enactment as the pedagogic experiences jointly created by students and teachers in the classroom. In this view, enactment – the teaching and learning processes that happen in the classroom – is given more weight than planning and evaluating. Also in this view, the three processes that make up curriculum are always local in the sense that they are constrained in by specific social and educational contexts of a local community and are carried out by people within these contexts. I chose to adopt Greaves’ (2008) view of curriculum as it lends itself well to the new English language curriculum proposed by the Hong Kong government for secondary schools, which emphasises language learning experiences through participation in a wide range of tasks for diverse communicative contexts, as will be outlined in section 4. It is therefore instructive to discuss the notion of task and task-based learning before considering the new syllabus.

Task-based teaching and learning
In common with contemporary English language teaching (ELT) trends, task-based approaches to teaching continue to form a prominent component of the new senior secondary English language curriculum in Hong Kong. This task-based innovation was previously known as the target-oriented curriculum (TOC; Curriculum Development, 1999), which was later superseded by a reform called Learning to learn (Curriculum Development Council, 2001). Although the term TOC is no longer used in the new syllabus, it characterises two primary features of task-based pedagogies: TOC is a form of outcome-based education in which students progress towards clearly defined learning objectives and targets by carrying out tasks (Clark et al., 1994; Carless, 1997; Morris, 2000). Based on constructionist learning principles, TOC encourages students to develop their own learning. Task-based teaching and learning espouse both features for studying English. In essence, task-based learning is process-oriented: during tasks, learners are engaged with an interactive meaning-making process with each other using whatever linguistic resources they can pool together. Thus, language proficiency is built up through their participation in communicative tasks.
            Much of the research into task-based teaching discusses the notion of task differently (e.g. Breen, 1987a, 1987b; Candlin, 1987; Skehan, 1998, 2003; Bygate, 2000; Ellis, 2000, 2003; Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001). For example, Skehan (1998) outlines four key features of tasks as follows: meaning is central, students work towards a goal in tasks, students are assessed in accordance with task outcomes, and tasks are designed to reflect real-world situations. Rather than highlighting real-world contexts, Cameron (2001) defines tasks using language goals, process and product: they have coherence in topics covered, activity types, and/or outcomes, clear meaning and purpose, specified learning goals, and require learners’ active involvement. Since the 1980s, communication as the basis for teaching and learning languages has begun gaining currency. Dubin & Olshtain (1986) advocate a curriculum based on communicative goals, and Yalden (1987) calls for more balanced curriculum on both form and communicative functions. Breen (1987a, 1987b) proposes a paradigm shift in syllabus design from packaging language as a subject-language to conceptualising language teaching and learning as negotiated classroom tasks. Since then, ability to communicate in English has become a primary objective of English language curriculum, particularly in East Asian countries such as Japan and Korea where English is taught/learned as a foreign language (Sato & Takahashi, 2003; Potts & Park, 2007). It is not hard to see that communicative competence is at the heart of all this task-based orientation towards teaching.

Being able to communicate well in English has long been a priority on Hong Kong’s education agenda. Over two decades ago, the Hong Kong government criticised the traditional practice of English language teaching as teacher-centred which concentrated on ‘the formal features of the language at the expense of encouraging students to use the language’ (Education Commission, 1994, p. 25), and in consequence, a communicative, purposeful type of approach has been adopted since the early 1980s (Curriculum Development Committee, 1981, 1983). However, it was not widely implemented in the classroom, and was considered largely unsuccessful because traditional textbooks, coursework and teacher training did not support communicative approaches (Evans, 1996, 1997; Carless, 1999):

As is common with most innovations, the degree of actual implementation of TOC is quite variable. Some teachers and some schools have developed a good understanding of TOC and are implementing its spirit. Other schools have a less thorough understanding and are adopting the innovation in name, without there being any actual classroom evidence of the principles of TOC. (Carless, 1999, p. 242)

   The task-based syllabus was seen as enhancing the communicative one. In task-centred English language learning, a task takes place in a real, simulated or imaginary context with underlying real-life justification for doing the task, and involves thinking and reasoning rather than simply displaying knowledge or practising skills. As will be discussed in section 5, in full support of this task-based syllabus, the Hong Kong government and educational academics issued resource books and materials packages for use by teachers in order to operationalise the syllabus effectively in secondary school contexts (see, for example, Mok, 2001; Education and Manpower Bureau, 2002; 2004). We turn now to a comprehensive description of the new curriculum in the following section, which outlines all essential features of this reform.

Hong Kong’s English language education in the NSS curriculum
The New Senior Secondary (NSS) curriculum was designed to provide greater flexibility for Hong Kong schools to cater for individual learners’ varied interests, needs and capabilities (see section 5). The Education Bureau (previously known as Education and Manpower Bureau; a government body equivalent to the Ministry of Education in some other countries) announced in 2005 – in its report titled The New Academic Structure for Senior Secondary Education and Higher Education – Action Plan for Investing in the Future of Hong Kong – that this new three-year academic structure would come into effect in September 2009 (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2005). The new curriculum is composed of nine Key Learning Areas (KLAs), of which English language education is the prime interest of this paper.2
            The NSS framework was a product of concerted efforts by educational academics, seconded secondary head teachers, practising teaching professionals and officers from the Education Bureau. It is based on key recommendations made in recent curriculum changes documented in four government publications, namely, Senior secondary curriculum guide (Curriculum Development Council (CDC), 2007), Basic education curriculum guide – building on strengths (CDC, 2002), Learning to learn – the way forward in curriculum development (CDC, 2001), and Learning for life, Learning through life (Education Commission, 2000). Preparatory research was carried out both within the Hong Kong context and with respect to curriculum guidelines for senior secondary education in a number of other countries (e.g. Australia’s ACT Board of Senior Secondary Studies, Scotland’s National Qualifications, New South Wales’ Board of Studies).
            The English language education component of the NSS curriculum is based on a constructivist view of learning. Its main intentions are:

* the development of specific learning targets to provide a clear direction for learning;
* the use of learning tasks to promote ‘learning by doing’ and to involve students in ‘three interrelated strands which define the general purposes of learning English’ (CDC and Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA), 2007: 11): Interpersonal Strand (for interpersonal communication), Knowledge Strand (for developing and applying knowledge), Experience Strand (for responding and giving expression to real and imaginative experience);

* the need of catering for individual learner differences so as to adapt teaching and learning to different student abilities and learning styles;
* the promotion of learner independence and lifelong learning so that students can become more actively involved in constructing knowledge and skills in classroom activities and in their own time;
* the use of task-based learning as an integral part of teaching, learning and assessment;
* a greater emphasis on school-based assessment rather than one-off assessment based on public exams.
* the first-ever incorporation of an elective part (25%) of modules to allow for more flexibility for both schools and students to choose their desired topics (e.g. poems and songs, popular culture, sports communication, social issues) with which to learn English more creatively.

The elective part
The elective part of the NSS curriculum is primarily driven by a desire to motivate students to speak in English. Previous research has suggested that students who are motivated by a wish to be able to use English as a communication tool tend to have a greater preference for task-oriented learning activities (e.g. Richards, 1998). Thus the introduction of the elective part into the new curriculum should be considered as a deliberate move by the government to enhance task-based teaching. Essentially, the elective component proposed by the government consists of a wide array of tasks: as clearly set out in the suggested schemes of work (Education Bureau, 2007; see also section 5.1) for the elective part published by the government, students are expected to learn English through simulated situations such as drama and workplace communication which aim to engage their interest in learning English and putting what they have learned into practice. While the elective part accounts for only a quarter of the final mark, it may make the public examination less frightening and more predictable for students. It is used as a basis for accessing students’ writing and oral skills. In the writing section, essay questions are devised with reference to the knowledge and skills taught/learned in the elective component. Part of students’ English proficiency is also assessed (by their schools) on the basis of their performance in individual presentations and group interactions related to the elective module.

Furthermore, the elective section has the merit of being both informative and enjoyable. It comprises eight modules broadly divided into language arts (drama, short stories, poems and songs, popular culture) and non-language arts (sports communication, debating, social issues, workplace communication). It aims to ‘provide a balanced and flexible curriculum to cater for learners’ diverse needs, interests and abilities’ (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 15). While teaching materials inspired by poems and drama abound (see, for example, Mok, 2001), songs which are traditionally less recognised as a formal means of teaching English in secondary school contexts (Chan, 1997) have first been officially introduced into the English syllabus in Hong Kong. In fact, the idea of using songs in ELT context is not entirely new. Smith (2003) describes some attempts by undergraduate and postgraduate students to transcribe song lyrics on a voluntary 15-hour summer course English through songs run by the University of Hong Kong’s English centre. The same course was also offered to serving secondary teachers via the university’s extramural programme. Evaluation comments from the participants are mixed: while students were generally surprised by the idea that their English could be improved in an enjoyable and relaxing way, many teachers viewed songs and their lyrics as ‘a kind of light relief’ from the examination-oriented syllabus and thus could never be ‘a serious tool for enhancing language acquisition without supplementary grammar exercises’ (ibid, p. 115). However, Smith has forcefully demonstrated the benefits of using songs in the classroom. All examples of misinterpreted lyrics point to the fact that basic English phonology is not fully mastered by the advanced learners of English. Cantonese-speaking learners always have problems with word endings due to L1 transfer; Cantonese endings are highly constrained, which contain only vowels, nasals or single unreleased stops. The distinction between voiced and unvoiced consonants and some vowel phonemes which are not contrastive in the L1 are also problem areas. In addition, the tertiary students were reported to have difficulty in understanding lyrics which contain the idiomatic phrases such as ‘left in the lurch’ and ‘stood him up’. Smith argues that if used appropriately, these transcription errors ‘can be a useful diagnostic tool to point to areas of phonological weakness which require attention’ (ibid.: 121). Those areas can then be tackled according to the specific needs of the learners; for instance, specific listening exercises and production tasks can be used to improve on such problems.

The evidence reported on in Smith’s (2003) study reinforces the pedagogic values of authentic materials which take a vast number of forms, including pop songs, television, radio, movies, gossip magazines, comics, fashion, computer games and the Internet (Lo, 1995; Cheung, 2001). Lo (1995, p. 55) states that ‘teaching/learning materials are authentic only insofar as they trigger learners’ personal experiences in their own society’. In other words, authentic language learning largely emanates from different forms of popular culture which most school-age learners find familiar and interesting. Cheung (2001) gives the following reasons for the use of popular culture in teaching. Firstly, students find it motivating and easy to follow since ‘popular culture touches the lives of student and grows out of their natural experience and interests’ (ibid.: 58). Secondly, using popular culture in the classroom adds novelty and variety to lessons. Thirdly, it bridges the gap between subject knowledge (i.e. what students have learned through formal schooling) and encountered knowledge (i.e. what students have learned through interactions with the world). Fourthly, the content of teaching activities and exercises provides students with some need to learn English. Though some foreign countries have already shown some success in integrating popular culture into English teaching (see, for example, Domoney & Harris, 1993; Williamson & Hardman, 1994), this is the first time the Hong Kong government has formally given it some place in its English curriculum.
            Furthermore, as creativity is a ‘generic skill’ promoted in the new curriculum (CDC and HKEAA, 2007, p. 8), story writing has been included as a language arts module in the elective part. Some Hong Kong secondary schools have attempted to create an authentic situation where student writing is produced for a particular purpose or audience – in line with task-based principles. For example, Greenfield (2003) discusses how teenage secondary school students in Hong Kong exchange emails with their counterparts in the USA. A recent attempt at short story production in an elite local girls’ school by Mak et al. (2007) is indeed a showcase example of implementing task-based learning for other schools in Hong Kong to consider and perhaps follow. The project involved a class of 39 secondary students who produced as the final task outcome their own story books and later on read their stories to nearby primary school pupils. Teachers essentially took a non-interventionist approach to directing students’ ideas and correcting students’ actual stories; they did, however, point out unclear and incoherent storylines and correct minor grammar and spelling errors. This is clearly in contrast with traditional approaches to teaching and evaluating of writing in most Hong Kong ELT classrooms where teachers primarily attend to grammar rather than content and the intended audience tends to be the teacher only (Lee, 1998). In the evaluation, the researchers reported that ‘the secondary school students’ creativity is substantially enhanced by the activity, while their interest and attention during English lessons increased dramatically’ (Mak et al., 2007, p. 9). In view of the success gained in this project, students are expected to learn English more creatively and effectively under the new curriculum guidelines.
            While the language arts modules focus on creativity, the non-language arts modules emphasise practical use of English outside the classroom i.e. in debating, in discussing current affairs and social issues and in sports and workplace communication. Teaching materials for these modules – except for debating and workplace communication – appear to be readily available in the newspapers and as such should not pose much challenge to school teachers, who have been used to tapping into newspapers for classroom use (see Mok (1990) for an illustration of how newspapers can be used effectively in ELT context). Debating is not an entirely new item on the English curriculum, however. It resembles one way or another a small group discussion component of the public examination senior secondary school students need to take part in for accessing their speaking ability. Local English teachers generally equip their students with a set of formulaic expressions and interaction strategies (i.e. clarifying oneself, seek clarification, checking understanding of other people’s messages, etc.) for use in discussion (see Lam & Wong (2000) for a description of these strategies). Compared with debating, workplace communication seems to be a relatively new topic to both teachers and students. Yet there have been a number of online teaching resources designed by tertiary institutions that secondary school teachers might find useful and suitable to be tailored to the needs of their students. For instance, the Open University of Hong Kong has developed a World of Professional Communication portal for community access free-of-charge.3 It offers a range of written samples commonly used in the workplace (letters, memos, emails, notices, reports, agendas, minutes, resumes, etc.) as well as sound advice on communication skills in interviewing, meeting, negotiating presenting, socialising and telephoning. Recently, the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong has launched a series of resource books on the same theme ‘Professional Related Language Training’ for effective workplace communication in a number of disciplines such as business, logistics, design, hotel and tourism.4

Discussion
Obviously, Hong Kong’s new English curriculum for senior secondary schools adopts a process-oriented, communicative or task-based approach, particularly in the elective part. This is explicitly stated in the English Language Curriculum and Assessment Guide (Secondary 4 – 6) (CDC and HKEAA, 2007)

It is clearly necessary to go beyond merely teaching grammar and vocabulary (a practice widely adopted in the past, but no longer considered adequate by itself) by providing them with ample opportunities to apply the language they have been taught to express ideas and feelings appropriately in different communicative settings, and through this to strengthen and extend their language knowledge and skills. (ibid., p. 67)

            Ever since the target-oriented curriculum (TOC) initiative started to be implemented in 1993, task-based pedagogies were heavily debated in Hong Kong (Morris et al., 1996; Carless, 1999). In fact, the mismatch between curriculum innovations and classroom practices has been well documented in the educational literature (e.g. Fullan, 1991, 1999; Markee, 1997). More specifically, the challenges of implementing learner-centred, process-oriented approaches in Asian contexts have also been discussed in the literature, for example, Hui (1997) with respect to China, Cheah (1998) with reference to Singapore, and Li (1998) discusses teachers’ perceptions of a communicative teaching approach in South Korea. With respect to the Hong Kong context, Carless (1999, p. 240) notes that ‘issues such as lack of resources, insufficient long-term teacher training, entrenched teacher attitudes, lack of ownership of change have been seen to impact negatively on the prospects for change’. Although these four problematic issues seem to have plagued the TOC development – the predecessor of the NSS curriculum, the government has made perceptible efforts to improve on the feasibility and acceptability of the task-based innovations in the new syllabus.

Resources
To ensure wide circularity and easy access by the teachers, the Education Bureau has resourced the NSS innovation with appropriate teaching materials all available on the web, notably Suggested Schemes of Work for the Elective Part of the Three-year Senior Secondary English Language Curriculum (Secondary 4 – 6) (Education Bureau, 2007).5 The schemes detail how an effective task-based lesson can be run, specifying a teaching focus, suggesting time allocation (number of lessons required), describing target knowledge skills to be learned, and most importantly, devising tasks to involve students actively in the learning process. Other learning and teaching resources in support of the schemes are also available online (hosted on the same web site along with the schemes), including handouts, presentation or group discussion feedback forms, examples of projects or sub-tasks, and video clips on using documentaries (e.g. Chinese white dolphins) in language teaching. Additionally, Appendix 4 of the new English language curriculum guide (CDC & HKAEE, 2007, p. 152-157) outlines a range of community resources to support lifelong learning, for instance, the English Speaking Union Hong Kong (organising a volunteer program for practicing conversational English in a relaxed, social atmosphere), and Toastmasters, Hong Kong (holding a young leadership program for teaching public speaking to secondary students and improving their communication and leadership skills). There are plenty of resources available for use by teachers.

Teacher education programs
General teacher education efforts which extend the capabilities of the teaching workforce hold the key to the success of curriculum change (Carless 1999, p. 251). However, a major problem about task-based teaching in Hong Kong is that teachers generally do not have a clear understanding of the nature of tasks and the theoretical and practical aspects of carrying out tasks (Morris et al., 1996). While Carless (1999) also cites lack of teacher training as a factor hindering the development of task-based teaching, in an earlier paper (Carless, 1998), he points out that both his case study evidence and considerable anecdotal evidence point to similar trends in which younger teachers who are themselves trained in communicative or task-based approaches seem more receptive to applying them in their own teaching. In order to raise awareness of the NSS English language policy, the Education Bureau runs for a span of one year (Sept 2007 – Aug 2008) three sets of NSS series of seminars and workshops targeted at English panel chairpersons and teachers for (i) understanding and interpreting the curriculum; (ii) assessing student learning; (iii) learning and teaching of the elective part of the curriculum.

The roles of teachers and learners
As with TOC (see section 3), the new English curriculum requires a change in the roles of teachers and learners. The desire for such a change is even stronger with the NSS curriculum than ever before, with the introduction of the elective part which is designated as task-based. Ideally, teachers are no longer mere transmitters of knowledge but facilitators of independent learning; learners are no longer passive recipients of information but active participants in the process of constructing knowledge and skills. Existing educational norms in Hong Kong are at odds with these roles required by the learner-centred, communicative teaching approach (Carless, 1999; Lee, 2004). Over the past two decades, teachers dominated talk in the classroom (Tsui, 1985, 1996), while secondary school students seldom seek clarification or pose questions and respond to teacher questions minimally (Wu, 1993).
            Carless (1999) accounts for these norms in the educational system by using Biggs’ (1996) Confucian Heritage Cultures (CHC). CHC posit that teachers are a role model of learning and a source of authority and thus should be respected by their students. Under the influence of CHC, posing (challenging) questions to a teacher would generally be regarded as undermining the authority of the teacher and, therefore, inappropriate. As Carless (ibid., p. 251) correctly observes, ‘students in CHC cultures are socialised to accept didactic whole-class teaching, which is generally not the case with Western students’. With respect to ELT, there are at least two problems with these cultural norms. Littlewood (1999, p. 71) states that teachers who have internalised stereotypical notions of learners might be less sensitive to the needs of individual students. The prevailing cultural norms also create tensions with the facilitative teacher roles required in task-based learning (Carless, 2004, p. 643).

Given these ‘cultural barriers’, the implementation of the NSS English language curriculum seems doubly daunting. However, some scholars view the Chinese cultural characteristics differently and capitalise on the Chinese emphasis on social relationships and collectivism. For example, Tang (1996) advocates cooperative learning in which students work together in problem-solving tasks, whereas Winter (1996) suggests that peer tutoring may be well-suited to the Hong Kong context. In addition, CHC students are not as passive and unwilling to contribute in class as have been stereotyped. Lin and Luk (2002), for instance, report that students are more engaged in communicative tasks by making explicit to them the rationale and learning objectives behind the tasks they are told to do. Similarly, Mok et al. (2006) describe the success of a pilot, literature-based curriculum in motivating students to work in groups and practise their English. In one task, students were asked to rewrite the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde into a drama script. By participating in dramatised reading, students gradually gained confidence in their speaking, listening and communication skills, and created ‘a sense of shared ownership’ of their learning (ibid.: 71). Not only have learners’ attitudes shown some sign of compliance with the innovative learner-centred, process-oriented, task-based teaching, teachers may also be undergoing a gradual shift away from the traditional authoritative persona as described above. Tsui (2005) analysed the type of questions posed by primary school teachers in curriculum planning and found that the questions changed from those that revolve around a syllabus-driven, teacher-fronted, textbook-based approach (e.g. ‘What linguistic items do we want to teach?) to the ones with a greater emphasis on enhancing student motivation and participation in learning (e.g. ‘What opportunities are afforded for learners to participate in meaning making?).

Furthermore, for teachers practising communicative, process-oriented or task-based approaches in CHC context, handling noise or indiscipline remains a central issue. Pair or group activities are crucial to these approaches. However, for some teachers, to allow students to work in pairs or groups is to lose control of classroom management. Based on extended classroom observation, Tsui (2003) illustrates the importance of discipline to language teachers in Hong Kong secondary schools. A possible solution lies in small-class teaching (SCT). Small classes appear to be an optimum prerequisite for task-based approaches to learning a subject. Keats and Boughey (1994) describe the success of task-orientated cooperative group work in a second-year botany course in stimulating students’ interest in the subject and improving their use of higher intellectual processes. In ELT classrooms in South Korea, Jeon and Hahn (2006) report that 70.1% of middle school and high school teachers surveyed agree that task-based language teaching is appropriate for small group work rather than whole-class teaching. In my view, the greatest attraction offered by SCT would be teachers’ ease of monitoring learner performance during tasks: they can ensure that target language rather than mother tongue is produced and learning goals are met. In Hong Kong, the small-class drive is presently hotly contested in the mass media because it is due to be implemented in state primary schools from September 2009 onwards, with an increasing number of schools starting the new class size (25 pupils per class) in each successive year. By the 2014/15 school year, all classes from all primary levels (primary one to six) will be implementing SCT. In its latest (February) report, the Education Bureau (2008) has suggested that over two-thirds of 463 public sector primary schools have confirmed their readiness for SCT, and parents generally welcome the move. If SCT is proved to be successful, hopefully it will soon be extended to the secondary school context to optimise the use of task-based teaching and learning.

Assessment
As noted in section 2, curriculum development involves three core processes: planning, implementing/enacting and evaluating. In his seminal work, Johnson (1989) regards these three processes as a coherent whole, which should be undertaken consistently to reach a specific curricular goal. The new English syllabus for senior secondary schools aims at developing learners’ communicative competence (CDC & HKEAA, 2007, p. 73). To this end, task-based approaches to language learning are adopted to help students learn how to communicate in the target language through purposeful interaction. As we have seen, these communicative approaches are incorporated into the curriculum design and resourced with a range of teaching materials and teacher training programs. In other words, both planning and implementation decisions are well informed by the communicative, learner-centred orientation towards English language learning and teaching. As will be outlined below, assessment and evaluation – the final phase of curriculum development – are also carried out in a systematic and consistent way so as to contribute to a successful innovation.

However, the expectations of parents and students (and everyone else) that senior secondary schooling will prepare students for university entrance exams will still exert a strong influence on the language curriculum. In countries practising CHC such as China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore, proficiency in English and success in public examinations correlate with advanced socioeconomic status and future financial rewards (Carless, 1999, p. 250). Competition through tests and examinations is indeed a normal part of schooling in Hong Kong and a means of preparing students for tougher competition in the society (Cheng & Wong, 1996). Given the importance of public exam results, the major curricular goal of communicative competence in ELT becomes secondary. As Sato and Takahashi (2003) observe, in Japan, although the goal of the Ministry of Education for high school graduates is to be able to conduct basic communication on topics related to daily life, what matters is not how well the student is able to communicate but how well s/he is able to pass the public exam. The same holds true in Korea (Potts & Park, 2007). While the influence that the examination system exerts in the Hong Kong context appears to be unavoidable, there is at least some good sign that the government is now giving formal recognition to communicative competency in its new task-based language curriculum, which accounts for a total of 20% of the high-stakes Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) university entrance exam. The promising change is that while reading (20% of the total subject mark), writing (30%), listening and integrated skills (30%) are still accessed by means of a public examination, oral skills (20%) are entirely gauged by school-based assessment (SBA). SBA refers to assessments administrated in school contexts so that learners’ English proficiency is judged more reliably by their own subject teachers within an extended space of time rather than a one-off examination, ‘since a public speaking examination may not always provide the most reliable indication of the actual speaking abilities of candidates’ (CDC and HKEAA, 2007, p. 119). This new assessment for language proficiency will certainly act as a springboard for further task-based language practices as didactic teaching methods with notes and model answers will cease to be a superior model for achieving exam success.

Conclusions
This study has offered a comprehensive account of the New Senior Secondary (NSS) English syllabus to be implemented in Hong Kong in September 2009. It has also assessed the innovation by considering the availability of resources and teacher education programs, roles of teachers and learners, and assessment schemes. These issues might be of benefit to actual teaching practice in Hong Kong and other Asian countries. For instance, any innovation must be properly resourced with accessible teaching materials and suggested schemes of work published by the authority. Teachers should have a clear understanding of the objectives of the innovation through a series of seminars and workshops. Both teachers and learners should be aware of their roles in the new curriculum. The goals of the new initiative can be fulfilled with the help of an assessment scheme which enhances the application of the innovative curriculum in the classroom. These issues are very important steps towards the successful reform of a curriculum.

In addition, the success of a new curriculum depends critically on top-down and bottom-up processes (see, for example, Markee, 1997; Stoller, 2002; Wu, 2002; Rice, 2007). Top-down support from higher administration is essential in curriculum innovation; in the case of Hong Kong, the government is clearly committed to change to a task-based English teaching approach. However, a new curriculum needs to undergo a process of mediation in which bottom-up participation of teachers and students comes into play. As Rice (2007, p. 6) insightfully points out, ‘[t]he most important factor researchers point out is that lasting innovation cannot be imposed by a higher authority. Bottom-up participation in the change process of all stakeholders, especially faculty and students, is of vital importance’. The new curriculum needs to be adapted to or modified by the realities of the local classroom. According to Carless (1999, p. 251), ‘[t]his can become a more bottom-up version of curriculum development or one in which a general direction is outlined from above, but classroom implementation is controlled by the teachers’. Both top-down and bottom-up processes can be demonstrated with reference to the elective part of Hong Kong’s NSS English language curriculum. A generally laissez faire implementation policy is in place to afford schools the freedom to offer those elective modules which they feel most comfortable with and to underplay those modules that they feel are less compatible with the prevailing school culture. Further, the elective component can be offered to students as early as the first year of their senior secondary education at the discretion of the school. The flexibility in terms of which and when elective modules are delivered may also have a positive impact at the organisation level of schools. The new curriculum prompts greater cooperation and discussion between teachers and possibly between teachers and learners and through this collaboration, teachers’ professional development and learners’ motivation may be enhanced.
The challenges of framing language teaching and learning in a curriculum can be summerised as follows:

This [curriculum planning] is not a simple or a clean task because it requires synthesising the massive amounts of information gathered through needs assessments, meetings with program administrators and colleagues, review of policy documents and other activities. At the same time, in identifying the organisational structure of the course, course developers have to take into account logistical constraints, the expectations of the educational system in which the course will be offered, explicit and implicit teaching policies, the course developers’ own beliefs about teaching and learning, and their degree of professional experience (Snow & Kamhi-Stein, 2006, p. 9).

What is not, however, mentioned in this paragraph about challenges in curriculum development is the need for teacher educators to work collaboratively with teachers to introduce innovation into the curriculum. Recently, there have been some good examples of teacher education and teacher collaboration for curriculum change in Hong Kong (Tsui, 2005; Mok et al., 2006). Equally importantly, the challenge for innovations in language curriculum to take root is to focus more on how to acknowledge and build on existing norms to bring about change rather than uproot and supplant them (Kramsch, 1993; Holliday, 1994; Hall, 1998; Li, 2001; Tsui, 2005). Given the implementation of the target-oriented curriculum (TOC) as a trial run in previous years to prepare students, teachers, curriculum and materials developers, teacher educators and program administrators for a learner-centred, communicative syllabus, the time is ripe for the new English language curriculum to take effect. While TOC has enabled at least some change to take place, the NSS English language policy guarantees real change to be felt in the education sector and the society at large.

References
Biggs, J. (1996). Western misconceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 45-68). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research.

Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: a sociolinguistic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breen M. (1987b). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 2. Language Teaching, 20(3), 157-174.

Breen, M. (1987a). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part 1. Language Teaching, 20(2), 81-92.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

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.

Bygate, M. (2000). Introduction to special issue on tasks in language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 185-192.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: 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.

Carless, D. (1997). Managing systemic curriculum change: a critical analysis of Hong Kong’s Target-Oriented Curriculum initiative. International Review of Education, 43(4), 349-366.

Carless, D. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System 26(3), 353-368.

Carless, D. (1999). Perspectives on the cultural appropriacy of Hong Kong’s Target-oriented Curriculum (TOC) initiative. Language, culture and curriculum, 12(3), 238-254.

Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662.

Chan, P. (1997). Using songs in the English classroom. In P. Falvey & P. Kennedy (Eds.), Learning language through literature: a sourcebook for teachers of English in Hong Kong (pp. 107-134). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press

Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: the case of Singapore. Language and Education, 12(3), 192-209.

Cheng, K. M., & Wong, K. C. (1996). School effectiveness in East Asia: concepts, origins and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 32-49.

Cheung, C. K. (2001). The use of popular culture as a stimulus to motivate secondary students’ English learning in Hong Kong. ELT Journal, 55(1), 55-61.

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.

Curriculum Development Committee. (1981). English (Primary 1 – 6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Curriculum Development Committee. (1983). Syllabus for English (Forms 1 – 5). Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Curriculum Development Council and Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2007). English language curriculum and assessment guide (secondary 4 – 6). Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabus for English language (secondary 1 – 5). Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: the way forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Basic education curriculum guide – building on strengths. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Curriculum Development Council. (2007). Senior secondary curriculum guide. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Domoney, L. & Harris, S. (1993). Justified and ancient: pop music in EFL classrooms. ELT Journal, 47(3), 234-241.

Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course design: developing programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Education and Manpower Bureau. (2002). Task-based language learning (secondary 1 – 3): a resource package. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Education and Manpower Bureau. (2004). Task-based language learning (secondary 1 – 3): a resource package. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Education and Manpower Bureau. 2005. The New Academic Structure for Senior Secondary Education and Higher Education – Action Plan for Investing in the Future of Hong Kong. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content
_4743/p&vp%20334%20seminar_curriculum_050522.ppt.

Education Bureau. (2007). Suggested schemes of work for the elective part of the three-year senior secondary English language curriculum (secondary 4 – 6). Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Education Bureau. (2008). LegCo panel on education: small class teaching in public sector primary schools. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_4228/legco%
20ed%20panel%2029%20feb%2008_sct%20(e).pdf.

Education Commission. (1994). Report of the working group on language proficiency. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong SAR, China: Government Printer.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-200.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Evans, S. (1996). The context of English language education: the case of Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 27(2), 30-55.

Evans, S. (1997). Communication in the classroom: a Hong Kong perspective. In V. Berry, B. Adamson, & W. Littlewood (Eds.), Applying linguistics: insights into language in education (pp. 37-54). Hong Kong: English Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: NCELTR.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: the sequel. London: Falmer.
Graves, K. (2006). Preface. In P. McKay & K. Graves (Eds.), Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for school age learners (pp. v-vii). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: a social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41(2), 147-181.

Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative e-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: a case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 46-70. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/greenfield/default.html.

Hall, D., & Hewings, A. (Eds.) (2001). Innovation in English language teaching: a reader. London: Routledge.

Hall, J. K. (1998). The communication standards. In J. Phillips & R. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language standards: linking research, theories and practice (pp. 15-56). New York: National Textbook Company / ACTFL.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Howlett, B. (Ed.) (1997). Hong Kong – a new era. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.yearbook.gov.hk/1997/ch24/e24.htm.

Hui, L. (1997). New bottles, old wine: communicative language teaching in China. English Teaching Forum, 35(4), 38-41.

Jeon, I. J., & Hahn, J. W. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching: a case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal,8(1), article 5. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_ijj.php.

Johnson, R. (1989). A decision-making framework for the coherent language curriculum. In R. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keats, D., & Boughey, J. (1994). Task-based small group learning in large classes: design and implementation in a second year university botany course. Higher Education, 27(1), 59-73.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lam, W., & Wong, J. (2000). The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills in an ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 54(3), 245-255.

Lee, C. (2004). Language output, communication strategies and communicative tasks: in the Chinese context. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

Lee, I. (1998). Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom: teachers’ beliefs and practices. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 61-75.

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(4), 677-697.

Li, D. (1999). The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: a post-1997 update. English World-Wide, 20(1), 67-110.

Li, D. (2001). Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching: A reader (pp. 149-165). London: Routledge.

Lin, A., & Luk, J. (2002). Beyond progressive liberalism and cultural relativism: towards critical postmodernist, sociohistorically situated perspectives in classroom studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(1), 97-124.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.

Lo, T. (1995). Using local television for English language teaching in Hong Kong. HKPU: Working Papers in ELT and Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 55-71.

Lo, Terrence. 1995. Using local television for English language teaching in Hong Kong. HKPU: Working Papers in ETL and Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 55-71.

Mak, B., Coniam, D., & Chan, M. S. K. (2007). A buddy programme in Hong Kong schools. ELT Journal Advanced Access, published January 4, 2008, 1-10.

Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, L., Tsang, E S. C., & Hopkins, M. (2007). Establishing a self-access centre in a secondary school. ELT Journal, 61(3), 220-227.

Mok, A. (1990). Using newspaper materials in the English curriculum: guidelines and practical examples. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.

Mok, A. (2001). Task-based learning, language arts and the media: a resource book for secondary English teachers. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Mok, A., Chow, A., & Wong, W. (2006). Strengthening language arts in English language teaching in Hong Kong. In P. McKay & K. Graves (Eds.), Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for school age learners, (pp. 59-80). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Morris, P. (2000). The commissioning and decommissioning of curriculum reform: 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.

Morris, P., Adamson, B., Au M. L., Chan, K. K., Chan, W. Y., Cheung, P. H., Ko, P. K., Au Yeung, L. W., Leung Lo, M. L., Morris, E., Ng, F. P., Ng, Y. Y., Ngai, M. C., Wong, P. H., & Wong, W. M. (1996). Target-oriented curriculum evaluation report: interim report. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Potts, D., & Park, P. (2007). Partnering with students in curriculum change: students researching students’ needs. In A. Rice (Ed.), Revitalising an established program for adult learners (pp. 181-202). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Rice, A. (2007). English language programs and change: be prepared. In A. Rice (Ed.) Revitalising an established program for adult learners (pp. 1-14). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, S. (1998). Learning English in Hong Kong: making connections between motivation, language use and strategy choice. In M. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong Kong at century’s end (pp. 203-328). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Sato, K., & Takahashi, K. (2003). Teacher and student learning in the workplace: the impact of performance tests. FALT2000: towards the new millennium. Proceedings of the 26th FALT International Conference on Language Teaching / Learning (pp. 325-336). Tokyo: JALT.

Schneider, E. (2007). Postcolonial English: varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14.

Smith, G. (2003). Music and mondegreens: extracting meaning from noise. ELT Journal, 57(2), 113-121.

Snow, M. A., & Kamhi-Stein L. (2006). Developing a new course for adults: transforming challenges into solutions. In M. A. Snow & L. Kamhi-Stein(Eds.), Developing a new course for adult learners (pp. 1-16). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan.

Stoller, F. (2002). Content-based instruction: perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.

Tang, C. (1996). Collaborative learning: the latent dimension in Chinese students’ learning. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 183-204). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research.

Tsui, A. (1985). Analysing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC Journal, 16(1), 8-32.

Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, A. (2005, March). Young foreign language learners and collaborative group work: a socio-cultural perspective. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Sociocultural perspectives of Learning and Second Language Acquisition of the 37th Annual TESOL Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Williamson, J., & Hardman, F. (1994). Abridged too far: the Cox curriculum. Educational Review, 46(3), 233-246.

Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Collins Cobuild.

Winter, S. (1996). Peer tutoring and learning outcomes. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 221-241). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research.

Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal,24(2), 45-68.

Wu, Z. (2002). Teachers ‘knowledge’ and curriculum change: a critical study of teachers’ exploratory discourse in a Chinese university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Lancaster University, United Kingdom.

Yalden, J. (1987). Principles of course design for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.