This report summarizes the teaching approach developed by a Native-Speaker Teacher
(NST) and the Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs) at Miyake Junior High School over a three year
period. In the first year, the teachers developed a “process approach” to teaching English. This
approach focuses on developing practical communication ability through meaning-focused practice
tasks first, then reinforcing this growing ability with grammar and vocabulary work. After
creating appropriate curriculum aims and deciding on what types of tasks to use, the teachers
implemented the approach starting with the first graders and continuing over a two-year period
(April 2003-March 2006). Classroom data and a student survey confirmed that the process
approach successfully developed the students’ communicative ability. The report concludes by
recommending the process approach form the framework further improvement of English education
Developing Communicative Ability Through a
Table of Contents
II. The Process Approach…………..…………………………………………………...2
III. Implementing the Process Approach…………….………………………………….8
IV. Evaluation of Student Progress………………………………………..…………...13
A. A Listening Task …………………….……………………………………………...18
B. A Speaking Task.……………….……………………………………………….…...21
C. A Reading Task….…….…………………………………………………………….22
D. A Writing Task….….……………………………………………………………..…24
E. Vocabulary Tasks..……………….………………………………………………......25
F. A Pera-pera Points Card……………………………………………………………...29
In March 2003, the Ministry of Education’s Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with
English Abilities” called for the widespread reform of English education in Japan. Recognizing
the failure of the current education system to create sufficient English ability, the Plan outlined a
number of measures to foster real English communication ability. One of these measures was the
placement of native-speaker teachers (NST) as full-time English teachers in Japanese junior high
Previously, native-speakers had been only used as Assistant Language Teachers (ALT).
ALTs rotate to several different schools and might visit a single class only two or three times a year.
The NST, however, works as a regular teacher at a single school. The NST teaches a single group
of students throughout the year, and, just like other teachers, attends faculty meetings, is responsible
for student discipline, has various duties as part of kyoumu bunsho, and manages club activities.
In Fukuoka City, the first NST was placed at Miyake Junior High School for three years (April
When the NST arrived at Miyake, it quickly became clear that he could not simply be
“added on” to the existing English curriculum. Not only would this fail to take full advantage of a
having a native-speaker teacher, but without a new teaching approach there would be little progress
towards developing communication ability. The English teachers at Miyake, therefore, worked
together to create a new teaching approach called the “process approach.” This approach was
designed to take full-advantage of a native-speaker teacher and to foster the student’s
communicative ability. During the first year, the NST taught the third graders. The teachers put
together the initial outline of the approach, and experimented with various task types. In the
second year, the NST moved into the first grade and the teachers implemented the approach.
During the third year, the NST moved up to the second grade and the teachers continued to use the
same approach with the same group of students. During this two year period, various adjustments
to the approach were made and data on the students’ abilities was collected and evaluated.
This report presents the results of this research. Section two describes the general outline
of the process approach. Section three describes in more detail the types of tasks used and the
teaching techniques employed. Section four of the report presents some data on the development
of the students’ abilities. In the appendix, several different example tasks are presented.
II. The Process Approach
Language learning requires both knowledge building and skill development. Knowledge
consists of different aspects of grammatical form and vocabulary, while skills are the ability to use
and understand English in a variety of situations. Students gain knowledge through traditional
instructional methods such as teacher explanation, drills, exercises, and tests. Skills, on the other
hand, must be developed through communicative practice. The “process approach” to teaching
English used at Miyake aims to both build knowledge and develop communicative skills. In this
section, the process approach will be described and contrasted with the more traditional
“product-oriented” approach to teaching.
Traditionally, junior high school English lessons are heavily focused on grammatical
knowledge. A series of grammatical forms are introduced in order of increasing complexity, and
these forms are illustrated through the situations presented in the textbook. In a typical lesson, the
Japanese Teacher of English (JTE) takes a single grammar point as “Today’s Goal.” The lesson
proceeds in a linear fashion through teacher explanation, a practice activity, and achievement of the
Fig. 1: A Traditional Lesson
Today’s Goal Teacher Explanation Activity Goal
Today’s Goal might be something like “Learn the use of going to ~.” The teacher explains the
meaning and form of the grammar point, usually referring to the textbook dialogue for examples of
use. Finally, the students do a practice activity. This activity may be a grammar and translation
exercise or a communicative activity based around the grammar point. Once the activity is
complete, the teacher considers that the students have learned the grammar point and achieved the
goal. In subsequent lessons, the teacher introduces more difficult grammar points that build on
In the terminology of applied linguistics, this way of teaching is called a product approach
because it is focused on the goal or “product” of teaching. The product is the grammar or
vocabulary point being taught. According to this view, students learn a language by gathering
together enough “products” or bits of knowledge. Once the students have built up enough
language knowledge, it is assumed that they will have gained the ability to use and understand
However, as stated above, language learning requires both knowledge and skill
development. Students do not simply need to “know” about the use of “going to ~,” but they need
the ability to use it in a communicative situation. Knowledge alone does not become ability
without communicative skill practice. As the Action Plan states:
In order to be able to “make use of English” it is necessary not only
to have a knowledge of grammar and vocabulary but also to use
English for the purpose of actual communication. Thus in English
classes, instruction mainly based on grammar and translation or
teacher-centered classes are not recommended. Through the
repetition of activities making use of English as a means of
communication, the learning of vocabulary and grammar should be
enhanced, and communication abilities in “listening,” “speaking,”
“reading,” and “writing” should be fostered.
Similarly, the Ministry of Education’s 2003 Course of Study for Lower Secondary School
emphasizes the development of “practical speaking abilities” rather than the grammar-focused
In contrast to the product approach, which focuses on knowledge, an alternative called the
“process approach” concentrates on developing communicative abilities. This approach focuses
on the different activities or “processes” students do in class. Most lesson time is used for
skill-practice tasks, and the teacher’s role is that of a coach. Rather than lesson goals, there are a
series of long-term aims for each skill area. The students’ ability develops slowly, and there are
backslides and uneven progress towards the aim.
In a typical lesson, the teacher coaches the students through a practice task that aims to
develop a certain skill area. A cycle of practice and coaching is repeated several times as the
teacher tries to push the students to higher levels of performance:
Fig. 2: A Process Lesson
Practice Task Ability
For example, an aim might be “Improve listening ability.” The practice task could be a listening
CD and a worksheet with questions. In the lesson, the students listen to the CD several times.
After each listening, the teacher gives hints and advice about how to complete the task. The
listening is repeated several times until most students complete the worksheet to satisfaction. In
subsequent lessons, similar listening tasks are repeated. The difficultly level of the tasks is slowly
increased as the students’ ability improves over time.
In the process approach, language learning is viewed as a process of helping the students
develop language skills. Rather than building up a base of knowledge in the hope that this leads to
communicative ability, the process approach develops communicative ability through practice tasks.
Unlike a product-oriented approach, the teacher cannot say that at the end of a lesson students will
have learned x grammar point or y vocabulary. He can only say what skills were practiced.
Furthermore, in many cases there will be no concrete evidence of skill development after a single
lesson. Instead, each practice session contributes to growing communicative ability over the long
term. In this view, learning English is similar to learning to play a sport. The ability to play
basketball, for instance, can only be developed by doing the same drills and scrimmages over and
over, day after day.
A key difference between the product and process approaches is the difference between
goals and aims. In the product approach, goals are either reached or not reached. Students either
learn the use of “going to ~” or they do not. In the process approach, there are several long-term
aims which the students come closer and closer to through continual practice. There is never a
point where the students “reach” the aim. At the level of classroom tasks, this means that students
are not expected to achieve perfect understanding of input language or perfect language production.
Rather understanding grows from partial to fuller – but never complete – understanding with
practice. Language production improves along a similar path, but there is never a point where the
students “achieve” productive ability. To continue the analogy to basketball, there is never a point
where a player gains the ability to play basketball. Rather, ability must be continually maintained
and improved through practice.
A “pure” process approach deals only with developing communication ability. Grammar
and vocabulary knowledge are assumed to develop naturally in the course of communication
practice. However, as linguistic researchers Lightbrown and Spada write, recent research suggests
that a combined approach in which there is both communication practice and a knowledge building
component is the most effective way to teach English. Therefore, the approach developed at
Miyake includes both these elements:
Fig. 2. A Combined Approach
Communication Tasks Lesson Cycle Ability Reinforcement
As Figure 2 shows, this combined approach begins with communication tasks. Each task
is focused on a particular skill area, listening, speaking, reading, or writing. In each lesson, the
teacher coaches the students through practice tasks for one or two different skill areas. Similar
tasks are repeated several times, with the teacher attempting to push the students to higher levels of
performance in an ongoing cycle of practice and coaching. As the students’ communicative ability
grows, it is reinforced with grammar and vocabulary tasks which aim to build the students’
language knowledge. The grammar tasks resemble the traditional product-oriented lessons
described earlier. In this scheme, however, such grammar-focused lessons are merely one part of a
larger approach aimed at both skill development and knowledge building.
It is important to note that the communication tasks are meaning-focused. The tasks do
not aim to teach a particular grammar point. Rather, understanding or communicating content is
emphasized. For example, here is one problem that was used as part of a reading task. Students
must choose the correct answer, A, B, C, or D:
Lin lives in New York City. Sometimes she sees famous
people near her home. She tells all her friends at work. Her friends
live in New Jersey, and they don’t often see famous people. Not many
A. live in New Jersey. B. go to work.
C. live in New York. D. have friends in New York.
The correct answer is A. To understand this problem, students need to know certain grammar and
vocabulary. However, the answer depends not on figuring out the correct grammar or word, but on
imagining the situation being described. Thus, this task is focused on real communication, not
While the language used in the tasks was often simplified, the teachers did not try to
artificially limit the grammar or vocabulary used. The students could check unknown words in
their dictionaries. The teachers briefly explained unknown grammar only if it was necessary to
understand the meaning being communicated. This stands in contrast to the way communication
activities are often used in product approach lessons. In such tasks, the language used is often
artificially limited to include only the grammar point being taught in the lesson. However, in real
communication a variety of grammatical forms are used depending on the content. There is often
more than one correct way to say things. Moreover, saying something interesting and worthwhile
usually requires the use of many different grammatical forms and vocabulary. Tasks that aim to
practice the use of a single grammar point tend to become form-focused drills rather than
The combined approach worked well at Miyake because it took advantage of the strengths
of both the NST and the JTE. The NST mainly took responsibility for teaching the communication
tasks. As a native-speaker, it was relatively easier for the NST to create such tasks and coach the
students. Since the tasks are content focused, the teacher does not always know in advance what
kind of grammar or vocabulary students may produce. The NST can judge instantly whether such
utterances are correct or not, while the JTE may have difficulty doing so. Further, since the
communication tasks do not require detailed grammar explanations, the NST was able to conduct
these lessons all in English. This gave the students opportunities to listen to and speak in English
on a daily basis. The JTE, on the other hand, took responsibility for teaching the grammar tasks.
These classes were conducted in Japanese, since it was important that the students gain a clear
understanding of the grammar points. Both teachers shared responsibility for teaching vocabulary.
Approximately two-thirds of class time was used for NST-led communication lessons, with the
remaining one-third devoted to JTE-led grammar lessons.
During the course of implementing this approach over two years, it became clear that
although it was easier for the NST to teach the communication tasks, there was no reason in
principle that a JTE could not do so as well. In fact, the JTEs teaching the other grades at Miyake
began using similar communication tasks on their own. Moreover, after the students moved to the
third grade and the NST transferred to a different school, the JTEs continued to teach the
communication tasks on their own. The process approach, in other words, represents a new way
of teaching English that can be used, whether the teacher is a native-speaker or not.
Another issue that was dealt with was how the textbook fits into this approach. Teachers
are, of course, required to use the official textbook. However, at Miyake the view was taken that
rather than narrowly “teaching the textbook,” the aim was to improve the students’ English ability.
To that end, the textbook was made to fit into the overall approach, not the other way around. The
grammar points and words from the textbook were used as the basis for the grammar and
vocabulary tasks. Also, a few readings or dialogues from the textbook were adopted for
communication tasks. However, the textbook could not provide the quantity and quality of
communication tasks needed for the process approach to be successful. The teachers themselves
used other sources to create many of the most interesting and successful tasks.
This section has described in detail the process-oriented approach that was developed and
implemented at Miyake over three years. The approach works to develop both the knowledge and
communication skills necessary to use English. Skill focused communication tasks are taught
through a cycle of coaching and practice. As the students’ communication ability begins to
develop, it is reinforced with knowledge-focused grammar and vocabulary tasks. In the next
section, the tasks themselves and the process of coaching will be looked at in more detail.
III. Implementing the Process Approach
To implement the process approach on a practical level, a number of questions had to be
answered. What kinds of curriculum aims should be targeted? What kinds of communication
tasks are appropriate? How can the tasks be taught effectively? This section will describe how
these questions were answered.
The first source for curriculum aims was the 2003 Course of Study. This document sets
out general objectives and contents for each major skill area, as well as a detailed grammar syllabus.
However, the skill objectives are quite general, and the Course of Study grants freedom to
individual schools to establish their own curriculum “in an appropriate manner” for their situation.
A second source for aims was the Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities. It
On graduation from a junior high school, students can conduct
basic communication…English language abilities for graduates
should be on the third level of the Society for Testing English
Proficiency (STEP) on average.
This represents a large leap above the current level of Japanese students. Even at Miyake, which
received a special achievement award for the number of students who pass the STEP test (also
called Eiken), only about 25% of students pass the third level by the time they graduate. Thus,
achieving the third level on average requires a dramatic improvement over the current situation.
Taking these factors into consideration, the teachers at Miyake set out the following aims:
Table 1. Aims for Junior High School English
Listening Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to understand
and respond appropriately to basic, everyday English spoken at normal speed with
natural pronunciation, intonation, and rhythm.
Speaking Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to express a
variety of information in basic English, and will have developed an awareness of
proper pronunciation, intonation, and rhythm in speech.
Reading Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to
comprehend both the general gist and important details of a moderately lengthy essay
Writing Upon graduation from junior high school, students will have the ability to express a
variety of information in moderately lengthy written passages.
Grammar Upon graduation from junior high school, students will know all grammatical items
defined in the 2003 Course of Study.
Vocabulary Upon graduation from junior high school, students will know approximately 2,000
words receptively and productively. Of those 1,200 words will be known
With these aims in mind, the teachers developed different tasks for each area. Table 2 on
the following page summarizes the different tasks used. The teachers created tasks using a variety
of materials, including the official textbook, foreign-published textbooks, original material written
by the NST, and texts and pictures adapted from the Internet and other sources. The attached
appendix shows some example tasks.
Table 2: Task Types
Listening (1) Answer questions based on a listening passage.
Tasks (2) Respond appropriately to classroom instructions and explanations.
Speaking (1) Use Classroom English in appropriate situations.
Tasks (2) Perform conversational role-plays in pairs or with the teacher.
(3) Respond to informational questions about a picture, text, or listening passage.
(4) Give reasons and explanations for an answer.
Reading (1) Answer informational or opinion questions about an essay or short story.
Tasks (2) Develop dictionary skills.
Writing (1) Answer informational questions about a picture, text, or listening passage.
Tasks (2) Explain own opinion, feelings, or experiences in a short essay.
Grammar (1) Translation drills.
Tasks (2) Transformation drills.
(3) Write sentences given informational or textual prompts.
Vocabulary (1) Read the word and say it.
Tasks (2) Write the word when heard in context or given a Japanese prompt.
(4) Complete a sentence with the word.
(5) Write an original sentence using the word.
One of the problems encountered in developing these materials was determining task
difficulty. Nunan, a specialist on the development of communication tasks, lists a number of
factors which affect task difficulty:
Length and complexity of task input
Input presented in sequence or out of sequence
Length and complexity of required output
Amount of unknown vocabulary
Familiarity of content
Presence or absence of visual aids
The type of input affected task difficulty. Long essays were more difficult that shorter readings,
very fast and complex listening texts more difficult than slower, less dense ones. The type and
length of output required also made the task more or less difficult. For example, two line
dialogues were easier than four line ones, oral answers were easier than written ones, and
multiple-choice or true/false questions were easier than those requiring full sentence answers.
Input with a high percentage of unknown vocabulary was very difficult. If the students could
relate the contents of the task to something they already knew about, it was easier to complete.
Visual aids also made tasks less difficult. Taking these factors into account, the teachers attempted
to sequence tasks in order of gradually increasing difficulty. However, because of the variety of
factors affecting difficulty, some tasks proved more difficult than expected and vice versa.
The next important question that had to be dealt with was how to teach the communication
tasks. Unlike traditional lessons, the tasks required the teacher to take the role of a “coach” rather
than a lecturer or explainer. Whitmore, an expert on “performance coaching,” writes that
“coaching is unlocking a person’s potential to maximize their own performance.” According to
Whitmore, students naturally have a lot of ability, but this ability is blocked by self-doubt. The
goal of coaching is to remove this self-doubt and give the students the confidence to trust their own
abilities and enable them to learn on their own. In order to do this, the “skillful coach,” he writes,
“rarely prescribes or provides solutions.” Rather, the coach turns problems back to the students:
Table 3. Coaching Responses
What’s the answer? What do you think?
How do you say this word? Can you try to say it?
What does this word mean? Check your dictionary.
This is too difficult. I can’t do it! Let me show you how to start...
(student has made a mistake) Did you notice this key word?
Giving the students the answer merely makes them dependent on the teacher. By forcing the
students to try to figure out the answer on their own, even if they fail, the teacher enables them to
become independent learners. An important tool here is the dictionary. Students were required to
bring an English-Japanese dictionary to class and encouraged to bring a Japanese-English one as
well. In this way, students could look up the meaning of unknown words and tackle difficult texts
without the aid of the teacher.
Giving appropriate feedback was another important part of building the students’
self-confidence. When the students succeed in completing a difficult task, giving the right amount
of praise can solidify their newly-found self-confidence and motivate them to try the next task. A
point system, called “Pera-pera Points” was used to concretely reward the students when they
succeeded. A point card can be seen in the appendix. For example, students who performed a
role-play in front of the class correctly were given one point each, but students who performed the
role-play very well, with good pronunciation, intonation, expression, etc., were given two points
each. The points were only given when the students volunteered to speak or used English with the
teachers without prompting. In this way, the students were reward for acting on their own
initiative, rather than the teacher forcing them to speak, thus increasing their self-confidence and
independence. Students kept track of their points, and at the end of each term one boy and one girl
were chosen as Pera-pera Points Champions and given an award in the all-class assembly.
In addition, to Pera-pera Points, oral praise was also carefully graded in such a way to
motivate the students to come up with better and better answers. Table 4 gives some examples of
the way the teacher’s response was modulated.
Table 4. Praising and Feedback
Student’s Answer Teacher’s Response
Completely unrelated ...
Completely incorrect No, no.
Close incorrect Hmm…
So-so correct Ah…ok, but…
Close correct That’s right. Good.
Good answer Yes, very good!
Finally, at the end of each lesson, students were encouraged to reflect on their efforts by
filling out a Class Record Sheet. Students recorded what skills were practiced in each lesson, then
they gave themselves a self-grade and wrote a comment about the lesson. As can be seen in
Figure 3, some students wrote their cards all in English. The Class Record helped the students to
feel that learning English depended on their own efforts. This student, for example, notices what
areas are difficult for him and where he should direct his efforts in the future. “Word’s accent is
very difficult! I should practice accent…” he wrote in one case. The Class Record also showed
the students in a graphic way that English is a long-term process of gradual improvement.
Fig 3. A Class Record Sheet
This section has described how the process approach was implemented over the two-year
experimental period. After determining appropriate aims, the teachers developed a variety of
different task types. When teaching the communication tasks, the teacher’s role was that of a
coach. As a coach, the teacher worked to give students the self-confidence to complete the tasks
on their own. In the next section the students’ progress over two years will be evaluated.
IV. Evaluation of Student Progress
In this section, the progress of the experimental group of students over two years of
instruction through the process approach will be evaluated using data from classroom tasks and a
Throughout the two year experimental period, the students’ daily classroom work was
carefully tracked and evaluated. This data shows that students were consistently able to
successfully complete very challenging tasks. The following table shows the results for tasks
completed by the students during their second year.
Table 3. Classroom Task Data
Listening 15 tasks 77%
Speaking 6 tasks 84%
Reading 4 tasks 71%
Writing 6 tasks 73%
Vocabulary 10 tasks 54%
It should be noted that not all the tasks done yielded this kind of data. For example,
fifteen different speaking tasks were done, but only six of those were speaking tests that were
evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Similarly, nineteen reading tasks were done, only four of which
were evaluated pass/fail. The vocabulary tasks shown represent only the vocabulary work done by
the NST. Additional vocabulary tasks were done by the JTE, but that data is not shown. Also,
passing level varied from task to task. For listening tasks, a score of 60% or above was considered
passing, while for vocabulary tasks the passing level was set at between 65% and 75% depending
on the test. Speaking tests were evaluated on a four point scale (Not good, So-so, Good, and Very
good). The “So-so” level was considered passing. Reading and writing tasks were graded A, B,
or C. These tasks were given for homework. Students who completed the task on time and had
every answer basically correct received a passing grade of B.
As can be seen from the examples in the appendix, the difficulty level of these tasks is
quite high. Nonetheless, the data in Table 3 confirms that high percentages of students were
consistently able to complete the tasks. Only the result for the vocabulary tasks is lower than the
others. However, the difficulty level of the vocabulary tasks should be kept in mind. In each task
students were required to memorize 20 words. They had to remember not only the Japanese
meaning, but also the spelling, pronunciation, and patterns of use of each word. Over a two-year
period the students studied about 700 words in these kinds of tasks. Over that time period, the
averages consistently improved from a low of 32% on a test early in the first year to an average of
78% on the final test completed in the second year. Similarly, the percentage of students passing
the tests on average rose 11% from the first year to the second. This indicates that the students’
word learning skills improved over time, and also reflects their growing communicative ability.
Other data reveals that the students were highly engaged in working on the tasks. Many
students received Pera-pera Points. In a typical term of 20 communication lessons, each student
received 38 points on average, and 70% received 10 points or more. This shows that large
numbers of students were volunteering to answer questions or present in class. Similarly, regularly
conducted teacher checks showed that on average 72% of students brought dictionaries to class.
This indicates that many students were using dictionaries to deal with unknown words on their own,
rather than relying on the teacher.
Finally, a survey conducted at the end of the second year asked the students what they felt
they learned in English class. The results are shown in the table below
Table 4. Student Survey Results
…natural English. 78%
…good English pronunciation. 58%
…English conversation. 38%
…English words. 36%
…about American culture. 29%
…how to write in English. 18%
While students felt they learned a variety of things through this approach, the majority believed they
developed some ability to use and understand “Natural English.” This real communicative ability
is the ultimate goal of the process approach.
This section has evaluated how the students’ abilities improved through the use of the
process approach. Data collected over two years shows the students were consistently able to
complete challenging communication tasks. Also, many students received Pera-points and
brought dictionaries to class, indicating that large numbers of students were motivated to complete
the tasks. Finally, the results of a student survey showed that the majority of students felt they
gained the ability to use and understand “natural English” through the process approach.
This report has summarized in detail the process approach developed and implemented
over three years by the NST and JTEs at Miyake Junior High School. While there is certainly
room for improvement, the students taught through this approach have achieved quite a high level
of English proficiency. As the Action Plan continues to be implemented over the next few years,
we believe the process approach provides a good framework for further development of English
education in Japan. Using this framework, we teachers – both Japanese and native-speaker – must
continue to work to challenge our students to higher and higher levels of achievement in order to
truly cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities.”
Lightbrown, P.M. and N. Spada. 1993. How Languages are Learned. Oxford.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge.
Whitmore, J. 2002. Coaching for Performance. New York: Nicholas Brealey.
Appendix A: A Listening Task
Genre: Conversation, sentences
Speed: Native-speaker normal (fast)
A: Good evening, sir. How can I help you?
B: Well, this might seem like a strange question but…I saw some people on TV doing a sort of
slow motion exercise. Could you tell me what it is?
A: Oh, you mean Tai Chi. It’s a martial art that’s meant to improve your concentration and help
you relax. It’s very popular in Hong Kong.
B: It looks really interesting. Is there any place I could go to find out more about it?
A: You could take classes, but since you’re only here for a few days you should probably just go
to Kowloon Park. A lot of people practice Tai Chi there.
A: Is there something I can help you with, ma’am?
B: Oh, yes. I’m looking for information on cultural events in Hong Kong.
A: Was there something in particular you were interested in?
B: I’m not sure. What about traditional music? Do they have any performances I could attend?
A: I’d recommend the Chinese Opera. There’s a schedule right here. The performances are
held at the Hong Kong Cultural Center.
A: Could I ask you a question? We were wondering if there were any good clubs around here…
B: Yes, there are quite a few. Are you looking for a place to dance or to hear live music?
A: We’re really in the mood to dance.
B: OK. Well, there are plenty of choices. There’s a great place called Judgment AD in the
Bank of America Tower. You just take the MTR to Admiralty.
A: Judgment AD in the Bank of America Tower. Got it.
A: Hi. You’re going to think this is a bit strange, but my husband wants to have his fortune told.
B: That’s not as strange as you think. A lot of people go to fortune-tellers. You just have to go
to a temple…
A: Where would the nearest one be?
B: Well, there’s a place near Tin Hau Temple. That’s not too far from here.
A: Could you help me? I’m looking for a new place to shop.
B: You’ve already been to Pacific Place?
A: Yes, I spent all day there yesterday. I guess I’m just looking for someplace new to explore.
B: Well, you should probably visit Times Square, then. There are a lot of boutiques and
brand-name stores there.
A. Excuse me, sir. I’ve heard there’s a floating market in Hong Kong. Is it anything like the
one in Bangkok?
B: To tell you the truth, it’s not a market at all. It’s a place to eat.
A: So it’s a big restaurant?
B: Three big restaurants, actually. All on a huge floating platform on the water.
A: It’s in Victoria Harbor?
B: No, you have to go to Aberdeen Harbor on the other side of the island.
1. There’s a drugstore on Church Street, across from the park.
2. The bookstore is right behind the Admiral Hotel.
3. The market? Take the next left. It’s just beside the hospital.
4. No, there’s no subway station on Kensington Street. There’s one in front of the Park Place
5. The closest movie theater is in the shopping mall on Guildwood Avenue. Look for the
supermarket. The mall is on the other side of the street.
1. Do you know where the station is?
2. When does the bus get here?
3. Is there a bookstore nearby?
4. How do I get to the ferry terminal?
5. Where is the drugstore?
6. Are there any banks around here?
Appendix B: A Speaking Task
Appendix C: A Reading Task
Appendix D: A Writing Task
Appendix E: Vocabulary Tasks
Appendix F: A Pera-pera Points Card