根據Jane Willis的經典任務教學模式，在商務英語的閱讀中我們可以做如下的設計：
1.前任務階段(Pretask)：設境激趣，導入任務
對於任務型英語閱讀教學，教師要明確學生閱讀的內容、方向，並給出指導性意見。此階段對學習者的主題學習起預熱作用 ，直接影響他們的學習興趣、理解接受和完成效果。教師應根據教學進度的要求，結合所學的內容，靈活采取多種方式，確立英語閱讀課的主題並激發學生思維。同時，英語語言學習總是與一定的社會文化背景即情景相聯係。在閱讀課上，“情”包含在閱讀課文的內容中，“景”是課文內容所構成的整體畫麵在閱讀教學中成功創設的教學情境。教師應充分利用輔助教學手段以及學生的生活背景，為學生的英語閱讀創設一種接近真實的學習環境。如BEC中級英語閱讀中有篇文章就緊貼近年來獲得廣泛支持地有關政府政策應更明確地聚焦於“增進幸福”的主張。關於幸福的討論層出不窮，既涉及個人體會，又能擴展到民生環境。學生可以大量搜集資料，由小到大，由點到麵，結合當前社會的經濟文化環境，激發興趣，自然而然地完成階段任務的導入。
2.任務環階段 (The task cycle)：呈現新知，學法指導
本階段為主體階段，主要分析學習者為達到學習效果所需完成的職責。任務是整個教學環節能否成功的關鍵。任務劃分應具有邏輯性、目的性和可行性。大多數的商務英語教材均以商務功能和情景為宏觀結構順序編排。每一個商務功能或情景均可看作是一個任務。教師可以充分利用教材所營造的商務情景開展各種模擬業務和語言實踐活動，讓學生通過對呈現的語言材料和語言情景展開討論，身臨其境，各司其職，各抒己見(張相明，謝衍君2008)。在學習的過程中，勢必會遇到各類具體的細節問題，教師根據學生完成任務的程度，交流討論的情況，有針對性地對一些基本概念、基本理論、專業詞彙、技術術語等進行解釋說明，全力營造商務英語的氛圍，多種操練有效融合。教師作為指導者通過多種方式和途徑，著重訓練學生的閱讀技巧，引導學生抓住中心和關鍵，把握全文，理清思路，並幫助學生掃清理解障礙，並提高閱讀能力。在上述提到的“幸福感”文章中，教師要提醒學生學習的任務是什麼，即從宏觀經濟角度理解“幸福感”，同時忠實原文，客觀理性地評斷人們對“幸福”的定義，弄清GNP(Gross National Product國民生產總值)和GDP(Gross Domestic Product國內生產總值)之間的區別。使得學生分組協作成為自主學習的有效補充。
3.後任務階段 (The language focus)：協作交流，完成任務
教師組織學生根據前期獲得信息進行集中討論，發揮合作學習的優勢，不同視角觀之間的相互補充，完善任務成果。這部分可以由操練(學生在教師指導下練習語言難點)和分析(學生分析並評價其他各組執行任務的情況)兩部分組成。首先對教材閱讀材料上出現的語言要點進行分析，包括主要詞語、句型結構、常用表達、語法難點、篇章技巧等。提高學生語言使用的先知性、準確性和豐富性(趙妍紅，張學芳2009)。其次要對本節課的完成效果進行分析，對每個解決方法進行總結。
以以下文章為例：
The idea that government policy should be focused more explicitly on promoting happiness has been gaining support. Proponents of this view argue that happiness indicators, based on surveys that purport to measure how happy people feel, have stagnated over decades. An important reason is that governments have aimed to maximise a narrowly defined materially based measure of economic welfare, gross national product, rather than a more holistic indicator of welfare based on happiness.
This premise is clearly false. Politicians have always sought to achieve many things that are not designed to increase GNP. The most recent public service agreements on the British Treasury website, for example, spell out government commitments to make schoolchildren do more physical education, increase participation in the arts and reduce scrapie in sheep. Presumably these are not just oblique ways of boosting the economy.
A decades-long flat happiness trend could be showing that government policies in general fail; that efforts to improve the human lot through the political process over the past 50 years have proved futile. But this would be a depressing conclusion. Instead, happiness advocates make a scapegoat out of GNP and argue that economic growth is irrelevant or detrimental to happiness.
The alternative view is that the happiness data over time contain little or no genuine information. We simply cannot rely on such data as an indicator of anything useful. Indeed, they show no correlation with a whole range of factors that might reasonably be thought to improve well-being, such as a massive increase in leisure time, a tendency to live longer and a decline in gender inequality.
Income inequality is often claimed to be a strong determinant of happiness, and this “fac” used to argue for more progressive taxation. Yet we do not see any change in recorded happiness when inequality goes up or down. We are also told there has been a large rise in depression in recent decades, but this is not reflected by a downturn in measured happiness.
Sometimes we are told that happiness has failed to increase because the benefits of economic growth have been offset by a breakdown in family and community relationships. But the normative implication of this argument is that policymakers should be indifferent because, by this supposedly all- encompassing measure of welfare, we are no worse off than we were before. Not even the most dismal orthodox economist would claim that material wealth is a substitute for kinship.
Government attempts to increase measured happiness, rather than making life better for us, may well do the opposite: create arbitrary objectives that divert civil service energies from core responsibilities; give many people the message that happiness emanates from national policy rather than our own efforts; and create pressure for government to appear to increase an indicator that has never before shifted systematically in response to any policy or socioeconomic change. These are exactly the mistakes of the target-driven mentality that now pervades the British public sector. We should learn from these rather than replicate them.
More sinisterly, the happiness view of the world has tendencies that are inherently anti-democratic. The expert with his or her clipboard and regressions knows better than ordinary people themselves what makes them happy. So local democratic or individual decisions can be overridden with a clean conscience. Because, at face value, promoting happiness is an incontestable aim, it would be ideal for steamrolling opposition to policies that, on closer inspection, pose the same very real tough choices that are a continual presence in politics.
GNP is not an all-encompassing measure of welfare; it simply measures the size of the economy. There are many things important to our wellbeing that is not captured by it. Those things need to be sustained by a strong civil society and democratically accountable, well-run government. If we cannot make convincing cases for them without “scientific proo” that they make people happy, we are morally adrift. Government does not fail because it does not measure happiness; it fails when its energies are misdirected on the basis of poor quality information.