Task-Based Language Teaching and English for Academic Purposes: An Investigation into Instructor Perceptions and Practice in the Canadian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programs designed to meet postsecondary English language proficiency requirements are a common pathway to higher education for students from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Grounded in a Canadian context, this study seeks to examine the prevalence of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in EAP, common examples of EAP tasks, and the benefits and drawbacks of this approach for EAP students. EAP professionals (n = 42) were recruited from the membership of TESL Canada, and participants completed a questionnaire on their perceptions of TBLT for EAP. Of those who participated, 69% reported using TBLT in at least half of their lessons, with 86% of the par- ticipants indicating that TBLT was suitable for EAP instruction. Further qualitative analysis of the data revealed that presentations, essays, and interviews were the top three tasks employed by EAP teachers; the practicality, effectiveness, and learner-centredness of TBLT were its major benefits; and mismatched student expectations, lack of classroom time, and excessive instructor preparation were TBLT’s major drawbacks. Ambiguity regarding what constitutes TBLT was also found in the data. It appears that TBLT is used by participants across Canada and is well accepted as a teaching approach. However, some concerns associated with TBLT in EAP remain to be addressed.Les programmes d’anglais académique visant à combler les exigences en matière de compétences linguistiques pour l’anglais au postsecondaire représentent souvent une voie vers les études postsecondaires pour les élèves allophones. Située dans un contexte canadien, cette étude porte sur la prévalence de l’enseignement des langues basé sur les tâches (ELBT) dans les cours d’anglais académique, des exemples courants de tâches dans ces cours, et les avantages et les inconvénients de cette approche pour les élèves. À partir des membres de TESL Canada, on a recruté des enseignants d’anglais académique (n = 42) et ceux-ci ont complété un questionnaire portant sur leurs perceptions de l’ELBT dans les cours d’anglais académique. Les résultats indiquent que 69% des participants emploient l’ELBT dans au moins la moitié de leurs leçons et que 86% jugent l’ELBT approprié pour l’enseignement de l’anglais académique. Une analyse quantitative plus poussée a révélé que les trois tâches les plus fréquemment employées par les enseignants d’anglais académique étaient les présentations, les rédactions et les entrevues. De plus, les participants ont indiqué qu’ils estimaient que les atouts principaux de l’ELBT étaient son aspect pratique, son efficacité et le fait qu’il est centré sur l’apprenant; comme inconvénients majeurs, ils ont noté une inadéquation des attentes de la part des étudiants, l’insuffisance des heures de cours et la formation excessive des enseignants. Les données ont également révélé une ambigüité par rapport à ce qui constitue l’ELBT. Il parait que l’ELBT est employé partout au Canada et est bien accueilli comme méthode enseignement; toutefois, il faudrait aborder certaines préoccupations quant à son emploi dans l’enseignement de l’anglais académique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".