MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156231838 · doi:10.5206/entrehojas.v1i1.6116

Empirical study: a mixed methodology to improve linguistic and communicative competence in Spanish as a FL/SL

2011· article· en· W2156231838 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kerwin A. Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueEntrehojas Revista de Estudios Hispánicos · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunicative competenceForeign languageCompetence (human resources)Empirical researchPsychologyLinguistic competenceComputer scienceLanguage acquisitionLanguage educationTask (project management)Communicative language teachingMathematics educationLinguisticsPedagogyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This present article seeks to provide a mixed methodological model for the development and implementation of a Teaching Module for Spanish as a Foreign Language in the face to face environment. The primary objective is to portray how methodological principles from different language teaching approaches (such as task based language teaching and cooperative learning) can be combined effectively in designing activities for face to face contexts. In this regard, empirical evidence is analysed in order to determine the effectiveness of the mixed methodology in the teaching-learning of Spanish as a Foreign Language in the said settings, in a study based on a longitudinal experimental design with pre-test and post-test, but without control group. The findings will help to provide researchers, educators and language teachers with valid guidelines as it relates to the development of Teaching Modules and Units for Foreign Language Learning. The results show an increase in the acquisition of specific knowledge in Spanish as a Foreign Language, thus improving the students’ linguistic and communicative competence. It is therefore proposed that mixed methodological models be integrated and implemented when designing Teaching Modules for Language Learning, since they are the most suited for Second and Foreign Language Acquisition. Keywords: Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching, Task-Based Approach, Cooperative Approach, Cooperative Learning, Mixed Methodological Model, Mixed Methodology, Face to Face Method, Teaching Module, Linguistic and Communicative Competence. RESUMEN El presente artículo propone proveer un modelo metodológico mixto para el desarrollo e implementación de un Módulo de Enseñanza para el español como lengua extranjera en la modalidad presencial. El objetivo principal es evidenciar cómo los principios metodológicos provenientes de los enfoques didácticos (“enfoque por tareas” y “aprendizaje cooperativo”) pueden ser aplicados de manera efectiva en el diseño de contextos presenciales. Para ello, se explora evidencia empírica acerca de la efectividad de la metodología mixta en la enseñanza-aprendizaje de español como lengua extranjera en dichos ambientes, en un estudio basado en un diseño experimental longitudinal con pre-test y post-test, sin grupo control. Los hallazgos les proporcionarán guías de orientación efectiva a investigadores, educadores y profesores de lenguas en función del desarrollo de unidades de trabajo y módulos para el aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras. Los resultados muestran un incremento en el aprendizaje de determinados conocimientos en español como LE y por tanto, mejorando la competencia lingüística y comunicativa de los sujetos. Se propone, entonces, que en el diseño de módulos de enseñanza para el aprendizaje de lenguas se integren e implementen modelos metodológicos mixtos por cuanto son los más propicios para el aprendizaje de LE/L2. Palabras clave: Enseñanza-Aprendizaje de Lenguas Mediante Tareas, el Enfoque por Tareas, Enfoque Cooperativo, Aprendizaje Cooperativo, Modelo Metodológico Mixto, Metodología Mixta, Modalidad Presencial, Módulo de Enseñanza, Competencia Lingüística y Comunicativa.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntrehojas Revista de Estudios HispánicosSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207