Task modality effects on Spanish learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within the field of second language acquisition (SLA), we have witnessed a rise in research on task-based language teaching (TBLT) and its effects on L2 development ( Kim, 2015 ). However, few studies have examined how TBLT could facilitate the development of interlanguage pragmatics ( Taguchi & Kim, 2015 ), an issue which this volume aims to address. Moreover, whether task modality (i.e., oral versus written tasks) mediates development has yet to be investigated. The current study with learners of Spanish focused on the effects of using pedagogical tasks and on the manipulation of task modality on learners’ L2 pragmatic competence through the production of Spanish requests and speech act modifications. Two intermediate classes ( n = 25) of Spanish completed either an oral or written story completion task. Drawing on oral and written Discourse Completion Tests, we found that tasks positively impacted learners’ production of L2 requests. However, significant differences between modality groupings were not identified.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 it