MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964285811 · doi:10.1177/1362168819862132

Finding success with pedagogical innovation: A case from CSL teachers’ experiences with TBLT

2019· article· en· W2964285811 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Teaching Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationNegotiationAgency (philosophy)PsychologyProcess (computing)Language educationTeaching methodPedagogyQualitative researchTask (project management)Teacher educationSociologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uncovers the under-explored influences that encourage teachers to incorporate task-based language teaching (TBLT) for teaching Chinese as a second language, and the process of teachers’ pedagogical attempts at a Chinese university. Activity Theory (Engeström, 1987) was adopted as the conceptual framework. As a qualitative study, the analysis drew on data from interviews and classroom observations with eight teachers, and complemented by interviews with two directors and 17 students. The study reveals that teachers’ pedagogical practice results from a process of negotiating the possible pedagogical tools to reach their teaching objectives in their context of teaching. In particular, teachers depart from the traditional teaching approach to incorporate tasks as a personal initiative in response to the perceived challenges in the effort to achieve their objectives. The study argues that compared to the constraints from the local education context, teacher beliefs and knowledge play a more critical role in shaping the extent to which teachers choose to adopt TBLT, as teacher beliefs and knowledge directly creates tension between TBLT as a tool and the desired objectives. The study proposes that the Problem-Solving Model (Havelock, 1969) for introducing pedagogical change gives teachers agency and ownership over TBLT, which may serve as a possible direction for realizing the pedagogical innovation.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.236 · 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