Implementation of task-based language teaching in a Spanish language program: Instructors’ and students’ perceptions
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
Most research on task-based language teaching (TBLT) has focused on specific factors that play a role in task-based performance and learning, whereas considerably fewer studies have paid attention to how TBLT curricula have been developed and delivered in second language (L2) teaching contexts. However, it has been argued that the latter type of evaluative inquiry is crucial in order to advance the educational significance of the approach. While more evaluation studies have been published in recent years, few of them adopt a multi-methodological, longitudinal and cyclical perspective. The current study examines the planning and implementation of task-based instruction in a university-level Spanish as a foreign language program over a five-year period, with a particular emphasis on instructors’ and students’ perceptions about the approach. Data sources consisted of notes from meetings with instructors, classroom observations, students’ perceptions collected through journals, focus groups and questionnaires, and instructors’ perceptions collected through a questionnaire. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of these data revealed critical aspects of the planning phase, positive and challenging components of the approach, modifications made in response to participants’ perceptions, as well as a gradual increase regarding the level of acceptance of task-based instruction throughout the implementation. Implications for the implementation and evaluation of TBLT in other second language educational contexts are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it