This qualitative study examined factors mediating a novice’s and an experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher’s different adherence to critical components based on a tentative framework of fidelity of implementation (FoI) for task-based language teaching (TBLT). The 18-week study involved two teachers and 109 students at a Chinese University. Qualitative findings suggested that, compared with the experienced teacher, the novice teacher implemented with lower fidelity to three pedagogical principles, encouraging inductive (“chunk”) learning, focusing on form and providing negative feedback. Elicited data from observation logs and interviews indicated that factors influencing the teachers’ variation entailed their beliefs, teaching experience, and teacher–student relationship. Implications for upskilling and supporting novice teachers in future TBLT professional development programs are discussed.
AdamsR.NewtonJ. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Constraints and opportunities. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19(1), 1–17.
2.
AndersonJ.R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355.
3.
AzanoA.MissettT.C.CallahanC.M.OhS.BrunnerM.FosterL.H.MoonT.R. (2011). Exploring the relationship between fidelity of implementation and academic achievement in a third-grade gifted curriculum. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(5), 693–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x11424878
4.
BaraltM.Gurzynski-WeissL.KimY. (2016). Engagement with language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–240). John Benjamins.
5.
BloomB.S.MadausG.F.HastingsJ.T. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. McGraw-Hill.
6.
BorregoM.CutlerS.PrinceM.HendersonC.FroydJ.E. (2013). Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies in engineering science courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 394–425.
7.
BreenM. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In JohnsonR.K. (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge University Press.
8.
BreitensteinS.M.GrossD.GarveyC.A.HillC.FoggL.ResnickB. (2010). Implementation fidelity in community-based interventions. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20373
9.
BryfonskiL. (2020). Current trends and new developments in task-based language teaching. ELT Journal, 74(4), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa043.
10.
BryfonskiL. (2021). From task-based training to task-based instruction: Novice language teachers’ experiences and perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 28(3), 1255–1279.
11.
BryfonskiL.McKayT.H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632.
12.
BuechelL. (2006). Task-based instruction in foreign language education. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 530–532. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106280239
13.
ButlerY.G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190511000122
14.
CandlinC. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In CandlinC.MurphyD. (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). Prentice Hall.
15.
CarlessD. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31(4), 485–500.
16.
CarlessD. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66.
17.
CarrollC.PattersonM.WoodS.BoothA.RickJ.BalainS. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(1), 1–9.
18.
CenturyJ.RudnickM.FreemanC. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199–218.
19.
ChanS.P. (2012). Qualitative differences in novice teachers’ enactment of task-based language teaching in Hong Kong primary classrooms. In ShehadehA.CoombeC.A. (Eds.), TBLT in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 187–214). John Benjamins.
20.
ChenQ.WrightC. (2017). Contextualization and authenticity in TBLT: Voices from Chinese classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 517–538.
21.
CobbM. (2010) Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Doctoral dissertation, The University of San Francisco. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216985948.pdf
22.
CooperJ. (1990). Cooperative learning and college teaching: Tips from the trenches. Teaching Professor, 4(5), 1–2.
23.
DaneA.V.SchneiderB.H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23–45.
24.
DörnyeiZ. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
25.
DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
26.
DusenburyL.BranniganR.FalcoM.HansenW. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237–256.
27.
EastM. (2020). What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching? A comparative re-production of East (2014). Language Teaching, 54(4), 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026144481900048x
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
30.
EllisR. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246.
31.
EllisR. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–526.
32.
EllisR.ShintaniN. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
33.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
34.
ErlamR.TolosaC. (2022). Pedagogical realities of implementing task-based language teaching. John Benjamins.
35.
FelderR.M.BrentR. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative learning. Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69–75.
36.
FredricksJ.A.BlumenfeldP.C.ParisA.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
37.
FrymierA.B.HouserM.L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207–219.
38.
FullanM. (1983). Evaluating program implementation: What can be learned from follow through. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(2), 215–227.
39.
GordonJ. (2021). Pronunciation and task-based instruction: Effects of a classroom intervention. RELC Journal, 52(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220986919
40.
GuoY.DyniaJ.M.LoganJ.A.JusticeL.M.Breit-SmithA.KaderavekJ.N. (2016). Fidelity of implementation for an early-literacy intervention: Dimensionality and contribution to children’s intervention outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 165–174.
41.
Gurzynski-WeissL.BryfonskiL.ReaganD. (2024). Teacher individual differences and task adaptations: Making use of the TBLT Language Learning Task Bank. In LiS. (Ed.), Individual differences in task-based language teaching (pp. 325–355). John Benjamins.
42.
HuangY. (2019). Interactive college English for a new era. Chongqing University Press.
43.
HoferB.K.PintrichP.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
44.
HruschkaD.J.SchwartzD.St. JohnD.C.Picone-DecaroE.JenkinsR.A.CareyJ.W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307–331.
45.
KangN.H.WallaceC.S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165.
46.
KellyC.KellyE. (1996). The snoop detective school conversation book. Macmillan Language House.
47.
KowalM.SwainM. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93.
48.
LambertC.RobinsonP. (2014). Learning to perform narrative task: A semester long study of task sequencing effects. In BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 207–230). Bloomsbury.
49.
LeeJ.C.-K.ZhangZ.SongH.HuangX. (2013). Effects of epistemological and pedagogical beliefs on the instructional practices of teachers: A Chinese perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(12), 120–146.
LittlewoodW. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243–249.
52.
LongM.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In HyltenstamK.PienemannM. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–100). Multilingual Matters.
53.
LongM.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
54.
LongM. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
55.
LongM.H.NorrisJ.M. (2000). Task-based language teaching and assessment. In ByramM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). Routledge.
56.
LynchS.O’DonnellC. (2005). The evolving definition, measurement, and conceptualization of fidelity of implementation in scale-up of highly rated science curriculum units in diverse middle schools. Paper presented at the symposium on “Fidelity of Implementation” at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
57.
McDonoughK.ChaikitmongkolW. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 1071–1132.
58.
MercerS. (2016). Seeing the world through your eyes: Empathy in language learning and teaching. In MacIntyreP.D.GregersenT.MercerS. (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 91–111). Multilingual Matters.
59.
MunterC.WilhelmA.G.CobbP.CordrayD.S. (2014). Assessing fidelity of implementation of an unprescribed, diagnostic mathematics intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 83–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.809177
60.
NorrisJ.M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In BygateM. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 27–57). John Benjamins.
61.
NorrisJ.M. (2021). The Long road to TBLT: 40 years of innovation, investigation, and inspiration. Task, 1(2), 162–183.
62.
NorrisJ.M.DavisJ.M. (2021). Evaluating task-based language programs. In LongM.H.AhmadianM.J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 529–548). Cambridge University Press.
63.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13.
64.
O’DonnellC.L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 Curriculum Intervention Research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793
65.
OgilvieG.DunnW. (2010). Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 161–181.
66.
OnwuegbuzieA.J. (2003). Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon. Quality, 37(4), 393–409.
67.
PerryW.G. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Jossey-Bass.
68.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
69.
PrabhuN. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
70.
ReeveJ. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer.
71.
RobinsonP. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In PutzM.SicolaL. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). John Benjamins.
72.
RothG.WeinstockM. (2013). Teachers’ epistemological beliefs as an antecedent of autonomy-supportive teaching. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 402–412.
73.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sánchez-AlgarraP.AngueraM.T. (2013). Qualitative/quantitative integration in the inductive observational study of interactive behavior: Impact of recording and coding among predominating perspectives. Qualitative and Quantitative, 47(4), 1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9764-6.
76.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
SlavinR.E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.
79.
SlavinR.E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.
80.
StockdaleS.E.HamiltonA.B.BergmanA.A.RoseD.E.GiannitrapaniK.F.DresselhausT.R.YanoE.M.RubensteinL.V. (2020). Assessing fidelity to evidence-based quality improvement as an implementation strategy for patient-centered medical home transformation in the Veterans Health Administration. Implementation Science, 15, 1–13.
81.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). Longman.
82.
TremblayP.F.GardnerR.C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505–518.
83.
UllmanM.T. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726.
84.
Van den BrandenK. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
85.
Van den BrandenK. (2016). Task-based language teaching. In HallG. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 238–251). Routledge.
86.
VandommeleG.Van den BrandenK.Van GorpK. (2018). Task-based language teaching: How task-based is it really? In SamudaV.Van den BrandenK.BygateM.(Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy. (pp.165–197). John Benjamins.
87.
Van NesF.AbmaT.JonssonH.DeegD. (2010). Language differences in qualitative research: Is meaning lost in translation?European Journal of Ageing, 7(4), 313–316.
88.
WillisJ. (1996). A framework for task-based language teaching. Longman.
89.
XuJ.FanY. (2021). Finding success with the implementation of task-based language teaching: The role of teacher agency. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 35(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2021.1906268
90.
ZhengX.BorgS. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 205–221.
91.
ZhouN.LamS.-F.ChanK.C. (2012). The Chinese classroom paradox: A cross-cultural comparison of teacher controlling behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1162.
