IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/vjerxx/v111y2018i3p371-381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing task-based instruction and traditional instruction on task engagement and vocabulary development in secondary language education

Author

Listed:
  • Merve Halici Page
  • Enisa Mede

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the impact of task-based instruction (TBI) and traditional instruction (TI) on the motivation and vocabulary development in secondary language education. The focus of the study was to also find out the perceptions of teachers about implementing these two instructional methods in their teaching practices. The participants were 97 students and 2 teachers engaged in the 7th grade EFL program at a private school in Istanbul, Turkey. Data was collected quantitatively from a vocabulary check test and motivation scale, as well as qualitatively from semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed that implementing TBI had positive impact on students' vocabulary development as well as their motivation. In line with these findings, it was also suggested that teachers perceived TBI to be a more effective method to be incorporated in secondary grade language practices. Based on the gathered findings, suggestions for redesigning and implementing the existing 7th grade EFL program were provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Merve Halici Page & Enisa Mede, 2018. "Comparing task-based instruction and traditional instruction on task engagement and vocabulary development in secondary language education," The Journal of Educational Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(3), pages 371-381, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:vjerxx:v:111:y:2018:i:3:p:371-381
    DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2017.1391163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00220671.2017.1391163
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220671.2017.1391163?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:vjerxx:v:111:y:2018:i:3:p:371-381. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/vjer20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.