1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. TASK
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

This study examines the criteria that pre-service teachers (PSTs) use to evaluate collaboratively designed technology-mediated interaction tasks. The paper presents PSTs’ reflections on tasks as part of a telecollaborative task design seminar conducted within the ERASMUS+ project DIGITASK4IC. During the seminar, PSTs from three universities collaborated using the DIGITASK Web App to create interaction tasks for EFL learners. The study utilizes two datasets: transcribed recordings of group discussions and written end-of-term reports. Qualitative content analysis was employed to investigate specific criteria that PSTs rely on when evaluating technology-mediated tasks. The results suggest that PSTs evaluate tasks based on criteria related to digital tools, task instructions, outcome, and interaction that only partially overlap with task criteria in theoretical models.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/task.24001.sch
2025-08-08
2026-05-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/task.24001.sch
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/task.24001.sch.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/task.24001.sch&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barkhuizen, G., & Wette, R.
    (2008) Narrative frames for investigating the experiences of language teachers. System, 36(3), 372–387. 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnard, R., & Nguyen, G. V.
    (2010) Task-based language teaching (TBLT): A Vietnamese case study using narrative frames to elicit teachersʼ beliefs. Language Education in Asia1(1), 77–86. 10.5746/LEiA/10/V1/A07/Barnard_Nguyen
     https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/10/V1/A07/Barnard_Nguyen [Google Scholar]
  3. Bean, T. W., & Stevens, L. P.
    (2002) Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 31, 205–218. 10.1080/14623940220142343
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940220142343 [Google Scholar]
  4. Becerra-Posada, T., & Arroyo, D. C.
    (2023) Colombian preservice teachers enacting task-based language teaching principles before and during the transition to remote teaching. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 25(2), 29–47. 10.15446/profile.v25n2.103146
     https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v25n2.103146 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W.
    (2021) Reflection literacy: A multilevel perspective on the challenges of using reflections in higher education through a comprehensive literature review. Educational Research Review, 321. 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100376
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100376 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chapelle, C. A.
    (Ed.) (2001) Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524681
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524681 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen, E. G.
    (1994) Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms. Teachers College Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Collin, S., Karsenti, T., & Komis, V.
    (2013) Reflective practice in initial teacher training: critiques and perspectives, Reflective Practice, 14(1), 104–117. 10.1080/14623943.2012.732935
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2012.732935 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cutrer-Parraga, E. A., & Miller, E. E.
    (2022) The role of reflection in supporting initially resistant teachers’ implementation of targeted reading instruction. Frontiers in Education, 71. 10.3389/feduc.2022.1048716
     https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1048716 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dewey, J.
    (1933) How we think: A Restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Heath & Co Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
    (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80. 10.125/25214
     https://doi.org/10.125/25214 [Google Scholar]
  12. East, M.
    (2014a) Encouraging innovation in a modern foreign language initial teacher education programme: What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching?The Language Learning Journal, 42(3), Special issue: Modern Language Teacher Education. 10.1080/09571736.2013.856455
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.856455 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014b) Mediating pedagogical innovation via reflective practice: A comparison of pre-service and in-service teachers’ experiences. Reflective Practice, 15(5), 686–699. 10.1080/14623943.2014.944128
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2014.944128 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2018) How do beginning teachers conceptualise and enact tasks in school foreign language classrooms?InV. Samuda, K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp.23–50). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.12.02eas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12.02eas [Google Scholar]
  15. (2019) Sustaining innovation in school modern foreign language programmes: Teachers’ reflections on task-based language teaching three years after initial teacher education. The Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 105–115. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1221440
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1221440 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2021) Foundational principles of task-based language teaching. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003039709
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039709 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2011) Macro- and micro-evaluations of task-based teaching. InB. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp.212–235). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139042789.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139042789.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2015) Teachers evaluating tasks. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp.247–269). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.09ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.09ell [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R., & Shintani, N.
    (2014) Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition Research. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C.
    (2019) Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108643689
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689 [Google Scholar]
  22. Erlam, R., & Tolosa, C.
    (2022) Pedagogical realities of implementing task-based language teaching. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.14 [Google Scholar]
  23. González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L.
    (2014) Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. InM. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT (pp.1–22). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.6.01gon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.01gon [Google Scholar]
  24. Hallet, W.
    (2020) Komplexe Aufgaben für den digitalen Distanz- und den Präsenzunterricht konzipieren. Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch, 1671, 10–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hampel, R.
    (2006) Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121. 10.1017/S0958344006000711
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344006000711 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010) Task design for a virtual learning environment in a distant language course. InM. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology (pp.131–153). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R.
    (2011) The process of materials writing. InB. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development and language teaching. (pp.107–134). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139042789.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139042789.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kelle, U., & Kluge, S.
    (2010) Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑92366‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92366-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Killion, J., & Todnem, G.
    (1991) A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership, 481, 14–17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ422847
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Korthagen, F. A. J.
    (2011) Making teacher education relevant for practice: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Orbis Scholae, 5(2), 31–50. 10.14712/23363177.2018.99
     https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.99 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A.
    (2017) Task design for telecollaborative exchanges: In search of new criteria. System, 641, 7–20. 10.1016/j.system.2016.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, J., & Zou, W.
    (2022) A study of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching via metaphor analysis in a Chinese context. Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(5), 508–520. 10.1080/02607476.2021.1989287
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1989287 [Google Scholar]
  33. Long, M. H.
    (2014) Second language acquisition and task-based language classroom. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Mayring, P.
    (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. InG. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp.601–613). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑92052‑8_42
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2022) Qualitative content analysis: A step-by-step guide. Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mayring, P., & Brunner, E.
    (2013) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. InB. Friebertshäuser (Ed.), Handbuch. Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in der Erziehungswissenschaft (pp.323–333). Beltz.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mayring, P., & Fenzl, T.
    (2019) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. InN. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (2nd ed., pp.633–648). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑21308‑4_42
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42 [Google Scholar]
  38. Meskill, C.
    (1999) Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. InK. Cameron (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning (CALL): Media, design and applications (pp.141–162). Swets & Zeitlinger.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Müller-Hartmann, A.
    (2000) The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129–147.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-v. Ditfurth, M.
    (2011) Task-supported language learning. UTB.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L.
    (2008) Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. InG. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp.137–161). AltaMira Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Nunan, D.
    (2004) Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667336
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667336 [Google Scholar]
  43. O’Dowd, R.
    (2017) Exploring the impact of telecollaboration in initial teacher education: The EVALUATE project. The EuroCALL Review, 25, 38. 10.4995/eurocall.2017.7636
     https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2017.7636 [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Dowd, R., & Waire, P.
    (2009) Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188. 10.1080/09588220902778369
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220902778369 [Google Scholar]
  45. Oliver, R., & Bogachenko, T.
    (2018) Teacher perceptions and use of tasks in school ESL classrooms. InV. Samuda, K. Van den Branden, & M. Bygate (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp.71–96). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.12.04oli
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12.04oli [Google Scholar]
  46. Oxford, R.
    (2006) Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 94–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Pelletier, G. N., Chazan, D. J., Goegan, L., & Daniels, L. M.
    (2020) Agreeing is not the same as accepting: Exploring pre-service teachers’ growth mindsets. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 11(2). https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjnse/article/view/70592
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pinnegar, S., & Lay, C. D.
    (2023) Editorial: The role of reflection in teacher and teacher educator development. Frontiers in Education, 81. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1225168
     https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1225168 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rädiker, S., & Kuckartz, U.
    (2019) Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA. Text, Audio und Video. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑22095‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22095-2 [Google Scholar]
  50. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2024) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.4.1). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Reinhoffer, B.
    (2008) Lehrkräfte geben Auskunft über ihren Unterricht. InM. Gläser-Zikuda & P. Mayring (Eds.), Die Praxis der Qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse (pp.123–141). UTB.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Schön, D. A.
    (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Ashgate.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Schreier, M.
    (2012) Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage. 10.4135/9781529682571
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571 [Google Scholar]
  54. Taglieber, J., Kremmel, B., Tuna, M. H., Hoffmann, T. D., Takim, A., Schreiner, C., & Kapelari, S.
    (2022) Fragenkatalog Ethik. Selbstevaluation zur Einhaltung ethischer Rahmenrichtlinien und rechtlicher Vorgaben bei der Durchführung von Forschungsprojekten. Universität Innsbruck. Retrieved on24 March 2025fromhttps://umfrage.uibk.ac.at/limesurvey/allgemein/index.php/629795?lang=de
  55. Vandommele, G., Van Gorp, K., & Van den Branden, K.
    (2018) Task-based language teaching: How task-based is it really? A case study into the use of tasks by more experienced and less experienced teachers. InV. Samuda, K. Van den Branden, & M. Bygate (Eds.), Task-based language teaching as a researched pedagogy (pp.165–197). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.12.07van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12.07van [Google Scholar]
  56. VERBI software
    VERBI software (2021) MAXQDA 2022 [Computer software]. maxqda.com
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Wickham, H.
    (2016) ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (Version 3.3.5). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24277‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M.
    (2009) Qualitative analysis of content. InB. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp.1–12). Libraries Unlimited.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Zheng, X., & Borg, S.
    (2013) Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 181, 205–221. 10.1177/1362168813505941
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505941 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/task.24001.sch
Loading
Exploring pre-service teachers’ criteria for evaluating collaboratively designed online tasks
task 5, 57 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/task.24001.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/task.24001.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/task.24001.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): pre-service teachers; task criteria; task evaluation; task reflection; technology-mediated tasks

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error