Building a Research-Based Curriculum

Fresco incorporates best practices from language-learning research

Grounded in decades of language-learning research, Fresco delivers proven, effective instruction.

		Focus on Communication: Our communicative framework¹ prioritizes meaningful interaction and real-world language use, helping students build proficiency through purposeful communication.
		Rich Comprehensible Input: Fresco provides reading and listening input at just the right level² for your students and scaffolds authentic content to support naturalistic language acquisition.
		Grammar in Context: Leveraging language learning theories like input processing³, Fresco guides students to notice and interpret grammatical forms through meaningful input, supporting deeper comprehension and long-term acquisition.
		Task-based Language Teaching: Fresco places authentic tasks at the heart of instruction, encouraging learners to use language to solve problems, complete projects, and create meaningful products⁴.
		Building and Expanding Knowledge & Skills: Bloom’s Taxonomy⁵ and Depth of Knowledge⁶ frameworks guide the design of tasks that move learners from recall to higher-order thinking, while a spiral curriculum⁷ design revisits key concepts at increasing levels of complexity over time. Combined, this reinforces retention and deepens understanding as students progress through proficiency levels, all while engaging complex cognitive processes.

• References:
  1. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching (pp. 1-28). Yale University Press.
  2. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
  3. VanPatten, B. (2020). Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 105-127). Routledge.
  4. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
  5. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  6. Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Technical Report No. 8). Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
  7. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.