TITLE - Language Learning & Technology - Michigan State University

OPTIMAL PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENTS FOR DISTANCE FOREIGN LANGUAGE
LEARNING Catherine J. Doughty and Michael H. Long
University of Maryland ABSTRACT Rational choices among the numerous technological options available for
foreign language teaching need to be based, in part, on psycholinguistic
considerations. Which technological advances help create an optimal
psycholinguistic environment for language learning, and which may be
innovative but relatively unhelpful? One potential source of guidance is
offered by the 10 methodological principles of Task-Based Language
Teaching (TBLT; Long, 1985, and elsewhere), each realizable by a variety
of pedagogic procedures. Interest in TBLT derives from several sources,
including its responsiveness to learners' precisely specified
communicative needs, the potential it offers for developing functional
language proficiency without sacrificing grammatical accuracy, and its
attempt to harmonize the way languages are taught with what SLA research
has revealed about how they are learned. TBLT's 10 methodological
principles are briefly defined and motivated, and illustrations provided
of how the principles can inform choices among technological options in
the particular case of distance learning for the less commonly taught
languages. INTRODUCTION In this paper, we motivate and define 10 methodological principles for Task-
Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and illustrate their implementation in the
particular case of foreign language distance learning for less commonly
taught languages (LCTLs). Interest in TBLT derives from several sources,
including the potential it offers for producing courses designed
systematically in response to learners' precisely specified communicative
needs, for developing functional foreign language proficiency without
sacrificing grammatical accuracy, and for harmonizing the way languages are
taught with what SLA research has revealed about how they are learned. Our
primary focus is on the role of the methodological principles (MPs) in the
design of psycholinguistically optimal L2 learning environments, with
special attention to the use of technology to realize the MPs. We provide a
brief rationale for each principle, followed by one or more examples of how
the principle informs choices among the dizzying array of technologically
feasible options in distance learning.
BACKGROUND Several proposals for task-based language teaching have appeared over the
past decade, but most have been limited to suggestions for materials and
pedagogy for a miscellany of single tasks, unmotivated by the findings of a
learner needs analysis. Some have been little more than "communicative"
practice devices for the covert delivery of structural syllabuses -- tasks
replacing drills, with very little else changing -- not task-based at all,
in other words. On both counts, the same is true of many computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) materials and, more recently, the delivery of
distance learning foreign language programs. In contrast, right or wrong,
Task-Based Language Teaching (see, e.g., Long 1985, 2000a, in press a, b;
Long & Crookes, 1992, 1993; Long & Norris, 2000; Robinson, 2001b)
constitutes a coherent, theoretically motivated approach to all six
components of the design, implementation, and evaluation of a genuinely
task-based language teaching program: (a) needs and means analysis, (b)
syllabus design, (c) materials design, (d) methodology and pedagogy, (e)
testing, and (f) evaluation.
A major consideration in the development of distance learning programs is
how to make principled choices among technology options. To be effective,
distance language programs, like any other language courses, must be
carefully planned on the basis of a clear understanding of learner needs,
since the appropriate technology for the delivery of such courses can only
be selected once these elements are understood in detail. In addition,
there is a clear distinction between classroom-connected uses of technology
(e.g., CALL) and distance learning. CALL is typically just one component of
an L2 curriculum that also includes classroom, and sometimes community,
activities. Furthermore, the teacher who integrates CALL into L2 courses
still interacts with and observes students and their requirements on a
daily basis. In contrast, distance learning is often the only element of a
student's L2 learning experience (for instance, in the case of distance
learning of an uncommonly taught language). And, by definition, distance
learning is remote and also is primarily asynchronous. These two factors
are potentially problematic for foreign language learning, which depends
crucially upon the nature of the interaction in the L2. We argue that
careful distance learning program design decisions may (and must)
compensate for the asynchronicity of communication and the lack of
proximity between instructor and learners. On a more positive note, if the
distance learning is an extension of a classroom L2 learning experience
(e.g., as a part of an in-country internship or study abroad), then it can
be seen to offer many advantages. Considering these among other factors
that distinguish classroom lessons, CALL, and distance learning, we focus
on TBLT as an approach to foreign language distance learning with the
potential to motivate rational choices among the many technological options
available when attempting to create a psycholinguistically optimal
instructional environment.
METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES AND PEDAGOGIC PROCEDURES A distinction is made in TBLT between methodological principles (MPs) and
pedagogic procedures (see Long, to appear, a). Together, they guide and
constitute the way a genuinely task-based syllabus and task-based materials
are implemented in the classroom. Methodological Principles Methodological principles are putatively universally desirable
instructional design features, motivated by theory and research findings in
SLA, educational psychology, and elsewhere, which show them to be either
necessary for SLA or facilitative of it. The theoretical and empirical
support make them features which should probably characterize any approach
to language teaching, task-based or otherwise. Advances in knowledge may
eventually show some or (hopefully not) all of them to be wrong, but as in
any other field, practitioners must rely on, and are limited to, current
understanding of theory and research findings. TBLT is rooted in cognitive and interactionist SLA theory and research
findings (see, e.g., Doughty, 2001b; Doughty & Long, 2003; Long, 1996b,
2000a, in press a; Long & Robinson, 1998; Robinson, 2001a; Schmidt, 2001;
Skehan, 1998). Not all the MPs fall out of a single theory, however, or
should be expected to do so. TBLT is an embryonic theory of language
teaching, not a theory of SLA. And, whereas theories generally strive for
parsimony, among other qualities -- to identify what is necessary and
sufficient to explain something -- a theory of language teaching seeks to
capture all those components, plus whatever else can be done to make
language teaching efficient.1 Language education is a social service, after
all, and providers and consumers alike are concerned with such bread-and-
butter issues as rate of learning, not with what may or may not eventually
be achieved through a minimalist approach motivated exclusively by a theory
of SLA. Some language teaching components (e.g., negative feedback) may not
be necessary to learn certain target language features, given learners who
are native speakers of a particular language, but may facilitate the
process, nevertheless, and so be included on the basis of efficiency. Some
components may not be motivated by SLA theory at all, but by work in
education, general psychology, and more. Some components may derive
convergent validation from work in two or more fields. There are at present 10 MPs in TBLT (Table 1). Some (e.g., "Use task as the
unit of analysis," "Elaborate input," and "Focus on form") are original to
the approach, while others (e.g., "Learn by doing," "Provide negative
feedback," and "Individualize instruction") are based on long traditions
and the work of numerous scholars in philosophy, SLA, psycholinguistics,
language teaching, curriculum theory, and educational psychology. The
middle column of Table 1 provides some classroom-based examples of the MPs,
and the rightmost column lists exemplary CALL applications. Unaltered, some
of these CALL applications are potentially relevant for distance learning.
However, as will be discussed further below, special consideration must
sometimes be given to the primarily asynchronous and remote nature of
distance learning when choosing among them in this context. Table 1. Language Teaching Methodological Principles for CALL | |Principles |L2 Implementation |CALL |
| |(adapted from Long, in | |Implementation |
| |press a) | | |
|ACTIVITIES | | | |
|MP1 |Use tasks, not texts, as|task-based language|simulations; |
| |the unit of analysis. |teaching (TBLT; |tutorials; |
| | |target tasks, |worldware |
| | |pedagogical tasks, | |
| | |task sequencing) | |
|MP2 |Promote learning by | | |
| |doing. | | |
|INPUT | | | |
|MP3 |Elaborate input (do not |negotiation of |computer-mediated|
| |simplify; do not rely |meaning; |communication / |
| |