Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning.

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 computerassisted 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 taskbased 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

(adapted from Long, in press a) ACTIVITIES

MP1 Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of

analysis.

MP2 Promote learning by doing. INPUT

MP3 Elaborate input (do not simplify;

do not rely solely on "authentic"

texts).

MP4 Provide rich (not impoverished)

input. LEARNING PROCESSES

MP5 Encourage inductive ("chunk")

learning.

MP6 Focus on form.

MP7 Provide negative feedback.

MP8 Respect "learner

syllabuses"/develop-mental

processes.

MP9 Promote cooperative/

collaborative learning. LEARNERS

MP10 Individualize instruction

(according to communicative

needs, and psycholinguistically).

L2 Implementation ACTIVITIES

MP1 task-based language

teaching (TBLT; target