CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 488EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningForeign Language Teaching MethodsEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

Optimal Psycholinguistic Environments for Distance Foreign Language Learning

Open access
Doughty, Catherine J, Long, Michael H.·2003·Language Learning & Technology
DOI 10.64152/10125/25214
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.64152/10125/25214

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple resources have been written on tasks, technology, and task-based language courses online.

    “while multiple resources have been written on tasks, technology, and task-based language courses online (e.g., Chapelle, 2014;Doughty & Long, 2003;González-Lloret, 2016;Nielson, González-Lloret, & Pinckney, 2009;Thomas & Reinders, 2012)”

    From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Doughty & Long, 2003

  • Doughty and Long propose thinking about how we teach in terms of methodological principles (MPs) and pedagogic procedures.

    “Doughty and Long (Doughty & Long, 2003;Long, 2015) propose thinking about how we teach in terms of methodological principles (MPs) and pedagogic procedures.”

    From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Doughty & Long, 2003

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 103

  1. Catherine J. Doughty is jointly appointed in the University of Maryland's Center for the Advanced Study of Language (Associate Research Director, responsible for SLA), and National Foreign Language Center (Project Director, National Flagship Language Initiative). Along with numerous scholarly articles and book chapters, her recent publications include Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (1998, Cambridge) and the Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (2003, Blackwell).
  2. Michael H. Long is Director of the School of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures at the University of Maryland, where he also teaches courses in second language acquisition. He is co-editor of the Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series and author of over 100 articles and several books. Forthcoming publications include Second Language Needs Analysis (Cambridge) and Problems in SLA (Lawrence Erlbaum).
  3. Altman, H. B., & James, C. V. (Eds.). (1980). Foreign language teaching: Meeting individual needs. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
  4. Annett, J. (1969). Feedback and human behaviour. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
  5. Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé compose and the imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 226-243.
  6. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
  7. Bartlett, N. D. (in press). A double shot 2% mocha latte, please, with whip: Service encounters in two coffee shops and at a coffee cart. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Berry, D. (1997). How implicit is implicit learning? New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. Berry, D., & Dienes, Z. (Eds.). (1993). Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues. Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  10. Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-36. Retrieved February 10, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
  11. Cathcart, R. (1989). Authentic discourse and the Survival English curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 105-126.
  12. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46.
  13. Chaudron, C. (1987). The role of error correction in second language teaching. In B. Das (Ed.), Patterns of classroom interaction in Southeast Asia (pp. 17-50). Singapore: Regional English Language Centre.
  14. Chaudron, C., Doughty, C., Kim, Y., Kong, D., Lee, J., Lee, Y., Long, M. H., Rivers, R., & Urano, K. (in press). A Task-based needs analysis of a tertiary Korean as a foreign language program. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Choi, M.Y. (2000). Effects of recasts on irregular past tense verb morphology in Web-chat. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawai'i, Honolulu.
  16. Clark, R. E. (1985). Confounding in education computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(20), 137-148.
  17. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence language learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.
  18. DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501-514.
  19. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language acquisition does make a difference: evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(3), 431-469.
  20. Doughty, C. (1992). Computer applications in second language acquisition research. In M. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 127-54). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
  21. Doughty, C. (2000a). Negotiating the linguistic environment. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 18(2), 47-85.
  22. Doughty, C. (2001a). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 206-57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). New York: Basil Blackwell.
  24. Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Basil Blackwell.
  25. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998a). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-262). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Eckman, F. R., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 1-20.
  30. Ellis, N. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33-68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 305-328.
  32. Fukuda, C., Komatsu-Yonezawa, S., Komori, S., & Zimmerman, E. (2001, March 17). A meta-analysis of a CMC project for L2 Japanese learners. Paper presented at the Hawai'i Association of Language Teachers conference, Honolulu.
  33. Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 129-139). Washington, DC: TESOL.
  34. Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). New York: Basil Blackwell.
  35. Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 13-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  36. González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En Busca de Esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 86-104. Retrieved February 3, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/gonzalez/default.html
  37. Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 390-405.
  38. Harlow, L. L. (1987). Individualized instruction in foreign languages at the college level: A survey of programs in the United States. Modern Language Journal, 7(1), 389-394.
  39. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 402-435).
  40. Holt, D. D. (Ed.). (1993). Cooperative learning: A response to linguistic and cultural diversity. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
  41. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539-588). New York: Basil Blackwell.
  43. In W. A. Renandya & G. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning (pp. 172-193). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
  44. Johnston, M. (1997). Development and variation in learner language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.
  45. Jordan, R. R. (1987). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Kersten, A. W., & Earles, J. L. (2001). Less really is more for adults learning a miniature artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 250-273.
  47. Kong, D. K. (2002). Effects of task complexity on second-language production. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu.
  48. Kramer, R. (1978). Maria Montessori. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  49. Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs: French language outcomes. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 48(1), 11-44.
  50. Lee, Y.-G. (2002). Effects on task complexity on the complexity and accuracy of oral production in L2 Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu.
  51. Liang, X., Mohan, B. A., & Early, M. (1998). Issues of cooperative learning in ESL classes: A literature review. TESL Canada Journal, 15(2), 13-23.
  52. Lightbown, P. M. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition (pp. 217-243).
  53. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
  54. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77- 99). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  55. Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. M. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-41). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House/Harper and Row.
  56. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg., & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  57. Long, M. H. (1996a). Authenticity and learning potential in L2 classroom discourse. In G. M. Jacobs (Ed.), Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses (pp. 148-169). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
  58. Long, M. H. (1996b). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
  59. Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Text from the McGraw-Hill videoconference: Grammar in the communicative classroom. Retrieved February 3, 2003, from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/top.htm
  60. Long, M. H. (2000a). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. L. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy (pp. 179-192). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  61. Long, M. H. (2000b). Acquisition and teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 4-5). London: Routledge.
  62. Long, M. H. (in press, a). Task-based language teaching. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
  63. Long, M. H. (in press, b). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  64. Long, M. H. (Ed.). (in press, c). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  65. Long, M. H. (in press, d). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  66. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based language teaching. TESO Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
  67. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in pedagogical context. Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-54). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  68. Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597-603). London: Routledge.
  69. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-27.
  70. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  71. Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (pp. 29-52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
  72. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. F. (2001). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as "language aptitude." In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339-364).
  73. Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversational analysis approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 75-87. Retrieved February 3, 2003, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti/index.html
  74. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 5(3), 417-528.
  75. Ochs, E. O., & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.). (1979). Developmental pragmatics. New Youk: Academic Press.
  76. In R. Schank (Ed.), Inside multi-media case based instruction (pp. 1-100).
  77. Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning; collaborative learning; and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456.
  78. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern, (Eds.), Network- based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  79. Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465-97.
  80. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59-84.
  81. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214.
  82. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52-79.
  83. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 217-243.
  84. Robinson, P. (1981). Esp (English for Specific Purposes: The present position). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
  85. Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  86. Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
  87. Salaberry, R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: learning objectives and technological capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 28-37.
  88. Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 310-353). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  89. Schenkein, J. (1980). A taxonomy for repeating action sequences in natural discourse. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production, volume 1: Speech and talk (pp. 21-47). New York: Academic Pres..
  90. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
  91. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3- 32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  92. Schumann, J. H. (1979). The acquisition of English negation by speakers of Spanish: A review of the literature. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), The acquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages (pp. 3-32). Washington, DC: TESOL.
  93. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.
  94. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  95. Spadaro, K. (1996). Maturational constraints on lexical acquisition in a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia, Perth.
  96. Stadler, M., & Frensch, P. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of implicit learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  97. Swaffer, J. K., Arens, K., & Morgan, M. (1982). Teacher classroom practices: redefining method as task hierarchy. Modern Language Journal, 66(1), 24-33.
  98. Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  99. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366-389.
  100. Wesche, M. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119-154).
  101. Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  102. Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
  103. Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189-219.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
ORCID
Venue
Language Learning & Technology
Publisher
National Foreign Language Resource Center
Published
2003-09-01
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
50-80
ISSN
1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.64152/10125/25214
OpenAlex
W4413150311
Cited by
488
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 23
FWCI
93.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Language learning & technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
  • Nagoya University Repository (NAGOYA Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Language learning & technology (cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Foreign Language Teaching Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
distance language learning, foreign language teaching technologies, task-based language teaching, methodological principles, less commonly taught languages, second language acquisition, grammatical accuracy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review