Learner Autonomy and Tandem Learning: Putting Principles Into Practice...(Schweinhorst, 2003)

In his paper, Schweinhorst (2003) focusses on three different yet interdependent perspectives to learner autonomy within the framework of CMC:

1. The individual-cognitive perspective emphasizes reflection and awareness and how they facilitate learners to constantly improve their own construct system. Validating tools such as questionnaires can help them to evaluate their learning.

2. The social-interactive perspective emphasizes meaningful interactions with native speakers and peers through, for example, project work. Interactions that involve both scaffolding and feedback (especially written feedback) helps learners to develop language and linguistic awareness.

3. The experimental-participatory perspective emphasizes the fact that learners should be given control over their learning, by experimenting with cognitive tools such as authoring tools that can help learners to raise their awareness of language.

Schweinhorst also talks about one example of learner autonomy principles in practice, known as tandem learning, which involves the pairing up of two learners of complementary L1-L2 combinations so that they can learn from each other. Based on his experience of running a tandem e-mail project, the author notes that problems do arise with this setup, especially when communication is conducted via the internet using commercially-produced e-mail clients. A far more effective setup is to have a dedicated web site exclusively for tandem-learning partners such as the one that was set up by Appel and Mullen (2000) called the Electronic Tandem Resources (ETR). Apart from having a superior organizational structure, the ETR contains a variety of useful tools for the learner, including one that measures the quantity of L1 and L2 content in each e-mail message that is written and sent.

The author also talks about his experiences in running tandem MOO projects, where tandem partners communicate synchronously. Despite taking a number of measures to maximize the project’s success, such as ensuring that learners were given choices, the project was initially beset by problems of a practical as well as technical nature. But after introducing a few changes to the project structure, such as the inclusion of manageable task-based work leading to well-defined short-term goals as well as web-based dictionaries, the outcomes were much improved.

Finally, the author draws from a framework of pressures, affordances and potentials – three areas in which a combination of technology and pedagogy will affect reflective processes – to effectively evaluate medium- and pedagogy-specific factors in CMC, as well learner and teacher roles.

This article reminds us once again that effective CALL development relies on both technology and pedagogy; neither one should be neglected at the expense of the other, since they are interconnected in highly complex ways. Oh, and don't forget about the theory too.