Monitoring bilingualism: Pedagogical implications of the Bilingual tandem analyser

CALICO Journal

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 349-362

  Schwienhorst, Klaus ^a   Borgia, Alexandre ^b  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bilingualism; Learner autonomy; MOO; Tandem learning; Text based communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 36949003566     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20569017     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1558/cj.v23i2.349-362     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Appel, M. C. (1999). Tandem learning by e-mail: Some basic principles and a case study (Vol. 54, CLCS Occasional Paper). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
2. Appel, C., & Mullen, T. (2000). Pedagogical considerations for a web-based tandem language learning environment. Computers and Education, 34 (3-4), 291-308.
3. Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. Har-low: Longman.
4. Borgia, A. (2003). Moo Utilities [Web page]. Retrieved August 24, 2003, from http://kon-takt.tcd.ie/BTA
5. Cavnar, W. B., & Trenkle, J. M. (1994). N-gram-based text categorization. In Proceedings of third annual symposium on document analysis and information retrieval (pp. 161-175). Las Vegas, NV: UNLV Publications/Reprographics.
6. Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Au-thentik.
7. Kapec, P., & Schwienhorst, K. (2005). In two minds? Learner attitudes to bilingualism and the Bilingual Tandem Analyser. ReCALL, 17 (2), 254-268.
8. Kötter, M. (2002). Tandem learning on the Internet. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
9. Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 145-172. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/kotter/default.html
10. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authen-tik.
11. Little, D., & Brammerts, H. (Eds.). (1996). A guide to language learning in tandem via the Internet (Vol. 46, CLCS Occasional Paper). Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
12. O’Rourke, B. (2002). Metalinguistic knowledge in instructed second language acquisition: A theoretical model and its pedagogical application in computer-mediated com-munication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin.
13. O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Jour-nal, 22 (3). 433-466
14. O’Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Talking text: Reflections on reflection in com-puter-mediated communication. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 47-60). Dublin: Authentik.
15. Schwienhorst, K. (2000). Virtual reality and learner autonomy in second language acqui-sition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin.
16. Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Pressures, potentials, and affordances: The role of tools in CALL environments. Communication & Cognition—Artificial Intelligence, 19 (3-4), 133-149.
17. Schwienhorst, K. (2003a). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 16 (5), 427-443.
18. Schwienhorst, K. (2003b). Neither here nor there? Learner autonomy and intercultural factors in CALL environments. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 164-180). Lon-don: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Schwienhorst, K. (2004). Native-speaker/non native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Par-ticipation and engagement in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 17 (1), 35-50.
20. Shield, L. (2003). MOO as a language learning tool. In U. Felix (Ed.), Language learning online: Towards best practice (pp. 97-122). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
21. Shield, L., Davies, L. B., & Weininger, M. J. (2000). Fostering (pro)active language learning through MOO. ReCALL, 12 (1), 35-48.
22. Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default. html
23. Trebbi, T., Jopp, C., & Coco, M. (2003, 16-18 October). Didaktisk rollespill i en MOO: Er læringen satt på spill? Paper presented at the Digital Dannelse Conference, Oslo.
24. Van Noord, G. (1999). TextCat [computer software]. Retrieved 25 March, 1999, from http://odur.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/TextCat