Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T13:23:18.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Email tandem learning and the communicative curriculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Jane Woodin
Jane Woodin
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article describes an email project between undergraduate non-specialist learners of Spanish and English in England and Spain. Students took part in a discussion forum and worked with a tandem partner exchanging information, ideas and corrections of each other's language. The project revealed a range of experiences and a case study of one particularly successful participant is presented. The contribution of email tandem learning to CALL within the communicative curriculum is also discussed. It is proposed that such learning plays a different role from classroom language learning, providing a bridge between the classroom and the natural language setting.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 22 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Naiman, N., Frolich, M., Stern, H. H. and Todesco, A.The Good language Learner, Research in Education series 7, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.Google Scholar
2.Pica, T. ‘Classroom Interaction, Negotiation and Comprehension: Redefining Relationships’, System, 19(4) 1991, pp. 437–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Dickinson, L.Learner Training for Language Learning, Autentik, Dublin, 1992.Google Scholar
4.Ellis, R.Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.Google Scholar
5.Dickinson, , op. cit.Google Scholar
6.Naiman, et al., op. cit.Google Scholar
7.Skehan, P.Individual Differences in Second- Language Learning, Edward Arnold, London, 1989.Google Scholar
8.Batson, T. ‘The origins of ENFI’, in Bruce, B., Batson, T. and Peyton, J. K. (eds.), Network- Based Classrooms – Promises and Realities, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
9.Murray, D.Conversation for action: the computer terminal as a medium of communication, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Tannen, D. ‘Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse’, in Olson, D., Torrance, N. and Hildyard, A. (eds.), Literacy, Language, and Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.Google Scholar
11.Murray, , op.cit., p. 152.Google Scholar
12.Moran, C. ‘We write, but do we read?’ Computers & Composition, 8(3) 1993, pp. 51–61.Google Scholar
13.Canale, M. and Swain, M. ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second lan-guage teaching and testing’, Applied Linguistics 1(1) 1980, pp. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Tarone, E. and Yule, G.Focus on the Language Learner, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.Google Scholar
15.Canale, and Swain, , op. cit. p. 27.Google Scholar
16.Phillips, M. ‘Potential paradigms and possible problems for CALL’, System, 15(3) 1987, pp. 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Tillyer, A. ‘Cyberspace as a Second Language: A Simple Classroom Internet Guide’, Paper presented at EUROCALL 95 Conference, Valencia, Spain, 1995.Google Scholar
18.Vilmi, R. ‘Helsinki University of Technology E-Mail Writing Project’, in Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Focus on Integrationx’, Proceedings of EUROCALL 95, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 1995.Google Scholar
19.Yule, F. and Tarone, E. ‘Eliciting the Performance of Strategic Competence’, in Scarcella, R., Anderson, E. and Krashen, S. (eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, Newbury House, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
20.Lightbown, P. and Spada, N.How Languages are Learned, Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
21.Lewis, T., Woodin, J. and St., John E. ‘Tandem Learning: Independence through Partnership’, in Broady, E. and Kenning, M.-M. (eds.), Promoting Learner Autonomy in University Language Teaching, CILT, London, 1996.Google Scholar
22.Brammerts, H.L'approche communicative et l'ordinateur. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée, 100, 1995, pp. 67–77.Google Scholar