Comments on Healey

Deborah Healey’s article Theory and Research: Autonomy and Language Learning discusses various perspectives of learner autonomy, that is, the ability of a learner to feel in control of his/her learning. Her discussion begins by informing the reader of the four categories as identified by Oxford (2003): technical, psychological, sociocultural, and political-critical. However, the majority of the article is dedicated to relating these perspectives to CALL. Regarding the technical perspective, the issues of setting and content are given high value. The setting may vary from closely managed teacher control of content, sequence, and assessment to almost completely independent, self-directed learning on the part of the student. The content of most CALL techniques also varies and usually possessing the advantage of user-commanded adjustments to cater to their individual learning styles.

Psychologically, motivation plays a large role in students’ aptitudes to learn autonomously. More closely related to technology lies an individual’s perception of how their familiarity matches up with the tools. If they believe they possess inadequate skills, they may not be as open to learning in a technological-aided environment.

Socioculturally, something called a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998a) can be conducive to a learner by “providing social, psychological, linguistic, and academic support for learning” (Wenger, 1998a). As the name implies, such an environment involves groups of learners and, through CALL, they are more closely connected through increased technology such as local area networks, MOOs (multi-user object oriented domains), increased internet availability, and Web-based projects such as Webquests.

Political-critical concerns address the issues related to utilizing CALL in a broader context, one which recognizes the importance of regarding information obtained from technological sources (such as the internet) with an eye for scrutiny. Learners should be informed of the ways to not only access information, but how to assess it. Autonomous learners should therefore be capable of neutrally questioning the information acquired from these tools of technology and not simply accepting it because of its availability.

Healey’s chapter explores various perspectives of learner autonomy in relation to CALL. Among the four mentioned, I found the latter (political-critical) quite interesting and relevant to some current educational issues. As information becomes increasingly easily accessible to learners of all ages, the challenge of determining which information is truthful, suitable, and reliable becomes more and more difficult. Furthermore, learners must contend with the simple fact of overwhelming amounts of information. During a recent discussion with a university professor, I noted him saying, “Information taught to incoming freshmen is outdated by the time they are juniors. What we are doing in higher education these days is not so much teaching information as teaching how to gather and organize it.” Wise words in an age where any basic search query easily yields millions of hits. We must be mindful to teach in ways that develop their knowledge effectively and efficiently, as well as guide learners to acquire it autonomously through neutral perspectives.

Comments on Anderson

In his article Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction, Anderson first defines interaction (and the word form interactivity) using Wagner’s (1994) words: “reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence one another.” He then proceeds to state that interaction, a prerequisite of learning, can be divided into various categories, including teacher to student, student to student, and student to content. Anderson proposes a theory that “deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction is at a high level” (p. 7). Depending on the type of learning community an individual finds himself in, different levels of each of these types of interaction exist. A teacher-guided lecture, for example, almost always creates a high level of teacher to student interaction; while a CD-ROM-based training module utilizes higher levels of student to content interaction. Considering this “equivalency theorem,” as he calls it, and how to effectively manipulate it, educators are in a better position to create and assess the increasingly broad range of educational mediums (web-based being one) available to the private and public sector.

Anderson also briefly discusses implications that each kind of interaction object (teacher, student, and content) has on teaching and learning theory. He closes by considering how to apply his equivalency theorem to teaching techniques employed in campus-based and web-based instructional models.

I appreciate Anderson’s recognition of the fact that learners do not all prefer one particular medium of instruction. In the backdrop of our more and more technologically advanced computer age, this reality opens up a variety of resources and methods to meet the educational needs of an increasingly finicky public. This choosiness will only increase as the web expands and this technology becomes available to a greater percentage of people.


Anderson, T. (2003) Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 4, No 2.