Learner autonomy and learning in tandem

While we are all familiar with singing, playing and partying in tandem, we've never imagined ourselves learning in tandem. Well, Schwienhorst investigates this concept in his 2003 article as he explores three different approaches to learner autonomy and how they translate into tandem learning, which is one implementation of learner autonomy in CALL. He will also look into the relationship and pedagogy and present ideas considered useful for learner autonomy in computer-mediated settings.

First off, Schwienhorst defines learner autonomy as a person's capacity to self-evaluate and self-determine critically and take control over his or her learning. In other words, it is not letting students roam free. Using the target language for interaction in the classroom is a good indication of said autonomy. He then goes on to talk about three main perspectives of learner autonomy:

1) The individual-cognitive perspective: learners constantly try to improve their existing construct system by altering existing ones and measuring them against old ones.

2) The social-interactive perspective: interpersonal interaction and collaborateion serves to stimulate intrapersonal thinking. Conscious awareness of oneself is derived from awareness of others. Based on Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development.

3) Experimental-participatory perspective: learners are encouraged to take control over their learning through experimental work with tools to raise awareness.

All three perspectives operate with the development of language development and linguistic awareness with writing and written feedback playing a central role in heightening that awareness.

Tandem learning is an implementation of these perspectives. It is when two learners of complementary L1-L2 combinations are brought together to work as a pair. For example, combining a Scottish learner of Italian and an Italian learner of English. They will then learn from each other either face-to-face, by e-mail or through multi-user domains (MOOs). Each learner is responsible for his or her own learning as well as the partner's and each learner must support his or her partner to the best of abilities. The two languages should also be used in equal amounts so as to ensure learning. Sounds good, eh?

However, problems in tandem learning do exist such as when personal learning goals are valued over collective ones, the inconvenience of long-distance learning relationships when learning is done on the Web and the writing nature of the task causing the partners to see each other as mere pen-pals.

Schwienhorst then proceeds to talk about asynchronous communication tasks in the form of tandem e-mail and of the Electronic Tandem Resources (ETR) website at Trinity College Dublin, where learners can use the same tools, resources and interface together. In addition to the problems mentioned above, regular e-mail programs are difficult to monitor and are too diverse in design and function. The ETR website, on the other hand, provides a uniform platform and database that students can use to peer evaluate with clearly labeled tools.

For sychronous communication, the writer uses a tandem MOO through which learners use the same web-based interface for exchanges. Problems such as technical diffculties, off-task behavor and incomplete tasks are noted.

In conclusion, Schwienhorst points out three main areas in which a combination of technology and pedagogy will affect the reflective process of tandem learning and learner autonomy:

1) Pressures to support reflection. In MOO, it is the review one's own and the partner's input on screen. For social-interaction, tandem learners communicate in the MOO and for experimentation and participation, learners explore the MOO environment.

2) Affordances for reflection: multi-threaded conversations happening simultaneously and the adherence to bilingualism.

3) Potentials for reflection: shorter utterances or emoticons to allow for feedback.

All in all, learner autonomy and tandem projects need to be done around sound pedagogical principles and language learning perspectives. Technological learning tools must help realize these perspectives. A clear focus of task-based work must be provided for students as well as allowing them to be involved in the design of learning environments. Teachers, on the other hand, must not give students free rein but should provide input for critical reflection. A motivating and authentic learning environment with clearly defined tasks and helpful instructions are vital to language learning, not to mention the reflective, social-interactive and experimental-participatory perspectives that all activities must take root in.