Reflection on Week 11 Reading - Learner Autonomy and Tandem learning

Schwienhorst (2003) mentioned the 3 approaches to learner autonomy. He first clarifies some common misunderstanding towards learner autonomy, and defines it as the capacity, which refers to students’ ability to evaluate and determine themselves. He then explains how helpful the 3 perspectives of learner autonomy are.

The first approach is individual cognitive perspective. Schwienhorst (2003) states that learners can make improvements on their language construct system by constantly evaluating how well their existing construct system is.

The second one is social-interactive perspective. According to Schwienhorst (2003), social interaction is considered as a tool to stimulate consciousness awareness towards language. Intrapersonal thinking would be induced through social interaction with another speaker who can or write fluently in the target language.

The final type is experimental-participatory perspective. This approach emphasizes that learners should take control and responsibility of their own language learning process. Learners are encouraged to use tools, such as keeping a record of learning for future judgment and as an experimental tool so that learners are able to monitor their own learning progress.

In order to implement the learner autonomy principles, theorists come up with the idea of tandem learning, which is defined as the language learning based on mutual language exchange between tandem partners, who are able to speak and write the target language natively that the other would like to learn. Learners could thus take turns to be an L2 learner and an L1 expert in their language exchange program through various methods such as emails, face-to-face interaction or chat systems etc. As there is no actual curriculum or syllabus, learners are totally taking control and responsibility for their learning process.

However, when learners place more emphasis own their own learning rather than the other party, problems would occur as they might not be willing to provide an equal amount of language support. Distant relationship is another problem as partners could easily separate links due to their differences of learning environment and contexts.

Schwienhorst then points out the ways to improve one of the asynchronous communications in tandem learning, email. ETR (Electric Tandem Resources) was then established by Appel and Mullen (2000). The system clearly structured the emails that learners have written, also showing the data of language exchange for both parties. These tools make ETR a more effective tool than other email programs. An example implementation of using MOO, a mean of synchronous communication for tandem learning, is also demonstrated by the writer. Technical diffculties, off-task behavior and incomplete tasks are the problems mentioned by the writer.

In concluding the ideas, Schwienhorst points out 3 areas that in which a combination of technology and pedagogy would affect reflective process, which are pressures to support reflection, affordance and potential.

After reading this article, I found that tandem learning could be a good way to raise learner’s autonomy towards language learning with the help of technology. However, it would be better if it is embedded in some coursework or the curriculum but not as a stand-alone work as I think learners need similar learning goals and assessments so as to guide their learning. Without goals, students might not be motivated in doing so. Also, I agree that teachers must provide enough support and tools for learners to monitor and evaluate their learning progress. Otherwise, learners would not do it seriously.