Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 14 (2023) Issue 1
Meeting Each Other or Meeting Learning Goals –
Student and Teacher Values in an Intercultural Tandem Exchange
Christine Ericsdotter Nordgren & Jorunn Nilsson (Stockholm, Sweden)
Abstract
In this paper, the findings from a qualitative analysis of student and teacher interviews following an online Japanese-Swedish tandem exchange in 2020 will be discussed. The main aim was to explore what students and teachers had valued in the exchange, and to connect these values to the theoretical principles of reciprocity and autonomy in the tandem learning model (Little & Brammerts 1996). The results show that students valued reciprocal aspects, focusing on personal peer-to-peer experiences and the opportunity for natural language use, while teachers valued linguistic development, and seemed to implicitly assume a high degree of autonomy to be in place from the start, rather than it being developed or expanded underway. The findings are viewed in the light of the students’ rather different cultural-educational frames and add to building a more global perspective on tandem exchange, which has hitherto been dominated by data from European and American contexts (Lewis & O’Dowd 2016).
Keywords: Tandem exchange, content analysis, reciprocity, autonomy, language learning, cultural-educational context, Japanese, Swedish
1 Introduction
A tandem language exchange is a learning method where two people meet regularly to help one another learn each other’s languages. As a learning practice, it is likely a very old idea, and as an academically integrated method. It has been developed and refined from the 1980s and forward (Brammerts 2001). The tandem method is built on two theoretical principles: reciprocity and autonomy (Funk et al. 2017, Little & Brammerts 1996). The principle of reciprocity is described as “the reciprocal dependence and mutual support of the partners”, where the partners should “be prepared and able to do as much for their partner as they themselves expect from their partner” (Brammerts 1996: 11). This implies that the tandem partners should contribute equally, not only in terms of speaking time and preparing for tandem meetings, but also with commitment to each other’s learning success. The fact that both partners are language learners creates a peer relationship where mutual understanding and trust are taken to be intrinsic characteristics. The principle of learner autonomy is described as “a capacity for self-direction [...] exercised in the planning, monitoring and evaluation of learning activities” (Little et al. 1996: 23). This implies that each tandem partner is responsible for his or her own learning, with regards to content, process and outcome. Autonomy is considered a key to integrating formal language competencies, such as grammar or sociocultural facts, with actual language use in spontaneous communication (ibid: 29). The principles of reciprocity and autonomy are strongly interrelated; however, it has recently been demonstrated that there is a disproportionately large bulk of research literature dedicated to learner autonomy compared to that of reciprocity (Cappellini et al. 2019, Koch 2017).
The present study investigates an online Tandem exchange between Japanese students learning Swedish in Japan, and Swedish students learning Japanese in Sweden. Tandem research has predominantly been based on exchanges with Europe or the Americas as points of departure, which means that to further explore tandem mechanisms and potentials, evidence from other parts of the world is needed (Lewis & O’Dowd 2016). An increasing number of studies of synchronous or asynchronous online tandem meeting modes, such as e-mail, video conferencing and chats, has contributed to a more global representation. However, we observe a larger focus on how the principles of reciprocity and autonomy can be manifested depending on differences in meeting modes (Debras 2019) than on differences in cultural and educational meeting frames. A tandem exchange can take place in various educational settings, e.g., be formally integrated into language classes, supervised by a language teacher, or offered as a fully extra-curricular learning activity. Building on the autonomy principle, the exchange should provide a space where the learners can decide what to work on and how, but to benefit fully from such a space, learners will need training in how to identify what to work on, how to structure and monitor their learning, and how to give and receive useful feedback (Little et al. 1996). Teachers can facilitate by preparatory discussions on language learning strategies and tools by providing tasks to solve, by requesting reflective learning logs, or by compulsory or voluntary counselling (Webster 2019), but this needs to be carefully designed in partnership with students not to create inhibitory or intruding effects on the learning space (Sánchez-González & Koch 2019: (Please add page numbers here if possible)). What is perceived as a free learning space or as helpful teacher guidance is individual, but it will, in more or less transparent ways, also be influenced by collective previous experiences of educational culture and traditions. More knowledge of the cultural and educational meeting frames could contribute to a better understanding of how to set up motivating and meaningful language exchange projects for different kinds of student groups.
The present study takes these factors into account, as the cultural-educational contexts in Japan and Sweden differ considerably in various ways. One aspect of this is the conditions for acceptance to university studies. In Japan, a crucial first step is the Common Test for University Admissions (1), often followed by university-specific exams. As successful employment in Japan has traditionally been connected with having graduated from a prestigious university, often more so than with studying a particular subject, this exam is the goal of many Japanese students' 12-year education. This greatly influences how the educational system is designed and how children are encouraged to study, and the university admissions test has long been criticised for putting a focus on memorising facts, creating generations of youngsters who have “limited education in critical social thinking” (Doyon, 2001:460; 463-65). In Sweden, on the other hand, for most university beginner courses and programmes, applicants are singled out based on their high school grades, or on their score from the national Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test (Högskoleprovet) which they may choose to take at any adult age, if their high school grades are not good enough for getting admitted to their education of choice. The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), the central administrative authority for education from preschool to adulthood, strongly advocates the development of argumentative skills, identity building, and connecting theory and practice rather than memorising facts. This is exemplified by explicit curriculum wordings, e.g. for 6-19-year olds:
Skolan ska vara öppen för skilda uppfattningar och uppmuntra att de förs fram. Den ska framhålla betydelsen av personliga ställningstaganden och ge möjligheter till sådana. (2) (Skolverket 2011, 2022)
and for 16-19 year-olds:
Elevernas kunskapsutveckling är beroende av om de får möjlighet att se samband. Skolan ska ge eleverna möjligheter att få överblick och sammanhang. Eleverna ska få möjlighet att reflektera över sina erfarenheter och tillämpa sina kunskaper. (3) (Skolverket 2022)
Another difference between the educational settings is the degree of heterogeneity in age and L1 in the university student populations. In Japan, the vast majority of university students are 18-24 years old, and most other adult education has been left to community centres and similar institutions (Doyon 2001:467). In Sweden, on the other hand, more than half of the students enrolled in university studies are 25 years or older, with representatives from all age groups above 25 (Statistikmyndigheten 2008). Also, thanks to migration, a large proportion of the Swedish population have another L1 than Swedish, or more than one L1. For example, out of a population of 10 million, there are more than 100,000 L1 speakers of Arabic and Turkish, respectively (Eberhard et al. 2023), and in 2022, around 20% of the Swedish population were born outside of Sweden (Statistikmyndigheten 2022). Although Japan has some larger minority groups of non-Japanese ethnic background (Chinese, Filipino, Brazilian, etc), the Japanese population is still largely homogeneous compared to the Swedish, with more than 98% being of fully Japanese background (UI 2023). This homogeneity applies to the linguistic landscape as well, with 122 million L1 speakers of Japanese out of a population of 125 million (Eberhard et al. 2023). These cultural setting differences are likely to influence the amount of exposure and experience of intercultural communication that the two student groups encounter in every-day life.
Other differences are that Swedish students normally spend 3 years as undergraduates to get a degree, although it is not uncommon to change courses or programs half-way through, thereby extending the time spent as an undergraduate. In Japan, undergraduate studies last four years, with few exceptions. Also, language students at Swedish universities often focus on one course at a time. For Swedish students majoring in Japanese, 75 to 100 % of their courses each semester are Japanese language and culture courses. Japanese university students, on the other hand, often take courses in many different subjects each semester, making the time and concentration spent on language learning very different to that of the Swedish students.
Against this background of tandem principles, the scarce literature on Asia-based tandem exchanges and the differences in educational contexts, the aim of the present study is to explore what students and teachers value in their experiences of a Japanese-Swedish tandem exchange, and to analyse if and how these values relate to reciprocity and autonomy in the way these concepts are usually described. By ‘value’ we mean something held as important and useful, a concept or phenomenon with positive connotations. The study is based on qualitative interviews, conducted within a larger project analysing pedagogical and organisational flow, student learning logs, and written evaluations over several terms of online tandem exchanges.
2 Method
2.1 Tandem Set-up and Participants
The tandem exchange took place via an online video conferencing platform in the autumn of 2020, between students of Swedish at a university in Japan, and students of Japanese at a university in Sweden. In total, 44 students participated in the exchange, 22 from each university. All participating students were enrolled in intermediate to upper intermediate language classes at the time of the exchange. The tandem duos were matched by at least two common interests, collected via an online form sent out to the students. Two teachers from each university were connected to the project, and the Language Centre of the Swedish University was responsible for the administration, e.g. the joint introduction session, the language partner matching, and the project evaluation.
The academic framing was asymmetrical in the sense that the Swedish university students participated in the exchange as a mandatory part of a Japanese oral proficiency course, while the Japanese university students participated on a voluntary basis, on top of their Swedish classes and other university courses. For the students in Sweden, it was mandatory to solve three tasks together with the language partner and to report back to the teacher in class. Swedish students were also required to write learning logs and to fill out an evaluation questionnaire. The students in Japan were not required to report back to the teacher, but were encouraged to update the teacher on the progress and to ask questions if needed.
2.2 Interviews
At the end of the exchange, all students were invited to participate in an individual or group interview for project evaluation. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and rewarded with a bookshop voucher with a corresponding value of 10 euro. In total, nine students signed up for the interviews, five from the Japanese university having Japanese as their first language, and four from the Swedish university, having Swedish as their first, or one of their first languages. None of the interviewees had had another interviewee as his or her language partner, hence, their experiences were not referring to each other on an individual level.
The interviews were held via the same video conferencing platform used for the exchange. Only one was held with two Japanese students interviewed together, the others individually. Two different project members, both with L1 or advanced competence in Swedish and Japanese, conducted the interviews in the L1 of the interviewees. The interview procedure was semi-structured, with themes inspired by a written evaluation within the larger project, and ranging from partner matching to learning expectations and outcome (Appendix 2). Time for general reflections on the exchange was also given in the interviews.
All the four teachers involved in the project were interviewed separately using the same platform and language choice. The teachers were all L1 speakers of Japanese. As for the themes, the interviews touched upon the same areas as those of the students but from a teacher’s perspective (Appendix 2). The student and teacher interviews took between 20 and 25 minutes, except for the interview with the Swedish university teacher most deeply involved in the project, whose interview lasted 40 minutes.
2.3 Interview Processing and Analysis
The interviews were transcribed in their original language by the use of an automatic transcription tool and careful post-editing. Excluding the interviewer’s questions and comments, the number of characters in the Japanese student interviews were 19,401, and the number of words in the Swedish student interviews were 11,727. The corresponding number of characters for the four teacher interviews were 23,575, out of which the Swedish university teacher involved most deeply in the project produced 9,003.
Qualitative content analysis, guided by the methodology of Graneheim & Lundman (2004), was chosen for processing the data. The student data were first analysed and categorised as one group of data, then, as a second step, they were separated according to Japanese or Swedish academic contexts, while the teacher data were continuously treated as one group. The analysis was made systematically and iteratively by a reference group consisting of both Japanese and Swedish L1 speakers, and following the following step-by-step procedure:
Step 1: Getting acquainted with the data by listening and reading through it several times.
Step 2: Highlighting units of meaning in the text.
Step 3: Extracting and translating the meaning units into English.
Step 4: Creating condensed meaning units in English.
Step 5: Sorting the condensed meaning units into categories.
Step 6: Sorting the categories into themes.
Step 7: Identifying values from manifest and latent content.
Step 8: Connecting identified values to the concepts of autonomy and reciprocity.
Table 1 gives an example of the procedure from Steps 3 to 8. Translating meaning units (Step 3) was necessary for all project members to be able to work with the data. The first six steps of the procedure were conducted using a bottom-up approach, while for the last two steps, a top-down approach was used. The values in Step 7 were identified through interpretation of manifest and latent content, and formulated by rephrasing experiences into positively connotated values according to the definition given in the introduction. As an example, the expressed worry to not have anything to talk about with the language partner was rephrased to the value of having something to talk about. In the last step of the analysis (Step 8), the identified values were connected to the concepts of reciprocity and autonomy. The connections were guided by the definitions presented in the introduction above, and by examples from recent literature, in particular Cappellini et al. (2019) and Cavalari & Aranha (2022):
3 Results and Analysis
Summarised below, identified values from the results (Step 6 above) are presented in each thematic section, while the suggested connections between values and the tandem principles of autonomy and reciprocity are presented and discussed in a separate section.
The interview results are presented in categories of manifest data in Table 2:
Table 2: Themes in the Manifest Interview Data from Students (left) and Teachers (right).
3.1 Students’ Themes and Values
In the following values listings, the initials J and S will be used to identify values that are relevant only to Japanese students and Swedish students, respectively. Values not marked J or S are relevant for the student group as a whole, i.e. including the students from both nations
3.1.1 Hopes and Worries
The hopes and worries concerning language practice and cultural exchange within the project were similar across student respondents. Students were looking forward to practising listening to and speaking ‘real’ Japanese or Swedish, and to use the respective languages in authentic conversations. The Japanese students expressed a wish to make friends and to have a friend rather than a teacher to study with, while the Swedish students expressed looking forward to meeting new people.
The student respondents also had similar expectations about language partner matching. Those who had some worries talked about the possible embarrassment of not having anything to talk about with their partner, or, alternatively, of not having sufficient language skills for peer-to-peer conversation. Those who expressed no worries of this kind tended to have previous experience of tandem exchange. Several students took comfort in the structural framework of the matching, particularly in the fact that the matching would be based on interests and carried out by someone else, not by the students themselves.
Identified values were:
using the L2 in authentic situations
making friends (J) / meeting new people (S)
having something to talk about
having sufficient L2 language skills for peer-to-peer conversation
3.1.2 The Language Partner Match
Overall, students were content with their language partner match, and worries about inadequate language skills or not having anything to talk about quickly disappeared once the language partners had met. Those who explicitly said they felt “lucky” with their match referred to having many interests in common, much to talk about, and having had fun. Some students reported that the match had developed into friendship and that they still met their partner, while most ended the relationship at the end of the project or the end of the term.
The only student who described an unsuccessful match was searching for answers to why it hadn’t worked out, rather than listing what was bad about the match. The student suggested explanations such as differences in levels of commitment or in personal goals with the exchange, e.g. language learning, friendship, or even romance. This student found the matching form irrelevant for predicting compatibility.
Several of the students from the Japanese academic context commented on linguistic gender issues in the matching. They worried about modelling linguistic codes to a language partner of the opposite sex, which could create conflicting identity markers in the partner’s speech. The students pointed out that this was only an issue for matching to Japanese as a target language because of its intrinsic, heavily gender-coded linguistic characteristics. Some students suggested only pairing same-sex language partners in the matching procedure.
A concluding student reflection on the matching was that the whole tandem experience seemed to differ a lot depending on the compatibility of the language partners. From this, some students drew the conclusion that shorter tandems would be better than those carried out over a full term since there would not be any risk having to spend a lot of time with someone incompatible.
Identified values were:
sharing interests
having fun
having the same level of commitment
having the same kind of personal goals
being compatible with the language partner, and
being an appropriate language model (J)
3.1.3 Talk Time and Tasks
The talk time was reported by all students to have been shared equally, in accordance with the project instructions. If, for some reason, the talk time for one language at a certain meeting had been shorter, the students compensated for that at the next meeting.
The mandatory tasks given to the Swedish students influenced the content of the talk time allocated for Japanese, and, as it seems, the conversation dynamics, too. As for positive aspects, the tasks worked as icebreakers from which the respective language partners could move on to free conversation in a more relaxed way. As for negative aspects, some students felt that their personal relationship was not developing because tasks were prioritised over more personal topics in the limited talk time of the meetings. To address this, one student suggested that the partners could discuss what interests they had indicated in the matching forms as a mandatory get-to-know-each-other activity. Some Japanese students stated that they would have wanted to be better prepared for the topics in the tasks, feeling uncomfortable either for not having strong opinions like their Swedish partner or for finding the task too simple and hence believing that their own performance might not have been good enough.
For most students, topics in the free conversation came up naturally and ranged from discussing books and exchanging websites to making cultural observations and comparisons. A cause of worry for one Japanese student was what to talk about with a partner of the opposite sex, and a worry for one of the Swedish students was how to fill the Swedish talk time given there were no tasks to solve in Swedish.
Identified values were:
keeping the equal-talk-time principle
getting help to start the conversation
having time to get to know the partner
having the chance to prepare for tasks (J), and
knowing what was an appropriate / relevant conversation topic
3.1.4 Partnership and Friendship
Students’ relationships were described in terms of either a learning partnership or a more personal partnership or friendship. Statements reflecting a partnership included comments on conversation topics being connected to assignments rather than personal interests, on that the respective partner took responsibility for correcting language issues, or that the exchange worked better when the partners “got used to each other”. Statements reflecting a more personal relationship included using digital devices to share the surroundings or finding communicating and solving tasks together to be fun. Negative aspects of viewing the relationship as personal rather than professional were that some students felt that they had fun at the meetings, but that their language partner seemed unmotivated and / or tired. This triggered speculation and worries as to why that was the case, relating to questions of self-image and the imbalanced benefits of the exchange.
With regard to leadership in the exchange, the Swedish students’ perception was that the conversation was led by the language learner in their target language time, while most Japanese students perceived that the Swedish partner led the conversation regardless of the language involved. (It is important to keep in mind, though, that the interviewees were talking about their respective language partners and not about each other, as none of the interviewees had another interviewee as his or her language partner.) The partner’s readiness to take leadership was perceived as positive by Japanese students, especially when they felt linguistically weaker than their partner. It was specified that the leader’s role was to ask questions and facilitate the conversation.
Identified values were:
having the same level of commitment
getting the same benefits from the exchange
sharing leadership (S), and
having a partner who was ready to take leadership (J)
3.1.5 Mandatory vs. Voluntary Participation Asymmetry
The Japanese students found the non-mandatory tandem condition mainly positive, explaining that they appreciated the opportunity to practise Swedish without having to think about grades and exams. The Swedish students, on the other hand, found the mandatory condition mainly positive, explaining that it compelled them to find the courage to talk, to continue turning up for the meetings, and to invest time in processing and repeating language material from the meetings. Students also stated that when tandem takes place within a course, it is a good choice to make meetings and tasks mandatory in order to secure aspects of peer justice within the class.
One student stated that he or she liked a previous extracurricular tandem exchange better, because it was “a free space”. Another student said participation should be voluntary on the Japanese side so that one might find more committed students. Since the exchange was in fact voluntary for the Japanese students, this statement reflects a lack of trust in the claim that this particular student’s language partner had truly volunteered for a language exchange, with this student assuming, instead, that his or her partner had participated as a result of social pressure from the teacher.
Identified values were:
practising the L2 without being assessed
being forced to talk using the L2
being forced to practise the L2 regularly, and
having the same level of commitment
3.1.6 Language Learning and Language Use
Across student respondents, better oral fluency and widened vocabulary were listed as learning outcomes of the exchange, and the actual language use was acknowledged as a meaningful and fun learning method. Japanese students described their academic culture as highly input-focused and hence appreciated the focus on output in the exchange. Swedish students described getting a confidence boost from practising their oral language skills, for example by trying to describe concepts using words and gestures rather than relying on dictionaries. At an interactional level, students mentioned that they were inspired by their language partner’s efforts, and wanted to improve in the target language to be able to show their progress to their partner. One student claimed that there had been too few meetings for any language learning to take place, but at the same time, this student mentioned having picked up and started to use expressions from the tandem meetings.
3.1.7 Peer-to-peer Intercultural Learning
Both the Japanese and Swedish students reported that, through the personal view and peer position of the language partner, they had learnt more about the respective culture, society and lifestyle of the target language. The Japanese students especially appreciated the opportunity to ask a peer rather than a teacher for advice about their language learning.
Identified values were:
having meaningful language practice
having output-focused practice (J)
practising describing concepts rather than relying on dictionaries (S)
having a language partner who inspired effort
getting a peer perspective of one’s respective cultures
having a peer to ask for advice (J)
3.2 Teachers’ Themes and Values
In the list of values that follows, it is important to note that all the teachers were Japanese. Two of them were working in Sweden teaching Japanese, and two were working in Japan teaching Swedish.
3.2.1 Expectations and Execution
At the beginning of the project, the teachers felt happy and excited for their students, although some also felt anxious about students’ capabilities. This anxiety was reported to have disappeared as the project progressed and students reported no problems in log notes or in class. However, some teachers worried that there might still have been problems that the students chose not to report. Regarding student matching, the teachers’ impression was that some students were dissatisfied but that most of them seemed content with the matching system.
The teachers found setting up the tandem project time-consuming and difficult for various reasons. Their comments concerned both unexpected factors, such as students with special needs or other first languages than those included in the project, and those that were to be expected, like differences in annual schedules and holidays between Japan and Sweden. Across the teacher respondents, academic hierarchy was mentioned as a “dilemma” in making decisions about the tandem project. Rather than discussing possible solutions, the teachers focused on problems that emerged during the exchange and their feelings regarding these problems. As for the involvement of the Language Centre in the administration of the project, the teachers were unanimously positive. The Language Centre provided a relief from otherwise time-consuming tasks and was seen as well-suited to handle the matching of students and the pre-tandem orientation because of its know-how and objective position as a third party.
The teachers mentioned that incorporating tandem into the syllabus and connecting it to classroom activities took a lot of planning and hard work. The Japanese university teachers commented on the importance of involving the conversation class teacher(s) in possible mandatory tandem projects in the future since the conversation class was the one in which tandem activities could most easily be included. During the exchange, the teachers gave feedback to students to varying extents, both about language-related questions and administrative concerns, such as time zone differences. Some teachers regretted having had limited time for feedback due to organisational changes.
Identified values were:
providing opportunities for language use
providing opportunities for improving linguistic skills
getting feedback from the students
getting organisational support
getting support in incorporating tandem in classroom activities
having time to give feedback to students
3.2.2 Linguistic Skills and Language Use
Among the teachers, improving students’ linguistic skills – such as speaking, listening, and grammar – appeared to be the most important goal of the tandem activities. The question of whether the tandem project in question fulfilled their expectations on linguistic improvement, however, remained unclear to them. Some comments were cautiously positive, but the teachers expressed a feeling of uncertainty about how to assess improvement. However, tandem was regarded as a fun activity with the potential to boost students’ self-confidence and motivation – factors that the teachers associated with successful language acquisition.
The teachers were unanimously positive when considering the tandem as an arena for language use. The reoccurring word is “opportunity”: the opportunity to meet and interact with a tandem partner in a real-life setting, as opposed to the classroom, is seen as valuable in itself. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 breakout that occurred in the same year, the teachers also regarded the tandem as a replacement for other, currently non-viable, opportunities such as exchange studies.
Identified values were:
providing opportunities for students’ improving linguistic skills
providing motivation L2 learning activities
providing opportunities for language use
3.2.3 Intercultural Experience
Although the tandems were generally considered a positive intercultural experience, the teachers felt uncertain if students’ participation had resulted in improved intercultural understanding. The teachers’ comments focused on the differences they saw between the Swedish and the Japanese cultures and how they felt that these related to the tandem. The Swedish students were seen as keen on expressing their own opinions, and the tandem was therefore considered an opportunity for them to get a feeling for “what attitude works in Japan”. The Japanese students, on the other hand, were seen as having trouble expressing an opinion about politics, for example. The tandem was therefore regarded as an opportunity for them to practise voicing their opinions. When looking back at the tandem project, some teachers connected this view of the Swedish and Japanese culture with problems that arose during the tandems, when Japanese students had trouble saying ‘no’ to late-night meetings or had no opinion on the news articles that the Swedish students had been asked to discuss with their respective partner.
Identified values were:
providing students with opportunities to practise L2-specific conversation norms
3.2.4 Organisational Challenges
Making the tandems mandatory or voluntary was discussed primarily in relation to student matching and classes. For this project, participation in tandems was mandatory on the Swedish side, but not on the Japanese side. The teachers reported that this difference resulted in stress for the teachers in Japan, who felt an obligation to match the number of students from Sweden. As for making the tandems completely voluntary or completely mandatory, opinions were divided: mandatory would mean that it was easier for the teacher to enforce participation, but that matching even pairs might be difficult. On the other hand, free would mean that those who chose to participate would really be interested in the exchange, but also that someone – probably a teacher – would have to work hard to recruit those students.
The question of whether the tandems should be mandatory or not was also seen as related to what extent the tandems should connect to the respective classes. If a tandem is used in class, it affects which teachers need to be involved in the project and which years one can recruit students from. One teacher commented that it was still “too early” to take the step to make the tandems mandatory, another stressed that mandatory tandems which still provided some freedom would be the best solution. Teachers also pointed out that if tandems were mandatory, it was especially important to think about the time difference and set rules in advance for when tandem meetings were allowed.
When it came to the pedagogical implications, teachers saw both benefits and disadvantages in mandatory tandems. They connected mandatory tandems to equal opportunities, but also realised that they might be taxing for socially weak students. Similarly, having mandatory assignments might help or hinder conversations, depending on the student.
Identified values were:
having a working recruitment routine
having the means to enforce active participation
providing equal learning opportunities
3.3 Connection of Values to Concepts
The above values from students and teachers were then connected to the tandem concepts of autonomy and reciprocity, guided by definitions and examples from the research literature as described above (Brammerts 1996, Koch 2017, Little et al. 1996). For example, the value of being an appropriate language model was expressed by several Japanese students and related to gender-specific linguistic features, which are of great sociolinguistic importance in Japanese For example, a female Japanese student feared that her male Swedish tandem partner might copy her female-coded Japanese, making him sound like a female. In our analysis, the value of being an appropriate language model was connected to reciprocity, as it primarily reflects a commitment to the language partner’s linguistic and cultural success, even if it is also a sign of linguistic awareness and therefore might relate to autonomy.Another example is the value of wanting to be more prepared for the Swedish students’ tasks, which was naturally only expressed by the Japanese students, as the Swedish students were obliged to be prepared. This value was also connected to reciprocity as it referred to a desire to support and be of better use in the language partner’s studies. A third example is the Japanese students’ valuing the focus on output per se, while the Swedish students valued the opportunity to elaborate on the output, e.g. by explaining language items rather than translating them during the conversations. Both of these values are connected to autonomy as they reflect a conscious appreciation for integrating formal language competence with actual language use.
In the student data, presented in Table 3, the connections were made with respect to their own experiences, but in the teacher data, presented in Table 4, they were made with respect to what the teachers planned or hoped to provide for the students by organising the tandem exchange. The teachers’ values regarding project administration, such as ‘having a working recruitment routine’ or ‘having time to give feedback to students’ were excluded from the data set as they did not refer to the tandem concepts of interest here.
For a better overview of the students’ data, the reciprocity values were grouped into linguistic / cultural and relational. Across the student groups, there were more similarities than differences, and several statements were typical of any successful tandem project, such as the appreciation of the opportunities for authentic language use, and peer-to-peer interaction. The differences observed between student groups might not be representative for a larger data sample, but they will be addressed in the discussion since they are important for our understanding of the dynamics of this particular data set and might be interesting as a starting point for future studies within the field:
Table 3: Identified Student Values Connected to the Concepts of Autonomy and Reciprocity
Table 4: Identified Student Values Connected to the Concepts of Autonomy and Reciprocity
4 Discussion
The aim of the present study was to explore what students and teachers valued in a Japanese-Swedish tandem exchange, and how these values could be connected to the tandem learning principles of reciprocity and autonomy.
4.1 Methodological Aspects
First, some methodological aspects should be commented upon. The student and teacher values investigated in this study were not directly expressed by the informants as values per se. They were identified as such by the authors, based on an analysis of the informants’ narrated experiences, which, in turn, were expressed in response to an interview guide defined by the authors. The method of value identification was based on qualitative content analysis, whose aim it is to understand and categorise manifest content in order to reveal its latent content and themes (Graneheim & Lundman 2004). In this kind of analysis, results do not emerge by themselves, but each step of the process involves making choices, for which we, as authors, are responsible (Varpio et al. 2017). This implies that what we count as ‘results’ in fact represents abstract levels of data interpretation. Nevertheless, because of the systematic and thorough analysis procedures used, we believe that the resulting categories represent meaning in the narrated experience.
Another methodological aspect is that the data set was small, which limits the generalizability and also the implications of the results. The method chosen, however, entails the assumption that individual experiences are pertinent for the understanding of more general concepts or activities and that the results can be valid in other contexts if considered with self-reflection and by carefully taking situational and local factors into account. Finally, from a linguistic point of view, the fact that we were working in and with three different languages might have added a risk of misinterpretations and nuance loss of interview data. On the other hand, producing, checking and re-checking translations deepened our knowledge of the data, and forced us to be very explicit in our interpretations and categorisations of our data in the work process. This is likely to have strengthened the reliability of each step in the analysis process as well as of the analysis process as a whole.
4.2 Student Values
Many of the students’ values can be connected to the pillar of reciprocity (Brammerts 1996), both in terms of hopes and worries. The present study is not a quantitative one, but if we look at the number of comments sorted under each of our themes, it is obvious that students spent a large amount of time talking about the themes of partnership and friendship and the language partner match. Although some practical aspects of reciprocity, like dividing the time between languages, were seldom a problem, students reflected a great deal on how to be good tandem partners. For example, they worried about being compatible, being able to make themselves understood and contribute to the conversation in terms of content, being prepared, being an appropriate model and knowing what was appropriate to talk about. They discussed the importance of having the same goals and the same level of commitment. Much less time was spent on discussing what actual progress had been made in terms of language and cultural skills, and, when mentioned, this also tended to relate to the peer-interaction aspect of reciprocity, such as the importance of getting a peer perspective on culture or interacting with a peer in an authentic situation. What seemed to motivate the students was not so much the possibility of learning new vocabulary or grammar, but rather the opportunity to finally use their respective foreign language “for real” and the responsibility that came with being someone’s partner - being compelled to show one’s best side both as a language user and a language learner.
The appreciation of authentic language use is also connected to autonomy in the language-learning process. All students appreciated the possibility of language output, but, as noted in the results section, the Japanese students valued output as such, while the Swedish students valued new output arenas and strategies. These differences might relate to language proficiency levels, but could also originate in formative experiences from different educational systems, where the Japanese system is less output-focused than the Swedish system, and in structural differences in intercultural communication affordances in the different learning contexts discussed in the Introduction.
When it comes to the pillar of autonomy (Little et al. 1996), the students valued the opportunity to practise on their own terms without being constantly assessed by a teacher. At the same time, they appreciated being “forced” to use the language regularly, which suggests that they were not yet ready to take full responsibility for their own learning, but which, at the same time, shows an awareness of what they might need to remain focussed on in their language learning. Students valued having some teacher guidance when it came to frames: having someone else decide on the meeting mode and number of mandatory meetings and providing suggestions on what to talk about. On the other hand, they did not wish to be forced to continue a tandem exchange with an unsuccessful match, i.e., someone with whom they did not match as a friend (not as a language learner). As one student suggested, the best choice when it comes to mandatory or free tandem might be a compromise with a few mandatory meetings followed by voluntary meetings for those who wish to continue. However, both in preparation for tandem and in the communication with the tandem partner during the first meeting, it might also be important to talk about what to expect from the exchange. Our results suggest that some, but not all, students looked at their future tandem partner as a potential friend rather than just a language-learning partner. If one of the two students enters the exchange with this mindset while the other views it purely as a language-learning situation, this might set the stage for disappointment on one or both sides of the exchange.
Since the conditions of the exchange presented in this study were very different on the Swedish and Japanese sides, discussing expectations in advance was probably even more important. The Japanese students appreciated the tandem being non-mandatory and first and foremost looked forward to making some Swedish friends, while the Swedish students had mandatory assignments to complete and, in some cases, expressed frustration at their perceived lack of commitment from their Japanese partner. If the Swedish students had been informed in advance that they would be paired with 3rd and 4th year students – many of whom approached graduation and were therefore increasingly busy with demanding job-hunting procedures and tests, as well as final assignments or papers –, they might have been more sympathetic. Similarly, the Japanese students might have been more committed to the exchange if the tandem was presented as more of a language-learning situation with clear goals and less of an informal chat with a potential Swedish friend.
The fact that the Swedish students had three mandatory tasks to complete while the Japanese students had none might have affected the level of commitment and also infringed upon both autonomy and reciprocity. Most of the students seemed to appreciate having predetermined topics to discuss, but this also meant that for the majority of the mandatory sessions, students did not get to choose what to practise or how. Furthermore, it meant that the Swedish students’ tasks (and therefore, the Japanese students’ language practice) had to take precedence over whatever the Japanese students might have wanted to discuss. Another aspect related to these tasks and to reciprocity is the fact that the Japanese students often felt unprepared, which resulted in feelings of uncertainty and failure to contribute. For reciprocity to work, despite the special conditions of this tandem project, it is important to give both sides an equal chance to prepare and inform themselves about what is to be expected. With reference to Robinson’s Task design model (Robinson 2001), which distinguishes between task complexity, task conditions and task difficulty, the imbalance between the student groups involved both task conditions, such as familiarity of participants and participation solidarity, and of task difficulty, such as affective and ability variables. These same aspects have been found to influence the task performance in previous tandem projects in which there was also a balance in formal requirements (Appel & Gilabert 2002, Ushioda 2000).
One specific concern brought up on the Japanese side was that of the heavily gendered Japanese language and the risk of being an inappropriate language model if paired with a partner of the opposite sex. Gendered speech patterns are in fact a challenge when it comes to teaching and producing textbooks for Japanese as a foreign language (Siegal & Okamoto 2003). A few students suggested that only pairs of the same gender be matched. However, such a solution was not always possible and might not even be advisable, at least not in our tandem project. First of all, according to the teachers, it was already difficult to find a matching number of students on both sides, even without having to match pairs of the same gender. Furthermore, some students might prefer not to identify as either male or female, or they might prefer to present linguistically in another way than the gender they were assigned at birth. Therefore, a better solution is probably to make the Swedish students aware of gender differences in the Japanese language by discussing such aspects in class, in a non-stereotypical manner, as suggested in studies like Siegal & Okamoto (2003). One advantage of making tandem mandatory on the Swedish side is that teachers can make sure to prepare their students in this way. Solving the problem on the Japanese, non-mandatory side of our tandem project might have proven more difficult, but Swedish teachers could possibly encourage their students to discuss the topic with their Japanese partners, thereby reducing some of the Japanese students’ anxiety.
4.3 Teacher Values
The teachers were not as focused on reciprocity and the relation between tandem partners as the students. Rather, they valued tandem as an opportunity to learn and to encourage learning. Overall, “providing opportunities” was something that all teachers came back to in the interviews: opportunities to develop linguistic skills, to learn about language norms, and to use the language. However, although all teachers thought it was important to provide these opportunities, they did not reflect much on how learning should happen, and some teachers appeared to be worried about the fact that they could not measure if there had been any learning going on at all. This point is noteworthy from the point of view of what kind of learning was expected, as it suggests that the successful completion of the tasks provided was not an indicator of learning. Interestingly enough, teachers did not report that, before the tandems started, they had worried much about whether their students would be competent autonomous language learners, or about how to prepare the students for a task that would demand that they take charge of their own learning. There seemed to be an underlying belief that as long as opportunities for language learning were provided, learning would happen. Comparatively, the teachers discussed potential motivations for learning and taking charge of one’s own learning much less than the students did. Although some teachers did discuss the potential relationship between tandem and increased study motivation, they focused on the fact that tandem is a “fun” activity (as opposed to a classroom learning situation), while what the students themselves actually connected to their increased motivation was using the respective foreign language in an authentic peer-to-peer situation and wanting to be a good role model without disappointing their tandem partner – aspects that both connected to reciprocity. On that note, opposing classroom learning activities to ‘fun’ activities without any learning going on, seems to indicate a pessimistic view on what learning is and how it can take place, although there is evidence that positive emotions, such as joy, interest and contentment can help to build enduring personal intellectual and social resources (Fredrickson 2001).
Teachers also spent a large proportion of the interviews reflecting on problems connected to their roles as teachers and organisers. At least two of the teachers worried that since they did not hear any complaints from their students, the latter were probably holding back and choosing not to report their troubles. Teachers also expressed concern that they did not have the time to give as much feedback as they would have wanted to. However, the problems that they expected were often related to organisational aspects, such as the time difference between Sweden and Japan and the students’ ability to get in contact, when in fact, students usually worried about relational aspects like: Will we match? Will we find something to talk about? Will I be able to convey what I wish to express? When it came to dividing the time and using digital communication tools, students generally seemed much more autonomous than their teachers expected them to be.
When discussing mandatory versus free tandems, the teachers tended to look at this problem from the point of how it affected their own work situation. For example, an advantage of mandatory tandems mentioned was that they would make it easier for teachers to enforce participation. The question of how the two types of tandems would influence students and their learning was discussed much less. This is interesting as, judging from the student interviews, the choice of mandatory vs free tandem seems to have the potential to considerably influence both autonomy and reciprocity. With respect to our above discussion on autonomy and motivation, our view is that teachers need to think about how they can encourage autonomous learning in both types of tandems, and about how to develop possible mandatory tasks so that they do not affect autonomy and so that both sides may be prepared for the task equally well. They might also consider that what motivates students is usually the reciprocal relationship with their respective partner, and try to make use of this fact when they design tasks.
Finally, with regard to cultural aspects, teachers on both sides seemed to have some preconceptions about how Swedish and Japanese people behave and how tandems could help students adapt their behaviour to that of the other culture. Although these preconceptions might be largely based on stereotypes and generalisations, they could point to potential problems when pairing students from two different cultures for a project where they are supposed to discuss and contribute their opinions. Cultural differences need to be addressed, preferably without enforcing stereotypes that do not apply to all individuals. Some teachers commented on how the Japanese students had trouble discussing news articles in the mandatory tasks and giving their opinion on the subject in question, and that this might be due to the fact that Japanese people in general have difficulties expressing their opinions. However, through the student interviews, it became clear that some of the Japanese students’ hesitation was due to not feeling sufficiently prepared for the news-article tasks, which might be related to solidarity aspects in the task design (Appel & Gilabert 2002, Robinson 2001). When it comes to culture, therefore, it might be preferable to discuss differences in terms of e.g. conversational style (such as the importance in Japan of preserving consensus within a group discussion), rather than just deciding that “Japanese people find it difficult to have an opinion” (so they cannot discuss politics) or “Swedish people are too direct” (so they need to learn to be more 'Japanese').
5 Conclusions
On a group level, students and teachers in our tandem project seemed to value different aspects and expect different things from the tandem experience. Students both worried about and were motivated by the interactional peer-to-peer aspects of the tandems, which connected to the important tandem pillar of reciprocity. Neither students nor teachers reflected much upon the other pillar (learner autonomy), and with respect to language learning, teachers appeared to expect their students to be competent autonomous learners already, worrying when they could not see any hard evidence of linguistic progress at the end of the tandem project.
Our general conclusion is that the purposes of the tandem exchange would be even better defined if both teachers and tandem partners set in advance transparent expectations for the tandems, in particular by taking cultural-educational aspects into account. In addition, teachers can consider reciprocity as a strong motivator for students, not only for the 'fun' part, but for aspects of solidarity and commitment in the partnership. Teachers might also benefit from reflecting on learner autonomy as a skill that students need guidance to develop, and on how to create conditions that allow a certain degree of autonomy in a tandem project in which participation and tasks – at least on one side – are mandatory. The students' values and worries give some indications of how we might improve future tandem projects, for example, by ameliorating partner matching to increase potential compatibility, and by providing material to support the conversations. It also seems that both students and teachers could benefit from further discussions about what tandems should be like and how to become a more autonomous learner. Moving forward, we therefore plan to develop our preparatory meetings in partnership with students and teachers in order to better meet these points.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation and Research in Higher Education (STINT Dnr IB 2020-8584).
Appendices
Appendix 1: Interview Protocol for Students
Appendix 2: Interview Protocol for Teachers
References
Appel, Christine & Roger Gilabert (2002): Motivation and Task Performance in a Task-Based Web-Based Tandem Project. ReCALL 14 (1): 16-31.
Brammerts, Helmut. (1996): Tandem Language Learning via the Internet and the International E-Mail Tandem Network. In: Little, David & Helmut Brammerts (Eds.) (1996). A Guide to Language Learning in Tandem via the Internet, CLCS Occasional Paper 46. Dublin: Trinity College, 9-25.
Brammerts, Helmut. (2001): Autonomes Sprachenlernen im Tandem: Entwicklung eines Konzepts. In: Brammerts, Helmut & Karin Kleppin (Eds.) (2001). Selbstgesteuertes Sprachenlernen im Tandem. Ein Handbuch. Forum Sprachlehrforschung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 9-16.
Cappellini, Marco, Anna-Katharina Elstermann & Annick Rivens Mompean (2019): Reciprocity 2.0: How Reciprocity is Mediated Through Different Formats of Learners’ Logs. In: Tardieu, Claire & Céline Horgues (Eds.) (2019). Redefining Tandem Language and Culture Learning in Higher Education. Routledge, 15-30.
Cavalari, Suzi M. S. & Solange Aranha (2022): Learners’ Diaries as a Tool for Teachers’ Assessment in Teletandem. In: Czura, Anna & Melinda Dooly (Eds.) (2022): Assessing Virtual Exchange in Foreign Language Courses at Tertiary Level, 65-78 (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED624511.pdf; 16-11-2023).
Debras, Camille (2020): Teletandems are not the Online Version of Face-to-Face Tandems; Here’s Why. In: Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques en Langues – Researching and Teaching Languages; Cahiers de l’APLIUT 39 (1) (https://doi.org/10.4000/apliut.7644; 16-11-2023).
Doyon, Paul (2001): A Review of Higher Education Reform in Modern Japan. In: Higher Education 41 (4): 443-70.
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (Eds.) (2023): Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 26th ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. (Online version http://www.ethnologue.com, June 2023) (12-10-2020).
Fredrickson, Barbara L. (2001): The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions. In: American Psychologist 56 (3): 218-226.
Funk, Hermann, Manja Gerlach & Dorothea Spaniel-Weise (2017) (Eds): Handbook for Foreign Language Learning in Online Tandems and Educational Settings. Foreign Language Teaching in Europe 15. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Graneheim, Ulla H. & Berit M. Lundman (2004): Qualitative Content Analysis in Nursing Research: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24 (2): 105-112.
Koch, Lennart Thorsten (2017): Principles of Tandem Interaction - Reciprocity. In: Hermann Funk, Manja Gerlach & Dorothea Spaniel-Weise (Eds.) (2017): Handbook for Foreign Language Learning in Online Tandems and Educational Settings, Foreign Language Teaching in Europe, 96-106.
Lewis, Tim & Robert O'Dowd (2016): Online Intercultural Exchange and Foreign Language Learning. In: O’Dowd, Robert & Tim Lewis (Eds.) (2016). Online Intercultural Exchange. Policy, Pedagogy, Practice. Routledge, 21-66.
Little, David & Helmut Brammerts (1996): A Guide to Language Learning in Tandem via the Internet. CLCS Occasional Paper 46. Dublin: Trinity College.
Little, David, Karin Kleppin, & Ana Ojanguren, (1996): Learner Autonomy and Learner Counselling. In: Little, David & Helmut Brammerts (Eds.) (1996). A Guide to Language Learning in Tandem via the Internet, CLCS Occasional Paper 46. Dublin: Trinity College, 26-37.
Robinson, Peter (2001): Task Complexity, Task Difficulty, and Task Production: Exploring Interactions in a Componential Framework. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 27-57.
Sánchez-González, Mónica & Lennart Thorsten Koch (2019): From Compulsory to Voluntary Counselling in Tandem. In Tardieu, Claire & Céline Horgues (Eds.) (2019). Redefining Tandem Language and Culture Learning in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 237-252.
Siegal, Meryl & Shigeko Okamoto (2003): Toward Reconceptualizing the Teaching and Learning of Gendered Speech Styles in Japanese as a Foreign Language. In: Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1): 49-66.
Skolverket (2011): Läroplan För Gymnasieskolan 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket. (https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gymnasieskolan/laroplan-program-och-amnen-i-gymnasieskolan/laroplan-gy11-for-gymnasieskolan; 07-03-2023).
Skolverket (2022): Läroplan För Grundskolan, Förskoleklassen Och Fritidshemmet 2022. Stockholm: Skolverket. (https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-grundskolan/laroplan-lgr22-for-grundskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet; 07-03-2023). XXX
Ushioda, Ema (2000): Tandem Language Learning via E-Mail: From Motivation to Autonomy. In: ReCALL 12 (2): 121-128.
Varpio, Lara, et al. (2017): Shedding the Cobra Effect: Problematising Thematic Emergence, Triangulation, Saturation and Member Checking. In: Medical Education 51 (1): 40-50.
Webster, Simon (2019): Strategy Instruction for Successful Language Tandems. In: ELT Journal 73 (3): 286-295.
Authors:
Christine Ericsdotter Nordgren, Ph.D.
Language Centre Director
Stockholm University
Department of Linguistics
106 91 Stockholm
Email: christine.ericsdotter@su.se
Jorunn Nilsson, M.A.
Language Centre Project Manager
Stockholm University
Department of Linguistics
106 91 Stockholm
Email: jorunn.nilsson@su.se
_____________
(1) Replacing the National Center Test for University Admissions from 2021
(2) English translation (C.E.N & J.N.): The school system should be open to different views and encourage that they are voiced. It should emphasise the importance of personal standpoints and provide opportunities for such.
(3) English translation (C.E.N & J.N.): Learners’ knowledge development depends on whether they get the opportunity to see connections. Schools should provide pupils with opportunities to gain an overview and context. Learners must have the opportunity to reflect on their experiences and apply their knowledge.