Combining Formal and Non-Formal Foreign Language Learning: First Insights Into A German-Spanish Experiment at University Level
Combining Formal and Non-Formal Foreign Language Learning: First Insights Into A German-Spanish Experiment at University Level
Combining Formal and Non-Formal Foreign Language Learning: First Insights Into A German-Spanish Experiment at University Level
Eva Vetter
ABSTRACT:
In this article we will present the first results of a pilot study that aims at creating, evaluating and
optimizing opportunities for language learning at university level. Learners of Spanish in Austria
and learners of German in Spain face quite similar problems: large groups, a short period of time
available and an important progress to be made. This project results from the co-operation between
the University of Alicante and the University of Vienna and brings together learners of Spanish in
Austria and learners of German in Spain via online tandems. In a first step, the role of Spanish and
German as L3 will be described in the background of European language policy, then online tandem
learning will be methodologically contextualised and positioned. The third part provides a descrip-
tion of the project, the obstacles and problems when setting up online tandems, and finally a first
evaluation of the project with respect to its aims.
KEY WORDS:
eTandem, European Language Policy, Spanish/German as L3
The eTandem project presented in this paper focuses upon German and Spanish, two
languages that are commonly taught as so-called L3 in Europe. We use the term L3
for designing languages that are not learned as first foreign language in formal ed-
ucation. It is well known and confirmed by data on European language policy that
English has been strengthening its role as first foreign language all over Europe. In
order to put it quite simple and to ignore the problematic issues of understanding
language/s as discrete, countable and clearly separable entities that are learned in
formal education (for this criticism see Vetter, 2013), we conceive of L3 here as all lan-
guages learned beyond mother tongue plus English (in non-English speaking coun-
tries), be it as L3, L4 or Lx. Within European language policy these languages have
a key function: since agreeing upon the Barcelona European Council Conclusions
(2002), Europe has established its ‘Mother Tongue + 2’ policy as a minimum require-
ment for all citizens (Rindler-Schjerve — Vetter, 2012, pp. 27–40) and is only very
slowly approaching its goals, particularly with respect to L3.
The success of European language education policy is measured with the help of
a monitoring system consisting of tools such as the Key Data on Teaching Languages at
40STUDIE Z APLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY
School in Europe (Key Data, 2005; 2008; 2012), the Special Surveys of the Eurobarome-
ter (Europeans and Their Languages, 2006; 2012) and particularly the most recent Eu-
ropean Survey on Language Competences (First European Survey on Language Com-
petences, 2012). These devices indicate how far Europe is still away from reaching its
goals: Just over half of the Europeans believe that they are able to hold a conversation
in at least one additional language, whereas less than half of them (44%) claim that
they can understand at least one foreign language well enough to be able to follow
the news on the radio or television (Europeans and Their Languages, 2012, p. 28).
As to language education, the hierarchical order of languages seems to be increas-
ingly stable, whereas linguistic diversity remains low: in 2009/2010, the percentage
of pupils learning languages other than English, French, Spanish, German or Russian
was below 5% in most countries (Key Data, 2012). A very high percentage of students
learns English, whether or not it is mandatory, German and Spanish are among the
most widely learned foreign languages in Europe, with the position of German in
Spain slightly lower than that of Spanish in Austria (Key Data, 2012, pp. 76f).
Among the languages perceived as useful for children’s future, English comes first
(79%), followed by French and German (20%), Spanish (16%) and Chinese (14%) (Eu-
ropeans and Their Languages, 2012, p. 75). Both, German and Spanish, are perceived
as less useful in 2012 than they were 6 years ago (Europeans and Their Languages,
2012, p. 75; Europeans and Their Languages, 2006, p. QA2b). To sum up, Spanish and
German are rather well positioned as a widely spread L3 in Europe. For the linguistic
goals of European language education policy they can play a key role as second for-
eign language.
The current project is not about learning languages at school, but in tertiary edu-
cation. Language learning at university links up to language learning at school as
well as to the overall policy context, since it continues and/or complements learning
in both qualitative as well as quantitative terms. In our particular context of the Uni-
versity of Vienna and of the University of Alicante, many young people start to learn
a new language. The situation for these beginners is quite similar: both universities
are confronted with stagnating resources for language courses, i.e. many learners
and few teachers, and an important progress to be made within few months. The
combination of formal learning offered at university and non-formal learning via
online tandems was meant to support learners in this context. Moreover it should
particularly create opportunities for L3-learning.
In order to position the tandem project with respect to learning in the classroom, we
first draw upon the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal learning (for
an overview on terminology see Overwien, 2005) and follow the definition given by
the European Commission (COM(2001) 678 Final, 2001). Hence, we understand formal
learning as typically organised, structured and institutionalised in formal education
system, i.e. schools, universities. Within formal learning, objectives are set. From the
eva vetter41
The tasks, all typical tasks drawing on the communicative approach, were only
slightly different for Austrian and Spanish participants. They were quite strictly set,
especially Viennese students were provided with rather extensive lists of questions
to ask and information to retrieve from their partners. Tasks for students in Alicante
were considerably less closely defined. The tasks are summarized in the following:
Task 4A: Weekly plan / activities and routines (what time you get up, eat, work/
study, go to bed).
Task 5A: Agree / set appointments (the hours; analogic, digital).
FIRST RESULTS
In order to evaluate the project against the background of its aim, i.e. to create, evalu-
ate and optimize opportunities for L3-learning, three different aspects shall be looked
at more closely: 1. Participation: How many students participated/continued? 2. Atti-
tudes: How did they evaluate the project with respect to the concept of tandem learn-
ing? 3. How did they correct their partners’ errors?
As far as participation is concerned, during the pilot period 32 (out of 39) tandems
continued until the end of the project and fulfilled all tasks. For Vienna this means
that less than half of the students had opted for participating into the project and
some of them, not many, had abandoned. The overall feedback was very positive, even
enthusiastic for some students. From the feedback and the participation one could
conclude that the project was quite successful.
In order to answer the second question a questionnaire was designed (see Appen-
dix). The aim of the questionnaire was to particularly evaluate interaction and co-
operation of the partners, trained skills (self-assessment) and the tasks. 11 students
answered the questionnaire.
In the following the results will be briefly summarized. The questionnaire results
indicate a certain asymmetry between the languages. In only 4 out of 11 cases, i.e. less
than 50%, the tandems invested equal time for Spanish and German, in two cases
Spanish was dominant and in the majority of the respondents’ cases German was
dominant. Learners also report on using English in order to enhance organisation,
ensure understanding, and talk about problems related to the languages.
Regarding the skills, the learners felt strong support for pronunciation (45%)
and global listening comprehension (54%), whereas the competence of spoken pro-
duction seems to be rather subordinate. The tasks themselves are considered to
make sense.
Difficulties while learning in tandems were mostly related to the ooVoo-applica-
tion. 81.82% mentioned to have had problems with the video-chat tool. A bit more
than one third of the respondents (36.36%) specified that they had difficulties with
Dropbox. Problems with their partners were stated by 18.18%.
During the project 150 recordings of about 1–2 minutes each were uploaded,
whereof 13 were randomly selected and transcribed. These transcriptions constitute
eva vetter45
the data corpus for the third question. The available data indicate that most of the
participants had elaborated and written down the demanded dialogs before record-
ing, which eventually led to much less authentic situations than we would have de-
sired. As a consequence, the learners’ utterances were found to be mostly correct in
terms of grammar. In the following we will therefore mainly focus on the aspect of
pronunciation.
There is a range of typical pronunciation mistakes that Spanish-speaking learners
of German repeatedly make. The following table gives an overview, using data from
the corpus (tandems A008 and A35):
The corpus data give evidence of a wide range of pronunciation errors. From that it
can be concluded that the Austrian students widely did not correct their partners’
pronunciation and that they tended to be relatively tolerant to mistakes that don
not have an impact on understanding. It can be hypothesized that correction might
rather address issues of lexical and/or grammatical errors (see also Blex, 2001). This
observation is crucial, since the majority of those most typical errors of Spanish-
speaking learners of German could have been easily repaired or at least reduced by
means of appropriate feedback and correction.
CONCLUSIVE REMARKS
There are several lessons to be drawn from the experience made in the pilot study.
First of all, it is highly recommendable that already existing experiences with tan-
dem language learning and research into eTandems is more explicitly integrated into
the overall project design and particularly into task development. In this way, it will
be more likely that the project benefits from the strengths of non-formal learning
and that non-formal learning can become a real complement to formal learning at
university. From the corpus study, it can be learned that the current tasks have given
relatively little space to self-directed processes and learner autonomy although these
are main characteristics of non-formal learning in contrast to formal learning. More-
over, as can be also followed from research in tandem language learning, appropri-
ate reflection tools shall be developed in order to accompany the whole process. The
questionnaire at the end of the project could only highlight some strengths and weak-
nesses but was rather inappropriate as an overall reflection tool for the tandems.
eva vetter47
A second point is the technical support. Despite the guidance by their teachers
and despite the technical support provided by a team of experts, many students had
to face difficulties with the tools used (ooVoo, Dropbox). This is an unnecessary prob-
lem hindering the whole process and this experience teaches us that a simple and
efficient tool is an important prerequisite for eTandems.
A third experience reported here relates to language symmetry (or asymmetry)
and this links up to issues of mutuality and co-operation in tandems. The results of
the questionnaire reveal a certain asymmetry with respect to the time invested for
each language. From this we can only derive the hypothesis that asymmetry should
be an issue when designing a tandem project. There is no doubt that this aspect needs
further investigation, particularly with respect to language proficiency of the learn-
ers involved.
A last point concerns feedback. From the corpus we learn that easily identifiable
pronunciation errors have not been corrected by the tandem partners. This has an
impact on the quality of the exchange and one conclusion could be that tandem part-
ners could benefit from an introduction into language learning and acquisition and
giving feedback.
In terms of experience and what we can learn from that, our experiment was
quite successful. To sum up the lessons to be learned, there are some aspects to be
respected in order to enhance the efficiency of the eTandem. As follow from our ex-
perience, these guidelines relate to task development, technical issues, mutuality,
and feedback.
REFERENCES:
Commission. Cit. 26. 10. 2013. Available at Overwien, Bernd (2005): Stichwort: Informelles
WWW: <http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/ Lernen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,
strategic-framework/documents/language- 3, pp. 339–355.
survey-final-report_en.pdf>. Rindler-Schjerve, Rosita — Vetter,
Godwin-Jones, Robert (2011): Emerging Eva (2012): European Multilingualism:
technologies: autonomous language learning Current Perspectives and Challenges. Bristol:
[online]. Language Learning and Technologies, Multilingual Matters.
15(3), pp. 4–11. Cit. 28. 10. 2013. Available Rösler, Dietmar (2010): E-Learning und
at WWW: <http://llt.msu.edu/issues/ das Fremdsprachenlernenim Internet. In:
october2011/emerging.pdf>. Wolfgang Hallet — Frank G. Königs (eds.),
Grau, Maike (2010): Austausch- und Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-
Begegnungsdidaktik. In: Wolfgang -Velber: Friedrich Verlag, pp. 285–289.
Hallet — Frank G. Königs (eds.), Handbuch Schmelter, Lars (2004): Selbstgesteuertes oder
Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-Velber: potenziell expansives Fremdsprachenlernen im
Friedrich Verlag, pp. 312–216. Tandem. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Hu, Adelheid (2010): Interkulturelle Schmelter, Lars (2010): Tandemlernen. In:
kommunikative Kompetenz. In: Wolfgang Wolfgang Hallet — Frank G. Königs (eds.),
Hallet — Frank G. Königs (eds.), Handbuch Handbuch Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-
Fremdsprachendidaktik. Seelze-Velber: -Velber: Friedrich Verlag, pp. 241–245.
Friedrich Verlag, pp. 75–79. Thorne, Steve (2003): Artefacts and cultures-
Jamieson, Joan — Chapelle, Carol — Preiss, -of-use in intercultural communication.
Sherry (2004): Putting principles into Language Learning and Technology,
practice [online]. ReCall — The Journal of the 7(2), pp. 38–67.
European Association for Computer Assisted Thorne, Steve (2006): Pedagogical and
Language Learning, 16(2), pp. 396–415. praxiological lessons from internet-mediated
Cit. 28. 10. 2013. Available at WWW: intercultural foreign language education
<http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_ research. In: Julie A. Belz — Steve Thorne
S0958344004001028>. (eds.), Internet-Mediated Intercultural Foreign
Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Language Education. Boston, MA: Heinle and
Europe: 2005 Edition [online] (2005). Brussels: Heinle, pp. 2–30.
Eurydice. Cit. 28. 10. 2013. Available at WWW: Tian, Jianqiu — Wang, Yuping (2010): Taking
<http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/ language learning outside the classroom:
eurydice///Key_data_languages_EN.pdf>. learners’ perspectives of eTandem learning
Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning
Europe: 2008 Edition [online] (2008). Brussels: and Teaching [online], 4(3), pp. 181–197. Cit.
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive 28. 10. 2013. Available at WWW: <http://www.
Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice). Cit. 28. 10. 2013. tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17501229.20
Available at WWW: <http://eacea.ec.europa. 10.513443>.
eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_ Trinder, Ruth (2006): Language Learning
series/095EN.pdf>. with Computers: The Students’ Perspective:
Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation.
Europe: 2012 Edition [online] (2012). Brussels: Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang.
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Vetter, Eva (2013): Where policy doesn’t
Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice and Policy meet life-world practice — the difficulty
Support). Cit. 28. 10. 2013. Available at WWW: of creating the multilingual European.
<http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/ European Journal of Applied Linguistics,
eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN. 1, pp. 83–102.
pdf>.
eva vetter49
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE
I. Please indicate the languages that you speak and mark for each language the utter-
ance that fits the most.
— I can communicate in simple situations that have to do with familiar topics and
activities.
— I can participate in conversations about familiar topics or areas that are interest-
ing for me without any preparation.
— I can effortlessly engage in all kinds of conversations and discussions.
— I can communicate in simple situations that have to do with familiar topics and
activities.
— I can participate in conversations about familiar topics or areas that are interest-
ing for me without any preparation.
— I can effortlessly engage in all kinds of conversations and discussions.
— I can communicate in simple situations that have to do with familiar topics and
activities.
— I can participate in conversations about familiar topics or areas that are interest-
ing for me without any preparation.
— I can effortlessly engage in all kinds of conversations and discussions.
— I can communicate in simple situations that have to do with familiar topics and
activities.
— I can participate in conversations about familiar topics or areas that are interest-
ing for me without any preparation.
— I can effortlessly engage in all kinds of conversations and discussions.
II. Have you ever gained experiences in tandem learning with electronic support BE-
FORE this course?
YES / NO
1. Which languages have you used in addition to the two target languages?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
50STUDIE Z APLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY
2. Which functions did these languages have? (You can choose more than one function.)
— to fill vocabulary gaps
— to secure comprehension
— to use nuances of meaning
— for conversation structuring
— for organization
— to respond to linguistic problems
— further functions: _____________________________________________________
5. To which extent have your language skills been improved through the tandem
work?
6. In case your language skills have not been improved through the tandem work,
what do you think might be reasons for that?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. Is there anything you would like to share with the research team of the tandem
project? (All comments will be treated anonymously!)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________