The teacher's role in developing learner autonomy in online learning

 

Written by: Lee Phillips, Sara Al-Otaiby & Mohammed Hayat

 

 

Introduction

 

Promoting the skills that support learning autonomy requires a thorough understanding of the role that the teacher should pursue in the learning environment. In this assignment, we will focus on the role that the teacher can play in the online environment to support learner autonomy. This essay starts with a basic introduction aimed at defining the term 'autonomy'  in order to build a theoretical grounding about the kind of learner we are concerned with in this assignment. In addition, we will shed light on some features of the autonomous learner and link them to the responsibilities of the teacher for developing learner autonomy. We will then look at the teacher's role in developing learner autonomy by using more explicit examples of online learning contexts, one of which being online learning environments such as MOOCs which develop an understanding of the nature of the relationship between the teacher and the learners as in providing expert guidance and moderating the environment. The other online learning context is centered around online assessment and the role that the teacher can adopt in order to support successful outcomes from online assessment. These online assessment measures may also prove valuable for the teacher in supporting and developing learner autonomy.

 

1.1 What is “autonomy”?

 

To begin with, there is a claim of a theoretical conflict among intellectuals in understanding “learner’s autonomy” (Yan, 2012). Holec (2001) (as cited in Yan, 2012) claims that some educationists  link learner’s autonomy to self-instruction; a learner who possesses a path of working alone and without any sort of intervention made by the teacher. This claim views the learner as an individual person who takes full charge of his/her learning (Smith, 2008). However, Smith shows how this definition is developed as autonomy became relevant to self-access and distance education; both environments require collaborative involvements in actions like decision-making “a capacity and willingness to act independently and in cooperation with others, as a social, responsible person (Smith, 2008: p.396). In other words, an autonomous learner is capable of taking full control over his/her education but through working collaboratively as well as individually (Beldarrain, 2006; Boyle, 1995; Schrum & Hong, 2002; White, 2005). Learner’s autonomy is also an approach that is desired by some societies due to psychological and economic benefits (Crabbe, 1993). Psychologically, autonomy plays a major role in constructing the desired motivation to learn in the schemata of the learner. Economically, some societies cannot afford financial resources to support all types of academic majors in every area of learning.

 

1.2 Autonomy and Online learning

 

If we look at some additional definitions related to learner’s autonomy, we will find the social aspect that online education can add to learner’s autonomy. Najeeb (2013: p. 1239) argues that “learner autonomy is a construct of capacity for making informed decisions about one’s own learning” (Crabbe, 1993; Najeeb, 2013). These decisions can be made through social interactions among learners or between learner(s) and their tutor (Conole, Dyke, Oliver, & Seale, 2004). For example, language learning through technology motivates students to get involved actively in forms like editing each other’s writing (e.g., Wiki and Blogs) or participate in discussions (through video conferencing tools like Skype) (Freeman & Anderson, 2011). Wiki is “a collective Web pages that are linked to each other, and reflect the collaborative work of many authors” (Beldarrain, 2006: p.142). By conducting a task using Wiki, learners will have the chance to practice and embrace Hedge’s (2000, p.76) characteristics of a “good learner”. According to Hedge, the learner maintains the opportunity to develop both his/her cognitive strategies (that deal directly with topics of an area of learning) and metacognitive strategies (that regulate and manage the learning process). In language learning, for instance, a learner might struggle with a meaning of a word or a term (Crabbe, 1993), so he might negotiate its meaning through discussions with his/her colleagues (Thurston, 2005). This discussion can take place in a VLE (Virtual Learning Environment like Skype or Facebook chatting feature), personally speaking, I conducted an activity using Facebook chatting to discuss the meaning and my experience using MOOCs, an area of online learning that will be discussed further on.

 

Metacognitive strategies, on the other hand, are the methods that help the learner to control his/her learning in general. Examples of these strategies are controlling anxiety (White, 2005), frustration management due to physical isolation (Schrum & Hong, 2002), developing a sense of self-actualisation where the learner become independent (Boyle, 1995), and developing skills of interacting with the material from a distance (e.g., accessing the material) (Beldarrain, 2006; White, 2005). After exploring both strategies, I will try in the following section to shed the lights on how teacher’s interventions could support learner autonomy, bearing in mind that a teacher can facilitate both strategies in online settings.

 

1.3 Teacher’s role in supporting online learner’s autonomy

 

A starting point in this section would be to define what is meant by teacher’s presence in online environment “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). The teacher should make sure that learners are capable of learning inside and outside the conventional classroom (Hedge, 2000). Therefore, the teacher’s major role and objective is to design an online content that is accessible by the learners regardless of their age, gender, location and personal circumstances (White, 2005). This special environment is new to many learners and dealing with it might create undesired challenges. These challenges could be of a technical nature and related to the ability of accessing the content of the course (Schrum & Hong, 2002). In exploring the features of a successful online learning environment, Schrum & Hong (2002) outlined that students need to possess basic skills like saving files or printing. For example, a teacher might ask students to look up an electronic article from the web to summarise it or to write a report about it. This activity embodies several tasks like using the Web, surfing through different journal websites, looking up the article and then saving it to their devices. This experience will not only allow the learners to access learning material without being physically in the library, it will also teach the learner different ways of how to access different resources looking for articles or research papers.

 

The teacher is also responsible of providing technical support to those who feel that they lay behind their peers (Schrum & Hong, 2002) by designing technical support forums, FAQ sections in the platform of the course or through students’ call-centers (Anderson et al., 2001). The teacher is also responsible of dealing with cases of frustration, anxiety and demotivation (Schrum & Hong, 2002) by leading instructions, transmitting and regulating the learning process in the online environment (Hedge, 2000). The teacher is also playing a major rule in asking his/her students to reflect on their online learning experience as this activity should raise their awareness of what they have obtained during the term (Hedge, 2000). This can be done through doing an electronic survey or writing a personal reflection on being an online learner.

 

The following sections offer more explicit examples of online learning environments in which this role of the teacher in promoting learner autonomy can be carried out.

 

------------------

 

2. Teacher Presence in MOOCs

 

There is a need to balance learners’ autonomy with teachers’ presence in learning when it comes to online environments. The two cannot be separated if a successful learning process will be achieved. A number of online environments exist such as massive open online courses (MOOCs), as well as open and networks research. These models of learning are referred to as networked learning because the process develops and maintains connections with individuals and information in a bid to support each other’s learning. With these models, the major point is to ensure successful learning, which cannot be achieved by students’ alone. This calls for the teachers to be present in order to offer the required guideline.

 

In the online environment, teachers’ roles differ from the traditional or most educational setting where teachers recognize and interact individually with a student to some extent via selection, teaching, and evaluation of their work. In MOOCs, for example, networked methods of learning are used according to typical course structure. Stephen Downes in collaboration with his colleague were the first to come with such a course called Connectivism (Milligan, Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2005). This kind of learning resembles online events where the participation is openly in online platforms around an agenda. Expertise or knowledgeable individuals facilitate in the topics with dependence on efficient creation of educational networks to help the learners. Some exemplars of online courses in regard to MOOCs include CyberOne, CCK09, as well as DS 106 among others.

 

In reference to the above online environments, MOOCs seem among the recent and successful learning environment. The online mode of learning gives students the autonomy to control their studies and influence their outcomes. However, as evident from the networked models, learners require knowledgeable instructors to offer learning support. Hence, teachers’ presence is one of the most discounted elements in MOOCs and other online learning platforms. Substantial evidence reveals a strong connection between student satisfaction and teachers presence in MOOCs (Belt 2013).

 

In the online learning environment, students are required to be autonomous and self-motivated. In the online platform, every learner can control the amount of information he/she desires to engage, but this power requires much responsibility. An autonomous learner needs to be self-disciplined and self-motivated. Therefore, the current learning practice should focus mainly on creating an environment that spurs connection with students, experiences that link to a value and sensitive level. An enabling environment necessitates an instructor who will guide the student on the best material to work on.

 

A number of networking tools on the Web such as Facebook, Twitter, and RSS appear favorable in bridging the scale of open online courses (Kopp et al 2011). On the other hand, the primary goal of learning in MOOCs is to identify and employ the networks that could improve their coursework, develop and share education video and contents, and cultivate content that would improve teachers’ presence (Kilgore & Lowenthole 2015).

 

No matter where one is, a person can acquire the course of choice through open online courses. Nevertheless, this cannot be compared to when an instructor is involved because they act as mentors (Levinson 2015). Even though teaching practice may be complex to facilitate since the student may not have a physical relation with the tutor, the instructor’s method amplifies the critical thinking of a student (Kop et al 2011). The presence of tutors in the online environment is facilitated through the formation of networks. According to Levin (2015), for learners who know what they want in terms of online materials, MOOCs offers an efficient way of crafting their self- learning ecosystems. Nonetheless, the majority of students lack mentorship that comes through creating a significant relation between learner and teacher. Although maintaining such a relationship is challenging through the Internet, they are vital for the majority of students since they help when the student is applying that knowledge in real life.

 

In online learning, teachers act as curators, facilitators who support and remix information for learners, provide technical support, and share educational materials (Kop et al 2011). According to Kilgore and Lowenthole (2015), Substantial evidence shows a teacher’s presence coupled with feedback of every individual learner can reinforce a meaningful relationship that motivates each of them. In addition, the presence of a teacher can help in creating an assembly of students and eventually create a feeling of belonging in the online environment. Teachers’ presence ensures a learning based on a conversational platform that focuses on teacher- learner dialog and actions founded on reflection and discussion. Consequently, teachers’ presence allows a new MOOCs learning model to be established on adaptive responsive that improves the quality of learning (Kop et al 2011).

 

On the other hand, a number of researchers have revealed a robust correlation between students’ satisfaction and teachers’ presence, development of community, and perceived learning (Shea, et al 2005; Swan 2010). In fact, an autonomous learner requires little support. For instance, first-time online students need significant support because they may be unused with the lack of presence of a teacher. Since differences in the educational models may be too much for a student to absorb, many may drop out of school. In addition, another area that students find it difficult to adjust in is assessments. Regularly, MOOCs implore the use of peer review rather than teacher assessment due to the number of students and the size of the assessment workload. As a result, learners who are unfamiliar or unsatisfied with the peer review process may as well opt to dropout (Belt 2013). Finally, teachers’ presence in online courses is vital to inspire learners through their passion for their subjects and ability to interact through discursive questions and answers model that allow autonomous students to deliberate and ponder about their coursework (Levin 2015). In reality, every individual’s comfort in another person’s presence can strongly influence his/her thinking capacity which is valuable in any learning context including participation in online courses and carrying out online assessment procedures discussed next.

 

--------------

 

3. Overview of Online Assessment

Teacher-learner interaction is pivotal in online assessment as it is within an online course and just as with an online course, a lack of such interaction could have an impact on the learner’s learning (Robles & Braathen, 2002). Online assessment, whether for a course that took place fully or partly online is not very different from assessment in any other context (Gilly, 2012) as the same assessment procedures, principles, criteria apply, for instance, online assessment can be both formative, that is, sampling student learning and guiding the learning process through the provision of feedback or summative which refers to formal assessments conducted at the end of courses, projects and/or lessons in order to evaluate learning achievement (Sewell et al., 2010). As with assessment in other learning contexts, online assessments should be used as a measure of both the learning objectives and the learners’ achievement of those learning objectives (Robles & Braathen, 2002; Sewell et al., 2010).

 

Online assessment tools, whether used for formative or summative assessments, are flexible and can be used for both online learning courses and classroom-based courses as part of a blended learning design (Sun, 2014). As I see it, online assessment tools may be more convenient for online learning courses than classroom-based courses since they are both consolidated within internet space whereas classroom-based courses and online learning courses make use of two separate spaces which may present the issue of impeded access to one of these spaces.

 

No matter how online assessment tools are used, the balance between teacher presence and learner autonomy seems to be just as relevant in online assessment as it does in online learning courses as I will demonstrate further on but meanwhile, it may be necessary to look at the various online tools that can be used for both online formative and summative assessments.

 

 

3.1 Online Formative Assessment Tools

 

There are various online tools that can be used to serve as online formative assessment tools and one such online tool is the ePortfolio. Similar to the more traditional portfolio, ePortfolios can help to hold and organise contents and record ideas and reflections (Mason, 2004) but with additional beneficial features such as the incorporation of video, audio and graphics as well as providing an affordance to share collections of work and showcase example pieces of work and specific accomplishments with a particular online group (Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005; Mason, 2004; Chau, 2007). Mason (2004) even gives an example of how, in a distance Masters Degree course by the Open University,  an eportfolio served as the primary assessment method whereby the learners used ePortfolios to convey various assessment activities such as written assignments or spreadsheet outputs, all of which were marked on the ePortfolios. Though ePortfolios present themselves as rather versatile tools, they appear particularly useful for writing assessments as they provide learners with a networking facility that “can make their writing easily available for review and assessment” (Gilly, 2012:167). As with MOOCs, ePortfolios could provide the affordance of a network formation in the form of peer assessment which would need to be teacher-guided.

 

3.2 Online Summative Assessment Tools

 

Summative assessment tools can consist of surveys, quizzes and tests (Robles & Braathen, 2002; Sewell et al., 2010), all of which are available online and as with formative assessment tools, these tools can serve as evaluation tools for learners to determine their level of learning by providing them with, for instance, practice tests or quizzes as well as contribute towards the overall assessment plan (Robles & Braathen, 2002).

 

The features of online assessment as highlighted above seem to entirely learner oriented. Therefore, what is the teacher’s role in fostering learner autonomy within online assessment?

 

3.3 The Teacher’s Role in Online Assessment

 

In view of the online tools that can be used for assessment preparation as mentioned above, how can the teacher help to foster learner autonomy by the use of these tools?

 

Torras & Mayordomo (2011) indicate the use of ePortfolios as being conducive to learner self-regulation and should be used more as a support to the learning process. They assert that the teacher's role in all this would be to provide instruction and support in relation to this tool and more significantly, to encourage learners to use the tool to promote reflection on the learning tasks instead of promoting reflection on the tool itself. Lorenzo & Ittelson (2005) propose that the teacher would have to guide the learners’ critical thinking. Along with teacher presence, Sewell et al. (2010) point out that narrative postings through formative assessment can also be used to prompt learners to use critical thinking.

 

In order to develop learner autonomy in online assessment, it seems that it is the teacher’s role to provide the learners with instructions on how to use the aforementioned tools both in a practical sense and more importantly, to guide the learners in using them as self-regulatory tools for self-assessment and peer-assessment which can prompt feedback both from the teacher as well as from other peers. This self-regulation could further encourage the learners’ critical thinking which would be guided by the teacher. By promoting online learner autonomy in preparation for online assessment and creating an online community of inquiry (Garrison, 2011) which could help learners feel supported throughout the assessment process, the teacher could, in turn, help to promote successful outcomes from online assessment.

 

 

Conclusion

 

As within a classroom learning environment, the role of the teacher within an online learning environment is crucial for developing learner autonomy whether the learners are participating in an online learning course such as a MOOC or carrying out online assessment processes. The crux of this role seems to be focused on encouraging critical thinking among the learners, helping the learners feel they are in charge of their own learning and paying attention to the social aspect through connecting the learning environment by promoting both learner-learner and teacher-learner interaction thereby helping the learners to perceive that they are part of an online learning community, all of which may promote a better sense of learner autonomy and in turn this may lead to a successful learning experience. 

 

Word Count: 3,222 words

 

 

=====================================================================================

 

References

 

Anderson, T. (2014). Does teacher presence matter in a MOOC? [Online] Retrieved from: 

<http://terrya.edublogs.org/2014/03/13/does-teaching-presence-matter-in-a-mooc/> [Accessed 4 May 2015]

 

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2), 1–17. doi:10.1.1.95.9117

 

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153. doi:10.1080/01587910600789498

 

Belt, E.S., (2013). MOOCs: A masquerade. [Online] Retrieved from: <http://www.ericsbelt.com/moocs-a-masquerade.html> [Accessed 4 May 2015]

 

Blom, J., Verma, H., Li, N., Skevi, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). MOOCs are More Social than You Believe. eLearning Papers, 33, pp.1–3.

 

Boyle, R. (1995). Language teaching at a distance: From the first generation model to the third. System, 23(3), 283–294. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(95)00017-E

 

Chau, J. (2007). A developer’s challenges on an e-portfolio journey. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore (145-148).

 

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers and Education, 43, 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.018

 

Crabbe, D. (1993). Fostering autonomy from within the classroom: The teacher’s responsibility. System, 21(4), 443–452. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(93)90056-M

 

Freeman, D. & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Garrison, D R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21^st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis (20-27).

 

Gilly, S. (2012). E-Moderating. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. (160-168).

 

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Kilgore, W., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2015). The Human Element MOOC: An experiment in social presence. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Establishing an equitableand fair admissions system for an online (pp. 389-407). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

 

Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mark, J. S. (2011). A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses. [Online] Retrieved from: <http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1041/2025> [Accessed 4 May 2015]

 

Levinson, (2015). Where MOOCs Miss the Mark: The Student-Teacher Relationship. . [Online] Retrieved from: <http://www.edutopia.org/blog/where-MOOCs-miss-the-mark-matt-levinson> [Accessed 4 May 2015]

 

Lorenzo, G, & Ittelson, J., (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. EduCause Learning Initiative Paper.

 

Mason, R., Pegler, C., & Weller, M. (2004) E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.35(6), pp. 717-727.

 

Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A. & Margaryan, A. (2005). Patterns of engagement in Connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2). [Online] Retrieved from

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.html [Accessed 4 May 2015]

 

Najeeb, S. S. R. (2013). Learner Autonomy in Language Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1238–1242. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.183

 

Robles, M. & Braathen, S. (2002). Online assessment techniques. Delta Pi Epsilon, Vol. 44(1): 39-49.

 

Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). From the Field : Characteristics of Successful Tertiary Online Students and Strategies of Experienced Online Educators. Education and Information Technologies, 7, 5–16. doi:10.1023/A:1015354423055

 

Sewell, J P., Frith, K H. & Colvin, M M. (2010). Online Assessment Strategies: A Primer. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol.6(1): 297-305.

 

Shea, P., Li, C., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in

online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4). [Online] Retrieved from: <http://www.sloanconsotium.org> [Accessed 4 May 2015]

 

Smith, R. (2008). Learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 62(4), 395–397. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn038

 

Sun, Susan Y H. (2014). Learner perspectives on fully online language learning. Distance Education, Vol.35(1): 18-42.

 

Swan, K., (2010). Post-industrial distance education. In R. Garrison & M. Cleveland-Innes (Eds.), An introduction to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era (pp. 108–134). New York: Routledge.

 

Thurston, A. (2005). Building online learning communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 353–369. doi:10.1080/14759390500200211

 

Torras, M. & Mayordomo, R. (2011). Teaching presence and regulation in an electronic portfolio. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.27(6): 2284-2291.

 

White, C. (2005). Contribution of Distance Education to the Development of Individual Learners. Distance Education, 26(2005), 165–181. doi:10.1080/01587910500168835

 

Yan, S. (2012). Teachers ‟ Roles in Autonom ous Learning, 3(2), 557–562. doi:10.5296/jsr.v3i2.2860