Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Towards Autonomous Learner
Download 256.37 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Levelling Relationship between Parties
Towards Autonomous LearnerIn the age of ubiquitous access to sophisticated Internet and computer technology and commodification of information and knowledge, the pressure is on the individual to become a self-sufficient team player who is capable of processing large amounts of information and converting it into knowledge. Harasim observantly points out that ‘knowledge has become the principal component of today’s economy, both as a process and as a product’ (2012, p. 80). Knowledge as a product is a known entity in this definition; what is particularly relevant for the 21st-century learning theories is knowledge as a process. Here, the process is understood as construction of knowledge through research, analysis, creativity and teamwork, i.e. transversal skills (‘21st century skills’, 2014). Constructivist theories recognize that it is, primarily, the process of knowledge construction that needs to be taught to students rather than the end-product itself (Holmes & Gardner, 2006). Indeed, when information can be readily available to anyone online, the ability to make sense of it and place it within a known frame becomes all more valuable. This has far-reaching implications for the administration of the learning process with respect to the role of a teacher and to the skills that need to be fostered in students and e-learning offers itself as a powerful tool in this process. Each student can receive just the right amount of support he or she needs at a given stage to show the best results in attainment of transversal skills, which is difficult to accomplish in classroom. For the teacher this implies a shift from a ‘sage on stage’ to a ‘facilitator’ (Harasim, 2012, p. 94), the latter being no less important than the former. The teacher’s role is key in student support that is executed through dialogue with students, feedback and motivation. This chapter presents three aspects of student support that align with constructivist approach, thus promoting transversal skills and learner autonomy. The last subchapter describes elements that constitute an autonomous learner, the learner model deemed most efficient for the 21st century needs.
Learner-centred approach, as a major education theory of today, entails a profound change in the student-teacher dynamic. Its roots reach as far as the 1950s to Bloom’s taxonomy, but the Internet can be listed among the more recent propellers. Harasim (2012) particularly emphasizes its role because the growth of the Internet led to acceleration in ‘[the] speed and value of the knowledge creation today’ (p. 80), hence, calling for a shift in the teaching approach from transmission of knowledge to passive learners to its building together with active learners. As is clear from Harasim’s statement, transaction of knowledge is a one-way process where the teacher is an authority figure that dispenses pieces of knowledge to students, whereas knowledge building requires the participation of both parties. Students are recognized as capable of constructing their own knowledge through the understanding of and creating links between the pieces of information. It needs to be emphasized that a teacher does not take a backseat in this process (White, 2005, p. 57). As shown in the previous chapters, helping students to develop skills of higher order, especially through e-learning, requires extensive preparation and management. Thus, the shift in relationship between learner and teacher is that towards the recognition that a number of tasks that have to be performed by all participants of the learning process in order for the desired educational goals to be achieved. In e-learning, the teacher has to act in a capacity that will create an inviting environment for students and encourage them to stay motivated. Harasim (2012) neatly refers to this capacity as to a representative of a particular knowledge community (p. 94). Other terms applied in this context are facilitator, content provider, management and organizer; each of these terms represents one aspect of what constitutes the teacher’s task in the knowledge building process. Facilitation in particular is related to students’ motivation because, in this capacity, the teacher interacts, questions, clarifies, expands, celebrates, encourages and emphasizes. The facilitator approach can conjure a feeling in students of being invited to join in on a discussion in a blame-free space mainly lead by students. In synchronous and asynchronous communication teachers should make only as much input as necessary to direct the discussion in the desired direction. Hauck and Hampel (2005) propose that, as facilitator, the teacher performs two roles: as a cognitive and as a social tutor (p. 271). A cognitive tutor questions, clarifies, expands and emphasizes, while a social one interacts, celebrates and encourages. Both roles have equally important impact on students, however, according to the authors, it is the social tutor who invokes more interaction. Thus, teachers should not underestimate the part of social tutor due to the ability to stimulate students’ motivation to stay engaged throughout the task. It is also within the capacity of the facilitator to promote the notion of learner community by the means of a dialogue between teachers and students and between students themselves. The sense of community can be beneficial for online learners because learning, as discussed in the previous chapters, is a social activity. Communication makes students aware that they do not face the challenges by themselves, that they are not the only ones having difficulties with certain tasks and that the teacher, as a facilitator, is also a member of the community who can be approached with various course issues. Hills (2003) underlines that in communication ‘the benefit is as much in talking to others and having them listen, as it is in listening to them responding’ (p. 68). He continues to state that: A learner can get a major morale boost when they know somebody else also fails to understand a particular concept that they are struggling with. This morale boost reduces their anxiety thereby making it easier for them to focus on the learning (p. 68). To translate this into the online environment, students can indeed appreciate the assuredness that the teacher will provide guidance where necessary as well as the possibility to post their questions in a forum and to read the discussions started by others. Moreover, shy students, who may not speak up in classroom, can get their point across without undergoing as much stress as offline. Finally, the contents of an asynchronous discussion can be more structured and meaningful because participants have more time to consider and form their questions and answers. Belonging to a community gives students a sense of an us space where contributions are welcome and are judged as not right or wrong but rather as contributing to the discussion, of which the teacher is also a participant. The question of control over the learning process is another one directly related to the teacher-student relationship. It is often argued that the more control students have over their learning, the smoother the learning process can proceed and the better the results can be. For example, Hills (2003) quite straightforwardly claims that ‘an essential truth which has emerged from past experience is that the learner should be in control of that which they are learning’ (p. 72). The decision on the amount of control each party can exert is the matter of continuous discussion and collaboration between all participants. Benson (1996) maintains that control over the learning is not a choice an individual can make on their own but a collaborative process (as cited in Ding, 2005, p. 42). When students negotiate with the teacher – be it administrative questions or course content – they stop perceiving him or her as an exclusive authority figure, which in turn contributes to the levelling of participants. Through negotiation students experience empowerment and, possibly, enthusiasm for a topic or a task they have chosen. If students vote for doing what genuinely interests them, they may indeed be more engaged in the learning process and later show more regard for the outcomes. This approach may be quite effective for developing learner independence; however, it should not be done at the expense of support (Weasenforth, Meloni & Biesenbach-Lucas, 2005, p. 208). Students’ experience with independent learning and autonomy skills has be taken into account; the amount of autonomy depends on the course objectives and can be the same for everyone or vary from one student to another. Finally, affective aspects have notable implications for the student-teacher relationship due to the lack of direct human contact and body language online (Hauck & Hampel, 2005, p. 270). In distance learning participants are separated not only physically but also, and more importantly, emotionally. The emotional component is one of the constituents of the social nature of learning that is naturally represented in the face-to-face education, but it can be challenging to recreate online. Michael Moore was one of the first who focused on the psychological separation of participants in distance learning. His theory of transactional distance states that psychological and communicative separation has more impact on students than the physical one and that this distance could be overcome through course structure and dialogue (as cited in White, 2005, p. 58). For beginner learners, therefore, the distance would need to be short, i.e. include more individual support and less flexibility, while for more advanced students the opposite would be the case. Nevertheless, however long or short the distance be, students should feel comfortable communicating their questions and concerns to the teacher or tutors. How friendly (but not lax) the atmosphere in the course is depends on the teacher: the more inviting it is the more at ease students will be about contacting supervisors, making all participants members of the community in the eyes of students. It may be not completely justified to discuss the equality in the student-teacher relationship; however, the recognition of a student as an active participant in the learning process is an essential part of the learner-centred approach. In accordance with it, students are encouraged to create their own meanings and logical links in course materials, while the teacher and tutors provide support by acting as facilitators, moderators and content providers. Ideally, they should be able to create such learning environment that would offer all students, even not so socially-skilled ones, a platform for discussion and collaboration and be perceived as members of this community, not authority figures. Relaxing the grip on authority also means delegating students some responsibility over the learning process; this strategy has been shown to improve students’ learning process and results, provided it is done through informed discussion of both parties. As a result, students should develop or improve their autonomy and collaborative skills as well as show better material retention.
|