Obstacles to Autonomy (9)

Hiya. Hope you had a nice weekend. Welcome to Phil and also thanks to Siobhan for her comments (please keep them coming!).

In this post (Click here for the pdf version of this post) I'll be looking at some of ways in which technology may actually hinder the promotion of autonomy. As you read this, it would be useful if you thought of these obstacles in terms of the EAP contexts you have experienced or know about.

Obstacles to Effective On-line learning

The previous section paints a very optimistic picture of technologies to support student autonomy. However, there are a number of ways in which technology (and using technology) can provide obstacles to the promotion of student autonomy. In this section we will consider this problem from two, interrelated, perspectives; students, and teacher involvement.

Students
A great deal of research has been carried out on student participation on-line. A number of interesting comments have been made regarding how students are able to restrict or even obstruct effective learning on-line. Some findings also point to inherent problems with technology and students regardless of the desire of students to participate in inappropriate ways.
The first set of points below relate to how students can ‘obstruct’ or hinder on-line learning. Students:
1. Exhibit personal disrespect for others by disregarding others interests, wishes and desires; 2. Manipulate self-presentation to dominate others/the learning situation;
3. Pay attention to others only when it serves their own personal aims;
4. Manipulate interpretation of other students' comments to suit their own aims and influence others;
5. Perceive the object of e-mail communication in terms of 'winners and losers', rather than collectively constructing knowledge;
6. Students are sometimes reluctant to participate in discussions because they do not see any relevance in participating and prefer to work alone, particularly if collaborative work less is rewarded than individual work;
7. The anonymity of on-line communication can lead to 'asocial' monologues or even flaming (aggressive behaviour towards others);
8. Learners did not always appreciate the opportunity for cross-cultural awareness afforded by international e-mail exchanges and generally viewed e-mail exchanges as an instrumental means to improve their own language skills;
9. E-mail exchanges sometimes failed because partners were unable to find subjects to discuss, did not respond to email, and were unable to understand and negotiate effectively their own roles in the email exchange.

Other student-related obstacles which should not necessarily be considered as ‘intended’ by the student:
1. Lack of participation on a discussion list is highly visible increasing stress and anxiety;
2. Thinking time available for on-line discussions increased communication stress and reduces spontaneity, and,
3. Learners are reluctant to take risks in CMC because of the written and recorded nature of their discussions made them aware that they were making mistakes

Teachers
Teachers can also play a negative role in on-line learning and the promotion of student autonomy. Some of the key findings ae outlined below:
1. A hands-off approach can disorientate learners who expect teachers to lead discussions;
2. An active hands-on approach may drown out students' voices because of teachers' superior rhetorical skills and social status;
3. Teachers' (perceived) presence imposes accountability and responsibility on learners and the lurking or active presence of teachers in email discussion boards can be stressful and inhibiting for many learners;
4. Learners can feel that they are being watched over and judged by teachers;
5. Many teachers (and learners) suffer from ‘technostress’;
6. Electronic communication essentially places stressful burdens on all participants to participate,
7. Teachers are unaware of how the WWW and other tools/technology have altered conceptions of presenting information and knowledge, and fail to give students the opportunity to express themselves in personally meaningful ways.

Whilst the literature is replete with discussions and data exploring the potential of ACMC, guided by a number of pedagogical theories and models, to support an array of desirable learning processes and outcomes, it is also littered with qualifications, constraints, challenges and disappointments. Research on telecollaborative exchanges (e.g. Kern 2000; O’Dowd 2003; O’Dowd and Ritter 2006; Ware 2005; Ware and Kramsch 2005) involving learners from different parts of the world working online together, provides a number of insights into ‘failed communication’ in online exchanges. Failed communication, according to O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) in their review of research on telecollaboration, may be due to a number of factors including: participants with lower levels of language fluency produce shorter messages leading to interpretations of unfriendliness and lack of motivation by the more fluent participants; dissatisfaction in exchanges can arise from participants failing to establish personal relationships with partners; significant differences in degrees and orientations of motivations of individuals and groups may lead to uneven investments in collaboration; negative images and stereotyping of participantsmay also negatively influence motivation to collaborate, and lack of intercultural competence - attitudes of openness and curiosity to others - is detrimental to collaboration. Research on telecollaboration has also highlighted the key role teachers play in collaborative projects particularly in terms of preparing participants for collaboration, avoiding breakdowns in communication (e.g. reviewing messages before they are sent to partners), and identifying and discussing contentious messages from partners with students in class. Research, drawn from a wide range of educational domains, indicates that focusing on educational activity in ACMC to the detriment of socio-emotional activity will have a negative impact on group work (Kreijns, Kirschnerb, and Jochems 2003). Kreijns, Kirschnerb, and Jochems (2003) argue that the low media richness of ACMC, compared to face to face, affects communication and consequently social interaction. They also argue that ACMC can cause communication apprehension. Hammond’s (2005) review of ACMC research reveals unequal and skewed rates of participation. Arnold and Ducate (2006) highlight the risk of monologic communication, i.e. one-way communication where the focus is on presentation of the writer’s own ideas. Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005) argue that participation in online learning depends on the extent to which online participation is assessed, the instructors’ interventions and the (shared) background knowledge of learners. In addition, they claim that learners adopt different personas in online environments and do not necessarily feel the need or requirement to participate. It has been argued that online learning places extra cognitive demands on learners due to the need to understand and use complex technologies, combined with the requirement to study and engage with the subject matter and the requests to communicate (Hron and Friedrich 2003). Learners may also view collaborative work as an ‘unproductive nuisance’ (Stahl 2005, 88). There is also nothing inherently benign in group identity and action even if members recognise each other as equal partners in a shared activity.

The interaction of ACMC with pedagogical ideals and visions of the ideal learner is highly complex. Learners are constructed as, or are invested with pedagogical aspirations to be(come) active, problem solvers, collaborative, reflective, critical, responsible and engaged with others in knowledge sharing and construction. The inconclusiveness of research findings on ACMC could be a consequence of: how researchers and teachers construct (ideal) learners/teachers in conjunction with employing different theoretical frameworks and pedagogical models, and operating with diverging definitions (e.g. collaboration, task, knowledge, criticality, participation, interaction). In addition, the contexts in which the learning takes place (e.g. high/low stakes courses, university/workplace/classroom) and the decisions taken by teachers and learners (e.g. degree of freedom for learners, types of activities, tasks, and assessment) all contribute to the difficulty of making strong claims about computer-mediated communication (CMC).