Ways of promoting student autonomy: technology (7)

Hi everyone!
And for the next installment ... (click here for the pdf version of this post)

Setting aside some of the unresolved issues concerning definitions and meanings, it is evident that autonomy has become one the most influential concepts in language teaching and, as such, there have been a large number of researched/documented attempts to promote student autonomy. Benson (2001) identifies six categories of pedagogical approaches to promote autonomy listed below:

1. Learner-training based;
2. Teacher-based;
3. Resource-based;
4. Classroom-based;
5. Curriculum-based;
6. Technology-based.

We will be mainly looking at Technology and autonomy.

Technology and Autonomy

‘New educational technologies are often perceived simultaneously as both a promise and a threat. The new technologies of language learning have tended to latch onto autonomy as one justification for their existence. Computer software for language learning is an example of a technology which claims to promote autonomy simply by offering the possibility of self-study. Such claims are often dubious, because of the limited range of options and roles offered to the learner. Nevertheless, technologies of education in the broadest sense (from the textbook to the computer can be considered to be either more or less supportive of autonomy.’
Benson and Voller (1997:10)

Benson and Voller make clear a key point: technology, in itself, does not necessarily facilitate learner autonomy. The capacity of technology to support student autonomy is complex (and, in my view, unresolved) and will, inevitably be dependent on a wide range of factors. Having said that, we will now look at some of the available evidence which supports the idea that technology can help facilitate student autonomy and also some of the evidence that is a little more cautious.

Online learning, Autonomy and EAP: What evidence is there that online learning can facilitate student autonomy?

There are three main ways in which technology is seen as supporting student autonomy in on-line environments:
1. Situational autonomy;
2. Control,
3. Collaboration.

Situational Autonomy

Because of the (distance) nature of on-line learning, students have to act autonomously. Students are forced into making choices concerning many key aspects of learning. These choices, or decisions, might include:
The pace;
The time;
The place (of study)
The order of materials, and,
Following up on links.

Essentially, the student is forced to make sense of his/her learning environment and is forced to make decisions to manage, organise, and assess learning. How successful students are at appropriated their learning environments – when forced to – will depend, again, on a large number of variables. We shall examine some the key variables later in this section. For the moment, it is clearly an extremely weak argument to suggest that students will enhance their autonomy simply because they have no choice. You only have to examine the drop-out rate on on-line courses to confirm this.

Control
On-line learning facilitates the recentring or shifting of control from teachers to students. Johnston (1999: 87) claims that 'on-line education has the potential to re-centre control in the educational experience from the teacher to the students'. This potential is partly due to the nature of on-line learning, which creates 'non-traditional discourse forms to resist teacher-centred pedagogy' (Fuller et al., 2000), and partly because on-line learning increases learners' expectations concerning their active participation in learning and determining for themselves the form of meaningful communication and learning (Warschauer, 2000).

Collaboration
Research concerning on-line learning often focuses on the collaborative nature of on-line learning (Warschauer, 1996; 1997; Coverdale-Jones, 1998; Ragoonaden and Bordeleau, 2000; Brown, 1997; Wolff, 1997; Herrington and Oliver, 1997; Carwell, 2000; Cezec-Kecmanovic and Webb, 2000; and Söntgens, 1999).
Benson's approach to autonomy necessarily involves collaboration and the two become intertwined:

'Greater learner control over the learning process, resources and language cannot be achieved by each individual working alone according to his or her own preferences. Control is a question of collective decision-making rather than individual choice. Yet collective decisions are also arrived at by individuals achieving consensus and acting in concert.'
Benson, 1996:33.

The key theoretical notion to support collaboration as a pedagogical goal come from Vygotsky's socially mediated theory of learning. A key notion is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is defined as:

'[T]he distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.'
Vygotsky, 1978: 86.

The main interest in Vygotsky's ZPD lies in developing autonomous learners or 'independent problem solvers' who achieve autonomy through collaboration with teachers and/or peers.
The pedagogical implications of understanding autonomy as interactive interdependence is that one cannot (always) isolate the promotion of an individual's autonomy from that of the group's Little argues this point as follows:

'[L]earning can only proceed via interaction, so that the freedoms by which we recognize learner autonomy are always constrained by the learner's dependence on the support and cooperation of others.'
Little, 2000:204.

Evidence in Three Areas of New Technology.

Asynchronous Communication

Asynchronous communication involves (for our purposes) any type of electronic communication that does not take place in real time. Examples of asynchronous communication would be:
1. E-mail
2. Bulletin Boards
3. Discussion Boards
4. Blogs

Outlined below are some of the advantages of using asynchronous communication with students:
1. gain valuable insights into other cultures;
2. Easy access to 'experts' and authentic communication partners;
3. Learners appreciate not only the cultural insights gained from email exchanges but also the opportunity to mutually improve their respective language skills;
4. E-mail helps develop the ability to create and initiate various kinds of discourse therefore facilitating learners' ability to express a greater variety of functions in different contexts;
5. Learners develop stronger arguments, are more accurate, and improve their analytical, narrative and descriptive writing styles through using email;
6. Learners produce language which is more formal and complex than in face-to-face discussions;
7. E-mail helps redress unbalanced communicative classroom practices which tend to neglect reading and writing skills;
8. E-mail is ideal for promoting collaboration because it provides easy access to group knowledge;
9. Facilitates sharing of ideas and work;
10. Collectively learners have a greater role in managing and controlling on-line discourse in terms of asking questions, steering conversations, requesting information, expressing opinions and querying teachers than in traditional classrooms;
11. Peer-teaching, peer-correction and editing peer-writing and self-assessment have been found to benefit from email discussions;
12. Greater (quantitively) learner participation than in classroom discussions;
13. Reduces psychological pressure of making mistakes and is less threatening than classrooms,
14. Facilitate compromise, improves social learning and co-operative skills;
15. Shy students speak out more, resulting in more equally distributed communication, and, 16. Females tend to participate more in email than classroom discussions.

These advantages I have gleaned from the research and stand as very persuasive arguments for including some form of asynchronous communication into the EAP syllabus. Most, if not all, of the arguments for asynchronous communication given above are more-or-less directly related to the idea of promoting student autonomy: The greater degree of participation of all students; facilitating cooperative skills, and the greater (collective) control of learning by students stand out as striking reasons to pursue student autonomy through asynchronous communication.

Synchronous Communication

Synchronous communication, again for our purposes, involves any electronic communication which takes place in real time. We could include in this:

1. Instant messaging;
2. Voice tools (Skype, for example), and,
3. Video conferencing.

Whilst synchronous communication shares many of the same advantages as asynchronous communication there are some which are particularly pertinent for synchronous communication:

1. Learners can monitor accuracy in real-time;
2. Experiment with complicated syntactic structures and generate different types of discourse; 3. Learn authentic language from native speakers, and,
4. Focus on informal language use enabling learners to concentrate on communicating ideas and arguments.

The World Wide Web

The World Wide Web (WWW) provides;
1. exposure to and experience of other cultures (can improve motivation and attitudes to the target language)
2. provides exposure to a wide range of communication styles
3. a rich array of resources

Learners can take control of their learning by:
1. choosing materials and resources;
2. discovering new materials for themselves;
3. devising their own ways of handling information;
4. controlling navigation;
5. choosing the order in which they tackle activities;
6. working at their own pace and when they wish to, and,
7. through working online learners become more confident and more able in their research skills.

In the following posts I'll add a short up-to-date bibiography and I'll then move on to some of the obstacles ...

Alex