autonomy

**3. Learner autonomy**

 This section considers learner autonomy within the context of //International Law in Contemporary Society//. This blended module has been designed in line with the TESEP project at Edinburgh Napier University, which aims to draw on existing good practice to investigate how technologies can underpin a truly learner-centred teaching approach (Smyth, 2007).

 The module offers many opportunities for students to become autonomous learners. Principles of TESEP are built into the design, using ‘personalised’ tasks where 'every learner is as active as possible', including 'frequent formative assessment' and 'emphasis on peers learning together' (Smyth, 2007). However, there are many instances where student engagement was an issue as the module progressed.

 The module leader expresses that she ‘ //felt exposed as a teacher… it meant that I had to relinquish some control...'// (tutor reflections). With the traces of different approaches to pedagogy and educative practices haunting this reflection, and perhaps every encounter and interaction in real and virtual HE classrooms, it is important to consider the philosophical standpoint tutors take when trying to engage students. In the module’s collaborative classes for example, the tutor seeks to support small groups of students to become knowledge-building communities, sharing information in the pursuit of a meaning, and then - in theory - the online discussion facilitates reflection on the constructed knowledge, and the processes used. Here, students are encouraged to think more deeply about what they are learning by learning with and from others. The notion of Zone of Proximal Development is evident, whereby 'the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined by problem solving under adult guidance or on collaboration with more capable peers.' (Vygotsky,1978).

 In order to maximise the potential of online group work 'it is to be noted that communication between students is at least as important as communication between teachers and students, and that students therefore play a central role in the process of building a communal scaffold' (Habib & Sonneland, 2009, p3). Theoretically, this module’s discussion threads enable this communal scaffold, with aspirations of constructivist co-construction of knowledge, yet issues of social (de)contextualisation, learner isolation and reliance on language, transparency and interpretation may present particular difficulties as the students’ threads unfold. It is reported that participation in the group activities dwindled as the module progressed.

 Students can find themselves in turmoil as they become swallowed amongst complex and demanding roles in the teaching/learning relationship. Greener (2008) suggests 'blended learning requires confidence in learning, choosing familiar ground, being prepared to be open... and working together in a safe and supported situation with both face to face and online support' (p2). It is highly possible that some students on this module did not have this basic grounding and experienced other issues such as lack of confidence in their own academic abilities, problematic access to the technology, and motivation. The constructivist idea that students do not simply take in information but make sense of their experiences and test out their interpretations is based on the premise that students must want or need to learn. Race's model of learning (1993) has also added the idea that if this motivation is not present, students will not learn.

 According to Huang (2002), constructivists, who understand students as co-constructors of knowledge, would emphasise that teaching and learning should be learner-centred. On the other hand, Huang points out that the HE (virtual or real) classroom recognises learners as unique individuals, fortuitously bringing different prior experience and knowledge(s) to the teaching/learning encounter. So, how does this module harness its blended approach to develop the individual curriculum for each learner, even while working collaboratively?

 Collaborative working may render group learning in conflict with individual differences. It seems obvious that individuals working together in a group differ as to their cognitive styles (Gardner 1993), which means that they will not all approach a particular learning task in the same way. So how can collaborative activities draw on McDonald and Gibson’s (1998) description of knowledge, where experienced individuals can help inexperienced learners by collaborative learning without losing a sense of unique learner needs?

 The academic results on the module do seem to be positive. This may be due to the cohort concerned and their abilities or it is possible that the introduction of the new delivery design enhanced the learning of the students. Further investigation is required in order to determine the success of the new approach.