4. Propuesta para una aproximación a la valoración económica ambiental de los
4.2. Aproximaciones a una valoración monetaria
From the answers on open-questions in surveys, one could recognise several themes about online scaffolding: Ideas about scaffolding, lecturers’ responsiveness towards assignment development, formative and timely feedback, coaching, and peer feedback.
Students’ understanding of online scaffolding resembles the socio- constructivist notion of scaffolding: The provision of (or allowing for) techniques to support learning underlines instructional support strategies which may be enacted by either lecturers or students as far as the design and culture of the course allow and/or encourage such online engagement. In addition, students thought that scaffolding is only offered when needed and that it should be purposefully withdrawn to foster learner autonomy. A practical example of online scaffolding mentioned by students refers to lecturers’ strategy of gradually releasing specific content during the course. At the same time, students in my study expected opportunities to exercise learner autonomy. Moore and Kearsley (2012) expanded the construct of learner autonomy by relating it to the Vygotskian notion of handover in which by exchange of meanings and construction of a shared understanding, within each learner’s zone of proximal development, students progressively take control of the process of learning. Thus the dialogue between lecturer (or a more competent fellow student) and learner is characterised by a shift in control of the learning process from the lecturer to the learner (Moore & Kearsley, 2012).
104
Furthermore, students emphasised the provision of support towards their assignment development. In this sense lecturers’ responsiveness before and after assignments appears to be an important element of learner satisfaction. Some students said that lecturers mentored them during assignment development. It seems that students valued opportunities for one-on-one interaction between lecturer and student, in which lecturers guided students by modelling, academic counselling and scholarly support (Murphy, Mahoney, Chen, Mendoza-Diaz, & Yang, 2005). Students’ emphasis on support reflects what Boettcher and Conrad (2010) call effective assessment in online courses. According to these authors, effective assessment involves getting to know learners as individuals and lecturers dedicating more time in mentoring and coaching.
In this study students described teaching strategies that resembled the notion of coaching: Provoking reflection through questioning and educational resources, providing direction, encouragement, and feedback. Likewise, students pointed out the importance of guidance in this online course. Laurillard (2012) argues that guidance (planned support the lecturer designs to warrant that students spend their time productively) is essential for learning due to the difficulty and complexity of the inquiry process. Furthermore, students’ notion of coaching resonates with Boettcher and Conrad’s (2010) view on the shift of faculty roles in online courses towards coaching and mentoring. In this view online courses are enablers of bottom-up development of knowledge in which learners are encouraged to interact with each other and the content resources to build their knowledge instead of relying on top-down delivery of lectures. In this approach the teaching time in an online course shifts towards elaborating mini-lectures and vignettes, preparing facilitation and community building opportunities, and monitoring and guiding students in their learning journeys (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010).
Formative and timely feedback was indicated by a large number of students. Research suggests that tertiary students are interested both in feedback related to task outcomes and to personal development strategies applicable to future actions in their workplaces (Merry, Price, Carless, & Tara, 2013). In this sense feedback guides students to comprehend the nature of quality standards as well as fosters capability for making complex judgments (Carless, 2013). In the context of this educational leadership course, timely feedback was perceived as a
105
kind of dialogue for students which should take place throughout the learning process, rather than being offered only at the time of formal assessments (Carless, 2013). This study corroborates Carless’s (2013) reasoning as students perceived timely feedback as response given within 24 hours by either lecturers or fellow students. The actual context of mass tertiary education, limited resourcing, and multiple demands on lecturers makes dialogic feedback a challenging support strategy that can only be feasible and sustainable when the student role in generating and applying feedback is improved (e.g., through guidelines) (Carless, 2013).
Indeed, students mentioned peer support which has in its core peer feedback. Peer feedback can support the learning process by offering an intermediate check of performance based on criteria, along with feedback on strengths, weaknesses, and/or hints for enhancement (Gielen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghena, & Struyven, 2010; Reese-Durham, 2005). On the other hand, the peer assessors benefit from this transaction as they observe other learners’ examples and approaches, as well as internalises the criteria and standards (Gielen et al., 2010). Moreover, peer feedback encourages learner participation in online discussions (Xie, 2013). Palloff and Pratt (2007) contend that the expectation that students will provide meaningful feedback to one another should be considered when designing an online course in order to create connections among students and promote the sharing of alternative perspectives. In a study by Ertmer et al. (2010), students who received peer feedback felt more confident when posting and responding in online discussions in comparison to students who did not receive peer feedback. Reese-Durham’s (2005) findings revealed that students perceived that peer feedback was helpful, meaningful and effective. Kuskis (2006) proposed that student-student dialogue along with lecturer-student dialogue may reduce transactional distance. In this study peer feedback was acknowledged by students, who perceived their peers as a source of online scaffolding.
The findings of this study revealed several similarities and dissimilarities between lecturers’ and students’ perspectives on online scaffolding. Both groups believed that online scaffolding should include procedural and strategic scaffolding (e.g., resources and questioning) as well as adaptive scaffolding, which would be provided only when needed and strategically withdrawn in order to foster learner autonomy. The main difference between lecturers’ and students’
106
perspectives was observed in their understanding of learner autonomy. Lecturers’ understanding of learner autonomy highlights the importance of self-regulation processes and places a great deal of control of the learning experience on students, as one lecturer said, students are responsible for their own learning. This statement demonstrates lecturers’ focus on intellectual independency, and supports Moore’s (1994) strong version of learner autonomy, in which students initiate, lead, and control much of the learning process. On the other hand, students appear to perceive learner autonomy as both intellectual independence and interdependence of lecturers and peers.
Some studies have extended the individualistic notion of autonomy in ways that places relationships and relating to others at the core of the development of autonomy (W. Anderson, 2013; Boucouvalas, 2009; Chen & Willits, 1999; Eneau, 2008). For example, Chen and Willits (1999) defined autonomy as “the learner’s perception of both independent and interdependent participation in a learning activity and involved both the student’s ability to learn individually/self- directedly and his or her preference or need for collaborative learning” (p. 48). In Chen and Willits’s (1999) study, independence consisted of the capability to develop a personal learning plan, finding resources for study and learning without a substantial amount of guidance. Elements that reflected interdependence included learning as a member of a team, preferring to learn in a group, and sharing effort and responsibility with colleagues (Chen and Willits, 1999). In my study students exercised both independence, through finding resources and writing annotated bibliographies based on them, and interdependence as students reported to have observed peers building relationships and fostering a sense of community while collectively constructing knowledge.
The present section delved into students’ perspectives on online scaffolding which was characterised by ideas about scaffolding, support towards assignment development, coaching, feedback as dialogue, and peer feedback. The subsequent section will discuss students’ expectations regarding distinct types of online scaffolding in this course.
107