IS AUTONOMOUS LEARNING POSSIBLE FOR ASIAN STUDENTS? THE STORY OF A MOOC FROM INDONESIA

• Authors: Ginting Daniel , Djiwandono Patrisius Istiarto , Woods Ross , Lee Debra
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

An autonomous learning attitude is crucial in determining the successful completion of an online program. Such an attitude is not always easy. Students in online programs need to strike a balance between online studies tasks and their other work, maintain motivation, and consistently follow all the stages of the program. It remains to be seen whether these attitudes prevail in some Indonesian MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) students. This paper was a descriptive sketch of learning autonomy among thirty-seven students of an Indonesian MOOC. Only a small percentage of students was genuinely autonomous, while most were not, and experience difficulty in completing the MOOC program. The study found a correlation between autonomy and academic achievement, but did not demonstrate a cause-effect relationship.

Keywords

EN

autonomous learning; online learning; MOOC; independent learning

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 20
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 60-79

Contributors

author

Ginting Daniel

• Ma Chung University

author

Djiwandono Patrisius Istiarto

• Ma Chung University

author

Woods Ross

• Worldwide University

author

Lee Debra

• Vanderbilt University

References

• Baker, K. (1986). Dilemmas at a distance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 219­230.
• Belawati, T. (2019). Massive Open Online Courses. The state of practice in Indonesia. In: K. Zhang, C. J. Bonk, T. C. Reeves, T. H. Reynolds (eds.), MOOCs and Open Education in the Global South: Challenges, Successes, and Opportunities (pp. 2017-2023). New York: Routledge.
• Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21-40.
• Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. (2003). Frameworks for research, design, benchmarks, training and pedagogy in Web-based distance education. In: M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 331–348). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
• Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(3), 18-38. https://doi.org/10.5334/2012-18
• Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow, England: Longman.
• Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
• Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Holec, H. (2001). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Khalil, H. & Ebner, M. (2014). MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention. A literature review. Learning & Technology Library (LearnTechLib). Proceedings of EdMedia 2014--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, 1305-1313. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/147656/
• Kirmizi, O., & Kirac, K. (2018). A comparative study of learner autonomy in terms of gender and learning contexts. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Aralık, 22(1), 2955-2967.
• Kobelera, P., & Strongman, L. (2011). Research, Teaching, and Learning: Pedagogy of Practice in the Open and Distance Learning Paradigm. Florida: Brown Walker Press.
• Little, D. (2009). Language learner autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: Two L2 English examples. Language Learning, 42(1), 222-233.
• Lo, Y. F. (2010). Implementing reflective portfolios for promoting autonomous learning among EFL college students in Taiwan. Language. Teaching Research, 14(1), 77-95.
• Mackness, J., Waite, M., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Learning in a small, task-oriented, connectivist MOOC: Pedagogical issues and implications for higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(4), 140-159. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1548
• Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 23(1), 123-163.
• Morgan, L. (2012). Generation Y, learner autonomy and the potential of Web 2.0 tools for language learning and teaching. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(3), 166-176.
• Petra, S. F., Jaidin, J. H., Perera, J. S. H. Q, & Linn, M. (2016). Supporting students to become autonomous learners: the role of web-based learning. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 33(4), 263-275.
• Rabe-Hemp, C., Woolen, S., & Humiston, G. S. (2009). A comparative analysis of student engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 207-215.
• Reich, J. (n.d.). Reconsidering MOOC completion rates. Retrieved June 6, 2018, from https://harvardx.harvard.edu/reich_12814 %0A
• Rita, K. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 19-38.
• Siemens, G., & Downes, S. (2008). Connectivism & Connected Knowledge. Retrieved June 10, 2018, from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss1/6
• Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332.
• Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities, 13(1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.3998/jsais.11880084.0001.104