Is Authentic Instruction a Key Element to Successful Online Learning?

Our development as teachers consists of a process of self-awareness and acceptance, coming to see that we cannot be all things the Good Teacher is expected to be, and understanding that who we are as human beings is at the core of becoming an authentic teacher.  -- Patricia Cranton

    What the late Patricia Cranton, a key contributor to the development of transformative learning theory (and a Teachers College professor), is describing is a journey of personal discovery that directly impacts the relationship between teachers and students. The result is a re-negotiation of the power balance within the learning environment and a recognition that the classroom, real or virtual, is a supportive, communal learning space where everyone can contribute and unique knowledge can be constructed through these social exchanges.

    This type of supportive environment, as Lee et al. (2011) describes, is a key element in the optimization of student learning in any learning context. It also provides the framework for implementing Jan Herrington’s authentic learning design principles which emphasize situated learning. Technologies, like those that enable distance learning and social interaction, are most effective in this type of environment where learners can “construct, create and communicate their learning” as described by Garrison & Akyol (2009).

    Yet, what we continue to see in both the classroom and the training room is continued adherence to the traditional ‘initiation-response-evaluation’ model used by teachers to check for understanding. The teacher asks the student a closed-ended question, the student responds, and the teacher evaluates the response -- on to the next question, and on to the next student. 

    Employing this essentialist approach throttles classroom dialogue into a two-dimensional, closed-ended exchange that alienates quieter students and renders the rest into passive learners. The impact on online classroom engagement is significant as it is much easier for students to become distracted or tune out all together behind a computer screen. 

    Whether these teachers believe this approach is a best practice or they simply don’t know how to implement another framework, the absence of meaningful dialogue is a key contributor to the student-teacher-curriculum disconnect we see in classrooms today. 

    The idea of dialogue as an effective teaching and learning tool has been around at least since the academies of ancient Greece and has continued to evolve over time. Initially, 20th century psychologists viewed discussion as a way for an individual to build personal knowledge from dialogic exchanges, but Lev Vygotsky observed that social interaction represented an effective method to construct knowledge and build meaning from all of the contributions of the group. 

    Paulo Freire built upon that framework with the insight that the dialogic method liberates traditionally silent voices. Other researchers (most notably Stephen Toulmin and his argumentation model) have also contributed frameworks that model learning through dialectic and dialogic exchanges. But even with this extensive research, classrooms and training rooms have been glacially slow to adapt these approaches.

    Perhaps teachers are too overwhelmed or don’t have the support to embark on such a journey, but even implementing small changes in how they interact with students can make a difference. Here's a list of research-based, practical adjustments that teachers can reference as they plan out their discussions with students. Although these best practices originated from K12 virtual school guidelines, they are equally relevant to the adult class whether delivered online or in-person.

    Through thoughtful planning and a few simple adjustments, teachers can bring students into these dialogues as active agents and help to change the classroom dynamic where the teacher is no longer positioned as the ultimate authority, but as a “member of a learning group,” as Patricia Cranton described. And within this group, authentic learning and authentic connections abound.

Reference

Cranton, P. (2001). Becoming an Authentic Teacher in Higher Education. Professional Practices in Adult Education and Human Resource Development Series. Krieger Publishing Company, Krieger Drive, Malabar, FL 32950.

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide for Educators of Adults. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310.

Jacobs, D. (2015). 14. Beyond Argumentation: Toulmin’s Model as a Dialogic, Processual Heuristic. In Creative Composition (pp. 138-147). Multilingual Matters.

Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158-163.

McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International review of research in open and distributed learning, 10(3).

McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2001, May). Chance discovery using dialectical argumentation. In Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence (pp. 414-424). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Parker, J., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2013). Authentic online learning: Aligning learner needs, pedagogy and technology. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 227-241.

Vuopala, E., Hyvönen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Interaction forms in successful collaborative learning in virtual learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 25-38.

Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY press.