July 2006 Index
Home Page

Editor’s Note
: When the locus of control for learning moves to the student, the roles of teacher and student are redefined. A variety of methods have been identified to facilitate successful transition from teacher control to independent learning. Key to all of these is development of learner autonomy.

Understanding and Promoting Autonomy in UK
Online Higher Education.

Lydia Arnold [1]
United Kingdom


Through a review of literature this research demonstrates that autonomy can have different interpretations. A considerable body of research describes methods through which autonomy is promoted in a face-to-face environment. A comparable level of research in the online domain is not evident. A description of methods being used by the Ultraversity Project (a fully online degree program) to promote online learner autonomy demonstrates that comparable techniques for the promotion of autonomy can and indeed do exist. The research suggests that the online environment offers additional opportunities for autonomy, and these are charted. A model depicting stages of autonomy experienced by online learners is proposed. Learners are shown to have mobility between stages; this mobility is shown to relate to the methods of autonomy promotion that are applied.

Keywords: Autonomy, personalized learning, online learning, online community.


In the emerging arena of online higher education arena there is little understanding of how autonomy can be enabled despite its importance within education. The principle of autonomy within UK Higher Education is widely and thoroughly explored (see for example Channock 2004; Fazey & Fazey, 2001; McNair, 1995, Spencer & Childs, 2005) but a parallel understanding for online higher education is not evident. Unanswered questions in the online context include; What is the nature of autonomy online? What methods are available to encourage autonomous learning in a fully online program? How effective are such methods in promoting autonomy?

The Ultraversity Project

The BA (Honors) Learning, Technology and Research fully online degree was launched in 2003 and is part of the Ultraversity project based at Ultralab, the research, education and technology unit of Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, England. The students are called researchers as the course is centered upon individual professionally based research rather than delivered content. Researchers come from a range of professional contexts (including education, health services, commerce and the self-employed sector). They are often full time workers, who have not had the opportunity of attending a University.

Researchers undertake a degree pathway that is inherently personalized; a generic degree structure with built-in mechanisms for individual learners to adapt the degree to their own context and shape their own research agenda. The BA Learning, Technology and Research is a fully online program at the heart of which is an online learning community. The community provides an online arena for peer interaction and dialogue and it gives access to researchers for engagement with learning facilitators. As well as the community, Ultraversity offers researchers a range of supporting tools and resources. As the project is fundamentally research based, tools and resources are constantly evolving.

This fully online degree is coupled with principles of collaborative community learning, prominence is given to individuality and negotiated learning, independent learning planning, peer review, reflective study modules and action research projects.

What is autonomous learning and
how is it promoted in Higher Education?

In the UK autonomy in higher education has been associated with freedom, choice, decision making and with the idea that students should take responsibility for learning (Boud, 1988). Autonomous learners can make decisions about their own learning and perceive themselves as being in control, they are intrinsically motivated and have confidence in themselves (Fazey & Fazey, 2001), and they have a capacity for active and independent learning (Dickinson 1995). The promotion of autonomous learning in UK higher education has, since the 1990's, taken place against an increasing socioeconomic culture of individualism (Laycock & Stephenson, 1993) so that autonomy has become a widely expected outcome of higher education.

Autonomy is synonymous with learner responsibility as well as control. Boud (1988) links this increased learner responsibility with the lessening intervention of a teacher whilst Clark (2001) equates this to a growing culture of teaching through a refusal to teach. Others though, including Pennycook (1998) see the responsibility of an autonomous learner as being quite different, as the decision to independently seek assistance or guidance from a teacher. Candy (1988) notes that the novice's need for assistance may actually reflect a higher level of autonomy whereby the learner makes the conscious choice between dependence and independence based upon need. Student responsibility may then be equated with autonomy, but this does not necessarily infer a lessening of teacher intervention.

Developing autonomy may be seen as changing how learners feel about themselves and the environment in which they operate, particularly in developing their sense of control (McNair, 1995).

Fazey and Fazey (2001) emphasize three key psychological factors that predispose learners to be able to develop autonomy, these are perception of competence, perceived internal locus of control and intrinsic motivation. Rather than developing self, Channock (2004) emphasizes the importance of routines that develop meta-cognition, including reflection notes with assignments and reflections on the process of assignments as part of the product. In keeping with this outlook Petric (2002) gives particular value to the process of discussion which celebrates difference (independence) amongst students, explores whether students found activities useful, whether they would adapt activities or use them in future, also exploring what activities made them uncomfortable.

Spencer and Childs (2001) identified and explored factors important to developing autonomy amongst new undergraduates in the first year of a face-to-face degree program. They found that variables in determining autonomy included:

  • the place of students self-evaluated performance (though supported by tutor feedback) as it assists students to plan (a form of control).

  • peer support was important in paving the way to autonomy because of its contribution to the self evaluation process and because of its motivational capacities.

  • students previous experiences of study; expectations were often seen to be of more structured and guided nature amongst those coming in to Higher Education from traditional routes.

  • financial and other concerns particularly family were also noted by the authors as potentially influential of the transition in to Higher Education.

Childs (2005, p5) concluded that determinants of autonomy "include previous learning experience, independent study methods, work load, time management and reading skills, tutor attitude and practice feedback, assessment and the peer group". Though these were not supplemented with pragmatic practitioner oriented recommendations, for example although tutor attitude was an important determinant the papers did not go so far as to outline the nature of an autonomy encouraging tutor. Neither are the conditions set out here ubiquitously accepted as learners grow in autonomy; for example with regard to the importance of the peer interactions Kearsley (1995) suggests that the more autonomous a learner is, the more reflective too thus they demand less stimulation and reinforcement from interacting with peers.

Table 1 summarizes the factors that influence autonomy in learners in face-to-face higher education environments divided in to three categories.

Table 1
Factors which according to literature influence autonomy in learners
in face-to-face higher education environments

PART 1. Conditions evident in teaching and learning

a.             Community/peer learning & dialogue

b.             Peer review

c.             Reflection on learning

d.             Negotiated learning activities

e.             Self-evaluation

f.              Evaluation of performance (though supported by tutor feedback)

PART 2. External influence learners

g.         Motivation

h.         Peer support

i.          Peer group (social)

j.          Financial and family concerns

k.         Other concerns and the experience of personal development

l.          A need for [life] change and taking responsibility (attitude)

PART 3. Characteristics of learners (intrinsic)

m.        Perception of competence

n.         Perceived internal locus of control

o.         Intrinsic motivation





















Autonomy, technology and UK online learning

According to the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2005) one of the consequences of higher education's emphasis on autonomous learners is the emergence of new strategies to promote autonomy, including distance learning and the use of electronic materials. How such strategies are able to promote autonomy is not made explicit. A link is provided without explanation.

In a National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) report Green et al. (2005) consider how personalized learning, particularly learner choice and technology may be achieved. Whilst the authors state that in working towards personalized learning, assessment has a key role and should be "a positive and constructive experience, engaging the learner and the system in a process of constant monitoring, updating and dialogue" to promote ownership the of assessment amongst students, they offer no pragmatic illustration of the possibilities of technology in enabling this process.


To explore autonomy in an online higher education, the BA (Honors) Learning Research Technology provided a case study environment. A case study was undertaken to establish what methods are available to encourage autonomous learning in a fully online higher education program and to simultaneously explore the nature of autonomy online. The methods used were three fold.

The first was observation of the course provision was undertaken, observing the provision of resources, learning activities and the way things were done within a cohort (year group). The observations were reviewed and developed by two other learning facilitator practitioners for completeness and accuracy.

Second, to gain view of the provision from the researchers perspective, an online discussion was instigated with the aim of exploring researchers perspectives of autonomy and to understand their perceptions of what provision contributes to their autonomy levels. The decision to instigate a discussion in the online community was made to allow asynchronous and thoughtful discussion particularly to allow researchers to act without time pressure. It also allowed thoughtful probing. This method of engagement left a written record of exchanges and thus alleviated data recording issues. Seventeen researchers engaged in the discussion; the size of the year group from which the sample (discussion) group came was eighty-one.

Third, an exploratory researcher case study was undertaken to consider effectiveness of the strategies to promote autonomy and illustrate how an individual engages with these factors.
A single researcher was interviewed and her online community participation analyzed, any engagement with visible autonomy promoting opportunities (including the Independent Learning Plan tool) were identified and analyzed; moreover asynchronous email discussion was undertaken to harmonize the interpretation of the data with the intended conveyance of meaning by the case study researcher.

What is being done in the fully online BA Learning Technology Research
to promote autonomy?

Facilitator observation of the program structure revealed six ways in which autonomy was promoted. These were in line with the factors found in face-to-face higher education settings. Researchers added further factors, not present in literature or seen through facilitator observation. A summary of the factors present in the program can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2
Factors that promote autonomy in the
fully online BA Learning Technology and Research program.

Factors identified
by researchers only

Factors identified
by observation and researchersa

Flexible access

Learning facilitation

Self selection

Lack of face-to-face contact

Media choices

(a) Community peer learning and dialogue

(b) Peer review

(c) Negotiated learning activities

(d) Self evaluation

(e) Evaluation of performance

(f) Reflection on learning

a bracketed letters correspond to Table 1 to show the commonality between literature and reality

Having identified the factors that promote autonomy in the degree’s online environment, explanations of how each factor contributes to learner autonomy are hereafter offered.

Community/peer learning & dialogue: Researchers primarily communicate with each other through community messaging (one to many). Initially learning facilitators encourage researchers to join in the community using a range of methods; in the early stages this may involve introduction posts or responses to ice breaker activities. In time the community strengthens and dialogue becomes more developed and the community begins to learn collaboratively, moving towards social learning which is not heavily dependent on one to one support. Researchers are exposed to, and are able to make choices about, their learning within the flow of community dialogue.

Peer review: In the community environment researchers are actively encouraged to share research and research products with the purpose of mutually acting as critical friends and motivators. The researchers gain confidence and a degree of independence through peer review but emphasized the importance of guidance in making this process effective. Guidance on how to give peer review helped researchers to give effective feedback to other researchers. The peer review process was empowering for researchers enabling allowing them to make decisions in what to feedback to others and about how to respond or act based on feedback. The asynchronous community environment review can be performed at a level depth not always possible in a synchronous situation.

Reflection on learning: Within modules and notably also in assessment there is an emphasis on reflecting upon what has been learned as well as stating what has been learned. The theme of reflection in modules was cited by researchers as a way in which they may develop skills for autonomy, as they are able to examine their learning and see their progress, and so gain confidence and a sense of control. The asynchronous community assists reflection as it keeps a log of the messages, visible cues about the progression of a learning journey not possible in other environments; there is a textual record of activity and dialogue upon which thoughtful reflection can occur.

Negotiated learning activities: The assessment criteria used within the first year (and beyond) reinforces the desirability of negotiation. To achieve an excellent in the realm of task completion researchers must demonstrate the active negotiation of activities. The negotiation of tasks is supported by online workshops in how to personalize tasks (basic negotiation) and how to renegotiate tasks.

The actual canvas for negotiation varies by module but technology is always involved. One method for negotiation is the electronic Independent Learning Plan (ILP). The ILP templates are generic editable documents which outline ways in which the learning outcomes of a module may be achieved. They are housed in a secure web site, each researchers’ ILP is viewable to themselves and their learning facilitator. The researcher accesses the ILP to carry out changes and then the same document is visited by their Learning facilitator who is able to make comments about the changes and either approve them or suggest further changes. The asynchronous nature of the tool facilitates this process. Changes can be incremental and considered.

Amongst researchers there was a consensus that personalizzation is desirable with clear guidance. The need for guidance was captured articulately in the researchers online discussion; “the ILP … is a journey planner using existing networks. - Perhaps I am more comfortable being 'guided' rather than exploring - at the moment anyway". Guidance for the negotiation of learning was seen to come from learning facilitators and peers in the community and also from module resources.

Though negotiation is a key factor in permitting and promoting autonomy it is inherently limited because of the context in which it was being sought; though the program has mechanisms for promoting high levels of autonomy the degree of achievable autonomy was ultimately constrained by those parameters which ultimately define formal qualifications.

Self-evaluation: The use of assessment which gives credit for a researchers skill in evaluating their strengths and weaknesses is a permanent feature in the first year of study across all modules. Like negotiation, it is rewarded in assessment. Through guidance in module learning activities, researchers are continually encouraged to assess their strengths and weaknesses. Such evaluations and identifications then support research topics in subsequent modules. The need for strength and weakness assessment is both for assessment and for research development.

In addition a skills assessment skills assessment module is presented to the researchers: This module demands researchers reflect upon their academic year, specifically they identify their current level of performance and make plans to improve areas of concern. The assessment for this module is not a reinforcement of the decisions made in the process but is based upon the quality of the evidence, discussion and the ability of the researchers to identify strengths and weaknesses. In identifying these areas and engaging in subsequent planning researchers are empowered to take control of their learning, the scaffolding that the module framework allows researchers to choose pathways for development.

Evaluation of performance (though supported by tutor feedback): The use of coversheets (here a document for summative feedback after assessment), learning facilitator formative feedback, and self and peer evaluation all contribute towards this condition for autonomy. This combinational approach to evaluating researcher performance may promote planning and researcher control.

Flexible access: The factor most frequently cited as being a provision for enabling autonomy was simply the provision for researchers to learn whenever and wherever they choose. The ability to communicate with peers in an asynchronous community and to study at a time that suits the situation of individuals, offers a high level of choice for researchers. For some researchers, this flexibility of access and ability to choose comes with high levels of self-sacrifice to participate. They make room for the program by working less hours or squeezing into busy schedules of existing commitments at home and with work. This requires high levels of commitment, personal organization, and time management.

No face-to-face: The researchers in discussion cited a push towards autonomy from lack of face-to-face contact in the course. Not seeing other researchers encourages independence. It also gives impetus to converse, share work, give peer reviews and accept advice and constructive criticism from others.

Support from Learning Facilitators (guidance): It has been discussed hitherto that researchers require guidance from learning facilitators to prevent isolation, assist in negotiation of tasks and offer feedback. The facilitator’s role is one of scaffolding autonomy. Community facilitation limits the sense of isolation as it gives access to advice from a range of 'guides'. The nature of this guidance is often initially in the form of reassurance and also prompts for the development of ideas as well as the provision of praise and critique. The technology allows access to multiple sources of advice at any time. Accessing a team of facilitators online rather than an individual facilitator only, was also seen as a way of exposing researchers to a range of inputs which help in making informed choices in the learning journey. The subtle differences in guidance between the facilitation team offers exposure to a range of ideas, being exposed to a range of views in guidance has the knock-on effect of creating the need for choice and decisions.

Media choices: The BA Learning Research Technology actively encourages researchers to use a range of media and genre, often experimentally in their assessment production. Encouragement comes by way of reward for the appropriate use of media in assessment, through modeling in the presentation of media rich and experimental resources, seeding with suggestions for media possibilities in task outlines and also through community discussion. The course in media terms is a blank canvas and researchers can make all of their own media choices. The highly skilled facilitation team, which has expert technical backing are able to receive and assess a plethora of media and genre. One researcher in discussion outlined the significance of the guidance mechanisms for media choice empowerment; "Being presented with brief lists of media and genre types earlier in the year gave me ideas about how I might present work and thoughts. I am now, as a result of this, having more ideas for the future … because of the wonderful feeling of freedom in self-expression that I felt when working creatively”.

The negotiation of modules identified earlier overlaps with this theme as the negotiation of media experimentation is explicitly addressed. Figure 1 below shows an extract from an Independent Learning Plan template as it is presented to the researcher, it refers to an activity which encourages the researcher to use technology in their learning journal to understand better their work role. Figure 2 is an example of how a researcher edited the same activity, changing the technology utilized to explore the individuals job role.

Figure 1. An Individual Learning Plan Extract

Figure 2. A personalized Individual Learning Plan Example

The change was made in this instance to reflect the individuals ready familiarity with digital pictures and her desire to set out a new challenge and learning experience in learning to use an unfamiliar technology. The changes at this level are simple but they did offer the researcher a level ownership and control over of the learning and thereafter assessment products. In essence embracing and embedding negotiation of activities in this way ensures that assessment is not separated from the individual learning needs.

Selection of autonomous learners at the point of entry: Researchers themselves believed that the act of enrolling online (the method of enrollment for the pathway) for a fully online research based degree set an expectation that the course would involve self reliance. The use of a range of pre-registration taster activities may also have filtered out learners for who the detailed methods of learning did not feel comfortable.

Exploring the nature of online autonomy

It became clear in the research online discussion, that the act of instigating a dialogue had actually caused researchers to consider the concept of autonomy and it was not necessarily something that was articulated or explicitly considered previously. In effect this meant that despite the program providing opportunities for autonomy there was no widely held acknowledgement of the benefits. Researchers were then engaging with an array of opportunities for autonomy but are not equipped with the vision of why they are engaged in this way and what the benefits are.

Learners within the program showed themselves to have different perceptions of autonomy, in their discursive explorations they associated to the concept of autonomy the juxtaposed terms of ‘isolation’ and ‘social learning’, and also ‘freedom’ and ‘guidance’ – paralleling. These associations echoed the way that authors in literature associated different meanings to the concept of autonomy. Particularly it was seen that autonomy could be a negative state of isolation or a positive social experience, autonomy within a group. It was also believed by researchers that autonomy means a sense of freedom, choice, but only after a period of guidance.

An analysis was undertaken (see Table 3) examining how each online autonomy promoting could cause isolation or how it could act to promote freedom and learner control, simultaneously the potential freedom offered by an enabling factor was also identified along with the guidance which is available to reach levels of social freedom and to avoid isolation within the online environment.

An emerging model for online autonomy

The researchers conceptual associations demonstrated how factors seen as promoting autonomy can be potentially isolating and though freedom is sought, guidance may be necessary to achieve this. Analyzing and interpreting the associations between these concepts led to the formulation of a proposed model outlining four possible states of learner autonomy in the online environment (depicted in Figure 3 below). The phases may be seen as:

  • Guided social learning (NW)

  • Social learner controlled (NE)

  • Guided isolated learning (SW)

  • Isolated learner controlled (SE)

Table 3
An analysis of the relationship between autonomy promoting factors
and the four terms identified as associated.






Flexible access (learning whenever and wherever the individual researcher chooses)

Learning without peers in the same space and time can be isolating for some.

Encounters asynchronously and without geographic bounds spark relationships otherwise impossible to maintain.

Choice of study context.

The need for routine amongst some researchers means that guidance in this area may be needed.

No 'face-to-face' contact/physical isolation (creating independence)

Feelings of isolation created by separateness.

New types of relationship.

Freedom for online personas, freedom from physical attributes.

New forms of guidance sought.

Negotiation of modules

Maybe create a sense of being lost when common module content is not shared.

The negotiation process may be a social experience amongst peers and LF's

A sense of self determination may arise

Guidance may be needed to meet the criteria of a formal program and to assist researchers in exploring individual contexts.


Self-assessment done in isolation may be seen as a secluded activity where judgments are difficult.

Self assessment can be completed using community support.

Self-assessment can be seen as a freedom from traditional and unilateral tutor feedback mechanisms.

Outcomes of this process can be an additional source of guidance even when self determined.

Peer Review

Generally seen as social negative reviews and private

Responses may be seen to promote isolation.

Reviewing work in the community can be encouraging and motivating.

Peer review can be seen as a freedom from traditional and unilateral tutor feedback mechanisms.

Reviews and suggestions in this process can be an additional source of guidance.

Community dialogue

Community dialogue can combat isolation by providing a link to others.

Dialogue is a social activity.

Community dialogue can allow new ideas to be explored and contribute to personalization.

Dialogue can guide actions in research.

Support from LF's (guidance)

Support from LF's outside of the community may maintain researchers in isolation.

Facilitation may promote social learning through seeding, redirecting individuals back to the group and by weaving discussions to bring individuals together.

LF's can offer guidance that enhances researcher freedom, customizing advice, negotiation and the seeding of ideas for the researcher to develop.

Guidance may occur in community dialogue and through module negotiation, formative and summative feedback.

The online learning autonomy model was formulated from interpretations of researcher discussion. Thus an emerging question is

How does the model work at an operational level?
How does it match individual experiences?

Figure 3 Phases of autonomy in online learning.

Changing states of autonomy: A case study

Researcher L arrived on the BA Learning Research Technology course in her role as a parent and play researcher in February 2005. She by her own measure had "low confidence" when she began the course. She felt isolated from others and "daunted" by the online environment, but quickly settled in to the community and became a social learner seeking engagement.

In examining this transformation, L herself identified a measure of the change that she felt over the first semester of the program visually marking her sociability on a scale between isolated and social for two points in time; at the start of the course and three quarters of the way through the first year (see Figure 4). Clearly, L felt that she had evolved from being an isolated learner to being a social learner.

Figure 4: L's perception of her learning experience sociability levels

In marking herself on a scale of guidance need (see Figure 5) L noted the high degree of guidance sought at the beginning of the course; however into her second semester L noted the predominance of her need for freedom.

Figure 5: L's perception of her guidance need levels

L’s journey towards autonomy was scaffolded and facilitated by the factors outlined hitherto. Through the journey she enjoyed freedom to make choices about where and when to study, used guidance from facilitators to combat isolation, used team facilitation as a way to frame choices in learning, used the ILP, took control in her learning through a level of negotiation of activities albeit not a deep level, engaged in peer review which was empowering, and deepened in significance because of guidance, asynchronous community and community trust. Moreover she used the module design (specifically reflection and review of strengths and weaknesses) to plan and control her pathway. L’s journey took her from being a guided isolated learner to a social controlled individual learner. In effect she moved from the SW quadrant to the NE.

A fluid model

There is a great fragility in the online researchers journey towards autonomy. Although in time L considered herself to need less guidance and to be a learner in search of freedom and who had pulled away from isolation, a temporary change of situation can potentially undermine this for example some downtime of the community servers. Such an unexpected change can cause "panic" and a sense of isolation again. Thus temporarily moving L here in to the guided social learner (NW) quadrant of the autonomy journey. A return to a need for guidance and a sense of isolation can re-emerge.

Conclusions and further research

There are numerous ways in which autonomy may be promoted in online higher education. Six of the methods of autonomy promotion identified in the BA Learning Technology Research programme are congruent with those identified in a traditional context (community/peer learning, dialogue; peer review; reflection on learning; negotiated learning activities; and self-evaluation). In n the context of the online programme each method has particular qualities and dimensions made possible by technology. Hence the autonomy promoting factors online may be in principle similar to those found in a face-to-face higher education environment but they are also distinguishable by the unique role of technology in shaping the exact online facets of the factors. For example peer review may be further enabled (possibly beyond the level possible in face-to-face) by asynchronisity and a community built on trust, whilst negotiation may be enriched by the opportunities provided by the electronic Independent Learning Plan’s. Whether the technology deepens the potential for autonomy compared to face-to-face is perhaps an area for further research, though confidently here the technology can be seen to shape learners experience and the exact nature of the path to autonomy.

In addition to the parallels found with face-to-face higher education five factors not identified in literature as autonomy promoters were identified within the online program and these were explored. Of these five factors, three (flexible access, lack of face-to-face and self selection) exist because of the inherent nature of the online course; they are consequences of online environment. However the three factors act to be enabling because they sit in a wider approach that scaffolds autonomy, these factors alone may result in isolation without the guidance and scaffolding which are present by design.

The researchers perceptions of autonomy were peppered with apparent contradictions, as they viewed autonomy as isolation but also in a more positive vain as involving social interaction. A further contradiction was the idea that guidance was needed to achieve autonomy but that autonomy was in essence about seeking freedom. Through an exploration of these relationships a model depicting the possible phases of online learners autonomy has been formulated. The success of the autonomy promoting factors may be judged in terms of their ability to move learners to become social learner controlled individuals. The model proposed was an interpretation of the data and thus is context bound, whether the stages correspond to the experiences of learners in other online contexts, in face-to-face learning situations and at later stages within an undergraduate journey remains unknown, an area for further research.

The effectiveness of strategies used to foster autonomous learning is dependent upon the ability to oust isolationism as a force within the same factors that seek to promote degrees of freedom and self-determination. The path to online autonomy is determined by guidance provision as well as the availability of opportunities for freedom. How technology and the online environment can shape guidance and enhance opportunities for autonomous freedoms is charted here within one context, there is no order of priority attached to the factors in this exploratory study. Nor is the degree of interdependence factors explored in depth beyond noting that the whole pathway experience influence autonomy. This study relates to the first year of an online degree course; whether the autonomy related needs of researchers and the conditions for autonomy change as researchers progress to years two and three remains an area for further consideration.


Boud, D (1988). Developing Student Autonomy in Learning (London: Kogan Page).

Candy, P (1988). On the attainment of subject-matter autonomy in Boud, D (Ed) Developing student autonomy in learning (second edition) (59-76). London: Kogan Page

Channock, K (2004). Autonomy and responsibility: same or different? Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2004. Available Online At www.independentlearning.org/ila03/ila03_chanock.pdf (Accessed 8th March 2006)

Childs, P (2005). Autonomy and the ability to learn project. Available Online At http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/research/projects/childs.html (Accessed 28th January 2006)

Clark, I (2001) Perspectives on the directive/nondirective continuum. The Writing Centre Journal, 22 (1), 33-58.

Dickinson L (1995) Autonomy and motivation. System, 23 (2), 165-174.

Fazey, D (1996) Guidance for learner autonomy in S McNair Putting Learners at the Centre (Sheffield: DfEE).

Fazey D and Fazey J (2001) 'The potential for autonomy in learning'. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 26 no 3, 345-361.

Green, Keri and Rudd, H, K & T (2005) Personalisation and Digital Technologies Available Online At http://www.nestafuturelab.org/download/pdfs/research/Personalisation_Report.pdf (Accessed 10th April 2006).

Kearsley, G. (1995). The nature and value of interaction in distance education. In M. Beaudoin (Ed.), Distance education symposium 3: Instruction, 83–92 (University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education).

Laycock, M. & Stephenson, J. (1993) Learning Contracts: Scope & Rationale in M Laycock & J Stephenson, (Eds.) Using Learning Contracts in Higher Education pp 17-28. (London: Kogan Page).

McNair, S (1995) Network News Guidance and Learner Autonomy Edition 1 Available Online At http://www.dfes.gov.uk/dfee/heqe/gala1.htm (Accessed 3rd December 2005).

Pennycook, A (1987) in P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds) Autonomy and independence in language learning (London: Longman), 35-53.

Petric, B (2002) Students attitudes towards writing and the development of academic writing skills. Writing Center Journal, 22 (2), 9-27.

QAA (2005) Evidence to the Inquiry into Higher Education by the Education Sub Committee of the Education and Employment Committee of the House of Commons Accessed Online At http://www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/evidence/evidence.asp (Accessed 13th April 2006).

Spencer & Childs, J & P (2001) Making the transition to higher education: law students' first thoughts. Available Online At http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/interact/lili/2001/spencer.html (Accessed 22nd April 2006).

About the author:

Lydia Arnold is a researcher and online learning facilitator based at Ultralab, Anglia Ruskin University, England. Within these roles she has been involved in the development of online resources for learning and has contributed to the development of successful learning communities. Her current research interests include facilitation methods and distributed teams. After completing her degree in Education and Geography with Mathematics at Keele University, where she also completed her Post Graduate Certificate in Education she moved in to research at Anglia Ruskin University's Health Business School where she had became involved in researching online communities for health professionals, with particular attention to the use of video resources as a stimulus to social learning. Lydia now works fully remotely as part of Ultralab’s distributed team.

Lydia Arnold, Ultralab, Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ. England.

Tel: (+44) 1245 252 007  Lydia.arnold@ultralab.net


[1] Ultralab, Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ.
Email : lydia.arnold@ultralab.net

go top
July 2006 Index
Home Page