Lakhasly

Student-centred pedagogies stress the active role of the student in the learning process, involving their awareness of the essential metacogitive processes and collaboration for promoting their autonomy.Quantitative studies of student self-assessment and peer assessment.According to Tassinari (2016), the objective of assessment "is to make learners (more) aware of their potential as autonomous learners, and to allow them to be initiators of and responsible for the (self-) assessment process'' (p. 123). Assessment methods fall in three categories and each of which has a specific purpose. These encompass summative assessment or assessment of learning, formative assessment or assessment for learning and assessment as learning. While the objective of summative assessment is to measure students' achievement at the end of a course, formative assessment aims at providing students with regular feedback which scaffolds their learning. Besides, assessment as learning is meant to enbale students to become aware of how they learn through self-assessment. The latter is defined by Boud and Falchikov (1989) as "the involvement of learners in making judgements about their achievements andthe outcomes of their learning'' (p, 529).On the one hand, in reciprocal peer tutoring, peers work in pairs and assume two roles: a tutor and a student; sometimes one peer acts like a turor while the other acts as a student, thereby exchanging roles and providing active opportunities to consolidate and monitor their learning (Goodwin, 2001).As suggested by Tassinari (2016), to ensure that self-assessment is done properly to achieve learner autonomy, the teacher needs to consider its four steps namely : Getting started; Choosing components and descriptors; Assessing one's own competencies; and Comparing perspectives.According to Osguthorpe and Graham (2003), personal agency, which falls under the third learner autonomy movement suggested by Murphey and Jacobs (2000) namely initiating choice, is also supported in blended learning since it allows students to take control over their own learning process by providing students with the chance to learn at their own pace through deciding when, how and what to learn.It also raises student autonomy because when collaboration and group work are fostered, the students can generate positive attitudes towards learning and be continuously motivated to compelete different tasks autonomously (Scharle & Szabo, 2000).It is also claimed that blended learning environments comprising eclectic methods and multimedia tools can cater to students' learning styles and answer their learning needs, which can raise their willingness to learn and boost their academic success.On the other hand, class-wide peer tutoring requires the students to work in groups to approach learning tasks collaboratively, and peers can exchange roles by being tutors or students (Greenwood, Carta & Hall, 1988).In the context of learner autonomy, self-assessment is associated with the achievement and transformation of power, control and authority from in to outside class, leading to lifelong learning and professional development (Brew, 1999 cited in Tassinari, 2016).For example, the KWL chart, which is an ancronym that stands for what we Know, what we Want to know and what we Learned, can be adopted to enable students to activate their schemata or their background knowledge of a topic and to help them combine their knowledge with new information to generate questions and identify any possible misunderstandings, leading to continuous reflection.According to Chan (2001), to achieve an autonomy-oriented classroom, pedagogical techniques and activities need to revolve around two main principles.Peer-tutoring requires students to work in pairs, involving mixed abilities to provide instructional support to each other (Kunsch, Jitendra, & Sood, 2007).It is revealed that blended learning, which meshes in-person learning with online learning (Marsh, 2012), can promote learner autonomy.Kunsch, C., Jitendra, A., & Sood, S. (2007).Lee, L. (2002).

Student-centred pedagogies stress the active role of the student in the learning process, involving their awareness of the essential metacogitive processes and collaboration for promoting their autonomy. According to Chan (2001), to achieve an autonomy-oriented classroom, pedagogical techniques and activities need to revolve around two main principles. The latter are about involving the student in the learning process and creating a variety of learning conditions and group work to increase student motivation and inclusion.
A number of classroom techniques have been suggested to develop learner autonomy and provide students with the toolkit to be active in and outside the classroom. One of the prominent classroom techniques that are perceived to develop learner autonomy is think-pair share activity. The latter is a collaborative learning strategy that is based on problem-based learning. It requires the students to first work individually to think about the problem posed by the teacher or peers; second they work in pairs or groups to exchange knowledge and discuss the problem together; third they share their answers with the class, leading to thorough questioning and reflection (Gargi et al., 2013). Moreover, peer-tutoring has recently gained acclamation in the learning process, for it is considered as a scaffolding technique that can help students to achieve good learning outcomes. Peer-tutoring requires students to work in pairs, involving mixed abilities to provide instructional support to each other (Kunsch, Jitendra, & Sood, 2007). There are different types of peer-tutoring namely : reciprocal peer-tutoring, class-wide peer tutoring and cross-age peer tutoring. On the one hand, in reciprocal peer tutoring, peers work in pairs and assume two roles: a tutor and a student; sometimes one peer acts like a turor while the other acts as a student, thereby exchanging roles and providing active opportunities to consolidate and monitor their learning (Goodwin, 2001). On the other hand, class-wide peer tutoring requires the students to work in groups to approach learning tasks collaboratively, and peers can exchange roles by being tutors or students (Greenwood, Carta & Hall, 1988). Furthermore, cross-age peer tutoring is another type of peer-tutoring where elder students can teach the younger ones through providing regular feedback and support. Peer-tutoring carries a variety of advantages when it is done adequately. It can develop students’ interpersonal and intercommunication skills and lower their affective filter as they constantly work collaboratively. It also raises student autonomy because when collaboration and group work are fostered, the students can generate positive attitudes towards learning and be continuously motivated to compelete different tasks autonomously (Scharle & Szabo, 2000). Through group or pair work, students can learn from each other as they exchange ideas and sources of knowledge, and reflect on their own learning process. This technique enables the students to be immersed in iterative questioning which urges them to continuously think for themselves, be creative and find solutions to their educational problems. Another classroom technique for developing learner autonomy is assessment. It is well-documented that assessment methods can boost students’ critical thinking skills since it can help them to evaluate their success and make decisions about their learning. According to Tassinari (2016), the objective of assessment “is to make learners (more) aware of their potential as autonomous learners, and to allow them to be initiators of and responsible for the (self-) assessment process’’ (p. 123). Assessment methods fall in three categories and each of which has a specific purpose. These encompass summative assessment or assessment of learning, formative assessment or assessment for learning and assessment as learning. While the objective of summative assessment is to measure students’ achievement at the end of a course, formative assessment aims at providing students with regular feedback which scaffolds their learning. Besides, assessment as learning is meant to enbale students to become aware of how they learn through self-assessment. The latter is defined by Boud and Falchikov (1989) as “the involvement of learners in making judgements about their achievements andthe outcomes of their learning’’ (p, 529). In the context of learner autonomy, self-assessment is associated with the achievement and transformation of power, control and authority from in to outside class, leading to lifelong learning and professional development (Brew, 1999 cited in Tassinari, 2016). As suggested by Tassinari (2016), to ensure that self-assessment is done properly to achieve learner autonomy, the teacher needs to consider its four steps namely : Getting started; Choosing components and descriptors; Assessing one’s own competencies; and Comparing perspectives. To accomplish this aim, there are different types of self assessment checklists such as KWL chart, learning logs and graphic organizers that can help the students to identify their learning gaps, evaluate their learning process and have more control over their own assessment. For example, the KWL chart, which is an ancronym that stands for what we Know, what we Want to know and what we Learned, can be adopted to enable students to activate their schemata or their background knowledge of a topic and to help them combine their knowledge with new information to generate questions and identify any possible misunderstandings, leading to continuous reflection. More recently with the outbreak of COVID-19, most Algerian universities have started to opt for blended learning as a more appropriate solution to enhance student learning and solve a number of educational issues. It is revealed that blended learning, which meshes in-person learning with online learning (Marsh, 2012), can promote learner autonomy. According to Osguthorpe and Graham (2003), personal agency, which falls under the third learner autonomy movement suggested by Murphey and Jacobs (2000) namely initiating choice, is also supported in blended learning since it allows students to take control over their own learning process by providing students with the chance to learn at their own pace through deciding when, how and what to learn. Blended learning can also maximize social interaction among students since its main feature is to make students active in and outside the classroom through online learning. This can be accomplished by creating group-related activities that are based on collaborative learning and reflective interaction through the use of Wiki and integrated communication tools (Lee, 2002). For Schwienhorst (2003), blended learning can foster learner autonomy because it is grounded on the principle of flexibility, personalized learning, and collaborative learning which can provide students with learner control and motivation. It is also claimed that blended learning environments comprising eclectic methods and multimedia tools can cater to students’ learning styles and answer their learning needs, which can raise their willingness to learn and boost their academic success.
Refrences :
Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 505–519.
Gargi, B. et.al (2013). Teaching with visualizations in classroom setting: Mapping Instructional Strategies to Instructional Objectives. IEEE Fifth International Conference on Technology for Education.
Kunsch, C., Jitendra, A., & Sood, S. (2007). The effects of peer-mediated instruction in mathematics for students with learning problems: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 1-12.
Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., & Hall, R.V. (1988). The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and education instruction. School Psychology Review, 17, 258-275.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: a study of modification devices on nonnative discourse interaction. System, 30, 275–288.
Boud, D.,& Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment and peer assessment. Higher Education, 18 (5), 529–49.