The Impact of Soft-Deadlines on the Autonomous Learning of Online Students

Framework

This research into the impact of soft-deadlines on learner autonomy follows Michael Moore's (1973) Transactional Distance Theory (TDT). TDT holds that there are three main components that influence the success and impact of any distance education, of which online asynchronous education is a part. Those three areas are: dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy. The first two, dialogue and structure, are supported and changed by the third, learner autonomy. Transactional distance is characterized by psychological and communicative spaces that are then mediated by various technologies. This distance is inversely related to structure (student to content; student to technology) and dialogue (student to student; student to teacher) (Gokool-Ramdoo, 2008). The more autonomous a student becomes, the less structure is needed within the course and the more dialogic options open between student and instructor and students with other students (Black, 2012, Moore, 2003, Saba, 2012).

Methods

The participants in this study will consist of graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in Reading courses that are asynchronous online learning environments . Ideal number of participants will be around 30 to 40 students overall. Approximately 25 undergraduate students and approximately 15 graduate students. Potential participants will be students, male and female, all of whom will be over the age of 18 but who are diverse in age and race/ethnicity.

Students will be recruited through a three-pronged approach at the beginning of the Fall semester. This three-pronged approach will include a syllabus statement (see Appendix B), Canvas course announcement (see Appendix A) and an instructor video. During the recruitment, and for the duration of the study, participants will be reminded of the voluntary nature of participation in order to mitigate the possibility of coercion. The participants will be initially informed of the study through the use of course email to explain the study to the participants. The researcher will ask for participation and permission to evaluate student learner autonomy through the use of a Likert-scale survey as well as student responses on course evaluations related to soft deadlines.

This study will be mixed-methods design that will use quantitative data from a Likert-based scale, the Autonomy Learning Scale (Macaskill & Taylor, 2010) (see Appendix C), that will measure students’ beliefs of learner autonomy levels as well as qualitative data gleaned from course evaluations and a short answer survey to be administered at the conclusion of the semester.

Results

While still underway, this research study is explorative in nature and seeks to define or capture a relationship between learner autonomy and soft-deadlines. Initial student measurements of Autonomous Learning Beliefs have already been captured. Expectations of results are that while soft-deadlines will have a positive impact upon student learning autonomy, there is always the result that in the case of students who have poor time management skills soft-deadlines will have a negative impact on learner autonomy in the short-term as an adjustment period is made while the student learns to rely more on themselves than on the instructor of the course.

Importance

This study will contribute to the research on the impact of soft deadlines in online courses. Broadly considered in regards to impact upon students as well as how soft deadlines specifically relate to learner autonomy. Also, contributing to the body of knowledge aside, increasing learner autonomy and utilizing soft deadlines can give students a boost to their own executive capability to self-monitor their learning and time management skills, skills that will be useful no matter the context.

References

Dent, A.L., and Koenka, A.C. (2016). “The Relation Between Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement Across Childhood and Adolescence: A Meta-Analysis.” Educational Psychology Review 28: 425–74.
Hills, M. and Peacock, K. (2022). Replacing power with flexible structure: implementing flexible deadlines to improve student learning experiences. Teaching & Learning Inquiry. v.10.
Gokool-Ramdoo, S. (2008). Beyond the theoretical impasse: Extending the applications of transactional distance theory. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3), 1-17.
Miller, L. A., et al. (2017). “Completion Deadlines, Adaptive Learning Assignments, and Student Performance.” Journal of Education for Business. 94 (3): 185–94
Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76–88.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Nickels, K, and Uddin, M. (2003). “The Impact on Student Learning of Resubmission of Work and Flexible Deadlines.” Proceedings of the 2003 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference, Arlington, Texas.
Peterson, J. and Digman, M.F. (2018). “A Comparison of Learning Outcomes and Learner Satisfaction in a CADD Course with Flexible and Rigid Deadlines.” Proceedings of the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah
Patton, Mark A. (2000). “The Importance of Being Flexible with Assignment Deadlines.” Higher Education in Europe 25 (3): 417–23.
Saba, F. (2012). Building the future: a theoretical perspective. In M.G. Moore (Ed.) Handbook of Distance Education (3rd Ed., pp. 49-65). Taylor and Francis.
Schroeder, M., et, al. (2019). “Introducing a Late Bank in Online Graduate Courses: The Response of Students.” The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 10 (2).
Thomas, B. (2019). “Rethinking Deadline and Late Penalty Policies… Again.” Faculty Focus.