Examining Instructors’ Roles in Facilitating Students’ Learning Process in Pedagogical Information and Communication Technology Massive Open Online Course



This study examines how course instructors facilitate students’ learning in the Pedagogical Information and Communication Technology (ICTPED) Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) aiming to develop professional digital competence in pre-service and in-service teachers in Norway. It also provides an insight into how students’ agentic engagement in learning may affect the course instructors’ guidance. Students’ online meetings with the course instructors and students were observed and recorded. The meetings aimed to develop students’ understanding of the examination assignment. The data (4.5 hours video recordings) analyzed by the method of interaction analysis revealed that the instructors performed four pedagogical functions: (1) setting up the learning process, (2) reifying students’ ideas;(3) assisting students in developing their conceptual understanding; and (4) summarizing and structuring students’ understanding about target concepts. These pedagogical functions evolved out of mutual collaboration of the instructors and students. The students’ agentic engagement in learning was visible when they took the initiative to explicitly share their ideas related to their examination assignment. Instructors’ agency in guiding came into play when addressing students’ ideas and questions emerged during the interaction process. Students’ agentic engagement in learning shaped the course instructors’ pedagogical functions and enhanced their agency. In doing so, the dialectical interplay between the students’ and course instructors’ agency comes to the fore as an essential aspect of learning and teaching in online environments.

General Information

Keywords: instructors’ guidance functions, students’ agentic engagement, online meeting, learning and teaching, agency. P.Ya. Galperin

Journal rubric: Educational Psychology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2021170208

For citation: Singh A., Engeness I. Examining Instructors’ Roles in Facilitating Students’ Learning Process in Pedagogical Information and Communication Technology Massive Open Online Course. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2021. Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 76–89. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2021170208.


  1. Berge, Z.L., Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2008. 9(4): p. 407—414.
  2. Liu, X., et al., Exploring four dimensions of online instructor roles: A program level case study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2005. 9(4): p. 29—48.
  3. Martin, N., N. Kelly, and P. Terry, A framework for self-determination in massive open online courses: Design for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2018. 34(2).
  4. Curtin, J.L., Teaching versus facilitating in leadership development: Trends in business. Journal of Leadership Education, 2002. 1(1): p. 58—67.
  5. Mulholland, J. and C. Turnock, Learning in the workplace: A toolkit for facilitating learning, and assessment in health, and social care settings. 2012: Routledge.
  6. Wise, D., Teaching or Facilitating Learning? Selecting the Optimal Approach for Your Educational Objectives and Audience. Journal of Extension, 2017. 55(3): p. n3.
  7. Margaryan, A., M. Bianco, and A. Littlejohn, Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 2015. 80: p. 77—83.
  8. Singh, A.B. and A.I. Mørch, An analysis of participants’ experiences from the first international MOOC offered at the University of Oslo. Nordic journal of digital literacy, 2018. 13(01): p. 40—64.
  9. Skrypnyk, O., et al., Roles of course facilitators, learners, and technology in the flow of information of a cMOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2015. 16(3).
  10. Kesim, M. and H. Altınpulluk, A theoretical analysis of MOOCs types from a perspective of learning theories. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015. 186: p. 15—19.
  11. Bates, A., Teaching in a Digital Age—Second Edition. Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd. 2020.
  12. Gil-Jaurena, I. and D. Domínguez, Teachers’ roles in light of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Evolution and challenges in higher distance education. International Review of Education, 2018. 64(2): p. 197—219.
  13. Ross, J., et al., Teacher experiences and academic identity: The missing components of MOOC pedagogy. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2014. 10(1): p. 57—69.
  14. Engeness, I., et al., Use of videos in the Information and Communication Technology Massive Open Online Course: Insights for learning and development of transformative digital agency with pre- and in-service teachers in Norway. Policy Futures in Education, 2020. 18(4): p. 497—516.
  15. Engeness, I. and M. Nohr, Engagement in Learning in the Massive Open Online Course: Implications for Epistemic Practices and Development of Transformative Digital Agency with Pre-and In-Service Teachers in Norway. Cultural- Historical Psychology, 2020. 16(3): p. 71—82.
  16. Alvarez, I., T. Guasch, and A. Espasa, University teacher roles and competencies in online learning environments: a theoretical analysis of teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 2009. 32(3): p. 321—336.
  17. Chen, Y., et al., Facilitating students’ interaction in MOOCs through timeline-anchored discussion. International Journal of   Human—Computer   Interaction,   2019.   35(19): p. 1781—1799.
  18. Thomas, G. and S. Thorpe, Enhancing the facilitation of online groups in higher education: a review of the literature on face-to-face and online group-facilitation. Interactive Learning Environments, 2019. 27(1): p. 62—71.
  19. Foroughi, A., MOOCs: The Enduring Importance of” Teacher Presence”. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 2016. 16(6): p. 76.
  20. Watkins, J., L.Z. Jaber, and V. Dini, Facilitating Scientific Engagement Online: Responsive Teaching in a Science Professional Development Program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2020: p. 1—22.
  21. Baran, E., A.-P. Correia, and A. Thompson, Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 2011. 32(3): p. 421—439.
  22. Bawane, J. and J.M. Spector, Prioritization of online instructor roles: implications for competency-based teacher education programs. Distance education, 2009. 30(3): p. 383— 397.
  23. Martin, F., et al., Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 2019. 42: p. 34—43.
  24. Maor, D., The teacher’s role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational Media International, 2003. 40(1—2): p. 127—138.
  25. Huang, Q., Examining Teachers’ Roles in Online Learning. 2018.
  26. Martin, F., C. Wang, and A. Sadaf, Facilitation Matters: Instructor Perception of Helpfulness of Facilitation Strategies in Online Courses. Online Learning, 2020. 24(1).
  27. Brinkley-Etzkorn, K.E., Learning to teach online: Measuring the influence of faculty development training on teaching effectiveness through a TPACK lens. The Internet and Higher Education, 2018. 38: p. 28—35.
  28. Hidalgo, F.J.P. and C.A.H. Abril, MOOCs: Origins, Concept and Didactic Applications: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2012—2019). Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2020: p. 1—27.
  29. Sfard, A., On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational researcher, 1998. 27(2): p. 4—13.
  30. Siemens, G., Teaching in social and technological networks. Connectivism. Recuperado de http://www. connectivism. ca, 2010.
  31. Vygotsky, L.S., Thought and language. Rev. and expanded ed. ed. Myslenie i reč’, ed. A. Kozulin, E. Hanfmann, and G. Vakar. 2012, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  32. Daniels, H., Vygotsky and pedagogy. 2016: Routledge.
  33. Arievitch, I. and A. Stetsenko, The Quality of Cultural Tools and Cognitive Development: Gal’perin’s Perspective and Its Implications. Human Development — HUM DEVELOP, 2000. 43: p. 69—92.
  34. Engeness, I. and A. Edwards, The Complexity of Learning: Exploring the Interplay of Different Mediational Means in Group Learning with Digital Tools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 2017. 61(6): p. 650—667.
  35. Engeness, I., What teachers do: facilitating the writing process with feedback from EssayCritic and collaborating peers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2018. 27(3): p. 297— 311.
  36. Engeness, I., PY Galperin’s Development of Human Mental Activity: Lectures in Educational Psychology. 2021: Springer.
  37. Engeness, I. and A. Lund, Learning for the future: Insights arising from the contributions of Piotr Galperin to the cultural-historical theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2020. 25: p. 100257.
  38. Stetsenko, A., Critical Challenges in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory: The Urgency of Agency. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2020. 16(2): p. 5—18.
  39. Stetsenko, A., The transformative mind: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to development and education. 2017: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Jefferson, G., Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 2004. 125: p. 13—34.
  41. Derry, S.J., et al., Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The journal of the learning sciences, 2010. 19(1): p. 3—53.
  42. Hall, R. and R. Stevens, Interaction analysis approaches to knowledge in use, in Knowledge and Interaction: A Synthetic Agenda for the Learning Sciences M.L. A.A. diSessa, N.S. rown, Editor. 2015, Routledge. p. 88—124.
  43. Jordan, B. and A. Henderson, Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice, in Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, G.H. Lerner, Editor. 1995, NL: John Benjamins: Amsterdam. p. 39—103.
  44. Mercer, N., Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 2004. 1(2): p. 137—168.
  45. Linell, P., Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically : interactional and contextual theories of human sense- making. Advances in cultural psychology, Constructing human development. 2009, Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Publ.
  46. Linell, P., Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Vol. 3. 1998: John Benjamins Publishing.
  47. Engeness, I., Teacher facilitating of group learning in science with digital technology and insights into students’ agency in learning to learn. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2020. 38(1): p. 42—62.
  48. Maclellan, E., Shaping agency through theorizing and practising teaching in teacher education. The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education, 2017: p. 139—142.

Information About the Authors

Ammar Bahadur Singh, Research Fellow, Department of Teacher Education, Østfold University College, Norway, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4394-7571, e-mail: ammar.b.singh@hiof.no

Irina Engeness, PhD in Law, Head of Research Group ICT in Teaching and Learning, Professor (full), Østfold University College, Norway, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5948-4992, e-mail: irina.engeness@hiof.no



Total: 671
Previous month: 9
Current month: 0


Total: 303
Previous month: 5
Current month: 2