Technology-Mediated Caring: Building Relationships Between Students and Instructors in Online K-12...

RUNNING HEAD: Technology-‐Mediated Caring

This is a pre-publication draft of the following chapter: Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Velasquez, A. (2013). Technology-mediated caring: Building

relationships between students and instructors in online K-12 learning environments. In M. Newberry, A. Gallant, & P. Riley (Eds.), Advances in Research on Teaching: Vol. 18. Emotions in school: Understanding how the hidden curriculum influences relationships, leadership, teaching, and learning (pp. 183-202). Bimgley, UK: EmeraldBooks.

Technology-Mediated Caring: Building Relationships Between Students and Instructors in

Online K-12 Learning Environments

Jered Borup Charles R. Graham Andrea Velasquez

Instructional Psychology and Technology

Brigham Young University, USA

Abstract

Caring is an important component of K-12 teaching and learning. An increasing number of K-12

students are enrolling in online courses. The physical separation of students and teachers in the

online medium requires a change in the way caring relationships are formed. In this chapter we

examine how teachers worked to develop caring relationships with students at the Open High

School of Utah, an online charter high school in the United States. Findings indicate that

teachers were able to implement all aspects of Nodding’s model of moral education in ways

unique to online contexts, and at times with more depth than experienced in a face-to-face

context.

Although teaching is seen as a largely academic pursuit, Stansfield (1961) explained that

“teaching is an intensely human vocation” (p. 345-346). As a result Johnson (2008) viewed two

aspects of teaching: the academic side and the human side. Although research has focused

largely on the academic side of teaching (Goldstein, 1999), the human side can be more difficult

Technology-‐Mediated Caring 2



to perform (Johnson, 2008) and may be foundational to more academic outcomes (Maslow,

1943).

One aspect of the human side of teaching is the formation of caring teacher-student

relationships. Repetto, Cavanaugh, Wayer, and Liu (2010) explained that K-12 teachers have a

high standard of care because at times they are asked to serve as pseudo parents. Researchers in

face-to-face environments have found that quality teacher-student relationships can impact

students’ academic performance (Muller, Katz, & Dance, 1999), intellectual development

(Goldstein, 1999), and students’ feelings toward the course and the instructor (Wilson, 2006;

Teven, 2007).

Murphy and Rodriguez (2008) explained that face-to-face learning environments afford

teachers and students several opportunities to engage in dialogue that builds “rapport, trust,

mutual respect and a caring relationship” (p. 1068). However, an increasing number of K-12

students are enrolling in online courses (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rap, 2011)

changing the nature of dialogue between teachers and students. The majority of online courses

rely on asynchronous communication (Parsad & Lewis, 2009). Asynchronous communication

can make the development of caring relationships more difficult resulting in a “loss of contact,

loss of connection, and a resultant sense of isolation” (Pratt, 2007, p. 31). Yet, there are also

some affordances of online learning that can improve dialogue between students and teachers.

For instance, the flexibility that online learning affords can provide students with the ability to

reflect between exchanges and interact with teachers more conveniently and privately, allowing

students to more freely share information with the instructor (Murphy & Rodriguez, 2008).




Unfortunately, Velasquez’s (2012) review of the literature found that research has ignored the

topic of caring in the K-12 online environment. The purpose of this research is to examine how

teachers at an online charter high school worked to form caring relationships with students and

help students develop the capacity to care.

Ethic of Care

Noddings (2008) disputed the idea that caring is a set of behaviours such as “cuddling,

patting, hugging, and drying tears” (p. 166). Although caring can elicit these types of

behaviours, Noddings’ (1984) view of care focused on the relationship between the carer and the

cared-for. A caring relationship requires the active participation of both the carer and the cared-

for. First, the carer should work to achieve engrossment. Noddings (1988) described

engrossment as “total presence” (p. 220) and requires the carer to be attentive, open, and

receptive to the cared-for (Noddings, 2008). Engrossment allows the carer to recognize the

cared-for’s needs and view situations from their perspective. Following engrossment the carer

may experience motivational displacement—a motivating energy that drives the carer to act in

the best interest of the cared-for (Noddings, 1984). Lastly, caring relationships require

reciprocity on the part of the cared-for—an acknowledgement that the care has been received.

Reciprocity can include a variety of reactions from a verbal expression of gratitude to a smile.

Noddings (2008) explained that when the cared-for fails to respond “there is no caring relation”

(p. 163). Noddings (1984) added that caring actions induce joy, which is a “major reward for the

one-caring” (p. 132). It is important to note that the process of engrossment, motivational

displacement, and reciprocity can happen on different magnitudes and timetables and does not




require “a deep, lasting time-consuming personal relation” (Noddings, 1984, p. 180). Since the

focus of this chapter will be the educational context, we will refer to the carer as the teacher and

the cared-for as the student. This is not to imply that students cannot care for the teacher;

however, Noddings (2008) explained that in a teacher-student relationship the teacher “serves

almost exclusively as carer” (p. 163).

Moral Education

In addition to defining caring, Noddings presented a model of moral education that is

based on care. Her model contains four components: dialogue, modelling, practice, and

confirmation. Noddings (2008) defined dialogue as a type of interaction that requires a “mutual

search for understanding” (p. 169). Furthermore dialogue is open, requiring both parties to listen

and speak (Noddings, 1995). Dialogue is essential in the formation of caring relationships

because it allows for engrossment (Noddings, 1995). Dialogue also is the means by which

teachers learn about their students and allows them to more effectively respond to student needs

(Noddings, 2005).

Second, teachers should work to model what it means to care. This can be done while

engaging in direct dialogue with the students and caring for them. Teachers also model caring

when the student observes the teachers’ behaviour (Noddings, 2005). However, Noddings

(2008) explained that modelling should not be the primary intent of caring actions but is “an

inevitable by-product of genuine caring” (p. 169) and it is possible that teachers can

unconsciously model caring behaviours (Bandura, 1986; Brown & Dungiud, 1993).




Third, teachers should provide students with opportunities to engage in caring behaviours

themselves. Every human encounter provides an opportunity to care (Noddings, 2008). Teachers

can help to facilitate these caring encounters through group work or service projects. However,

students’ participation in these types of activities does not ensure that they will practice caring

and it is more likely to occur when the teacher reminds students of the importance of caring and

monitors their behaviour (Noddings, 2008).

The last component of a moral education is confirmation. Confirmation occurs when the

teacher affirms the best in others (Noddings, 2005). Noddings (2008) explained, “acts of

confirmation point students upward by recognizing a better self already partly formed and

struggling to develop” (p. 172). Acts of confirmation occur when teachers react to student

actions—good or bad—by revealing to the student their best self (Noddings, 1988). For instance

following poor student behaviour a teacher can show disappointment while still attributing the

behaviour to the best possible motive. Noddings (2008) described this type of confirmation as

“perhaps the loveliest of moral acts” (p. 172).

Online Social Presence

Noddings explained that caring teacher-student relationships require “total presence”

(Noddings, 1988, p. 220). Within the online learning context, teachers and students are

separated by space and often time, requiring their dialogue to be mediated by technology.

Although online teachers and students cannot be present physically they can establish online

social presence —a prerequisite to establishing caring relationships online.




Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework

defined social presence as participants’ ability to “project themselves socially and emotionally,

as ‘real’ people (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used”

(p. 94). Although Garrison et al. (2000) believed that social presence is more easily established

when non-verbal cues are present, Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer’s (2001) content

analysis of text based discussion boards found that online learners were able to establish a high

level of social presence via text by posting affective responses (i.e. expressions of emotions,

humour, and self-disclosure), interactive responses (i.e. acknowledging the contributions of

others, continuing a thread, and asking questions), and cohesive responses (i.e. addressing others

by name, using inclusive language such as we and our, and the use of phatic communication and

salutations). Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001) added that social presence was

more likely to be achieved when teachers facilitated discourse with and among students,

modelled appropriate communication behaviour and etiquette, and monitored course

communications.

Research Context

Research was conducted at the Open High School of Utah (OHSU), an online charter

high school in the western United States that opened Fall 2009. In its inaugural year OHSU

enrolled 127 grade 9 students and employed four full-time teachers. OHSU has steadily grown

and during the 2011-12 academic year OHSU enrolled 381 students, grades 9-12, and employed

21 teachers (15 full-time, 4 part-time, and 2 adjuncts). Most students (86%) took the majority or

all of their course work through OHSU completely online. OHSU’s overall course pass rate was




80% and exceeded the state averages on Utah’s Criterion Referenced Tests (CRT) for Math,

Science, and English (OHSU, 2011).

OHSU was an especially appropriate setting for this research because teachers work to

establish close relationships with students. At OHSU the majority of the learning materials are

designed prior to the course and organized into weekly units. The weekly units are then placed

on OHSU’s online learning management system allowing students to access the materials at their

own convenience during the week. This model eliminates the need for teachers to present

information multiple times and affords them with additional time to tutor and interact with

individual students. Each teacher has four online office hours in which they are accessible to

students via email, instant messaging, phone, and video conferencing. Teachers also spend a

portion of their workday identifying and contacting students who need additional support.

Students are provided with an open online forum where they can interact with other students

socially. In addition, OHSU’s mission statement emphasizes the importance of service and

ethics in student achievement. To help fulfil their stated mission, OHSU organizes several

service projects within the community and has instituted a peer tutoring program.

Purposeful sampling was used to ensure a maximum variation of teacher experiences and

perspectives (Patton, 1980). In total, nine full-time and two part-time teachers were selected for

participation in two 45-60 minute interviews: two social studies teachers, two math teachers, two

language arts teachers, two science teachers, a health teacher, a Spanish teacher, and a special

education teacher. Four participants were in their first year of teaching at OHSU, six were in

their second, and one was in her third. Although none of the selected teachers had previously




taught in a K-12 online setting prior to working at OHSU, 9 of the 11 had previously taught in K-

12 face-to-face settings averaging 5.8 years experience.

Interviews were transcribed and analysed using constant comparison coding methods.

Guided by Noddings’ four components of a moral education (i.e. dialogue, confirmation,

modelling, and practice) the primary author coded all 22 interviews. During the coding process

members of the research team met regularly to review the coding and discuss emerging themes.

Once the coding was complete for each teacher, the coding categories were examined across all

cases to identify comparative findings and common themes.

Findings

Although physically separated from students, OHSU teachers were able to form caring

relationships and provide a moral education by maintaining a high level of dialogue with

students, engaging in acts of confirmation that help students to recognize their better self,

modelling to students what it means to care, and providing students with opportunities to care for

their peers. Below we outline the ways that OHSU teachers were able to implement Nodding’s

four components of a moral education as they establish relationships with their students.

Dialogue

There were a variety of ways that teachers at OHSU facilitated dialogue: through

personal tutoring, interactions focused on informal social topics, and the school’s shepherding

program. Although not every student was receptive to teachers’ attempts to interact, overall

teachers reported a high level of teacher-student dialogue at OHSU. In fact, OHSU teachers with

previous face-to-face teaching experience believed that teaching online allowed them to spend




more time in one-on-one dialogue with students than they experienced in face-to-face settings.

For instance, Lisa explained, “I feel like I get to spend one-on-one quality time with my students

and really work with them on what they are struggling with. I didn’t get to do that as much in

the public high school area.” Similarly, Rachel stated that in a face-to-face environment her

communication with students was “all very superficial” because “that’s what [she] had time for”

but at OHSU she had more time “to get to deeper levels of communication” with students.

Teachers’ ability to engage in higher and deeper levels of dialogue with students was the result

of several factors. First, teachers’ physical separation from students reduced their custodial and

supervision responsibilities. Second, OHSU allowed teachers to develop their curriculum in the

summer or provided them with pre-made curriculum reducing teachers’ lesson planning

responsibilities during the academic year. Third, teachers found that in a face-to-face

environment they were required to present “the same thing over and over and over.” In contrast,

OHSU placed learning material online where students could access it on their own time allowing

instructors to spend the majority of their time contacting and working with students.

One-on-one tutoring. Teachers’ shift in responsibilities afforded them the time to have

four office hours each school day where students could receive one-on-one tutoring. This one-

on-one dialogue was open ended allowing teachers to achieve engrossment and motivational

displacement. As a result teachers were able to recognise students’ individual academic needs

and respond in way that helped meet those needs. Christine explained:




Some [students] just need me to sort of hold their hand and say, ‘Yup, you’re doing a

good job’ and others need a lot more help setting up or working on problems or questions

on the assignment . . . Other times it’s 30 minutes of one-on-one tutoring.

When teachers were not responding to student questions it was common for them to proactively

contact students in an attempt to initiate dialogue. This was typically done via instant messaging

such as Gchat. Steffanie explained, “I usually try to reach out to them and say, ‘Hey, how is

everything going today? Is there anything I can help you with?’”

In order to better meet student need, teachers commonly scheduled their office hours

during times that were most convenient for their students--including evenings--even if it was less

convenient for themselves. This type of scheduling also occurred on an individual basis. For

instance, Megan shared an experience of a struggling student who went to Disneyland so she

made time to tutor him over the phone whenever he had time to work in his hotel room. This

kind of individual attention demonstrated by teachers’ efforts to reach out and accommodate

students’ schedules can be seen as an indicator of motivational displacement.

Social dialogue and shepherding. OHSU teachers and students engaged in a high level

of informal social dialogue that focused on non-academic topics. This type of dialogue helped to

establish social presence and close personal relationships. For instance, at the beginning of the

course teachers shared personal information, pictures, and an introductory video with students.

Similarly, students introduced themselves to teachers and peers using surveys, essays, and

videos. Most of the teachers’ dialogue with students was text-based and teachers found the

medium to be less personal than face-to-face communication. As a result teachers attempted to




engage students in video communication. While video communication cannot exactly replicate

face-to-face communication, teachers found that video’s fidelity allowed students and teachers to

“put a face with the name” while still being separated physically and maintaining the benefits of

online learning. John added that video communication helped his students view him as “more

of a person . . . instead of an abstract thing on the internet somewhere” and Alex enjoyed

viewing her students in video because “they became real people.”

Social dialogue was also facilitated by a school wide “shepherding” program. Each

teacher was given about 20 students “to shepherd” that they contacted weekly to engage them in

open dialogue regarding topics that extended beyond course material. Lisa described the

dialogue as being casual, “I will just check in with them periodically and be like, ‘Hey, tell me

what you have been doing lately.’” Rachel found that the shepherding program provided

students the opportunity to tell her “all about their volleyball games or their plays that they’re

currently in or their chess tournaments.” Megan also told of an experience where she played a

game of online chess with a student who was interested in the game. Overall teachers found that

this type of dialogue helped in building “good rapport with students.” Lisa also believed that

when students felt the teacher knew them individually they would be more willing to

“communicate with you when you contact them.” Rebecca added, “Working individually with

the students like I do online can and does create friendships.” Many of these relationships

appeared to be stronger than what teachers experienced in face-to-face settings. Steffanie

explained, “I have been totally amazed by how much better I can know the kids online than I

could in a classroom.”




Of course teachers still expressed difficulty in engaging some reluctant students in

dialogue. John believed that some students who may have been more willing to engage in

dialogue face-to-face refused to do so online because “it’s very easy for the student to just delete

the email or ignore the phone call when it comes in.” Lisa explained that with some students,

“It doesn’t matter what the teachers have done to contact them . . . we just get no response and

no engagement.” Students’ unwillingness to communicate is not unique to the online

environment and Rachel found that when she taught students face-to-face some students “sat in

the back of the classroom and never said a word.”

Confirmation

Noddings explained that one purpose of caring dialogue was to engage in acts of

confirmation by helping students recognize their “better self already partly formed and struggling

to develop” (Noddings, 2008, p. 172). This was commonly done by OHSU teachers primarily by

providing students with positive praise and encouragement, helping students to recognize their

mastery experiences, and correcting students’ misbehaviour while simultaneously recognizing

their good intentions. First, all teachers reported providing students with encouragement while

working on projects and positive praise when the project was successfully completed. Steffanie

stated, “I feel like one of my most important jobs is really to cheer them on, ‘You can do this. I

will help you.’ . . . I am on the other side of the computer with my virtual pom poms.” These

cheerleading activities were typically done via email, instant messaging, and text messages.

These messages appeared to help students build confidence in their abilities. For instance one of

Alex’s students received positive feedback following an assignment and replied, “No one has




ever told me I was good at English or good at writing.” Following that experience Alex found

that the student “blossomed . . . and [became] one of [her] best writers.” It was also common for

teachers to publicly praise students by posting their exemplar work to a course page that was

accessible by all students within the course management system. Teachers termed this space the

“wow wall,” “strut-your-stuff wall” or “fabulous finds wall.” For instance, Steffanie began

showing one student’s assignments to the class as a good example and explained that, “[the

student] was kind of amazed by that at first. . . She [said], “Oh wow, I never thought I did all that

great of a job.” Steffanie also found that providing encouragement to underperforming students

had similar effects and shared the following experience:

There is one particular student that I have had and the first quarter he really struggled. . .

Then I got his personal cell phone number and I would text him positive encouraging

notes every week and he would still barely pass. I think we got him to squeak in with a D

the first quarter. Maybe a D+ or a C- the second quarter and now this quarter I still send

him all those positive weekly text messages but he has got a B right now and I just sent

him an email saying, “You know what? You could totally have an A in my class this

quarter and here is the plan to make that happen this week.” . . . So I am happy that I can

see a positive change in him.

Following poor student behaviour such as bullying and cheating, teachers attributed

student actions “to the best possible motive consonant with reality” (Noddings, 2008, p. 171).

Megan said she liked her students even when their behaviour was poor and worked to let

students know that she liked them because they “are a nice person, not because [of their




performance in] my class.” It was also common for teachers to see students’ misbehaviours as

honest mistakes. Lisa felt that students’ posted insensitive discussion board comments because

they did not understand how messages “can come across in text and it really wasn’t their intent

to be that way.” Similarly, Rachel believed that students engaged in cyber-bullying because

“they don’t understand that cyber-bullying is actually bullying” requiring teacher to provide

students with direct instruction on online etiquette. In addition Samantha attributed some student

cheating to students’ desire to “help” their peers. Following those cases Samantha tried to help

them understand that “helping and cheating are two separate things Alex also viewed one

student’s plagiarism as an uncharacteristic act of desperation, “One student—just a nice guy—he

was just in over his head and was panicked and plagiarized. I feel like it’s been a good learning

experience for him.”

Modelling

Noddings (2008) explained that a teacher cannot care for a student without

simultaneously modelling what it means to care. Teachers at OHSU recognized that students

were observant of their caring actions. For instance, Lisa believed that her dialogue with

students helped them know that she was “concerned” and “cared about them as individuals.”

Students’ reciprocity to teachers’ caring actions was important in letting teachers know that their

caring actions were received and modelled to students. For instance following video

communication with students John said that “several students in their emails would say, ‘Thank

you, I really enjoy US History. You’re a really fun teacher!’” Similarly Lisa said that following




her shepherding activities it was common for students to tell her “Thanks, this is great! I

appreciate you thinking about me.”

These verbal indicators were especially important when the dialogue was text based and

teachers were unable to see non-verbal signs of reciprocity such as smiling that are evident in

synchronous video and face-to-face communication. Similarly, teachers’ physical separation

from students appeared to limit their ability to model care. For instance, Rachel found that it

was more difficult to model care using text because students were more prone to misunderstand

her actions:

Learning how to send an email that shows them that I love them that I really do care

about them and yet still hold them accountable, that has probably been the biggest

learning curve for me. . . So now everything is smiley faces and exclamation points and

“Have a fabulous day! I’m so happy you emailed me!” and you have to go so over the

top.

John added that it was more difficult for students to observe teachers’ interactions with other

students “because they only see the interactions you have with them for the most part.”

However, Steffanie believed that even private caring could be vicariously observed by students:

“I know they definitely tell their other peers, the friends that they have here, ‘don’t be afraid to

ask her questions, she’s really nice about it.’ I know that kind of travels around amongst our

students.”

Practice




Noddings (2008) explained that all human encounters are opportunities to practice care.

As a result OHSU teachers worked to provide students with opportunities to interact with their

peers. For instance, several teachers required peer interaction on asynchronous discussion

boards. These interactions tended to be highly organized and with “strict guidelines” that

emphasized the importance of being civil to one another. John found that he needed to

emphasize students being “respectful” in their comments even when they disagreed with their

peers. He found that some students would come across as “being a little too nasty” because they

did not “understand the online etiquette as much as face-to-face conversation etiquette.”

Steffanie also found that when students were participating in a discussion board she would

normally post “some sort of reminder of proper etiquette to remind students that when you are

speaking to your peers, do so respectfully even if you disagree.”

Students were also provided with an open social forum where they could communicate

with their peers. Lisa described the forum as a “kind of like an online hallway” because “it is

where the kids can go and just chat and have that social connection with one another.” Samantha

found that the forum was similar to Facebook and gave students a “chance to communicate with

other people in the same position as them . . . to have that support.”

Students also used other social media to communicate such as Twitter, which is where

students from OHSU often demonstrated care for fellow students. For instance, John observed

the following caring act on Twitter: “One of my students posted in her Twitter feed. She said,

‘How did you like that video clip that I sent to you?’ and the girl Tweeted back ‘Perfect! This

will be great for the Revolutionary Project.’” Similarly Rachel observed acts of reciprocity




between students, “Students would Tweet, ‘So-and-So, thank you so much for your help; it was

so nice!’” Julia also found that students used Twitter to engage in acts of confirmation:

That Twitter feed is fantastic for that as well, because they’ll say, ‘Oh, I’m just having

trouble with my math today, I just can’t get motivated’ and they’ll Tweet it out and you’ll

see another [student] Tweet: ‘You can do it, you’re a great student! You’ll be fine!’

Beyond participation in discussion boards teachers tended not to require student

collaboration because it removed some of the flexibility that some students required. As a result

there was “an unwritten policy at OHSU that you can’t make [students] do group work.”

However, OHSU provided students with several optional opportunities to practice caring with

their peers. For instance, OHSU’s National Honours Society (NHS) organized a tutoring

program that connected successful students with students who needed tutoring. Rachel also

provided students with an on-line whiteboard where students could collaborate if they chose:

I just have a link to a thing called Scribbler in my courses. It’s basically an on-line

whiteboard . . . I’ve seen students get on there and work together every now and then, but

it’s just informal and up to them. . . One time I randomly clicked on Scribbler. . . and I

saw two students working in there. They didn’t know I was in there, and I was listening

to them working back and forth, and the one girl explaining it to the other and they’re

helping each other. I guess that’s one of those moments where it’s like, “Yes!” It wasn’t

something that I set up, it wasn’t something formal, but they were helping each other and

both benefiting from it.

Discussion




Online learning is often viewed as student-led and teacher-less (Compton, Davis, Correia,

2010). This view is consistent with many independent study programs that provide students with

learning materials but have limited or no teacher-student interaction (Anderson, 2009; Garrison,

2009). These types of programs focus largely on the academic side of teaching and neglect the

human and moral side of teaching. An increasing number of online programs have begun to take

a more holistic approach and provide students with quality learning activities that are coupled

with a high level of human interaction. Guided by Noddings’ ethic of care and moral education,

this chapter examined the ability of OHSU’s teachers to provide students with a moral education

at a distance. While there were positives and negatives in attempting to form caring

relationships, overall interviews found that—although physically separated from students—

OHSU teachers were able to form caring relationships and provide a moral education by

maintaining a high level of dialogue with students, engaging in acts of confirmation that help

students to recognize their better self, modelling to students what it means to care, and providing

students with opportunities to care for their peers.

Success Through In-depth Dialogue

Dialogue formed the foundation for a moral education because it allowed teachers to

learn about their students, recognize their needs, and respond to those needs—thus modelling

what it means to care. Dialogue also allowed students to engage in acts of reciprocity by

acknowledging that teachers’ caring actions had been received. Furthermore dialogue enabled

teachers to engage in acts of confirmation by providing students with positive praise and

encouragement. Our interviews with OHSU teachers show that the ability to dialogue with




students also appeared to be a major contributor to teacher satisfaction. One teacher stated, “I

love it so much. As an online teacher I can focus on what’s important.”

Noddings (2008) claimed that high school teachers tend not to be afforded the necessary

time to form caring relationships with students and advocated for educational innovations that

would increase the personal contact that teachers have with students. Some online learning

programs have a higher student-to-teacher ratio than is found in face-to-face environments

further reducing the personal contact that teachers have with students. For example, Hawkins,

Barbour, and Graham (2012) examined student-teacher interaction at a large state funded virtual

high school where the student-to-teacher ratio was 1:233 and classes ranged in size from 2 to

1,726. Within this setting it was found that teachers struggled to form caring relationships with

students and tended to care for students collectively and not individually. OHSU’s student-to-

teacher ratio was more closely aligned with the national average for student-to-teacher ratios

found in face-to-face learning environments (Aud et al., 2012) allowing them to have a higher

level of personal contact with students and care for them on an individual level. OHSU teachers

with previous face-to-face teaching experience reported that they were able to spend more time

in one-on-one dialogue with students online than they did in face-to-face settings. In addition,

teachers reported that the quality of interactions with students was better online because it was

typically open ended and one-on-one, allowing them to achieve “deeper levels of

communication” than was possible in a face-to-face classroom. This research provides three

primary insights into how OHSU teachers were able to establish a high level of rich dialogue

with students. First, OHSU provided teachers with pre-designed content and learning activities




that were organized and placed online for students to access. This reduced teachers’ need to

prepare lesson plans or present material multiple times. Instead teachers’ primarily spent their

time in one-on-one dialogue with students. Peters’ (1971) industrial model of instruction

recommended that teachers’ responsibilities be closely examined to identify responsibilities that

can be performed more effectively or efficiently by others. This type of effort may result in

teachers spending additional time engaging in dialogue with students.

Second, OHSU teachers worked to achieve a high level of social interactions with their

students. Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008) found that caring relationships are better

developed when teachers and students engage in “casual social interactions outside of class” (p.

1068). This type of interaction is especially important because effective dialogue requires

teachers and students to “know each other well enough for trust to develop” (Noddings, 1988, p.

223). However, casual and social dialogue can be difficult online where interactions tend to be

focused on course content and procedures (Downs & Moller, 1999; Hawkins, Barbour &

Graham, 2011; Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanares, 2008). To overcome this obstacle OHSU

helped to facilitate casual and social dialogue through a school wide “shepherding” program

where students were assigned to a teacher who contacted them weekly regarding more social

topics. Other online programs should work to find innovative ways to facilitate social dialogue

online.

Third, instructors found that their dialogue was more effective once teacher and student

social presence had been established. This belief is supported by Tu and McIsaac’s (2002)

correlational study that found a significant relationship between social presence and interactivity.




Although previous research has found that social presence can be established in a text-based

environment, OHSU teachers supplemented their text communication with asynchronous whole

class video introductions and one-on-one synchronous video communication as a way to more

fully establish social presence in their courses. Velasquez’s (2012) research in the same context

also found that teachers valued synchronous video communication because it helped them to

form caring relationship with students although students preferred the comfort and convenience

of text communication until after a caring relationship had been formed. Asynchronous video

communication may be a possible compromise by providing teachers with the nonverbal

communication cues that can be important in forming relationships while still maintaining the

convenience and comfort that students desire. This is supported by research in higher education

contexts has found that the non-verbal communication cues contained in asynchronous

communication can help students and teachers to efficiently and effectively establish social

presence while still maintaining a high level of flexibility (Borup, Graham, & Velasquez, 2011;

Borup, West, & Graham, 2012; Griffiths & Graham, 2009, 2010). Future research should

examine the use of asynchronous video in a K-12 online environment and work to identify

additional strategies that can help teachers and students quickly establish online social presence.

Difficulties of Medium Limitations

Although it was found that teachers could provide students with a moral education at a

distance, teachers also reported limitations in doing so. First, all teachers found that some

students refused to engage in dialogue with them. Noddings (2008) explained that caring

relationships require the active participation of the teacher and the student. As a result students’




“willingness to enter dialogue is important to the maintenance of personal relationships”

(Noddings, 2008, p. 170). Although teachers reported that some of their face-to-face students

were just as unwilling to engage in dialogue, this appeared to be a more common problem online.

This may be reflected in online learning’s attrition rate, which tends to be higher than face-to-

face courses (Carr, 2000; Patterson & McFadden, 2009).

Second, most of teachers’ dialogue with students was private and one-on-one. As a result

it was more difficult for students to observe teachers’ interactions with other students. John

explained that in a face-to-face learning environment he could more effectively model caring

because students “see how you interact with other students, they see how you treat other

students, so they see a lot more of you than just the interactions they have with you.” It appears

that traditional face-to-face learning models enable teachers to more efficiently model caring

because a caring act is observed more easily by other students in the class, but makes it difficult

to engage in acts of caring with individual students. Inversely, OHSU’s online teaching model

enabled teachers to effectively engage in caring acts with individual students but teachers

modelled less caring acts to students because students were largely privy only to their personal

interactions with the instructor. Additional research should seek to explore the effect that quality

and quantity of modelling has on students’ ability to learn what it means to care.

In addition, it was somewhat difficult for students to practice caring with their peers

because they did not understand how messages “can come across in text.” As a result it is

important that teachers model appropriate online etiquette to students (Anderson et al., 2001;

iNACOL, 2008). The International Association for K-12 Online Learning’s (iNACOL, 2011)




national standards for quality online courses also recommends that online etiquette standards

should be “clearly stated” indicating that students may require some direct instruction on the

topic (p. 2). In addition, Rice and Dawley (2007) found that facilitating appropriate online

etiquette was a common topic of online teacher in-service training, which may be a reflection of

new teachers’ inability to effectively facilitate online etiquette. Future research should work to

identify effective methods to ensure that students use proper etiquette because improper etiquette

can undermine students’ attempts to practice caring with their peers.

Lastly, in face-to-face learning environments students commonly practice caring while

collaborating on projects. However, OHSU teachers found it difficult to require student

collaboration on projects because it removed some of the flexibility that online learning offers.

Although student-managed wikis, blogs, and Google Documents allow students to collaborate

asynchronously on projects, Beldarrain’s (2006) review of the literature found little research

regarding their implementation. As research in the area grows it may be possible to identify best

practices for collaboration while still maintaining a high level of flexibility.

Limitations

There were two primary limitations to this study that can be addressed by future research.

First, this study contained a relatively small sample size from a single context preventing the

generalization of these findings to other contexts. Future research should seek to understand

caring in a variety of schools with varying ages and learning models. Such research would likely

produce additional insights because “budgets, availability of personnel, size of the school, state

models, and models of instruction are all likely to change the roles that are expected of an online




educator” (Ferdig et al., 2009, p. 496). Second this research relied solely on teacher interviews.

Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1998) explained “that all methods have inherent biases and

limitations, so use of only one method to assess a given phenomenon will inevitably yield biased

and limited results” (p. 256). Future research may seek to triangulate these findings using

student interviews, virtual observations, and content analyses of emails and discussion boards.

Obtaining this type of information from online K-12 learning environments can be difficult to

obtain and time consuming to analyse but it may provide key insights into technology-mediated

caring.

References

Anderson, T. (2009). A rose by any other name: Still distance education — a response to D. R.

Garrison: Implications of online and blended learning for the conceptual development and

practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 111-116.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in

a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., et al. (2012). The

Condition of Education 2012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, Inc.




Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends  : Integrating new technologies to foster student

interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153.

Blomeyer, R. L. (2001). Online Learning for K-12 Students: What Do We Know Now? North

(Vol. 1486). Naperville, IL: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from

http://blomeyerandclemente.com/Documents/NCREL E-Learning Synthesis

%28rev.%29.pdf

Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Velasquez, A. (2011). The use of asynchronous video

communication to improve instructor immediacy and social presence in a blended learning

environment. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for

implementation (pp. 38–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through

asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195-203. Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001

Brown, J. S., & Dunguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, 33(3), 10-15.

Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students.

Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), 1-7.

Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of

distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, Illinois:

Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED489533.pdf




Compton, L., Davis, N., & Correia, A. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ preconceptions,

misconceptions, and concerns about virtual schooling. Distance Education, 31(1), 37–54.

doi:10.1080/01587911003725006

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. W., & Preston, M. (2008). Best practices in teaching K-12

online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. Journal of Interactive

Online Learning, 7(1), 10-35.

Downs, M., & Moller, L. (1999). Experiences of students, teachers, and administrators in a

distance education course. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1–13.

Fauske, J., & Wade, S. E. (2003). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy,

community, and critical thinking in computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 36(2), 137-153.

Ferdig, R. E., Cavanaugh, C., DiPietro, M., Black, E., & Dawson, K. (2009). Virtual schooling

standards and best practices for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher

Education, 17(4), 479–503.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for

Research and Practice (p. 167). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher

Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice

of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93-104.




Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-

construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647-673.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for

mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–

274. doi:10.3102/01623737011003255

Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using asynchronous video in online classes: Results

from a pilot study. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance

Learning, 6(3), 65–76.

Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2010). Using asynchronous video to achieve instructor

immediacy and closeness in online classes: Experiences from three cases. International

Journal on E-Learning, 9(3), 325–340.

Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2011). Strictly business: Teacher perceptions of

interaction in virtual schooling. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(2).

Hawkins, A., Graham, C. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2012). “Everybody is their own island”:

Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. The International Review of Research in Open

and Distance Learning, 13(2).

International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL). (2011). National standards for

quality online courses. Vienna, VA. Retrieved from

http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_CourseStandards_2011.pdf

Johnson, L. P. (2008). The Caring Teacher: Tips to Motivate Student Learning. Lanham,

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education.




Muller, C., Katz, S. R., & Dance, L. J. (1999). Investing in teaching and learning: Dynamics of

the teacher-student relationship from each actor's perspective. Urban Education, 34(3),

292-337.

Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Contradictions between the virtual and

physical high school classroom: A third-generation activity theory perspective. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1061-1072. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8535.2007.00776.x

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (2005). The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (2008). Caring and moral education. In L. P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.),

Handbook of Moral and Character Education (pp. 175-203). New York, NY: Routledge.

North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). (2008). National Standards for Quality

Online Teaching. Quality. Vienna, VA: NACOL. Retrieved from

http://www.cde.state.co.us/onlinelearning/download/NACOL_Standards_Quality_Online_T

eaching.pdf

OHSU. (2011). Annual Report 2010-2011. Retrieved from http://www.openhighschool.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/11/Annual-Report-2011-Annual-Report-2011-1.pdf

Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2009). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Distance

Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–07. World Wide Web




Internet And Web Information Systems. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf

Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online

Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2). Retrieved from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/patterson112.html

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Peters, O. (1971). Theoretical aspects of correspondence instruction. In O. Mackenzie & E.

Christensen (Eds.), The changing world of correspondence study (pp. 223–228). University

Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Pratt, H. K. (1996). The electronic personality. Fielding Graduate University.

Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Liu, F. (2010). Virtual high schools: Improving

outcomes for students with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2), 91-

104.

Rice, K., & Dawley, L. (2007). Going virtual! The status of professional development for K-12

online teachers. Learning. Washington, D.C.: North American Council for Online Learning.

Retrieved from http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual1.pdf

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in

asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-

70. Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/153/341

Stansfield, R. N. (1961). The human side of teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 38(6), 345-

350.




Teven, J. J. (2007). Teacher caring and classroom behavior: Relationships with student affect

and perceptions of teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly,

55(4), 433-450. doi: 10.1080/01463370701658077

Tu, C. & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online

classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.

doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603

Velasquez, A. (2012). Technology-Mediated Caring in Online Teaching and Learning. Brigham

Young University.

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K-12

online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Learning. Evergreen Education

Group. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPace2011.pdf

Wiley, D. (2009). Open High School of Utah Charter (p. 68). Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved

from http://www.openhighschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OHSU-Charter-FINAL-

Dec-09-with-Attachments-1-1.doc

Wilson, J. H. (2006). Predicting student attitudes and grades from perceptions of instructors’

attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 91-95.

Technology-Mediated Caring: Building Relationships Between Students and Instructors in Online K-12...

Documents

Transcript of Technology-Mediated Caring: Building Relationships Between Students and Instructors in Online K-12...