By Lisa Miller
Lisa is currently pursuing a master’s degree at CSUEB in Online Teaching and Learning. She works full-time in a busy, metropolitan hospital as a registered respiratory therapist and certified asthma educator. She also teaches a traditional class for nursing that she hopes to transform to an online format.
Once upon a time there was a little girl. Her name was Goldilocks. And so it reads in this modern tale. As is the case with the evolution of this story, many authors gave their slant to this popular children’s literature. Interestingly, what did not change was one of the morals within; that of moderation, which brought about the term, ‘The Goldilocks Principle’. Simply stated, this principle suggests that something must stay within certain boundaries, avoiding extremes, thus seeking moderation. As an online teaching and learning graduate student, I have borrowed this principle of moderation of the ‘3 bears’ in the children’s story and likened it to the 3 distinct teaching styles I have come across in my online courses.
We can all strive for that balance, that moderation, as an online student and as an online teacher, while acknowledging how the teacher’s course construction is vitally important to set our tale in motion. And mind you, this is not to say that a level of stress is not healthy and necessary in order to push one out of their comfort zone and reach to heights they imagined were unobtainable. That could be the basis for change and learning. Reminds me of the words of my first online teacher as paraphrased ‘remember this feeling, one of being an online student, for it can carry one through and enable you to be a better online teacher.’ Seeing the online classroom through the eyes of an online student has done that, for better or worse, yet I hope to find some more specific answers in the house of the 3 bears. Let’s go inside.
In order to provide a solid framework for reflecting upon an effective online community classroom versus its reality for me illustrated via the ‘3 bears’ teaching styles, I chose to use the following citations. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000) prepared a report whereby benchmarks were established to provide for a sound online educational direction in order to ensure quality; not only for the students but for the faculty as well. Some of these included: communication among students and student to faculty was a must, mention of timeliness and constructive responsiveness to assignments, and offering a team approach in resolving differing expectations regarding when assignments are completed and how faculty responds. Zheng & Smaldino (2003) have noted the obstacles arising from the change in new roles and responsibilities for online versus traditional faculty. Could this create an overbearing and controlling online instructor, one out of their comfort zone? Absolutely. In fact, let me introduce you to Papa Bear, the ‘too much’ online instructor.
Rabindrath Tagore, a Nobel Prize winner once said, “He determined to teach me music, and consequently no learning took place.†This is a perfect illustration of how an online instructor that is too instructor-centered and controlling, for whatever the reasons, has the great potential of turning off their online learners. Without a give-and-take climate in collaboration of ideas in the online arena, the student is left to wonder what good is their viewpoint. The knowledge is designed as spoon-fed, voluminous, via an instructor ego-centric approach, and there is no sense of online community.
The result from the student may be: “why bother, it’s too much trouble to keep up. I will just do the minimum to get by. My view isn’t going to matter much.†If this instructor has designed multiple online group projects simultaneously with individual assignments, there may be a feeling of sensory overload and expectations. As we all have experienced, couple this with the usual technology breakdown or confusion, and my feelings are echoed from this Fielding Graduate Institute online forum posting (April 1998) stated: “I’m lost. There are so many threads of discussion going on at once; I constantly feel that I’m missing something important….Where to start? Where to synthesize?†If only Papa Bear would talk with Mama Bear to tone it down. Is that the answer?
In terms of moderation, we find the Mama Bear online approach a snippet of fresh air, a breather or respite from the storm. On closer inspection, this ‘too little’ online approach also can leave one lacking and apathetic. When an online instructor designs and delivers a minimalist course, I am left to fend for myself. Ragan (1998) found that it was important to have meaningful and constant interaction not only with the material, but also with the online instructor and fellow online students. I have been in such an online course and it left me literally clamoring for social connections inside and outside of the online course in order to be successful.
Luckily, it was not my first online course, so I was able to pool from my small network of fellow online students that provided my safety net and much appreciated cheer-leading qualities. In addition, the omission or infrequent online instructor’s comments or guidance further exacerbated the feelings of disconnect and apathy. I was left to question if I was on the right track, that pervasive sentiment “Is it me or is this assignment lacking direction and clarity? Why isn’t the instructor answering my emails?†Since the online course was set up as almost a solitary online journey, I unhappily stuck it out. But, let me remind you that it was Dixon (2001) who observed the value in social connections and how online students’ interactions with their online instructors as well as receiving prompt commentary on assignments, promoted retention, bolstered academic self-worth, and reduced the chances at denigrating online students’ confidence. So, can Mama Bear learn a few things from Baby Bear? I think so.
As Goldilocks often found with her Baby Bear approach, many encounters usually seemed ‘juuust right.’ Could she draw a template for the other bears to emulate? Maybe so. The online instructor seeking moderation will anticipate the dance yet be willing to learn a few moves and adjust their rhythm. Brown (2002) noted that a ‘juuust right’ online instructor provides for detailed developmental feedback at regular intervals. I thrive when I received this type of online feedback, always positive yet always constructive. It kept me on track, focused, and willing to do more, if need be. Being that this type of online instructor is also a lifelong learner, their collaborative online teaching style allowed an open path for new ways of viewing the landscape and architecture of the online course. I was amazed when a student suggestion was made about a certain topic which then crystallized to become a 3 week incredibly difficult, challenging, and very rewarding impromptu lesson.
So again, moderation to me does not always imply the easy or calming path. It is no small wonder that this type of online instructor is also a skillful facilitator; knowing when to jump into the fray of the discussion board, when to extinguish a minor eruption of student disagreements, and how to gently perturb and excite the ecosystem I call the online environment (Garrison, et al., 2000). Although Goldilocks never again returned to the 3 bears home, her tale lives on as a reminder for me why an online course designed for moderation can promote a healthy and thriving start. I know because I have travelled this path.
References:
Brown, B. (2002). Teaching virtual leadership using the case method online. In Rudestam, K. & Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), (pp. 384-386). Handbook of Online Learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dixon, D. (2001). Mentoring over distance: The construction of the student-faculty relationship in a doctoral psychology program for mid-life adults. In Rudestam, K. & Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), (p. 14). Handbook of Online Learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fielding Graduate Institute forum posting. (1998). In Rudestam, K. & Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), (p. 187). Handbook of Online Learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Garrison, 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.
Merisotis, J. & Phipps, R. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.ihep.org/Publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=69 .
Ragan, L. C. (1998). Good teaching is good teaching: An emerging set of guiding principles and practices for the design and development of distance education. In Rudestam, K. & Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), (p. 13). Handbook of Online Learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tagore, R. (n.d.). In Rudestam, K. & Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), (p. 7). Handbook of Online Learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zheng, L., & Smaldino, S. (2003). Key instructional design elements for distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(2), 153-166.