Lowenthal, P.R. (2010)
The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning
Kidd, T.T. (ed). Online education and adult learning: New Frontiers for teaching practices. Hershey, PA:IGI Global
Need to link paper numbering with book numbering
Social presence - conceptualized in many ways, social interaction, immediacy, intimacy, emotion and or connectedness
History
1. (telecommunications) Short et al, 1976 – social presence – defined as degree of salience (p4 ‘ i.e. the quality or state of being there’) ‘ to explain the effect telecommunications media can have on communication. In particular that communication is strengthened by the addition of visual information but as research progressed they decided that this depended on the situation/ application ie without visual for some situations with exchanges that involved exchanges of intimate information.
Communications media differ in the amount of salience they offer and these differences play an important role in how people interact ( KRO underestimated the agency of the users )
Williams (1978b) found that physical presence may be even more important for people communicating than visual information. – deficit theory
2. Cueless theory (Rutter) (CMC) Eyes or total physical presence? Also ideas of psychological distance – deficit theory
3. Media Richness theory (Daft, Lengel, Trevino) (CMC) – where p11 ‘richness defined as the potential information –carrying capacity of the data. ‘ e.g. a wink is high in information, it is rich. F-f highest, a spreadsheet lowest ‘ a medium’s capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels utilized, personalization, and language variety’ p 560 of their article , all influence the degree of media richness – deficit theory
4. SIT (CMC)– started conversation, specifically in the context of CMC, around cues being filtered in . Walther 1992 p12 ‘ argued that human social nature is the same in CMC and f-to-f . Given enough time, he believed that people will find ways to compensate ‘
5. research in educational context online learning ( cf media, organization, communication studies) Gunawardena, Garrison, Anderson and Archer p13 ‘ began reconceptualising social presence theory – moving away from technologigal deterministic conceptualizations of mediated communication’
(KRO -missed out Keisler)
(KRO heading) move from a focus on the medium to a focus on peoples’ actions.
Herring (2007) much of the meaning and significance of CMC depends on its surrounding discourse.
Berge & Collins, 1995) the absence of social cues will interfere with T & L
Lombard & Ditton (1997) p14 ‘identified six interrelated ( and cross disciplinary) but distinct ways people understand presence
Presence as social richness
Presence as realism
Presence as transportation
Presence as immersion
Presence as social actor within medium
Presence as medium as social actor
Definitions of social presence in learning contexts
· Gunawardena (1995, p151) ‘the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real’ person in mediated communication
· Garrison et al (2000, p94) ‘ the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally as real people’ – measured by student & teacher ability to project themselves as real i.e. the process. i.e.content analysis of online discussion using the frame of affective, interactive and cohesive messages
· Tu and McIssac (2002, p149) ‘the degree of feeling, perceptionm, and reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectual entity through a text-based encounter’
· Picciano (2002, p22) ‘a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and the instructor’’ measured students sense of belonging to a community’ i.e an outcome
Definitions share a focus on the ‘realness’ of other people and on being there
Measurement
Challenge of the method p19,20. – get Swan (2003), Swan and Shih(2005) ******* multi faceted approach
Gunawadena, & Tu tend to focus on people’s attititudes (bipolar attitude scale, option to choose 1 of 5 categories from across the scale) as a measure whilst Garrisong and Rourke focused on their behaviour.
References
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, G. R., Philip, I., Richardson, J. C.,Shea, P., & Swan, K. P. (2008). The community of inquiry framework: Development,validation, and directions for further research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Education Research Association, New York, NY.
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. London: Cambridge University.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289-304.
Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M-C. (2004). Social interaction across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone, and face-to-face. New Media & Society, 6(3),
Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L. (2005). The online interaction learning model: Anintegrated theoretical framework for learning networks. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 19-37).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives (Vol. 1). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of socialpresence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virutal Environments,12(5), 456-480.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Busines Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355-366.
Danchak, M. M., Walther, J. B., & Swan, K. P. (2001, November). Presence in mediated instruction: Bandwidth, behavior, and expectancy violations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Orlando, FL.
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.
Grubb, A., & Hines, M. (2000). Tearing down barriers and building communities: Pedagogicalstrategies for the web-based environment. In R. A. Cole (Ed.), Issues in Web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 365-380). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education,11(3), 8-26.
Henninger, M., & Viswanathan, V. (2004). Social presence in online tutoring: What we know and what we should know. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen, & R. Joiner (Eds.), Proceedingsof the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGs Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers (CD-ROM). Tuebingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.
Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007
/761/Faceted_Classification_Scheme_for_CMD.pdf
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-12.
Hughes, M., Ventura, S., & Dando, M. (2007). Assessing social presence in online discussion groups: A replication study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 17-29.
Kiesler, S. (1986). The hidden messages in computer networks. Harvard Business Review, 64(3), 46-54, 58-60.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
Kemp, N. J., & Rutter, D. R. (1986). Social interaction in blind people: An experimental analysis. Human Relations, 39(3), 195-210.
Kramer, A. D. I., Oh, L. M., & Fussell, S. R. (2006). Using linguistic features to measure presence in computer-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 913-916). New York: ACM Press.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.
Laffey, L., Lin, G. Y., & Lin, Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 163-177.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/lombard.html
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Loneliness and social uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 659-671.
Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientists, 45(3), 420-435.
Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1995). Stories are fundamental to meaning and memory: For social creatures, could it be otherwise? In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Knowledge and memory: The real story (pp. 139-152). Hillsday, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Robinson, P. (2000). Where is every-body? In R. A. Cole (Ed.), Issues in Web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 111-123). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14. Retrieved from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building a sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153
Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 54-62.
Rutter, D. R. (1984). Looking and Seeing: The Role of Visual Communication in SocialInteraction. London: John Wiley.
Rutter, D. R. (1989). The role of cluelessness in social interaction: An examination of teaching by telephone. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation (pp. 294-312). Philadelphia, PA:
Multilingual Matters.
Rutter, D. R., Pennington, D. C., Dewey, M. E., & Swain, J. (1984). Eye-contact as a chance product of individual looking: Implications for the intimacy model of argyle and dean. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8(4), 250-258.
Short, J. A. (1974). Effects of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27(3), 225-234.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online course discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147-164). London: Kogan Page.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tu, C.-H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2, 27-37.
Tu, C.-H. (2002a). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.2.6.pdf
Tu, C.-H. (2002b). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment.International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.
Tu, C.-H., & Corry, M. (2004). Online discussion durations impact online social presence. In C. Crawford. et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (pp. 3073-3077). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). The network society: Social aspects of new media (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2002). A conceptual framework for studying distance education. In C. Vrasidas & G. V. Glass (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning (pp. 31-55). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication
Research, 21(4), 460-487.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247-271.
