However, just as the Internet can bring people together and be described as “social,” it can separate people and be described as isolating and impersonal (Kraut, et al., 1998; Morahan-Martin & Schumacher, 2003; Nie, 2001).
According to Lombard and Ditton (1997), presence is “the perceptual illusion of non-mediation”.
Lowenthal (2010) argues that the theory of social presence is perhaps the most popular construct used to describe and understand how people socially interact in online learning environments. However, despite its intuitive appeal, researchers and practitioners alike often define and conceptualise this popular construct differently.
Social presence is one of the most crucial components of the quality of the online learning experience from the student perspective (Cobb, 2009; Shin, 2003). Another definition for Social presence is “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used” (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 1999: 94).
Factors affecting learners’ social presence:
- Previous interaction between communicators can influence how people communicate online.
- The possibility of future interaction can influence the degree to which people socially interact online.
- Discussion management and equality can encourage learners to interact online.
- The language barrier can also affect the learner’s interaction and engagement.
- Learning design and clear instructions can affect the learner’s interaction and confidence.
- The learning environment and background distractions can affect the learner’s interaction.
- The way users use emoticons can also influence interpersonal communication online.
Three Dimensions of Social Presence:
Three dimensions of social presence were proposed from previous studies: social context, online communication, and interactivity (Tu 2000, 2001).
In the above diagram, Lowenthal (2010) illustrated “the competing theories” and the way that thinking about a medium’s effect on communication—especially interpersonal and social communication—changed over time.
- Is there a relationship between social presence and online interaction?
Social presence could be affected by the characteristics of the use of tools. Online interactive tool's usage increased social presence positively (Chou & Min, 2009; Joyce & Brown, 2009; Mykota & Duncan, 2007; Weinel, Bannert, Zumbach, Hoppe & Malzahn, 2011; Wise, Chang, Duffy, & del Vale, 2004).
From this aspect, interaction and social presence are considered directly two related variables (Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2008; Richardson & Swan, 2003).
Related literature showed that Social presence has a positive effect on online learner’s satisfaction and achievement (Olpak & Çakmak, 2009).
- How can social presence affect online learning?
As some researchers focus on students (or instructors) ability to project themselves as “real” whereas, others focus more on student’s sense of belonging to a community, Social presence can proportionally affect online learning.
To measure the social presence and its impact on reaching the online learner and the learning process, researchers focused their research on either the user’s attitudes or behaviours online.
Rourke et al. (2001) sought to measure social presence through analysing online discussions. they identified three different categories of social presence:
- Affective responses (expression of emotions, use of humour, and self-disclosure).
- Interactive responses.
- Cohesive responses.
They then developed twelve indicators that researchers could use to analyse transcripts primarily through content analysis.
However, Tu (2002) criticised early research on social presence. He argued that previous scales failed to take into consideration different variables (e.g., recipients, topics, privacy, task, social relationships, communication styles).
He also suggested five variables that contribute to social presence:
- Social context.
- Online communication.
- Interactivity.
- System privacy.
- Feelings of privacy.
Further, researchers and practitioners alike will have to consider a new host of things related to social presence with the continued blurring of boundaries between classroom, blended and fully online courses as well as between course bound communication tools (e.g., discussion forums) and non-course bound tools (e.g., Facebook and Twitter).
References:
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). undefined. Sociometry, 28(3), 289. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786027
BURGOON, J. K., BULLER, D. B., HALE, J. L., & TURCK, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10(3), 351-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00023.x
Chou, S. W., & Min, H. T. (2009). The impact of media on collaborative learning in virtual settings: The perspective of social construction. Computers & Education, 52(2), 417–431.
Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241-254.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2/3), 87-105.
Joyce, K. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Enhancing social presence in online learning: Mediation strategies applied to social networking tools. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(4). Retrieved July 27, 2011, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter124/joyce124 .html.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological wellbeing? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.
Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. Social Computing, 113-128. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-984-7.ch010
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.
Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Revisiting transactional distance theory in a context of web-based high-school distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 1-14.
Mykota, D., & Duncan, R. (2007). Learner characteristics as predictors of online social presence. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(1), 157-170.
Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientists, 45(3), 420-435.
Olpak, Y. S., & Kılıç Çakmak, E. (2009). E-öğrenme ortamları için sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeğinin uyarlama çalışması. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, IV(I), 142-160.
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.
RICE, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00309.x
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
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69–86.
Tu, C. (2000). Online learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 23 (1): 27–37.
Tu, C. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.
Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1603_2
Weinel, M., Bannert, M., Zumbach, J., Hoppe, H. U., & Malzahn, N. (2011). A closer look on social presence as a causing factor in computer-mediated collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 513-521.
Wise, E., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Vale, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247-271.
Comments