Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Social presence is a popular construct in online learning. But it was originally developed by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) to explain the effect telecommunications media can have on communication. Over the years, social presence theory has become much more nuanced. This presentation will illustrate how social presence theory has changed over the years and the implications of these changes for faculty and instructional designers.
Citation preview
Thinking differently
about Social Presence
in Online Courses
Patrick R. Lowenthal Boise State University
@plowenthal
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
A Bit about MeAssistant Professor @ Boise State
educator
researcher
designer
developer
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Agenda
History of Social
Presence
Evolution of Social Presence
Social Presence Strategies
Recent Work &
Challenges
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
HISTORY OF SOCIAL PRESENCE
Social Presence Theory
Social presence is the degree
of salience (i.e., quality or
state of being there) between
two communicators using a
communication medium.
It’s a quality of a communication medium.
Some media (e.g., video) have higher social presence than other media (e.g., audio)
Media w/ high social presence are sociable, warm, & personal; media w/ low social presence are as less personal.
What does this mean?
It’s a quality of a communication medium.
Some media (e.g., video) have higher social presence than other media (e.g., audio)
Media w/ high social presence are sociable, warm, & personal; media w/ low social presence are as less personal.
What does this mean?
It’s a quality of a communication medium.
Some media (e.g., video) have higher social presence than other media (e.g., audio)
Media w/ high social presence are sociable, warm, & personal; media w/ low social presence are as less personal.
What does this mean?
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Less Social Presence More Social Presence
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Focused on 1-on-1
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
1980’s & CMC
Cuelessness Theory
developed by Rutter (1984, 1987)
Media Richness Theory developed by Daft & Lengel (1984, 1986; Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987)
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL PRESENCE
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Timeline
1970 1976 1979 1984 1992 1995 1999
Social
Pre
sence
Short
et al.
Cueles
snes
s
Rutter M
edia
Ric
hness
Daft &
Len
gel
Social
Info
rmat
ion P
roce
ssin
g
Walt
her
Social
Pre
sence
Gunaw
arden
a
Comm
unity o
f Inquiry
Garriso
n et a
l.
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Phase Period Key Figures Focus of Research
1. 1970s Short et al. Focused on Telecommunications
2. 1980s to early 1990s
RutterDaft & LengelKieslerWalther
Focused on CMC
3. Early 1990s to early 2000s
GunarwardenaGarrison et al.TuSwanRichardson
Focused on Online Learning
4. Mid 2000s to present
GarrisonSheaCleveland-InnesAkyolSwan Richardson
Focused on Online Learning & the CoI
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Affective Communication• Expression of emotions• Use of humor• Self-disclosure
Cohesive Communication• Continuing a thread• Quoting from others’ messages• Referring explicitly to other’s messages• Asking questions• Complimenting, expressing
appreciation• Expressing agreement
Interactive Communication• Vocatives• Refers to group using inclusive
pronouns• Phatics, salutations
+
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Focused on Many-to-Many
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Various Definitions• “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in
mediated communication” (Gunawardena, 1995, p. 151)
• the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry (Rourke et al., 1999)
• “as 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” (p. 94)
• “…the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
• “…a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (Picciano, 2002, p. 22)
• the degree to which another in communication appears to be a “real‟ person (Kreijns et al., 2011)
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Various Definitions• “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated
communication” (Gunawardena, 1995, p. 151)
• the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry (Rourke et al., 1999)
• “as 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” (p. 94)
• “…the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
• “…a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (Picciano, 2002, p. 22)
• the degree to which another in communication appears to be a “real‟ person (Kreijns et al., 2011)
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Various Definitions• “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated
communication” (Gunawardena, 1995, p. 151)
• the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry (Rourke et al., 1999)
• “as 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” (p. 94)
• “…the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
• “…a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (Picciano, 2002, p. 22)
• the degree to which another in communication appears to be a “real‟ person (Kreijns et al., 2011)
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Various Definitions• “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated
communication” (Gunawardena, 1995, p. 151)
• the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry (Rourke et al., 1999)
• “as 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” (p. 94)
• “…the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
• “…a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (Picciano, 2002, p. 22)
• the degree to which another in communication appears to be a “real‟ person (Kreijns et al., 2011)
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Various Definitions• “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated
communication” (Gunawardena, 1995, p. 151)
• the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry (Rourke et al., 1999)
• “as 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” (p. 94)
• “…the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
• “…a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (Picciano, 2002, p. 22)
• the degree to which another in communication appears to be a “real‟ person (Kreijns et al., 2011)
Various Definitions• “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated
communication” (Gunawardena, 1995, p. 151)
• the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry (Rourke et al., 1999)
• “as 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” (p. 94)
• “…the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC” (Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
• “…a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (Picciano, 2002, p. 22)
• the degree to which another in communication appears to be a “real‟ person (Kreijns et al., 2011)
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Varied Understandings
Emotional Nonemotional
Connection Nonconnection
Community Noncommunity
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Social Presence
LearningCommunity
=
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
InteractionBounded Learning
Community
Social Presence
Professional Learning
Community
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
SOCIAL PRESENCE STRATEGIES
Social Presence Strategies
Bio strategies
Orientation strategies
Reconnecting strategies
Feedback strategies
Discussion strategies
Small group strategies
Organic interaction strategies
Student Bios
Aladdin’s Lamp
Superhero Powers
Digital Stories
Student Bios
Photo Roster5 minute phone call
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Orientation Strategies
Orientation Videos
Detailed Announcements & Emails
Reconnecting Strategies
Soundtrack of your life
Virtual Paper Bag
Feedback StrategiesVideo Feedback
Discussion Strategies
Non-threatening discussions
Discussion Protocols
Synchronous Discussions
Small Group Strategies
Peer Review
Group Work
Document Co-Creation
Organic Interaction Strategies
Social Media
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
RECENT WORK ON SOCIAL PRESENCE
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Instructor Social Presence
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Situated/location-based Presence
slides @ patricklowenthal.com
Video Is Not Always King
