thinking differently about social presence in online courses -- northwest elearn 2014

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

Teacher Bios

Digital Stories

Scholarship & Philosophy

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

@CONTACT ME

Patrick Lowenthalpatricklowenthal@boisestate.eduwww.patricklowenthal.com