Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Technology Volume II
Terry T. Kidd University of Texas Health Science Center School of Public Health, USA Holim Song Texas Southern University, USA
Information science reference Hershey • New York
Acquisitions Editor: Development Editor: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Copy Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:
Kristin Klinger Kristin Roth Jennifer Neidig Sara Reed Holly Powell and Larissa Vinci Jeff Ash Lisa Tosheff Yurchak Printing Inc.
Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 0609 Web site: http://www.eurospanonline.com Copyright © 2008 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology / Terry Kidd & Holim Song, editors. p. cm. Summary: "This book provides information on different styles of instructional design methodologies, tips, and strategies on how to use technology to facilitate active learning and techniques to help faculty and researchers develop online instructional and teaching materials. It enables libraries to provide a foundational reference for researchers, educators, administrators, and others in the context of instructional systems and technology"--Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59904-865-9 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-59904-866-6 (ebook) 1. Instructional systems--Design. 2. Educational technology. 3. Educational innovations. I. Kidd, Terry. II. Song, Holim. LB1028.38.H357 2008 371.33--dc22 2007024155 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book set is original material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
Chapter LXV
Online Communication and E-Learning António Quintas-Mendes Universidade Aberta, Portugal Lina Morgado Universidade Aberta, Portugal Lúcia Amante Universidade Aberta, Portugal
AbstrAct The complexities of computer-mediated communication (CMC) are visible in the diversity of the theoretical models that try to explain the implications of electronic communication. The different approaches are not necessarily contradictory, but they emphasize different qualities or characteristics of CMC. In this chapter we review six of the most prominent models: (1) the social presence model; (2) the media richness theory; (3) the reduced social cues model; (4) the social information processing model; (5) the social identity model; and (6) the hyperpersonal communication theory. Initial studies on CMC tend to view this form of communication as impersonal and very limited in expressing emotions and complex social interactions. However, recent research has shown that electronic communication can promote a very rich relational communication and be effective in problem-solving situations, in attaining results and in achieving objectives in tasks performed at a distance. The understanding of these communication processes involves a detailed analysis of several variables, such as group communication processes, the different use of verbal and non-verbal communication channels in face-to-face and virtual settings, and the social construction of the processes of connecting, bonding and building psychological immediacy in mediated contexts. The studies show that in several indicators of group well-being or in task efficacy indicators, better results are obtained in virtual groups, when compared to their face-to-face equivalents, as long as the time variable is controlled. A relevant aspect to take into account is that virtual groups take more time to socialize and to reach objectives than do face-to-face groups. In this chapter we discuss some explanatory hypotheses for these somewhat surprising results and analyze their Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Online Communication and E-Learning
consequences in terms of online education. We suggest that we now have a reasonable understanding of online communication and interaction processes, and that this knowledge should shape the practices of those who work in online education and distance education.
IntroductIon: verbAl coMMunIcAtIon, nonverbAl coMMunIcAtIon, And bAndWIdth Let us consider the following statements: “Gestures are fundamental in communication.” “If I can’t see the person’s gestures it’s hard for me to understand what he or she is trying to say.” “Hearing the tone of voice of the person I am talking to is fundamental to understand his/her reactions.” “Looking the person in the eye is fundamental to perceive his/her state of mind.” “To me it is crucial to feel the presence of the person I am talking to.” These statements belong to the common sense repertory that questions the possibility of meaningful and gratifying distance communication or mediated interpersonal communication. These aspects have been researched under the designation of the bandwidth hypothesis. The concept of bandwidth, though technically referring to the speed and capacity in the processing and distribution of information in electronic systems, came to be used to represent the number of communication channels that the different media can support (Danchack, Walther, & Swan, 2001). Low bandwidth systems are restricted to text, while systems with a higher bandwidth can incorporate
audio. Systems with an even higher bandwidth allow for bi-directional audio and video. Although incorrect from a technical point of view, it is common to say that face-to-face communication has the highest bandwidth. Traditional research is based on a set of assumptions about this matter, namely: (1) the higher the bandwidth, the more social presence, that is, the bigger the salience of another person involved in the conversation and the affection, attraction, and involvement between the participants; (2) the richer media are the ones that come closer to the potential of face-to-face communication; and (3) all mediated communication is, to some extent, deficient when compared to face-to-face communication. According to Whitakker (2003): The bandwidth hypothesis proposed a direct relationship between the modes that a technology supports and the communication that results from using that technology. The hypothesis posits that, regardless of task, the closer the set of modes supported by a technology approximate to those of face to face communication, the greater the efficiency of the communication using that technology. (p. 246) This perspective is challenged by a number of studies (Brennan & Lockridge, 2006; Chapanis, 1982; Whittaker, 2003). In problem-solving tasks, the addition of visual information (video) to speech to increase the bandwidth of a communication system does not necessarily lead to more efficient communication; these studies show that in problem-solving situations, face-to-face communication or a combination of video and audio did not improve on communication that already included speech:
Online Communication and E-Learning
Mode combinations that included speech were always more efficient than those that did not. If participants used spoken interaction, then the addition of high quality video, text, or writing modes made little difference to task outcome or process. Even face to face communication was no different from speech in task outcome or solution quality. Furthermore, modes that included speech were 2 to 3 times more efficient than non-speech modes. (Whittaker, 2003, p. 249) Visual information therefore seems to add little to speech in cognitive tasks. Furthermore, visual information seems to bear some importance when it displays aspects of the spatial context or the task (i.e., object manipulation), and not much when it shows the faces of the participants, which is important for the social or emotional judgment of those engaged in the communication, but not directly relevant to the solving of a problem. In sum, no empirical evidence confirms the bandwidth hypothesis, nor the idea that face-to-face communication is always superior to mediated communication: Clearly, more bandwidth is not necessarily better. In fact, mediated communication sometimes offers tangible advantages over face to face conversation, especially when it is of value to be able to edit utterances, review them, or save them as a paper trail; when it is useful to broadcast them to many addressees at once; or when interlocutors’ schedules prevent them from attending to a message at the same time. (Brennan & Lockridge, 2006, p. 476) In spite of these results, another line of research, concerned with the media characteristics and selection modes, has used essentially the same assumptions as the bandwidth hypothesis. We will now look at some of those models.
coMPuter-MedIAted coMMunIcAtIon Models The assumptions we have mentioned for the bandwidth hypothesis are almost always present in the several theories on the “new media” (Rice, 1984) and, particularly, in the CMC models that we analyze next. The complexities of CMC are visible in the diversity of theoretical models that try to explain the implications of electronic communication. The different approaches are not necessarily contradictory, but rather emphasize the different qualities of CMC. Six of the most prominent models are reviewed here: the social presence model (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976); the media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984); the reduced social cues model (Kiesler, Siegler, & McGuire, 1984; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986; Sproull, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986) the social information processing model (Walther, 1992); the social identity model (Spears & Lea, 1992); and the hyperpersonal communication theory (Walther, 1996).
the Social Presence Model According to the social presence model, the means of communication differ in the number of channels through which interpersonal information can be transmitted—more channels give the media a higher social presence. Social presence is defined by Short et al. (1976) as the “degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (p. 65), that is, it has to do with the degree to which a person is perceived as “real and present” in a given mediated communication. Social presence comprises a number of dimensions that are related to the level of interpersonal contact (“intimacy,” “immediacy”) and
Online Communication and E-Learning
the personal-impersonal dimension. Short et al. (1976) argue that the degree of social presence that can be transmitted through a medium will have strong implications in the degree of presence perceived by the individuals involved in the communication. In a telephone conference, for example, only the auditory information is available, whereas videoconferencing transmits both visual and auditory information, which makes for a higher degree of social presence. According to this theory, communication with a low degree of social presence will necessarily be task oriented and impersonal, leading to less positive perceptions among those interacting with one another. Initial research tended to show that the users of CMC perceived it as impersonal, but further studies have contradicted this notion that media with a lower social presence lead to less positive social perceptions. Chilcoat and DeWine (1985) compared perceptions about social attractiveness, credibility, and the similarity of attitudes among people interacting face-to-face, through videoconferencing or audioconferencing. The results show that the most positive perceptions took place in the audioconferencing contexts, which, according to the model, should have the lowest level of social presence.
the Media Richness Theory A similar approach to the social presence model is the media richness theory developed by Daft and Lengel (1984). According to their analysis, the different media vary in their capacity to reduce ambiguity in communication—the rich media facilitate feedback, communicate multiple cues, allow for personalized and highly specific messages, and enable non-ambiguous communication. Face-to-face communication would be the richest means of communication, while several forms of CMC would constitute poorer forms of mediated communication. Figure 1 predicts that people should prefer the medium that is most adequate to a certain communication context, which is not always the richest. In some contexts, a letter or an e-mail message can be seen as a more appropriate form of communication than the telephone or face-to-face communication, even if text-based communication is not—according to Figure 1—the richest or the most personal. In fact, research on the selection of media has shown that people vary their preferences for different forms of communication under different circumstances. The basis for this selection seems to be influenced by factors beyond the
Figure 1. Model of media richness theory (Adapted from Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987)
Media Richness Hierarchy High Physical Presence (face-to-face) Interactive media (telephone, electronic media) Static personalized media (writing: notes, memos, letters, personalized reports Static non-personalized media (writing: bulletins, leaflets, non-personalized reports)
Media Richness
Low
0
Online Communication and E-Learning
objective characteristics of the media, such as the constructed social perceptions regarding richness and utility, or how a person evaluates the “social utility” of the medium.
the Reduced Social Cues Model The reduced social cues model pays special attention to the fact that the social information of the context is “filtered” and therefore removed from interaction during the textual communication process in CMC. The social context cues define the nature of the social situation, indicate normative limits for appropriate behavior, and transmit the status and social identities of those involved in the interaction. In face-to-face communication, these cues may include physical characteristics of the environment (e.g., where the subject is); gestures and facial expressions; authority and status symbols (clothes, props); physical appearance; and spatial behavior (pose, posture, interpersonal distance). According to the model, when these cues are absent, as is the case with CMC, people become more self-centered and less concerned about the other people’s feelings, opinions, or judgment. In these circumstances the individual has a greater sense of anonymity and perceives the others in a less individualized way than, for example, when talking face-to-face or on the telephone. The individual feels less empathy, less guilt, less social comparison, and less influence of the social norms. In certain situations, these emotions lead to uninhibited behavior (disinhibition effect) and foster the emergence of aggressive and hostile behavior (flaming), together with a negative perception of the others: When social definitions are weak or nonexistent, communication becomes unregulated. People are less bound by convention, less influenced by status, and unconcerned with making a good appearance. Their behavior becomes more extreme, impulsive, and self-centered. (Kiesler, 1986, p. 48)
Another predicted result is that the lack of visible status cues, along with the reduction of anxiety concerning the judgment by others leads to a phenomenon of equalization in CMC. In fact, this hypothesis is supported by a number of studies, especially those involving short-term interaction groups without a previous history. However, evidence in other contexts is contradictory, suggesting that additional factors are probably mediating CMC.
the Social Information Processing Model A fourth relevant model in the analysis of CMC is the social information processing model. Walther (1992) suggests that CMC users, while retaining the same necessities for interpersonal communication both in CMC or in face-to-face contexts, are capable of finding relational communication strategies through electronic media, which enable the transmission of social information (about status, affiliation, satisfaction, and interpersonal attraction). Since most CMC is text based, the speed with which messages are exchanged is lower than in face-to-face interaction (especially with asynchronous communication), and therefore, the transmission of social information is also considerably slower when using CMC. Given enough time, though, there will be progression and development in relational communication. According to Walther: ... given sufficient time and message exchanges for interpersonal impression formation and relational development to accrue, and all other things being equal, relational (communication) in later periods of CMC and face to face communication will be the same. (Walther, 1992, p. 69) With respect to the social reduced cues models, Walther (1995) sees the loss of visual cues inher-
Online Communication and E-Learning
ent to CMC as a disadvantage to be overcome with time and through the development of several linguistic and typographic manipulations that can reveal relational information in CMC. To Walther (1995), the reason previous studies tended to characterize CMC as essentially taskcentered lies in the time constraints. Many studies on CMC have people discuss a topic for 15 to 30 minutes, which is not enough time for the social and relational information to pass through the limited communication channels of CMC. To analyze the factor of time in CMC, Walther, Anderson, and Park (1994) conducted a metaanalysis of 21 experimental studies on CMC taking as variable whether the time in each experiment was limited. The dependent variable was the proportion of socially centered versus task-centered communication. Walther et al. reached two relevant results: 1.
2.
There was more socio-emotional communication in the CMC groups where there was no time constraint for the performance of the task than in the groups where such constraint existed (i.e., in time-restricted situations, the differences between CMC groups increase); There were fewer differences regarding socio-emotional communication between CMC groups and face-to-face groups when there were no time restrictions (i.e., fewer time restrictions correspond to fewer differences between CMC and face-to-face groups).
The meta-analysis thus confirmed one of the predictions of the social information processing model, namely, that with time the quantity of social information communicated using CMC converges with the quantity of social information transmitted verbally in face-to-face communication. The explanation for this fact is that it takes longer to
produce written information compared with oral information. Moreover, the communication of social information through the computer requires learning in the use of linguistic and textual cues to transmit relational information. To verify these hypotheses, Walther (1995) conducted an experimental study which predicted, based on his social information processing model, that social behavior would be greater in faceto-face groups when compared to CMC groups during a large amount of time, and that those differences would fade with time. CMC and face-to-face groups were observed in three different occasions, allowing for a comparison of the relational communication throughout time. The results were, to a certain extent, surprising, as they did not confirm the model’s predictions. In fact, the CMC groups were classified by the observers as having higher levels of relational information when compared to the face–to-face groups regardless of the time when they were observed. For example, the observers classified the CMC groups with higher scores on the basis of expression of affect in the discussion groups, on the perceived similarity among the group members and on the degree of distention or relaxation during the discussions. More importantly, the CMC groups were significantly less task oriented and more socially oriented than the face-to-face groups during the three time spans in which the task was performed. Thus, the key predictions of the social information processing model were refuted by Walther’s (1995) study. CMC communication was significantly more social than face-to-face communication and as time elapsed the evolution did not follow the expected path in most cases. These results, along with the criticism put forward by the theorists of social identity (Spears & Lea, 1992; Rogers & Lea, 2005) led to the reworking of the model and the elaboration of the hyperpersonal communication theory, which we analyze later on.
Online Communication and E-Learning
the Social Identity Model To account for the data drawn from the aforementioned study, Walther (1995) adds to the variable of time, the variable of social identity as proposed by the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) (Spears & Lea, 1992). These authors argue that the sense of belonging to the group or of perceptive immersion in the group can be attained through a social identity shared among the group members, considering that the interpersonal relationships among its members are not crucial in the establishment of social presence. People do not need to meet face-to-face to belong to a group or to identify with a group. As Rogers and Lea (2005) point out, “the lack of nonverbal cues in computer-mediated environments may in fact increase, rather than decrease social presence in group contexts” (p. 152). Not being able to see other group members may increase our identification with the group, because the differences among the group members become less visible. This finding could explain why the CMC groups in Walther’s (1995) experiments displayed such high levels of relational communication even in the early stages of interaction among the subjects.
the Hyperpersonal Communication Model Walther’s hyperpersonal communication model is strongly based on the absence of visual cues and on asynchrony. As we have seen, Walther (1995) observed that the visually anonymous CMC groups are more socially oriented than the face-to-face groups. In a study by Chilcoat and DeWine (1985), participants who had no visual contact classified one another as very much alike in terms of similarity of attitudes and physical and social attractiveness. Walther et al. (1994) also argue that the CMC groups that anticipate future interaction
have higher levels of social communication than those that are limited in time and do not expect to meet again in the future. This finding might sheds some light on why the first studies, which used very short interaction periods, showed low levels of social communication. Furthermore, the temporal limits imposed in many of those studies probably did not allow enough time for the social information to be communicated. In this light, and according to Walther et al., in order to display high levels of affiliation CMC groups need to anticipate future interaction or interact during a large period of time. Walther (1996) thus draws a distinction between CMC environments that seem to promote impersonal interaction (limited in time and without anticipation of future interaction) and those that foster personal interaction (not limited in time and anticipating future interaction). In his perspective, there are many examples in which the CMC groups surpassed the levels of affectiveness and emotion found in parallel face-to-face groups. He called this phenomenon “hyperpersonal communication,” that is, communication that is neither impersonal nor strictly interpersonal and that presents itself as “more socially desirable than we tend to experience in parallel FtF interaction” (1996, p. 17). The hyperpersonal perspective relates the psychological processes of relational communication with the four elements in the traditional scheme of communication: (1) the receiver; (2) the sender; (3) the channel; and (4) the feedback. Walther (1996) presents the following reasons: 1.
In the first place, because many subjects interacting online share a social categorization, they will tend to perceive a greater similarity between themselves and their partner in the conversation. In the same way as we tend to like those we are similar to, people interacting online will be predisposed to like their communication partners.
Online Communication and E-Learning
2.
3.
Secondly, the senders of a message can optimize their self-presentation, that is, they can present themselves in a more positive light than they would be able to in face-to-face communication, since they do not have to worry about their non-verbal behavior. To be free of the need to allocate scarce mental resources in the control of our visual cues and appearance means that we can allocate more resources to the elaboration of the message, again leading to a more positive impression transmitted to the receiver. Walther also suggests that being free of concerns regarding our appearance might lead to a greater focus on our inner self. This means that the messages sent in CMC might include more content related to personal thoughts and feelings, and that the senders might be closer to their ideal self (which again helps their self-presentation). According to the model, interpersonal perceptions in a hyperpersonal communication are not exact evaluations but rather “positive exaggerations” or idealizations based on selective self-presentations on the part of the target person and “fallacious” inferences on the part of the perceiver. A third factor in interpersonal communication is the CMC format. Walther argues that asynchronous CMC has greater chances of leading to interpersonal interaction because: a. Those involved in the communication can dedicate more time to the CMC, being less distracted by factors external to the communication process b. They can spend more time composing and editing the message c. They can combine social messages and task-related messages d. They do not need to use cognitive resources to answer immediately, be-
4.
ing thus able to pay more attention to the message (i.e., they do not have to be worried about giving immediate feedback to their interlocutor) The fourth and last factor according to Walther is a kind of feedback loop, which causes these effects to be amplified through social interaction: As interaction progresses, positive impressions will be amplified, since the subjects will seek to confirm their initial impressions and try, on the other hand, to respond to the positive impressions transmitted by their partners in the interaction.
In short, the core of the model’s assumptions are briefly described by Utz (2000): In CMC, users have the opportunity for selective self-presentation. They have time to think about how to present themselves and can choose the positive aspects. On the other hand, the reduced social cues in CMC lead to an idealized perception by the perceiver. S/he has only the positive information, and inflates the impression of the partner by generalizing these positive cues on other unknown personality aspects. CMC can, therefore, be more social and intimate, or “hyperpersonal” relative to FTF communication.
MedIAted coMMunIcAtIon, IMMedIAcy behAvIors, And MedIAted IMMedIAcy Studies show that, contrary to the early assumptions, CMC is quite fit for the creation of learning communities and true virtual classes, with strong social relationships and task performance comparable to face-to-face communication. Moving beyond this assertion, it is important to expose the processes underlying these mediated social relations. In this domain, studies on “im-
Online Communication and E-Learning
mediacy behaviors” are worth mentioning to all those who deal with mediated communication in educational contexts. Immediacy refers to communication behaviors that reduce the physical or psychological distance between individuals and that promote affiliation (O`Sullivan, Hunt, & Lippert, 2004). Non-verbal immediacy behaviors include behaviors such as the reduction of physical distance; relaxed poses; postures and movements; the use of gestures and smile; vocal signs and intonation; gaze direction; and eye contact during interactions. Verbal immediacy behaviors include the use of personal pronouns; humor and praise; inclusive language (“us” vs. “I”, for example); or addressing the others by their first name. Research on education has shown that the use of immediacy behaviors has positive effects regarding the quality of the relationship among students and between teachers and students on affective, motivational, and academic levels. Naturally the question arises of knowing how these processes work in distance and online education contexts, especially because there is currently a relative consensus among researchers and educators, particularly around Moore’s (1973) notion of transactional distance. In distance education the question of psychological distance is more crucial than that of physical distance (Shin, 2003). It is in this context that we assume the importance of the notion of mediated immediacy as proposed by O’Sullivan et al. (2004): We define “mediated immediacy” as communicative cues in mediated channels that can shape perceptions of psychological closeness between interactants. Stated another way, immediacy cues can be seen as a language of affiliation. The existing literature has identified a vocabulary of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that signal an invitation and intention for greater closeness. Because it is clear from the literature on CMC in relationships that people have found or invented ways to develop
intimacy using mediated channels, examining the language of affiliation in mediated channels would further illuminate the means by which intimacy can be accomplished via newer and older communication technologies. (p.471) The identification of these behaviors has been the goal of recent research by several authors (Arbaugh, 2001; Danchack et al., 2001; Swan, 2002; Swan & Shih, in press). This is a fundamental step since these behaviors depend specifically on the teacher and can be managed, administered, and piloted by him/her. Through them, the teacher can affect the online courses he/she is teaching. Arbaugh (2001), for example, in researching the effect of teachers’ immediacy behaviors on learning and student satisfaction concludes that they are relatively predictive to these factors. Similarly to what happens in face-to-face settings, social presence and the occurrence of immediacy behaviors that reduce the psychological distance between the participants (between colleagues or students and teachers) are a key factor in students’ learning and their attitudes toward the course and teacher. Witt (2004), on the other hand, has sought to relate the occurrence of some indicators of verbal immediacy behaviors (we, us, our, this, these, here) with the efficacy of communication, taking into account the opinions of participants in groups created with the objective of solving a given problem in an online synchronous environment. He postulates that the frequency of verbal immediacy expressions in interaction would show a positive relation with the participants’ opinion on the efficiency of the communication within the group. The results confirmed this hypothesis, showing that the verbal frequency of immediacy expressions in group interactions constituted a predictor of the group’s perceptions concerning the efficacy of their online communication.
Online Communication and E-Learning
The studies on online communication thus converge with another tradition of research, which seeks to articulate the question of distance between the interlocutors with those of technology mediated interactions in educational contexts. This tradition will be discussed next, mainly in terms of the notions of transactional distance and social presence.
dIstAnce, trAnsActIonAl dIstAnce, And socIAl Presence Distance and Interaction Having now a reasonable understanding of online communication and the processes of online interaction, it is important to reflect on their implications for distance education and elearning, questioning the views on the matter of distance and a certain nostalgia for face-to-face interaction. In fact, throughout the development of distance education, there has always been a certain uneasiness with what Taylor (1995) refers to as “the tyranny of distance”: “when developing their models of distance education, these authors have always considered conventional teaching to be the ideal educational relationship between teacher and learner” (Sauvé, 1993, p. 101). The problem of distance has received a lot of attention from distance education and e-learning literature, mainly centered on the discussion and analysis of interaction (Moore, 1989, 1993; Shale & Garrison, 1990; Keegan, 1993; Garrison, 2000). According to Saba (2000), research on distance interaction is not confined to the physical and geographical distance between individuals; rather, it is seen as a matter specific to distance education, thus involving distinctive factors that can affect the quality of the interaction. Only the understanding that interaction is the element ca-
pable of reducing distance and, therefore, creating immediacy, will allow for its conceptualization as an inseparable part of the process of teaching and learning at a distance. But distant interaction has its particularities. Elaborating on the notion of transactional distance, Moore (1991) states that: The transaction that we call distance education occurs between individuals who are teachers and learners, in an environment that has the special characteristic of separation of one another, and a consequent set of special teaching and learning behaviours. It is the physical separation that leads to a psychological and communication gap, a space of potential misunderstanding between inputs of instructor and those of the learner, and this is the transactional distance. (p. 2) In this light, transactional distance is pedagogical and not geographical. According to Moore’s (1973) theory, a course will be more distant to the extent that it simultaneously possesses a low level of interaction and a high level of structure, whereas another one will be less distant if it has a high level of interaction and a low level of structure: “a learner’s distance from his teacher is not measured in miles or minutes” (p. 665). Consequently, distance education is not defined by the geographical separation between teacher and student, but rather by the amount of interaction and structure present. The physical distance between teacher and student is irrelevant. They are, in fact, distant if there is no dialogue (even if they are in the same physical space) and if the course is highly structured. The mediation of interaction technologies allows for a greater number and diversity of transactions both between teacher and student and between students, fostering interaction and reducing transactional distance. The discussion and research about this concept has deep implica-
Online Communication and E-Learning
tions for e-learning. Namely, the fact that distance, being a psychological matter, may be a variable to control through instructional design and through a set of institutional factors, that is, the students might experience different levels of distance depending on how instruction is structured. The studies on distance interaction became more relevant with the work of Fullford and Zhang (1993) (as cited in Gunawardena & Zittle, 1998), who concluded that a critical predictive factor of the degree of students’ satisfaction was the general perception they had of the interaction levels. Their results suggest a dynamic relationship between what students perceive as happening and what really takes place, leading the authors to hypothesize that this perception of the global interaction might be an indicator of a vicarious interaction. Interestingly enough, this perception seems to bear no relation to the student’s level of individual participation, since “the overall interaction dynamics may have a stronger impact on learner’s satisfaction than strictly personal participation” (p. 107). The study of the interpersonal relationships built in distance education environments is of great importance in this context. Shin (2002, 2003) proposes the transactional presence construct to theorize distance learners’ perceptions of other significant individuals involved in the distance interaction. Thus transactional presence refers to the degree to which the distance student perceives the availability of, and the connectedness with, the other individuals involved in the interaction. Availability implies that what is needed or desirable can be obtained upon request, therefore involving an interpersonal relationship. Connectedness indicates the belief or feeling that there is a relationship between two or more people, involving a subjective judgment about the extent and depth of that relationship. Transactional distance might therefore constitute a significant predictor of the students’
perception regarding their learning outcome, degree of satisfaction, and persistence. Shin (2003) considers that distance students’ perceptions of the people involved in the learning situation are related to their need to feel connected through available learning resources and support schemes. This points to the necessity of integrating different types of transactional presence in the design of distance courses, thus reducing the probability that the students experience psychological distance: Raising the level of interaction among the participants is a good strategy to increase the degree of perception of transactional presence, keeping in mind that doing so will also interfere with the degree of autonomy the student has, reducing her choices about when and where to learn.
Online Education and social Presence Social presence has been one of the most significant factors in the analysis of distance education (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996). Teaching and learning online entails the establishment of interpersonal and educational relationships, that is, of interactions or transactions that support both learning and teaching and prevent them from being mechanical, isolated, socially decontextualized experiences. One of the constructs researchers have used in the study of online education is the social presence theory, namely, the classical theory (Short et al., 1976). Although it was developed for other communication contexts and media besides CMC, it has spawned productive reflections on the part of these researchers. Generally speaking, studies on social presence in online education contexts have followed two paths: (1) those based on Short et al. (1976), and consequently view social presence as something inherent to the properties of the media; and (2) those that consider that the effects of the media
Online Communication and E-Learning
cannot, in themselves, constitute the predominant factor in determining the degree of social presence in online contexts (Gunawardena, 1995; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000), because they are related to the perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of the individuals in mediated interaction (Gunawardena, 1995). Based on the results of the two studies she conducted, Gunawardena (1995) emphasizes the notion of “awareness of the other,” the “degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” (p. 151). According to her, the determinants of social presence are not the medium attributes or the effects of the communication channel, but the social and relational nature of interaction. Her conclusion that social presence can be cultivated among the participants displaces the focus of research from the effects of the communication channel or the media attributes to a relational perspective. The results of these studies carry strong implications for online education, especially for course design and moderation strategies. Social presence will not manifest itself spontaneously; teachers and moderators have a key role in modeling and developing social presence, and so they need to acquire specific interaction skills. According to Gunawardena (1995), these abilities and skills will have an impact on students’ perceptions of interaction and social presence, rather than the characteristics of the medium. The facilitation of social presence may include specific learning areas, where students can be coached in the development of these skills and the creation of social presence (for instance, in the opening sessions of presentations and social exchanges), so that they can get to know one another and establish working relations based on trust and reciprocity; interaction protocols; netiquette; and so forth. Another approach to social presence in online education is that of Garrison et al., (2000). For them, social presence is an individual’s ability
to project himself/herself as real. They define it as “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real people’ through the medium of communication being used” (p. 94). These authors also refuse the perspective of the classical theory, arguing that it is the communication context, built through familiarization, interaction skills, motivation, activities performed, and duration of use of the medium that influences the degree of social presence attained in a learning community. The model they propose sets the notion of social presence in the context of a community of inquiry. For them, online education allows for high levels of interaction between the participants (teacher-student and among the students), therefore possessing the potential to express learning models based on social interaction. They conceptualized a set of pedagogical principles that make up for what they term a community of inquiry. According to this model, learning takes place within a community through the articulation of three basic pillars that constitute the fundamental prerequisites of an educational experience in higher education: (1) cognitive presence, (2) social presence, and (3) teaching presence. This community comprises teachers and students, the key elements in the educational process. Cognitive presence is a vital element in the educational experience in higher education and is defined by the fact that participants build meaning and knowledge through communication. The second element, social presence, refers to the ways in which participants are able to project themselves as individuals (socially and emotionally) in the community, acting as “support for cognitive presence, indirectly facilitating the process of critical thinking carried on by the community of learners” (Garrison et al., p. 89). In conjunction with teaching presence, it allows for high levels of cognitive presence, and it is “a direct contributor of the educational experience” (p. 89).
Online Communication and E-Learning
The last element, teaching presence, is justified by the assumption that the active participation of a teacher is a crucial component in any educational context, the more so in online environments because of their specific characteristics. Therefore, teaching presence is mainly the teacher’s responsibility, although under certain circumstances students can also take some responsibility for this role. Still in the context of this model, Rourke, Anderson, Archer, and Garrison (1999) developed three categories of communicative responses that contribute to social presence: (1) affective responses, which include the expression of feelings and emotions (use of emoticons, capital letters, etc.), the use of humor (irony, sarcasm), and self-disclosure (presentation of personal details, expression of vulnerability); (2) interactive responses, related to behaviors such as continuing a thread, quoting other people’s messages, referring explicitly to the messages of others, asking questions and giving feedback, greeting or expressing appreciation, and expressing agreement; and (3) cohesive responses, which involve addressing participants by name, using inclusive pronouns (referring to the group as we or our group), and phatic expressions and salutations (greetings and closures). Along the same lines, Swan (2001, 2002) and Richardson and Swan (2003) found a positive correlation between the role of social presence and its relation to perceived learning outcomes and degree of satisfaction with the teacher. Their qualitative analysis also revealed that degree of satisfaction with the teacher had to do with his/her involvement with the students, mainly through guidance about course materials and feedback. Swan (2001) observed that students who perceived high levels of interaction with the teacher also revealed high levels of satisfaction with the course and thought they learned more than the students who interacted less with the teacher.
Another line of analysis is represented by the equilibrium model of social presence (Danchak et al., 2001), which presents social presence in terms of two factors: (1) the capacity of affective communication specific to the communication channel used; and (2) the immediacy behaviors of the participants. When channels that permit affective communication are more limited, participants tend to mobilize more verbal immediacy behaviors, in order to establish a level of equilibrium of social presence that allows them to feel comfortable. Thus, according to this model, the poorer the communication channel in terms of its capacity to transmit affective communication, the greater the need of the participants to use alternative forms of interaction to express social presence and allow for the perception of immediacy. In one study, Swan (2002) analyzed the different forms of verbal immediacy used in asynchronous online discussions. The results point to the existence of immediacy indicators in all the messages—six per message on average–higher than that found in face-to-face discussions. This finding seems to reinforce the notion that participants seek to overcome the restrictions imposed on affective communication by the channel used, resorting to a greater number of verbal immediacy behaviors to surpass the psychological distance, as postulated by the equilibrium model of social presence (Danchak et al., 2001). Another relevant aspect is that affective indicators registered the highest frequency (especially the use of paralanguage). These affective indicators tended to maintain a high frequency throughout the course, thus evidencing their constant importance. Next came the interactive indicators (knowledge being the most frequent), whose presence as a whole increased as the course progressed. The cohesive indicators registered the lowest global frequency, decreasing as the course progressed (especially the indicators related to references to the group—“we,” “our,” “us,” etc.). According to the authors, these results
Online Communication and E-Learning
show that as the course progresses and the community is more consolidated, the participants’ need to reinforce the sense of group weakens. Globally, these studies show that the online environment constitutes a very rich setting in social relationships, irreducible to the narrow limits of technologies and bandwidth, capable of providing a highly fertile context for learning.
in our cognitive and relational environment; today online education encompasses problems of “relation” and not just of “interaction” for both teachers and students (Shin, 2002). To understand the new challenges of CMC, concerns not only education but the whole of a society undergoing a process of generalization of distance and mediated communication.
conclusIon
references
The explosive growth of the Internet and CMC and their use in education calls for a committed effort in understanding these new media, their limitations as well as their potential. In particular, we need to address their potential impact on interpersonal relationships within groups and communities in educational settings. As we saw at the beginning of this chapter, the early characterizations of these media tended to view them as impersonal, fit only for simple information exchanges, and unfit for more complex social and relational interactions. Because of the absence of visual cues and non-verbal information, CMC was seen as secondrate compared to face-to-face communication, unlikely to support highly demanding environments with respect to social interaction. This perception has been slowly changing, since both research and current practice of intense social exchanges through the Internet show that CMC can foster immediacy and affiliation behaviors, positive interpersonal relationships, and strong social relations, which can provide for very rich educational environments. The field of research on the communication media thus converges with the field of research on the matters of distance and distance educational interaction, namely, those related to transactional distance and social presence. In recent decades technologies have emerged that have brought about profound changes
Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in Web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54.
0
Brennan, S. E., & Lockridge, C. B. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: A cognitive science approach. In K. Brown (Ed.), ELL2, encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd. Chapanis, A. (1982). Man/computer research at Johns Hopkins. In R. A. Kasschau, R. Lachman, & K. R. Laughery (Eds.), Information technology and psychology: Prospects for the future. New York: Praeger. Chilcoat, Y., & DeWine, S. (1985). Teleconferencing and interpersonal communication perception. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18, 14-32. Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In B. M. Shaw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational Behavior (pp. 191-233). Homewood, CA: JAI Press. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 355-366.
Online Communication and E-Learning
Danchack, M. M., Walther, J. B., & Swan, K. P. (2001, November). Presence in mediated instruction: Bandwidth, behavior, and expectancy violations. Paper presented at ALN 2001 Conference, Orlando, FL. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.rpi.edu/~danchm/Pubs/ALN01.pdf
McIsaac, M., & Gunawardena, C. (1996). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 403-438). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1-17.
Moore, M. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 44(12), 661-679.
Garrison, D. R, Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, R. (1998). Faculty development programmes in distance education in American higher education. In C. Latchem & F. Lockwood (Eds.), Staff development in open and flexible learning (pp. 105-114). London: Routledge. 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. Keegan, D. (1993). Reintegration of the teaching acts. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 113-134). New York: Routledge. Kiesler, S. (1986). The hidden messages of computer networks. Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 46-60. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological effects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge. Moore, M. G. (1991). Theory of distance education. Paper presented at The Second American Symposium on Research in Distance Education, May 22-24. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 464-490. Rice, R. E. (1984). The new media: Communication, research and technology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to student’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The roles of social identity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(2), 151-158.
Online Communication and E-Learning
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Archer, W., & Garrison, D. R. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferences. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 20(1), 23-50.
Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1-9.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (in press). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network.
Sauvé, L. (1993). What’s behind the development of a course? In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 93-112). London: Routledge. Shale, D., & Garrison, D. R. (1990). Introduction. In D. R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 1-6). Malabar, India: Krieger. Siegel, J. L., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187. Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of “transactional presence.” Open Learning, 17(2), 121-137.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley. Taylor, J. C. (1995). Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 1-7. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186-203.
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 4(1), 69-86.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the “social” in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21, 460-487.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492-1512.
Whittaker, S. (2003). Theories and methods in mediated communication. In A. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher, & S. Goldman (Ed.), The handbook of discourse processes (pp. 243-286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
Witt, P. (2004). An initial examination of observed verbal immediacy and participants’ opinions of
Online Communication and E-Learning
communication effectiveness in online group interaction. Journal of Online Behavior, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/ v2n1/witt.html
Mediated Immediacy: Mediated immediacy refers to communicative cues in mediated channels that can shape perceptions of psychological closeness between participants.
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/ v1n1/utz.html
Nonverbal Immediacy: Non-verbal immediacy behaviors include reducing physical distance; touching; displaying relaxed postures and movements; using gestures; smiling; using vocal variety; and engaging in eye contact during interactions.
key terMs
Social Presence: Social presence is defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationship. It is related to the degree to which a person is perceived as “real and present” in a given mediated communication.
Bandwidth Hypothesis: In communication theory the term bandwidth hypothesis is used to represent the number of communication channels that the different media can support. According to social presence theory and media richness theory, “rich media,” such as video, allow ample information transfer while “lean” media, like text, allow little. Hyperpersonal Communication: The concept of hyperpersonal communication describes the way in which online communication sometimes surpasses the level of affection and emotion of parallel face-to-face communication. Immediacy: Immediacy refers to communicative behaviors that reduce the physical or psychological distance between individuals and foster affiliation. Immediacy behaviors may be verbal or non-verbal.
Transactional Distance: Transactional distance is the pedagogical and psychological distance (not the geographical distance) that exists in a distant course between teachers and students, that are physically separated. Transactional Presence: Transactional presence refers to the degree to which the distance student perceives the availability of, and the connectedness with, the other individuals involved in the interaction. Verbal Immediacy: Verbal immediacy behaviors include using personal examples, asking questions, using humor, addressing others by name, praising others, initiating discussion, and using inclusive pronouns (“we” vs. “I”).
