Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (14)
Semelhante a AECT 2009 Social Presence
Semelhante a AECT 2009 Social Presence (20)
Mais de Patrick Lowenthal
Mais de Patrick Lowenthal (20)
Último
Último (20)
AECT 2009 Social Presence
- 1. Social Presence What is it? And Why Does it Matter? Patrick R. Lowenthal | patrick.lowenthal@ucdenver.edu
- 4. Why do I not have results to report?
- 6. Why should you stay?
- 7. Lowenthal, P. R., Lowenthal, D. A., & White, J. W. (2009, October). The changing nature of online communities of inquiry: An analysis of how discourse and time shapes students' perceptions of presence . Paper presented at the 2009 AECT International Convention, Louisville, KY. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (under review). Hot for teacher: Using digital music to enhance student’s experience in elearning courses . Submitted to TechTrends . Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. (in press). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling . The Internet and Higher Education . Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence . Journal of Information Systems Education , 20(2), 129-136. Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning . In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 124-139). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Lowenthal, A., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009, April). Revisiting teaching presence: An analysis of teaching presence across discourse communities . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA. Lowenthal, P. R., & Parscal, T. (2008). Teaching presence. The Learning Curve, 3(4), 1-2, 4.
- 9. What is it ?
- 10. Does Presence = present ? ? ? ?
- 14. Original Definition Social presence is the degree of salience (i.e., quality or state of being there ) between two communicators using a communication medium.
- 16. For Example
- 20. Why does this matter ?
- 21. Our lives have Changed
- 22. We are social beings!
- 23. Learning is social !
- 25. If learning is social and CMC antisocial , where does leave us?
- 29. Phases of Social Presence Research
- 33. Limitations of Past Research
- 39. Why does this matter to me ?
- 45. Category & Indicators Definition of Indicators Examples Affective Responses Paralanguage Features of text outside formal syntax used to convey emotion (i.e., emoticons, exaggerated punctuation or spelling) Someday……; How awful for you ; Mathcad is definitely NOT stand along software; Absolutely!!!!! Emotion Use of descriptive words that indicate feelings (i.e., love, sad, hate, silly) When I make a spelling mistake, I look and feel stupid; I get chills when I think of … Value Expressing personal values, beliefs, and attitudes I think it is a necessary evil; I feel our children have the same rights Humor Use of humour—teasing cajoling, irony, sarcasm, understatement God forbid leaving your house to go to the library Self-Disclosure Sharing personal information, expressing vulnerability I sound like an old lady; I am a closet writer; We had a similar problem Interactive Responses Acknowledgement Referring directly to the contents of others’ messages; quoting from others’ messages agreement Those ‘old machines’ sure were something; we won by a landslide – ‘landslide’ (next response) Disagreement Expressing agreement or disagreement with other’s messages I’m with you on that; I agree; I think what you are saying is right Approval Expressing approval, offering praise, encouragement You make a good point; Right on; Good luck as you continue to learn Invitation Asking questions or otherwise inviting response Any suggestions?; Would you describe that for me, I am unfamiliar with the term Personal Advice Offering specific advice to classmates Also the CEC website might have some references Cohesive Responses Greetings & Salutations Greetings, closures Hi Mary; That’s it for now, Tom Vocatives Addressing classmates by name You know, Tamara, …; I totally agree with you Katherine Group Reference Referring to the group as ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’ We need to be educated; Our use of the Internet may not be free Social Sharing Sharing information unrelated to the course Happy Birthday!! to both of you!!! Self-reflection Reflection on the course itself, a kind of self-awareness of the group I would never have imagined that we could have been having a discussion like this when we first started this course
- 46. Strategies to Improve Social Presence
- 49. Contact Me dd Patrick R. Lowenthal [email_address] www.patricklowenthal.com twitter @plowenthal
Notas do Editor
- Is this student present? Yes and no… it depends on what you mean
- [BOOK] The Social Psychology of Telecommunications J Short, E Williams, B Christie - 1976 - John Wiley & Sons Cited by 1745 - Web Search - Library Search They were interested in how communications media, specifically telecommunications media, impact communication
- Communication media differ in their degree of social presence; these differences play an important role in how people interact.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuS3m-Jhcc
- CMC is different than other types of communication medium.
- However, despite occasional reports of loneliness and isolation (Grubb & Hines, 2000; Robinson, 2000), proponents and practitioners of online education argue that online education and CMC can support the social practice of learning. Even though nonverbal and relational cues are filtered out, these researchers have argued that CMC can still be very social and interpersonal (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) and at times even hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996). Further, as researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) began examining the sociability of online education, these new researchers began to question the degree to which the attributes of a communication medium—in this case the cues filtered out of CMC systems—determine how people socially interact and are perceived as “being there” when communicating online (Danchak, Walther, & Swan, 2001; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; As a result, these researchers began questioning and further developing the theory of social presence developed by Short et al. (1976). They argued, based on their experience and research, that participants in online discussions, using text alone, are able to project their personalities into online discussions and create social presence (Swan, 2003a; Swan & Shih, 2005). They found that online learners are able to present themselves as being “real” as well as “connect” with others when communicating in online learning environments by doing such things as using emoticons, telling stories, and even using humor (Rourke et al., 2001; Swan, 2003). Thus, a user’s personal perceptions of social presence and the behaviors used to make up for the cues that are filtered out matter just as much, if not more, than a medium’s supposed capabilities. This new line of research sparked a renewed interest in the sociability of online learning, social presence, and CMC as evidenced in the increased amount of literature focused on social presence.
- However, despite occasional reports of loneliness and isolation (Grubb & Hines, 2000; Robinson, 2000), proponents and practitioners of online education argue that online education and CMC can support the social practice of learning. Even though nonverbal and relational cues are filtered out, these researchers have argued that CMC can still be very social and interpersonal (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) and at times even hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996). Further, as researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) began examining the sociability of online education, these new researchers began to question the degree to which the attributes of a communication medium—in this case the cues filtered out of CMC systems—determine how people socially interact and are perceived as “being there” when communicating online (Danchak, Walther, & Swan, 2001; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; As a result, these researchers began questioning and further developing the theory of social presence developed by Short et al. (1976). They argued, based on their experience and research, that participants in online discussions, using text alone, are able to project their personalities into online discussions and create social presence (Swan, 2003a; Swan & Shih, 2005). They found that online learners are able to present themselves as being “real” as well as “connect” with others when communicating in online learning environments by doing such things as using emoticons, telling stories, and even using humor (Rourke et al., 2001; Swan, 2003). Thus, a user’s personal perceptions of social presence and the behaviors used to make up for the cues that are filtered out matter just as much, if not more, than a medium’s supposed capabilities. This new line of research sparked a renewed interest in the sociability of online learning, social presence, and CMC as evidenced in the increased amount of literature focused on social presence.
- However, despite occasional reports of loneliness and isolation (Grubb & Hines, 2000; Robinson, 2000), proponents and practitioners of online education argue that online education and CMC can support the social practice of learning. Even though nonverbal and relational cues are filtered out, these researchers have argued that CMC can still be very social and interpersonal (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) and at times even hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996). Further, as researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) began examining the sociability of online education, these new researchers began to question the degree to which the attributes of a communication medium—in this case the cues filtered out of CMC systems—determine how people socially interact and are perceived as “being there” when communicating online (Danchak, Walther, & Swan, 2001; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; As a result, these researchers began questioning and further developing the theory of social presence developed by Short et al. (1976). They argued, based on their experience and research, that participants in online discussions, using text alone, are able to project their personalities into online discussions and create social presence (Swan, 2003a; Swan & Shih, 2005). They found that online learners are able to present themselves as being “real” as well as “connect” with others when communicating in online learning environments by doing such things as using emoticons, telling stories, and even using humor (Rourke et al., 2001; Swan, 2003). Thus, a user’s personal perceptions of social presence and the behaviors used to make up for the cues that are filtered out matter just as much, if not more, than a medium’s supposed capabilities. This new line of research sparked a renewed interest in the sociability of online learning, social presence, and CMC as evidenced in the increased amount of literature focused on social presence.
- I have argued elsewhere that we are in Phase 4.
- Social presence is now a central concept in online learning; Just as earlier researchers of CMC (Kiesler, 1986; Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984) used social presence theory to explain why CMC was inherently impersonal, later researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) reconceptualized social presence theory—focusing less on the medium and more on people—to explain how CMC in online learning environments can be very personal and social.
- Social presence is now a central concept in online learning; Just as earlier researchers of CMC (Kiesler, 1986; Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984) used social presence theory to explain why CMC was inherently impersonal, later researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) reconceptualized social presence theory—focusing less on the medium and more on people—to explain how CMC in online learning environments can be very personal and social.
- Social presence is now a central concept in online learning; Just as earlier researchers of CMC (Kiesler, 1986; Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984) used social presence theory to explain why CMC was inherently impersonal, later researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) reconceptualized social presence theory—focusing less on the medium and more on people—to explain how CMC in online learning environments can be very personal and social.
- Presence is a key theoretical construct used in a variety of disciplines besides communication and online learning—most notably virtual reality (see Biocca, 1997). In fact, Lombard and Ditton (1997) identified six interrelated but distinct ways people understand “presence”: (a) presence as social richness, (b) presence as realism, (c) presence as transportation, (d) presence as immersion, (e) presence as social actor within medium, and (f) presence as medium as social actor. They even attempted to create one all encompassing definition of presence. According to Lombard and Ditto, the following definition takes into consideration all six ways presence is understood; presence is “the perceptual illusion of nonmediation” (presence explicated section). To date, though, their all encompassing definition has not caught on. Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon (2003), also recognized the different ways researchers across different fields define presence. They attempted to create an all-encompassing definition of social presence; they defined social presence as simply “‘sense of being with another’” (p. 456) whether that other is human or artificial. Despite attempts by Lombard and Ditto (1997) and Biocca et al. (2003) to develop some conceptual clarity when it comes to discussions of presence in general or social presence in particular, researchers of social presence and CMC in educational environments continue to redefine and categorize social presence (Picciano, 2002). For Gunawardena (1995), social presence is “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” (p. 151). Garrison et al. (2000), on the other hand, define social presence “ 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). Tu and McIsaac (2002) define social presence as “the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectual entity through a text-based encounter” (p. 140). Finally, for Picciano (2002), social presence in an online course “refers to a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (p. 22).
- Presence is a key theoretical construct used in a variety of disciplines besides communication and online learning—most notably virtual reality (see Biocca, 1997). In fact, Lombard and Ditton (1997) identified six interrelated but distinct ways people understand “presence”: (a) presence as social richness, (b) presence as realism, (c) presence as transportation, (d) presence as immersion, (e) presence as social actor within medium, and (f) presence as medium as social actor. They even attempted to create one all encompassing definition of presence. According to Lombard and Ditto, the following definition takes into consideration all six ways presence is understood; presence is “the perceptual illusion of nonmediation” (presence explicated section). To date, though, their all encompassing definition has not caught on. Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon (2003), also recognized the different ways researchers across different fields define presence. They attempted to create an all-encompassing definition of social presence; they defined social presence as simply “‘sense of being with another’” (p. 456) whether that other is human or artificial. Despite attempts by Lombard and Ditto (1997) and Biocca et al. (2003) to develop some conceptual clarity when it comes to discussions of presence in general or social presence in particular, researchers of social presence and CMC in educational environments continue to redefine and categorize social presence (Picciano, 2002). For Gunawardena (1995), social presence is “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” (p. 151). Garrison et al. (2000), on the other hand, define social presence “ 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). Tu and McIsaac (2002) define social presence as “the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectual entity through a text-based encounter” (p. 140). Finally, for Picciano (2002), social presence in an online course “refers to a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (p. 22).
- Presence is a key theoretical construct used in a variety of disciplines besides communication and online learning—most notably virtual reality (see Biocca, 1997). In fact, Lombard and Ditton (1997) identified six interrelated but distinct ways people understand “presence”: (a) presence as social richness, (b) presence as realism, (c) presence as transportation, (d) presence as immersion, (e) presence as social actor within medium, and (f) presence as medium as social actor. They even attempted to create one all encompassing definition of presence. According to Lombard and Ditto, the following definition takes into consideration all six ways presence is understood; presence is “the perceptual illusion of nonmediation” (presence explicated section). To date, though, their all encompassing definition has not caught on. Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon (2003), also recognized the different ways researchers across different fields define presence. They attempted to create an all-encompassing definition of social presence; they defined social presence as simply “‘sense of being with another’” (p. 456) whether that other is human or artificial. Despite attempts by Lombard and Ditto (1997) and Biocca et al. (2003) to develop some conceptual clarity when it comes to discussions of presence in general or social presence in particular, researchers of social presence and CMC in educational environments continue to redefine and categorize social presence (Picciano, 2002). For Gunawardena (1995), social presence is “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” (p. 151). Garrison et al. (2000), on the other hand, define social presence “ 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). Tu and McIsaac (2002) define social presence as “the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectual entity through a text-based encounter” (p. 140). Finally, for Picciano (2002), social presence in an online course “refers to a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (p. 22). the “sense of being with another” (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon) “ the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’” (Gunawardena) “ the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectual entity through a text-based encounter” (Tu & McIsaac) “ a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor”
- Tell a story about teaching online and finding your voice