Inhabiting online social spaces Social presence and online

Inhabiting online social spaces: Social presence and online social processes Benjamin Kehrwald Massey University College of Education

Overview • The paradox of online interaction • Social presence • Nature • Features • Role and function • Practical implications

The paradox of online social activity Most online communication is textual Text is a limiting medium relative to face-to-face communication • • • Visual and other non-verbal cues are limited Contextual information may be limited Cues-filtered-out view Mediating technologies introduce social and psychological distance Online interaction is (relatively) difficult, impersonal and dehumanising

The paradox of online social activity Despite the prevailing views of online communication as ‘limited’…. users report successful communication ‘connection’ ‘rich, rewarding exchanges’ ‘addictive’ How is this possible given the limitations of the medium?

Questions • • How do online learners experience one another? How do interpersonal connections form? How are these connections used (generally)? How are these connections used (specifically) in goal directed social activity? • What skills (communication, social, interpretive) do learners use as part of online social activity? • Do they bring these skills to online learning OR learn them as they go?

Enter Social Presence…

Social Presence – the sense that the mediated is not mediated “presence theory focuses on the effects of mediation on experience especially as our awareness of the mediation oscillates, flickers and sometimes fades” (Biocca, et al, 2001) • Telepresence – being there online • Co-presence – being there together • Social presence – being there with another salient social actor

Defining social presence the degree of salience of the other person in a mediated interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal interaction (Short, Williams and Christie, 1976) individuals’ abilities to perceive others through their mediated interactions (Collins and Murphy, 1997) the degree of “tangibility and proximity” of others within a communicative situation (Mc. Leod, Baron, & Marti, 1997) the ability of online participants to project themselves both socially and emotionally in a community (Rourke et al. , 2001)

Defining characteristics of Social Presence 1. There is an ‘other’ party present in the environment as evidenced by their visible contributions. 2. This ‘other’ exists and is identifiable as a real person: a human being, with all the characteristics thereof, including personality, emotion, personal history, and context. I. e. , they are a ‘salient social actor’

Defining social presence (learners’ view) Social presence is an individual’s ability to demonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so signal his/her availability for interpersonal transactions.

Features of Social Presence Social presence…is demonstrative (or performative) • Individuals demonstrate their presence • establishment of social presence – “There is somebody here, and that person is me” • ongoing demonstrations of presence – “I’m still here and I’m available (or not) to work with you” • Others interpret those demonstrations and make judgements about ongoing interaction As such…is dependent upon participants, not (only) media

Features of Social Presence Social presence is perceived to exist ‘in degrees’ • Individuals are not merely ‘present’ or ‘absent’ • They are ‘more’ or ‘less’ present than others… • … ‘more’ or ‘less’ available • ‘more’ or ‘less’ reliable, knowledgeable, etc • ‘more’ or ‘less’ desirable as partners for productive collaborative activity

Features of Social Presence Social presence is dynamic, in constant flux It fluctuates with time based on • Number of interactions • Frequency of interactions • Quality of interactions

Features of Social Presence Social presence is cumulative There is a ‘sense of history’ in emerging relations • Known ‘other’ parties have an established social presence • Recent interactions affect an individual’s social presence

Role and Function of Social Presence SP helps users overcome the limits of technologymediated communication and experience human-human interaction (as opposed to human-machine interaction) • The technology (and the distance it introduces via mediation) becomes transparent. • Human-human interaction follows

Role and Function of Social Presence SP enhances the meaning of messages in online communications • Provides communicative context Perspective Background Attitudes, beliefs etc • Provides relational information Indicates cohesion, ‘groupness’ Demonstrates the state of the relation (trust, respect, rapport, etc)

Role and Function of Social Presence Supports the development of interpersonal relations • Relations develop from a point of first contact • Vary over time based on number, frequency and intensity of interactions • Social presence cues provide information about relational states

Relational States Relational states Relational mechanisms Me-other relations Empathy Respect Admiration Mutuality Commonality Connection Likemindedness Safety Freedom from risk Comfort with others Confidence in others Trustworthiness Trusting behaviours Willingness to put oneself at risk Production Group cohesion Rapport Interdependence

Issues and Implications for Practice • • Establishing social presence Cultivating social presence Promoting interaction Supporting online social processes

Key points • Novice online learners do not come to online learning with an understanding of social presence and online communication …but they do have applicable communication skills • The ability to read and project SP *can* be learned • Learners learn to communicate effectively both actively and vicariously These ‘learnings’ can be structured

Supporting the development of SP • Ability • Can learners project themselves as salient social actors? • Can they read social presence cues? • Opportunity • promote productive interactions (no interaction, no SP) • prevent learners from being overwhelmed • Balance the needs for both flexibility and structure • Motivation • Interaction is costly • Justify the cost with a ‘return’

Teaching roles and activities Be explicit about expectations regarding communicaiton, interaction and other social processes. Focus on a skills development as part of ongoing activity Structure opportunities for *purposeful* interaction Model effective communication Demonstrate the establishment of a positive presence Cultivate an continuous online social presence Be mindful of the demands of ‘learning to learn online’

Further Reading Kehrwald, B. A. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89 -106. Kehrwald, B. A. (2010). Being online: Social presence and subjectivity in online learning. London Review of Education, 8(1), 39 -50. Kehrwald, B. A. (2010, in press). Social presence and online communication: A response to Mersham. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 14(1). Kehrwald, B. A. (2010, in press). Towards more productive online discussions: Social presence and the development of interpersonal relations. In L. Shedletsky & J. E. Aitken (Eds. ), Cases on online discussion and interaction: Experiences and outcomes.