Author pre-print.
Oct. 2012
Houtman, E., Makos, A., Meacock, H-L. (forthcoming 2014). The intersection of social presence and impression management in online learning environments.E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(3).
The Intersection of Social Presence and Impression Management in Online Learning Environments
Abstract
In our day-to-day routines, we are being asked to extend ourselves into virtual environments that capture mere glimpses of who we are and what we think. As education focuses on the development of online learning environments, we are once again asked to recreate ourselves for another environment. This paper explores aspects of social presence and impression management within formal and informal online learning environments. It will examine the point of intersection between the theories of social presence and impression management as they relate to social network and learning sites and discursive practices. Social presence is understood as a key component of the constructivist and situated learning that can take place in online learning environments. An individual’s impression management, which might be understood as their ability to send/read, recognize and be recognized through those cues they choose to present, becomes intertwined with their learning experience. At what point do these two theories intersect and what implications does it have for the design of online learning environments?
“Our expanding abilities to bring presence from the “real” world and from “real” human interactions to mediated worlds and mediated social relations represent an important chance to enrich human experience.” - Spagnolli, Lombard & Gamberini, 2009
Introduction
Social presence is understood as a key component of the constructivist and situated learning that can take place in online learning environments. If users of these environments are interacting with each other to develop a sense of community whose goal is to participate in learning activities, then an individual’s impression management, which might be understood as their ability to send/read, recognize and be recognized through those cues they choose to present, becomes directly implicated with their learning experience.
Our world has been flooded by new technologies that allow us to connect to one another in a variety of ways. We are being asked to extend ourselves beyond our physical bodies into a virtual environment where our point of contact with others is mediated by technology. Entry into a mediated environment provides users with an opportunity to design their behaviours whether consciously or subconsciously. The point where interaction between users takes place, the processes governing interaction, and the artifacts generated provides a robust site for theories of social presence and impression management to be explored. Our goal is to explore aspects of social presence and impression management within formal and informal online learning environments. The following paper will examine the point of intersection between the theories of social presence and impression management as they relate to social network and learning sites and discursive practices.
Social Presence Theory
Social presence theory is a complex concept. It is best described in Oztok & Brett’s literature review (2011) on social presence and online learning as being characterized by three eras. The first era is described as a focus on the medium through which individuals interact; the second era describes the individuals’ perceptions of these interactions; and the third era captures the relationships between the individual and the greater community of the online learning environment. The types of studies conducted by researchers represent the progression of the concept through these eras. Oztok & Brett (2011) echo Biocca et al. (2003) who suggest that a robust theory of social presence is necessary and would provide researchers with the opportunity to create a measure of social presence that supports cross-media comparison. Hampering this are vague definitions of social presence that “blur the logical distinction between the psychological state of social presence and the psychological or behavioural effects of social presence" in addition to the confusion between social presence being understood as the “property of a medium or a phenomenal state of users” (Oztok & Brett, 2011, p. 474). The body of literature on communication and human-computer interaction is interested in social presence insofar as it involves user attitudes, features of the interface, persuasion, illusions of reality, learning and memory, and mental health (see Bailenson et al., 2001; Choi, 2000; Turkle, 1997), which are areas that cannot be adequately explored within the scope of this paper. We have chosen instead to focus on the definition of social presence as a relational or phenomenal state of users within a community, drawing from Oztok & Brett’s third era, in order to explore how the theory, practice and challenges of impression management might mediate a relational conceptualization of social presence.
The most recent attempts to conceptualize social presence suggest a dynamic phenomenon. Just as the fields of education have moved from an individual and cognitive based orientation towards the idea that learning variables are grounded in both social and contextual processes, the construct of social presence can be argued as moving away from a focus on the capacity of the medium itself, towards a focus on the community using the medium, including the relationship between the individual, their community, and the context (Kerhwald, 2008; Sherbloom, 2010; Tu, 2002). For our purposes we delimit our exploration of social presence to the aspects of user phenomenon where interaction is dependent on the skills and abilities of users to attain interpersonal interaction with others in an online learning environment (see Kerhwald, 2008).
What does the literature say regarding the characteristics of online learning environments and social interaction?
Over the past decade, post-secondary institutions have been introducing online programs that deliver course content in a web-based learning environment (Allen & Seaman, 2007). There has been a dramatic rise over the past 5 years in the rate of enrolment in online programs as these programs evolve and constantly improve. A majority of online learning environments support undergraduate level students, and the second largest population is that of graduate students (p. 132). One of the most critical factors to a successful online learning environment is that the course content be experienced in a way that is most suitable for 21st century students to develop the skills, knowledge and habits of mind necessary in today’s world. One of the potential traps that instructors in online courses can fall into is that of using the online environment as a mode of transmission of information. This transmissive model of education does not adequately support student learning and certainly does not prepare students to enter a 21st century society where they need to be agents of knowledge construction and critical consumers of media. As such, learning should focus on the development of critical inquiry skills. With critical inquiry as the focus, the learning experience can be enriched through increased social presence and social interaction as described by the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model (Garrison et al., 2000).
As a dynamic and unique entity, each online learning environment comprised of a particular group of students and instructors will engage in discourse mediated by its participants. The interface itself does not determine quality of learning, although there is a body of research that does suggest that increased skill and familiarity with an online learning environment increases social presence which is linked to increased learning and learner satisfaction (e.g. Johnson et al., 2008; Kehrwald, 2008). There are different levels of learner cognition that determine the level of critical inquiry within the CoI. Garrison et al. (2000) describe these dimensions (listed from lowest level of inquiry to highest) that learner discussions can move through: triggering event – phase initiated by individual that is under consideration; exploration – experiences considered that relate to this issue; integration – constructing meaning and possible solutions; and resolution – creation of new knowledge where ideas from the previous level are developed through consensus. The CoI model represents how activities in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments promote critical thinking through text-based discussions of problem-based or issue-specific learning through community-based interaction. Considering these dimensions, a successful online learning environment would demonstrate the community’s ability to move through these dimensions with an emphasis on the later stages. Over time, individuals within the community will be more effective in developing and engaging in critical inquiry discourse as it relates to a specific issue or topic; research by Hancock & Dunham (2001) and Tidwell & Walther (2002) indicates that individuals in an online environment oftenhyperpersonalize their interactions leading to more effective communications in online environments than they would face to face. As individuals within a CoI become more familiar with one another, their ability to engage in deeper learning and critical inquiry are increased (see Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Understanding CoIs will provide us with a lens to examine Kehrwald's study that focuses on the relationship between social presence and student interaction.
The implications of social presence, increased interaction and mutual engagement in online learning environments
Discourse in online learning environments supports a social constructivist approach. The goal for both instructors and students interacting in this environment should be to promote and sustain deep levels of critical inquiry. A review of the literature suggests that when learners actively engage with each other in online learning environments as agents of the co-construction of knowledge, their experience is more meaningful and their retention of knowledge is long lasting (Hacker & Neiderhauser, 2000). Agents in this case, can be described as learners being active participants through their increased social presence and a mutual engagement amongst members of the community (see Martino et al., 2009). The body of research on social presence and student engagement demonstrates that these two factors have a strong positive correlation on student satisfaction with online courses and student perception of learning (see Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan & Shih, 2005; Bangert, 2008).
While research suggests the importance of social presence and student engagement towards positive learning outcomes, interaction alone does not always index social presence (Picciano, 2002). Exploring an emic perspective of social presence within an online, text-based, postgraduate course, Kehrwald’s (2008) research suggests that participants represented their understanding of social presence within their environment as “an individual’s ability to demonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so signal his/her availability for interpersonal transactions” (Kehrwald, 2008, p. 94). This definition suggests both the relational orientation of social presence, which places the individual as the agent, rather than the technology, as well as the performative orientation assigned to social presence (p. 95).Participants not only must establish their social presence, but must also maintain/construct an ongoing demonstration of their social presence. As competent performers, members must negotiate the specific context (for collapsed contexts, see boyd, 2007b) of the CoI, establish their presence through explicit information sharing such as biographies and self-disclosure and actively demonstrate their social presence within that environment through cues that index attentiveness, rapport, trust, empathy, and emotional expressiveness, correlates thought to be associated with social presence (Kehrwald, 2008; Yildiz, 2009; Sherbloom, 2010). Further, social presence cannot be considered a stable or uniform phenomenon, given that it is relational and dynamic. In environments that exclude any other channels, such as text-based online learning environments, text and the deployment of texts must serve the needs of both knowledge co-construction and ongoing relational work. Given this, social presence must be considered in relation to the ability of members of a CoI to perform. The ability of members of a CoI to index social presence and discursively negotiate their online engagement becomes a salient element of both their satisfaction and their ability to access the knowledge building resource of the community.
How is impression management defined?
Just as social presence is a contested term, the definition of impression management can be equally difficult to define given the varying disciplines that take up the concept. The term originated in sociologist Erving Goffman’sThe Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), a work which explored face to face social interactions, but which has been widely employed to consider CMC interactions (boyd, 2007b; Hogan, 2010; Miller, 1995). Goffman uses a dramaturgical metaphor to explore the dynamic process of impression management, which suggests both a front and back stage working in tandem within any particular, delineated performance; the front stage performing the speaker’s ideal execution of the role, and the backstage producing the mechanisms and maintenance through which the performance is made possible. Taken together, Goffman defines this performance as an “activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some influence on the observers” (Goffman, 1959, p.22). With reference to CMC contexts, the continuous and the dynamic aspects of self-presentation are relevant given the cumulative interactional cues suggested by Martino et al. (2009) that mark an increase in social presence and mutual engagement. Although the setting or the stage is a bound context, the performance, although continuous, cannot be considered predetermined beyond an attempt to realize the idealized performance of the required role. Individuals must adjust their behaviour in an ongoing dynamic relationship with other players, both giving out explicit information (such as bios, direct questioning and answers), and giving off details (such as discursive clues to suggest supportive attitudes, trustworthiness, or availability for interaction).
The process Goffman termed impression management takes into account the dynamic or fluid nature of an interaction, but considers the interaction within fixed and clearly marked frames, with the frames defining both the expected and the idealized performances for the particular setting. While the notion of a bound setting might be useful for considering text-based CoI’s in online learning environments, it is problematic for social networking sites with collapsed contexts (boyd, 2007b), a concept which suggests that multiple audiences are present in any one encounter. Collapsed contexts are also a challenge with reference to Goffman’s theory of face-work in interactional settings (1967), which defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman, 1967, p. 5, italics added). A line is understood as “a pattern of verbal and non-verbal acts by which [an interlocutor] expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself" (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). In collapsed contexts the line presented cannot be customized for one audience or situation because it is simultaneously available to multiple audiences and may be taken up through varying contexts.
That said, Hogan (2010), using Goffman’s presentation-of-self model to consider impression management in social networking sites, suggests that despite collapsed contexts the actual management of personal archives is presented for only two target groups: those for whom the messages and archives are intended, and those for whom the message would produce a negative evaluation of the presenter. Hogan (2010) additionally suggests the in social networking sites impression management is customized through selected representations of self within particular niche sites such as Linkedin, Facebook, or adult sites (p. 383).
What role does impression management play in the establishment of supportive exchanges and other attributes considered necessary for social presence?
If as social beings we are involved in “discursive self productions where we attempt to produce some coherence and continuity” (Lather, 1991. p. 118), then likewise, as interlocutors or audiences we attempt to locate this coherence and continuity in other’s performances, face-to-face or in mediated contexts.
Although Goffman’s theories of Presentation of Self are most often drawn upon with reference to online impression management, Goffman’s later work on the textual self (Goffman, 1981) appears to have a particular alignment with the definition of social presence that emerged from Kehrwald’s (2008) study; social presence as a phenomenon requiring both the initial establishment of presence and the ongoing demonstration of presence. Goffman uses the term “textual self” to suggest “the sense of the person that seems to stand behind the textual statements made and which incidentally give the statements authority” (Goffman, 1981, p. 173).
The production of a credible textual self does not imply a division between a real self and a projected self, but appears to suggest that re-presentations for any speaker are always fluid, mediated, and contingent on contextual factors such as interlocutors, power relations, contexts, or genres. Within particular instances of interaction or talk there can be “multiple senses in which the speaker can appear” (p. 173), provided that the textual self is sufficiently established to act as the guarantor for these footings.
Goffman also suggests that each context or genre requires that its own conventions be satisfied, and performers need not only to recognize these conventions, but also to re-orient their re-presentation of themselves through these contexts in order to be identified as appropriate and legitimate speakers within these contexts.
In a text-based online environment, novices to the environment and the process do not necessarily know or recognize the conventions, may not consider themselves legitimate participants within the environment, and may not succeed in presenting themselves as legitimate within these frameworks. Participants may be situated outside of a particular online community’s conventions, may be trying to negotiate a new culture, a new technology, new participation norms, new collaborative learning expectations, or a new language of use (Yildiz, 2009, p. 48). Although online learning can be borderless and serve a global community of inquiry as well as the diversity of local populations, social presence and impression management cannot be assumed to be negotiated equally by all when elements of the context privilege some over others. Educators also need to consider linguistic and cultural diversity in the online environment if the benefits of interactional diversity (Gurin et al., 2002) and social presence within knowledge building CoIs are to be realized.