1. Social Presence and the Sociocultural Dynamics of Online Learning Communities Charlotte N. (Lani) Gunawardena Ph.D. Professor Organizational Learning & Instructional Technology College of Education The University of New Mexico, USA

2. Social Presence (SP) Degree to which a person is perceived as a “real person” in mediated communication C. N. Gunawardena Intimacy (SP of Medium, differs in different media) TV vs. Audio Non-verbal cues vs. Immediacy (psychological distance of Communicator, differs in same medium) Non-verbally: formality of dress Verbally: aloofness vs.

3. Social Presence, the degree to which a person feels “socially present” in mediated communication, links to the larger social context of an online environment, including: interaction group cohesion verbal and non-verbal communication attitudes and motivation social equality, etc.

4. Social Presence Significant factor in improving satisfaction ( Hackman & Walker, 1990, Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) Can be cultured (Johansen et. al. 1988) Users develop techniques to overcome absence of social context cues: Emoticons :-) :-( ;-) Metalinguistic cues: “hmmm” “yuk” In MUDS, SP and interaction are created by commands such as: say, emote, whisper

5. Social Presence as a Predictor of Learner Satisfaction in CMC – Gunawardena & Zittle 1997, AMJDE 11, 3 How effective is SP as a predictor of learner satisfaction? Study CMC from a social- relational perspective

6. Study Participants 62% female, 38% male Comfort with technology 44% 50 graduate students from 5 universities – San Diego StateN=8 – Texas A & M N=11 – Univ. of New MexicoN=14 – U. of Wisconsin-MadisonN=7 – Univ. of WyomingN=10

7. Social Presence as a Predictor of Learner Satisfaction (Stepwise Regression Models) Social Presence Equal Tech Attitude Active Barriers Capable Trained Independent Variables Model 1Model 2 Dependent Variable 58% 6% 5% 60% 6% 4% 75% 70% Learner Satisfaction

8. The Effects of Emoticon Use on Mean Satisfaction Mediated by Perceived Social Presence I intentionally used emoticons to express my feelings Note: Social Presence artificially dichotomized at medium for clarity. 123 4 56 10 20 30 40 50 Satisfactio n ___ SP High ---- SP Low

9. CMCCMCCMCCMC CMCCMCCMCCMC P R ESENC E DiaNaDiaNa Praising Reinforcement Eye Contact Smiling Encouragement Nonverbal Cues, Names Comfort Experiences Oh please, Talk to me!

10. Virtual Pubs & Cyber Cafes Virtual costume party Introductions (self-disclosure) Moderators creating a sense of community & being there Formats for interaction - story telling Timely feedback Real time interaction – Chats, teleconferences Techniques – e.g. emoticons, pictures Social Presence & Online Course Design

11. Developing an Online Community Community, Collaboration, and Interaction must become central in course design Assessment must reward collaboration, contribution to community, and products developed within the community Example: In Keresan Pueblo communities of New Mexico giftedness is defined as an individual’s ability to contribute to the good of the community

12.  Examine if there are differences in students’ perceptions of online group process and group development in two national contexts, Mexico and USA  Determine if differences could be described as cultural differences  Examine if there are differences in students’ perceptions of online group process and group development in two national contexts, Mexico and USA  Determine if differences could be described as cultural differences PURPOSE OF CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY Gunawardena, Nolla, Wilson, López,-Islas, Ramirez-Angel, Megchun-Alpizar (2001)

13.  Significant differences in perception for norming and performing stages  Forming,  Storming,  Norming,  Performing  Adjourning – Tuckman  Mexico more collectivist than USA  Country differences rather than age or gender differences  Significant differences in perception for norming and performing stages  Forming,  Storming,  Norming,  Performing  Adjourning – Tuckman  Mexico more collectivist than USA  Country differences rather than age or gender differences Group Process & Group Development Online, USA & Mexico Gunawardena, Nolla, Wilson, López,-Islas, Ramirez-Angel, Megchun-Alpizar (2001)

14. Focus groups identified the following influences 1.Language 2.Power distance 3.Collectivist vs. individualist tendencies 4.Conflict 5.Social presence 6.Time frame, and 7.Technical skills Focus groups identified the following influences 1.Language 2.Power distance 3.Collectivist vs. individualist tendencies 4.Conflict 5.Social presence 6.Time frame, and 7.Technical skills Group Process & Group Development Online, USA & Mexico Gunawardena, Nolla, Wilson, López,-Islas, Ramirez-Angel, Megchun-Alpizar, Distance Education (2001)