1 SOCIAL PRESENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING

1 SOCIAL PRESENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING FOR ONLINE LEARNING
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Educational Research
Association (AERA) 2002, New Orleans, LA
Note
This paper is a preliminary report of a series of research projects in Social presence.
The data collections and analysis are still in progress. More comprehensive results will
be presented in forthcoming publications.
Chih-Hsiung Tu, Ph.D.
George Washington University
[email protected]
Phone: 202-994-2676
Fax: 202-994-2145
Michael Corry, Ph.D.
George Washington University
[email protected]
Phone: 202-994-2676
Fax: 202-994-2145
2134 G St., NW
Washington, DC 20052
1
INTRODUCTION
Social presence and critical thinking are factors necessary to increase the level of
interaction in an online learning environment. “No interaction, no learning
(Gunawardena, 1995).” Interaction is based on communication and the foundation of
social presence and critical thinking is communication. The purpose of this study is to
determine if there is a relationship between social presence and critical thinking and to
examine that relation if it exists. Further, if there is a relationship between these two
elements it will be examined in online learning environments to elaborate how social
presence influences critical thinking and how they conjointly increase online interaction.
The results reported here are preliminary based on literature review because social
presence normally takes a prolonged time to foster. To generate meaningful data a long
term study is necessary. In fact, this preliminary data is the fist stage of a series of
studies of social presence and critical thinking in online learning environments.
Collection and analysis of data will continue until valid results can be assured.
IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL PRESENCE & CRITICAL THINKING
Social presence exerts significant influence upon improving instructional
effectiveness; and, therefore, is of utmost importance to enhance learning in online
learning communities. Hackman and Walker (1990) investigated the effects of system
design and social presence, as teacher immediacy behavior, on perceived student learning
and satisfaction in the televised classroom. They concluded that system design and
teacher immediacy behavior strongly impact student learning and satisfaction.
Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) report similar findings in a CMC system. Social presence
was a strong predictor of satisfaction within the CMC environment. Also, it is considered
2
to be an element of interpersonal communication in an online learning environment.
Perse, Burton, Kovner, Lears, & Sen (1992) studied utilization of e-mail, and concluded
that students used CMC more because they felt that e-mail conveyed more interpersonal
presence.
Critical thinking is a most desirable skill in the online learning process. Assisting
a student in learning to think critically and become a self-directed learner is a central role
for faculty (Simich-Dudgeon, 1998): 'Critical thinking is both a skill which can be taught
and an outcome of the learning process itself.' Students learn this skill by actively
engaging in the learning process with others. Lauzon (1992) contended that, the
challenge for online educators is to “search out means of reducing structure and
increasing dialogue so that learners may move from being simply recipients of
knowledge to actively embracing and working with objective knowledge to make it their
own” (p. 34). Learners passively assimilate knowledge rather than critically examining it
and constructing it, based on their experiences and previous knowledge (Burge, 1988;
Garrison, 1993; Lauzon, 1992). Several factors impact students’ abilities to use critical
thinking skills in their contributions to discussions (Bullen, 1998): cognitive maturity, the
instructor’s style of teaching, the students’ experience with a dialogical style of teaching,
and their understanding of critical thinking.
Social Presence
Social presence is defined as the degree of awareness of another person in an
interaction and the consequent appreciation of an interpersonal relationship (Short et al.,
1976; Rice, 1993; Walther, 1992; Walther & Burgoon, 1992). Biocca (1997) argued that
3
social presence is more complicated than just awareness; after an extensive study he
declared that, “the minimum level of social presence occurs when users feel that a form,
behavior, or sensory experience indicates the presence of another intelligence.” “The
amount of social presence is the degree to which a user feels access to the intelligence,
intentions, and sensory impressions of another.” Factors that contribute to an appreciable
degree of social presence are facial expression, direction of gaze, posture, dress, nonverbal cues, and verbal cues.
Tu (2000b) defined three dimensions that determine the level of social presence,
social context, online communication, and interactivity. Social context is constructed
from the CMC user’s characteristics and their perception of the CMC environment.
Online communication consists of the attributes of the language used online and the
applications of online language. Interactivity includes the activities in which CMC users
engage and the communication styles they use. Social presence is the degree of feeling,
perception and reaction of being connected on CMC to another intellectual entity through
a text-based encounter. It is clear that the three dimensions of social presence correspond
with Biocca’s (1997) definition of social presence, form (Intelligence), behavior
(Intentions), and sensory. Biocca’s definition is applicable to types of communication
environments, conventional conversation, virtual reality, etc. The new definition of
social presence is more appropriate for the CMC environment, especially when CMC is a
learning environment.
4
Social Context
Social context is constructed from the CMC users’ characteristics and their
perception of the CMC environment. The factors contributing to this dimension are:
CMC as a social form, CMC as an informal and casual way to communicate, CMC as
personal, and CMC as a sensitive means of communication, the recipients, social
relationships, access/location, and perceptions on media, etc.
Online Communication
Online communication refers to the attributes, application, and perception of the
language used online. Online communication contains variables the describe CMC as
stimulating, expressive, conveying feelings and emotions, meaningful, easily understood
keyboarding skills, expressiveness, characteristics of discussion, and language skills, etc.
Interactivity
Interactivity is the cooperative activities in which CMC users engaged and the
communication styles used by CMC users. This dimension included CMC as pleasant,
immediate, responsive, and comfortable with familiar topics, CMC response time,
communication styles/skills, and the size of discussion groups, etc.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is defined as thinking that is reasonable and reflective and
focused on what to believe or to do (Norris & Ennis, 1989). Four categories
(Clarification, Assessing, Making and judging inferences evidence, and Using
appropriate strategies and tactics) of critical thinking skills can be identified based on
5
Norris and Ennis (1989) and Ennis (1987) definition and model of critical thinking, as
well as the work of Quellmalz (1987).
Some critics believe online learning’s inability to reproduce a critical dialogue
among students and between students and instructor can be addressed through the use of
two-way communication technologies. Appropriately designed computer conferencing
will facilitate interaction among students and between the instructor and students, thus
making online learning more appropriate for the higher-level cognitive goals education
(Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Lauzon, 1992; Tuckey, 1993).
Henri (1992) identifies two types of messages: independent and interactive.
Independent messages deal with the topic of discussion, but make no implicit or explicit
reference to any other messages. Interactive messages deal with the topic, but also refer
to other messages by responding to them, elaborating on them, or building on them in
some fashion.
FACTORS IMPACTING CRITICAL THINKING
Bullen (1998) examined the factors that positively and negatively impact learners’
critical thinking in an online learning community. The factors that most frequently and
consistently affect participation and critical thinking in online discussions are: (a)
attributes of technologies, (b) course design and facilitation, (c) students’ situation
characteristics, (d) dispositional characteristics, and (e) students’ understanding of critical
thinking and the purpose of the online activity.
6
Attributes of Technologies
The attributes of technologies have both positive and negative impacts on
students’ critical thinking skills. The attributes include time-independence, text-based
communication, CMC, and many-to-many communication. For students, timeindependence is a double-edged sword in that it facilitates their participation and critical
thinking but exacerbates their difficulty in managing their time effectively. Generally,
the time-independent attribute is the ability to be reflective and to compose thoughtful
rather than spontaneous responses (Edelson, 1998; Whitworth, 1998; Black, 1998;
Seagren & Watwood, 1997), and the democratizing effect that prevented discussions
from being dominated by a few articulate or verbose speakers (Seagren & Watwood,
1997). On the negative side, however, there is a sense that the inherent delays in
asynchronous communication militate against the development of a dynamic and
interactive online discussion. Therefore, it left students feeling remote, detached, and
isolated, and this discouraged them from participating (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991;
Connolly et al., 1990; Hiltz et al., 1986; Saunders & Heyl, 1988) and thinking.
The text-based attributes impact students’ critical thinking. Text-based
communications create a sense of detachment and a feeling of anonymity, but in this case
it is brought about by the lack of visual and auditory cues and the reliance on textual
communication (Hill, 1997). Students may feel no connection with their peers and thus
felt no compulsion to go beyond the minimum participation required to generate critical
thinking. For some students it has a liberating effect, allowing them to compose their
7
contributions, reread them, and possibly revise them before posting, thus facilitating a
more reflective and critical approach.
One attribute of CMC is the random access to a permanent record of conference
discussions (Misanchuk et al., 1997; Edelson, 1998; Kaye, 1987). This feature may be
viewed positively as enhancing participation by allowing students to read selectively and
reread and review when necessary. Conversely, it may also have served to discourage
more active participation because they were able access all the information they felt they
needed by reading other contributions. A negative manifestation of the permanent record
experienced by some students is information overload. As the course progressed the
record gets longer and the ability to deal with it became more of a problem for these
students (Edelson, 1998), particularly those who did not have the self-discipline to
participate regularly. The public nature of the permanent record (Tu, 2000a) may also
have an inhibiting effect on participation.
Although the ability to engage in many-to-many communication is viewed
positively by students and may have affected the quality of student participation, it is not
clear if it had any facilitating or inhibiting effects. Students do not indicate they
participated more because of this aspect or that they found it easier or felt more motivated
to participate. Rather, it was seen as having a positive impact on the type and quality of
participation.
8
Course Design and Facilitation
Mandatory participation may have unintended side effects. For some students the
marks associated with mandatory participation does not necessarily result in more
participation. Other students respond to the marks for participation, but not necessarily
with enthusiasm (Bullen, 1998). This explains that often what they had to say was not
particularly original or insightful, but that they want to get the marks.
The needs for social activities (Tu, 2000b), pacing, and the instructor’s
participation are other themes related to course design. Some students said that social
activities would allow them to get to know each other before they begin the discussions
(Tu, 2000b). Social cohesion is a prerequisite to meaningful discussions of the course
content before students feel free to exercise critical thinking.
Students’ Situational Characteristics
The student’s learning environment is a crucial factor for success because it plays
a much larger role for students in online learning than it does for students in traditional
classrooms. Time available for study and participation is also an issue for most students.
Dispositional Characteristics
Learning style preferences (Tu & Corry, 2001) and personality may result in a
greater degree of comfort in the online environment almost immediately, whereas others
struggle with it and in some cases never accept it. Shy or introverted students may find
the online environment liberating because it allows them time to contribute, free from the
competition of more verbally adept students(Hawisher & Moran, 1993; Tu, in press).
9
Another learning style-related issue that emerged is a preference or need for more
teacher direction. Some students find the idea of the virtual classroom was too abstract
and required too much self-directed cognitive engagement (McIsaac & Gunawardena,
1996). Time and place-independence become unmanageable responsibilities rather than
features that facilitated access and participation. Some students may feel they are not
prepared for the self-discipline that is generally required in an online learning
environment.
In a constructive learning environment, teachers are seen as learners. Therefore,
instructors are as important as the other learners. The instructor’s approach to, and his
perceptions of, his role in organizing and moderating the discussions may also have had
an impact on student participation and critical thinking. To promote and encourage
student participation, the instructor has to ensure that she or he does not become the
center of attention, the authority that students look to for the “correct” answers and for
approval (Harasim et al., 1995; Mason, 1998). Tagg and Dickinson (1995) argue that
student participation is enhanced if they feel the continuous presence of the instructor
(instructor’s social presence). They suggest this can be achieved through the use of
messages of encouragement that are frequent and prompt, offer guidance, and address
individuals rather than the group.
Students’ Comprehension of Critical Thinking and the Purpose of the Online Activity
In general the students may have an incomplete understanding of the concept of
critical thinking and their impression does not conform to the definition used by the
10
instructor. Related to the students’ understanding of critical thinking are their
perceptions of the purpose of the online activity and what they are expected to do online.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Are there relationships between social presence and critical thinking in an
online learning environment?
2. If yes, what are these relationships?
METHODOLOGY
Qualitative methods were used to understand the students’ perception of social
presence and online critical thinking skills.
Qualitative Method
Participant observation method was used to understand the issues of social
presence and critical thinking online learning environment. Fifty-one students enrolled in
three complete online graduate level courses, were the subjects. E-mail, and bulletin
board were used for class communication and discussions. Students were required to
make at least two contributions in a week throughout the 15-week semester. The data
were collected through these online communications and discussions for document
analysis. Document analysis included all messages delivered on bulletin board
discussion messages and outside e-mail received by the instructors during the semester.
DATA ANALYSIS
Qualitative data analyses were begun within a critical thinking framework
(Bullen, 1998) and a social presence framework (Tu, & McIsaac, 2002). Critical thinking
is defined in this study as "reasonable and reflective thinking that is focused upon
deciding what to do or believe" (Norris & Ennis, 1989, p. 1), and "a set of integrated
11
macro-logical skills concerned with insight and the development of emancipatory reason"
(Garrison, 1991, p. 290).
Data were reviewed and coded for positive and negative indicators of critical
thinking skills based on Ennis’s (1987) four critical thinking skills, Elementary/advanced
clarification; Basic support (assessing evidence); Inference (making and judging); and
Strategies and tactics.
After indicators were coded, students were sorted into one of three categories of
critical thinking and assigned a corresponding score. The three categories and the
corresponding scores were:
Category
Score
Descriptions
High
3
Extensive use of critical thinking skills, minimal use of uncritical
thinking.
Medium
2
Moderate use of critical thinking skills, some uncritical thinking.
Low
1
Minimal use of critical thinking skills, frequent use of uncritical
thinking.
Five factors (attributes of technologies, course design and facilitation, students’
situation characteristics, dispositional characteristics, and students’ understanding of
critical thinking and the purpose of the online activity) of critical thinking identified in
Bullen’s study (1998) were applied for data analysis. Three factors (social context,
online communication, and interactivity) of social presence identified in Tu and
McIsaac’s study (2002) were applied to analyze online social presence.
12
RESULTS
RELATIONS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING
The relations between social presence and critical thinking are very clearly
identified in this study. Interaction is fundamental to the explanation of this relationship.
The relations can be drawn in the Table 1.
Table 1: The relations of social presence and critical thinking.
Critical Thinking (Bullen, 1998)
Attributes of Technologies
Course Design and Facilitation
Students’ Situational Characteristics
Dispositional Characteristics
Students’ Understandings of Critical Thinking
and the Purpose of the Online Activity
Social Presence (Tu, 2000)
Online Communication
Interactivity
Social Context
Social Context
Social Context
Interaction is the key to the relationship between social presence and
critical thinking in the online learning environment. Evidently, social presence has the
capability to advance online critical thinking. Social presence is a fundamental element
to online interaction since it is grounded in aspects of social learning and online self. In
other words, an individual exists online because of their ability to think, not because of
their physically manipulated social expression. Three dimensions of social presence (Tu,
2000) capture a more comprehensive picture of online interaction and critical thinking.
Therefore, when one intends to promote critical thinking in an online learning
environment they must begin by fostering a learning environment with a higher level of
social presence. Critical thinking requires cognitive and environmental determinants, and
social presence is required to enhance and foster online social interaction, which is the
major vehicle of critical thinking.
13
CONCLUSIONS
This preliminary data report is one of a series of studies in social presence and
critical thinking in the online learning environment. This study demonstrates a
relationship between social presence and critical thinking. In fact, Tu and McIsaac’s
three social presence factors coordinate with Bullen’s (1998) five critical thinking
facilitators.
Online participation has to be seen by students as something integral to their
success in the course. If it is viewed as busy work done only to receive marks for
participation it is unlikely that meaningful discussions will result.
Critical thinking in instruction relies critically upon social presence. Interaction is
fundamental to the explanation of how social presence affects critical thinking. Social
presence, being a dynamic variable, makes critical thinking more complicated and offers
a means for its scrutiny. This discussion is exploratory in purpose. Whether one examines
CMC as a learning environment or is applying student learning and critical thinking to
the CMC environment, social presence must be reduced to its elements, social context,
online communication and interactivity, to be effectively applied, or examined.
Future studies should examine the correlations between social presence and
critical thinking; and examine whether social presence is a predictor of critical thinking in
the online learning environment.
REFERENCES
14
Biocca, F. (1997). The Cyborg's dilemma: Embodiment in virtual environments. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).
Black, D. (1998). The role of live, online collaboration in distance learning. In: Distance
Learning '98. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching &
Learning (14th, Madison, WI, August 5-7, 1998) .
Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and Critical Thinking in Online University Distance
Education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2).
Burge, E. J. (1988). Beyond andragogy: Some explorations for distance learning design.
Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), 5-23.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and
evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management
Science, 36(6), 97-120.
Edelson, P. J. (1998). The organization of courses via the Internet, academic aspects,
interaction, evaluation, and accreditation. Paper presented at the National
Autonomous University of Mexico (Mexico City, Mexico, February 17, 1998).
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. J. B.
Baron, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice
(pp. 9-26). New York: Freeman.
Garrison, D. R. (1993). Quality and access in distance education. In D. Keegan (Ed.),
Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 9-21). New York: Routledge.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Interaction - Affirmative. (Opening Statement). ICDE95:
Debate on Interaction. [WWW Document],
http://www.ualberta.ca/~tanderso/icde95/interaction_www/0009.html.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction
within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised
classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student
learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39(3), 196-206.
Harasim, L. M., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, K., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field
guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hawisher, G. E., & Moran, C. (1993). Electronic mail and the writing instructor. College
English, 55(6), 627-643.
15
Henri, F. (1992). Formation a distance et téléconférence assistée par ordinateur:
Interactivité, quasi-interactivité, ou monologue? Journal of Distance Education,
7(1), 5-24.
Hill, J. (1997). Distance learning environments via the World Wide Web. B. Kahn (Ed.),
Web-based instruction (pp. 75-80). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in groups decision making:
Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized
conference. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225-252.
Kaye, T. (1987). Computer conferencing and electronic mail. ED329209.
Lauzon, A. C. (1992). Integrating computer-based instruction with computer
conferencing: An evaluation of a model for designing online education. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 32-46.
Mason, R. (1998). Models of online courses. ALN Magazine, 2(2).
McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance Education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook for research on educational communications and technology (pp. 403437). New York: Scholastic Press.
Misanchuk, E. R., Morrison, D., & Peterson, M. E. (1997). A beginner's guide to
computer conferencing. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
Association of Educational Communications and Technology .
Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA:
Critical Thinking Press & Software.
Perse, E. I., Burton, P., Kovner, E., Lears, M. E., & Sen, R. J. (1992). Predicting
computer-mediated communication in a college class. Communication Research
Reports, 9(2), 161-170.
Quellmalz, E. (1987). Developing reasoning skills. J. B. Baron, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 86-105). New York: Freeman.
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare
traditional and new organization media. Human Communication Research, 19(4),
451-484.
Saunders, C. S., & Heyl, J. E. (1988). Evaluating educational computer conferencing.
Journal of Systems Management, 39, 33-38.
Seagren, A., & Watwood, B. (1997). The virtual classroom: what works? In: Walking the
Tightrope: The Balance between Innovation and Leadership. Proceedings of the
16
Annual International Conference of the Chair Academy (6th, Reno, NV, February
12-15, 1997) .
Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Simich-Dudgeon, C. (1998). Developing a college web-based course: Lessons learned.
Distance Education, 19(2), 337-357.
Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked
organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tagg, A. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1995). Tutor messaging and its effectiveness in
encouraging student participation in computer conferences. Journal of Distance
Education, 10(2), 33-55.
Tu, C. H. (2000a). Critical examination of factors affecting interaction on CMC. Journal
of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 39-58.
Tu, C. H. (2000b). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online
classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ.
Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2001). Distance Education: Research and Practice. Washington,
DC: Technology Advisory Committee at Graduate School of Education & Human
Development.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated
interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Whitworth, J. M. (1998). Looking at distance learning through both ends of the camera.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching (71st, San Diego, CA, April 19-22, 1998).
17