When ‘teaching’ is defined as ‘the transmission of information’ and ‘learning’ is defined as ‘the acquisition of this information,’ traditional distance education media such as print are satisfactory tools for facilitating these objectives. However, current perspectives of teaching and learning that emphasize interaction and collaborative knowledge-building exceed the capacity of printed materials. Fortunately, the rise of these perspectives was paralleled by equivalent developments in the field of communications technology. Technologies such as audio- and videoconferencing have enabled distance educators to present interactive learning experiences to students studying at a distance.

A relatively recent addition to these educational technologies is computer conferencing. This technology allows designers of computer-mediated instruction to expand their definitions of ‘interactivity’ beyond ‘clicking a mouse’ or ‘following a hyperlink’ to encompass processes such as sustained critical discourse with peers and with instructors. These types of interaction are regarded as critical in transactional models of distance education such as those presented by Garrison & Archer (2000) and Moore & Kearsley (1996). Although these processes are made possible with computer conferencing, they are no more inherent in the technology than they are in lecture halls or even small seminar settings. If students are to offer their tentative ideas to their peers, if they are to critique the ideas of their peers, and if they are to interpret others’ critiques as valuable rather than as personal affronts, certain conditions must exist. Henri & Rigault (1996), Kanuka & Anderson (1998), and Fabro & Garrison (1998) have observed that students need to trust each other, feel a sense of warmth and belonging, and feel close to each other before they will engage willfully in collaboration and recognize the collaboration as a valuable experience.

Some authors have suggested that asynchronous, text-based forms of interaction, such as those that characterize current computer conferencing applications, are bound to be terse, task based and autistic (Short, Williams, & Christie 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, (1986); Daft & Lengel, (1986). Nonetheless, empirical evidence taken from educational applications of computer conferencing suggest otherwise. Beal (1991) for instance describes the interaction among a group of teachers communicating via CMC:

"Communication on Beginning Teachers Communication Network (BCTN) was not impersonal. Although the communication was purely textual, members found ways to convey paralinguistic emphasis and emotion. In an informal survey of the 1988/89 cohort, several members emphasized that 'personalities were strikingly present' and 'a lot of emotion is communicated through this network'" (p. 71).

A responsible conclusion is that socioaffective communication is possible in computer conferencing, but not automatic. Therefore, distance educators who wish to present interactive and collaborative learning environments for their students through computer conferencing need to understand how affective communication is created and sustained in asynchronous, text-based environments.

This presentation reviews the results of an ongoing research project that investigates socioaffective communication in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Two methods of data collection were used in this project. First, a thirty-two-item questionnaire was administered to students who were enrolled in distance education courses in which computer conferencing played a significant role in delivery. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section queried students on their subjective impressions of the social environment of the conference. Using a semantic differential scale, respondents were asked to rate the conference on the following adjective pairs: warm/cold, personal/impersonal, trusting/untrusting, disinhibiting/inhibiting, close/distant. The second section of the questionnaire asked students to rate the frequency of 12 socioaffective communicative behaviors. The behaviors were grouped into three categories: 1) Reinforcing behaviors, which included items such as ‘expressed appreciation for someone else’s message’ and ‘complimented the contents of someone else’s message;’ 2) Interacting behaviors, which included items such as ‘explicitly referred to the contents of someone else’s message’ and ‘posted a message by using the reply feature of the conferencing software;’ and 3) Affective behaviors, which included items such as ‘used a portion of their message just to be social, e.g., made small talk’ and ‘used an example from their personal life to illustrate a point.’ The third part of the questionnaire was used to gather information about extraneous variables that research has shown influences social interaction in computer conferences, such as prior relationship among interlocutors and types of instructional activities (Eggins & Slade, 1997; Hiltz & Johnson, (1990).

The second method of data collection being used is content analysis. Rourke, Anderson, Archer & Garrison (2000) have developed a protocol for measuring social presence in educational computer conferences. Preliminary use of the instrument has yielded valuable data, and its application to the data collected in this project, and comparisons with data from the questionnaires will facilitate further refinement and development of the categories and indicators.

The presentation will conclude with a discussion of the implications and benefits for instructors, moderators, and researchers of assessing social presence.

References