Colomina, C.; Remesal, A. (2011). Social Presence in small group work: it’s all in the process. Paper presented at the symposium From concept to implementation. Social Presence in networked learning scenario, 14th EARLI 2011 Education for a Global Networked Society, Exeter, UK.

1. Social presence in small group work: it’s all in the process! Rosa Colomina, Ana Remesal http://www.psyed.edu.es/grintie/?lang=en 14th EARLI, Exeter, 8/31/2011

2. Challenges of earlierdefinitions of SP

3. I/IV “Theinabilityof a communication medium to transmit nonverbal cues has a negative effect on interpersonal communication” (…) “[SP] the salience of the other in a mediated communication and the consequent salience of their interpersonal interactions” (Short et al., 1976)

4. II/IV “The degree with which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” Gunawardena & Zittle (1997).

5. “The ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry” Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer (1999). III/IV

6. IV/IV “A measure of the feeling of community that a learner experiences in an online environment” Tu & McIsaac (2002). “The ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g. course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop interpersonal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” Garrison (2009).

7. Social presence “Constructive and evolutionary result of individuals’ contributions to the group interaction, that promote the creation of a community feeling, the maintenance of positive relational dynamics, and the enhancement of self-competence in front of the learning task, so that the learning process is motivationally and emotionally supported”

8. Theoretical and MethodologicalIssues

9. Theoreticalassumptions Socioculturalunderstanding of teaching and learning. Emotional, motivational and relational factors implied in learning  self-competence and satisfaction, group cohesion and positive feelings of belonging, positive attitude towards collaboration. SP evolves dynamically with the task. Each individual contributes to the development of the activity. The represented group is as important as the actual group.

10. Methodologicalchallenges The participants’ discourse is the most important device for the construction SP (even more important in asynchronous computer mediated communication). Focus on on-task discourse (may include off-task communication whenlinked to the learning process). Focus on the context and the historical progress of the activity.

11. How do theparticipantscontributetothedevelopment of SP in thegroup? Whatdifferences can befoundamongindividuals and groups? Does SP changeover time? TheStudy

12. Thestudy: context / participants / task Second semester of a Teacher Education Graduate Program. 17(15) students in 4 self-selected small groups. Argumentative essay based on classroom observation (video). Moodle platform: asynchronous computer mediated communication (forum). Online work during 6 weeks. Instructor available for consultation and feedback.

13. Thestudy: data collection Intake questionnaire about expectations (interest, demands, expectations of participation). Evaluation questionnaire (interest, perceived effort, self-evaluation and evaluation of other participants). Forum contributions ordered chronologically. Learning results (evaluated by the instructor).

14. Thestudy: data collection Intake questionnaire about expectations (interest, demands, expectations of participation). Evaluation questionnaire (interest, perceived effort, self-evaluation and evaluation of other participants). Forum contributions ordered chronologically. Learning results (evaluated by the instructor).

15. Thestudy: analysis According to parallel studies on cognitive presence and teachingpresence (Rochera, Mauri, Onrubia & de Gispert, 2010; Coll, Bustos, Engel, de Gispert & Rochera, 2008): Content analysis combining individual and group-level perspectives (Arvaja et al. 2007; Gläser-Zikuda& Järvelä, 2008; Järvelä, Volet& Järvenoja, 2010; Murphy & Rodriguez Manzanares, 2006). Basic unit of analysis:any posting fragment carrying a unitary, meaningful manifestation of SP. Contextual unit of analysis:individual posting within a discussion thread in a forum space. Qualitative interpretation of the confluence of indicators.

16. Thestudy: sources and indicators of SP in discourse Discoursivecontentrelativetoparticipants’ motivation and emotionalimplicationwiththetask and thegroup (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 1999; Järvelä, Järvenoja& Veermans, 2008).  Paralinguisticortographic and iconographicmarks, linguisticfillers (Yamada, 2009).  Figurativelanguage (Delfino, & Manca, 2007).  Social identitymarks (Rogers, & Lea, 2005).

17. Proposal of dimensionstostudy SP Task-oriented C7 > The group (plural subject) expresses competence or satisfaction with its performance or its expectations of performance of the task. C8 > The group (plural subject) expresses competence or satisfaction with its performance or its expectations of performance of a task which is perceived as challenging either by itself or by external circumstances. C9 > The group (plural subject) expresses lack of competence or satisfaction with its performance or its expectations of performance of a task, either by itself or by external circumstances. C1 > The individual exposes herself, expresses competence or satisfaction with her performance or expectations of performance of the task. C2 > The individual exposes herself, expresses competence or satisfaction with her performance or expectations of performance of a task which is perceived as challenging either by itself or by external circumstances. C3 > The individual exposes herself, expresses lack of competence or satisfaction with her performance or expectations of performance in front of a task, either by itself or by external circumstances. Individual-oriented Group-oriented C4 > The individual expresses a proactive open attitude that fosters the group collaborative dynamics. C5 > The individual accepts the possibility of error, either her own or others’, fostering the group collaborative dynamics. C6 > The individual reckons her own or other’s lack of participation or negligent contribution, fostering the group collaborative dynamics. C10 > The group members create or maintain a sense of group identity. C11 > The group members create or maintain social interaction. C12 > The group members express positive feelings of belonging to the group. People-oriented

18. Individual-taskorientation C1 > The individual exposes herself, expresses competence or satisfaction with her performance or expectations of performance of the task. “If you agree, I can start to compose the first part of the text, doesn’t seem difficult!!!!” C2 > The individual exposes herself, expresses competence or satisfaction with her performance or expectations of performance of a task which is perceived as challenging either by itself or by external circumstances. “I feel a little bit lost with this assignment, well, you probably noticed already. But I’ll do my best.” C3 > The individual exposes herself, expresses lack of competence or satisfaction with her performance or expectations of performance in front of a task, either by itself or by external circumstances. “I have changed the paragraph of conditions a bit because it was somewhat messy, but I’m not quite happy yet!!! :-S”

19. Individual-group mates orientation C4 > The individual expresses a proactive, open attitude that fosters the group collaborative dynamics. “I just finished work for today, now I can speed up to 200mph with the assignment!!! I attach a concept map which we could use for a start. I look forward for your comments!!!!” C5 > The individual accepts the possibility of error, either her own or others’, fostering the group collaborative dynamics. “Guys, that’s my part of the draft. Please, read it and be as nasty as you can… I’m not quite confident with the outfit yet”. C6 > The individual reckons her own or other’s lack of participation or negligent contribution, fostering the group collaborative dynamics. “aaaaarrrrrgggggg – I’m afraid I can’t do the refs list. I’m sorry, my computer has broken down, I write from the computer lab and I don’t have the material here. Someone else jump in, please!”

20. Group-taskorientation C7 > The individual expresses competence or satisfaction with the performance of the group (plural subject) or her expectations of group performance of the task. “Perfect! Our text is getting brilliant, we do very well together!!” C8 > The individual expresses competence or satisfaction with the group performance (plural subject) or expectations of group performance of a task which is perceived as challenging either by itself or by external circumstances. “Although it will be tough at the beginning, because it’s our first online assignment, I’m positive that WE will do great in the end!! Come on!” C9 > The individual expresses lack of competence or satisfaction with the group performance (plural subject) or her expectations of group performance of a task, either by itself or by external circumstances. “We didn’t hurry up and got lost in nuances, and now we won’t have time to review our work. Here’s the result, guys!! ”

21. Group-membersorientation C10 > The group members create or maintain a sense of group identity. “Hi ladies and gentleman!!, I hope we will be a united team this time, like we were the previous times!! So well-tuned.” C11 > The group members create or maintain social interaction. “COME ON, NOW MORE THAN EVER! LET’S DO OUR BEST!!! See you around here ” C12 > The group members express positive feelings of belonging to the group. “Now that we’re done, I would like you know how very P-R-O-U-D I feel of our team!! ”

22. SP frequency / chrono-map Comparisonintra-groups / inter-groups Conclusions Results and Conclusions

23. Social PresenceChrono-Maps Group A Group B

24. Group A Group B (1)

25. Group A Group B (1)

26. Group A Group B (1)

27. Group A Group B (2)

28. Group A Group B (3)

29. Group A. Changes of SP in time (1)

30. Group A. Changes of SP in time (2)

31. Group A. Changes of SP in time (2)

32. Group B. Changes of SP in time (1)

33. Group B. Changes of SP in time (2)

34. Group B. Changes of SP in time (2)

35. Conclusions The categories allow to study how the participants make sense of the learning task and the learning process, how they react to difficulties and success, and how the group members contribute to a positive social climate for collaboration. Two perspectives are considered: the individual by herself and the individual as a team member in direct relation with the peers (Järvelä, Volet, & Jävernoja, 2010). Therearehints to emergent ‘profiles’ of social presence, both at a teamlevel and individually (Murphy, & RdguezManzanares, 2006).

36. Limitations, furtherresearch Need to interprettheresults of theanalysis of social presence in relation to theteachingpresence and thecognitivepresence (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010). Needto explore genderdifferences in SP-relatedbehaviour. Needtocontrastthissystem of categorieswithothertypes of tasks/learningsituations (biggroup, open-ended debates). Needtofocusontheinstructors’ social presence: How do theybehave? How do theymanagethestudents’ social presence?

37. Social presence in small group work: it’s all in the process!THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTIONRESULTS PRESENTED HERE ARE PART OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT:SUPPORTING LEARNING IN TEXT-BASED ASYNCHRONOUS LEARNING NETWORKS TEACHER PRESENCE AND TEACHER FUNCTIONS IN KNOWLEDGE BUILDING PROCESSES. PROJECT LEADER PROF. C. COLL. FUNDED BY THE COMISIÓN INTERMINISTERIAL DE CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGÍA(GRANT CODE: SEJ2004-07658-C02-01) Rosa Colomina, Ana Remesal http://www.psyed.edu.es/grintie/?lang=en 14th EARLI, Exeter, 8/31/2011