1. Introduction
This poster presents the preliminary findings of a case study
examining self-presentation in asynchronous online discussions
(AOD). The goal of the study is to describe the experiences of
students as they created and managed social identities within
AOD, knowingly or unknowingly. The study also examines if and
how these identity management experiences changed or
evolved during students’ college careers.
Problem Statement
• Learning & satisfaction can increase when students
participate in discussions, face-to-face or online
• AOD is a staple of higher education courses
• AOD is unlike any traditional teaching method & thus
requires study in order to be implemented effectively
• Students in the same college class, with the same materials
and instructional methods, may have very different
perceptions of the course
• Little is known about how students communicate with each
other via AOD
• Existing research is often in pre-service teacher education
courses and/or graduate education
• Understanding how college students engage in impression
management & develop social identities within AOD can
help better develop online discussion environments to
support learning
Preliminary Assertions
Purposeful Action & Autonomy: Students may have performance or
learning goals that affect their academic motivations (Dweck, 2000). These
goals & the associated motivations structure how students engage in
impression management within AOD. Students’ first priority is getting the
participation points; the second is engaging in meaningful activities. Their
satisfaction is increased with purposeful action, & their frustration is often
(but not always) increased with closed-ended questions, aka “time-
wasting” AOD. They do not want to be forced to act like “Singles” in a
“With” environment. The lines they present are of students who value the
sharing of multiple perspectives (Goffman, 1959, 1963).
Presentational & Avoidance Rituals: Students often use impression
management strategies such as Presentational Rituals to show themselves
as competent & willing to listen to others, whether or not they understand
the discussion’s purpose. However, a greater level of impression
management and social presence is visible when learners understand
AOD’s purpose & are willing to actively engage in dialogue. When learners
don't understand AOD’s purpose, they are much more likely to use
Avoidance Rituals (Goffman, 1967).
Face Protective Strategies: Students with lower self-efficacy (in a
particular course, and/or in general) are more likely to use face protective
strategies for themselves; those with more efficacy are more likely to use
strategies that support their own and classmates’ faces (Goffman, 1967).
Social Presence: All participants appear to have selected a few strategies
for increasing social presence and use these repeatedly. Patterns are
evident for courses they like and dislike. However, the blend of strategies
for each student is different and is itself a reflection of the participant’s
personality (Swan & Shih, 2005).
Acknowledgements
References
Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2004). Group and class contexts for learning and support online:
Learning and affective support online in small group and class contexts. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3),1-15.
Burkart, G. (2010). An analysis of online discourse and its application to literacy learning. Journal of
Literacy and Technology, 11(1), 64-88.
Cain, D.L., & Pitre, P.E. (2008). The effect of computer mediated conferencing and computer
assisted instruction on student learning outcomes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 12(3), 31-52.
Chadwick, S., & Ralston, E. (2010). Perspective taking in structured and unstructured online
discussions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 1-11.
Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner
participation in asynchronous discussions. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148. Dweck, C.S.
(2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of everyday self. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon
Books.
Maurino, P.S. (2006). Looking for critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 241-260.
Swan, K. (2005). Social Presence and e-Learning. In IADIS Virtual MultiConference on Computer
Science and Information Systems (MMCIS 2005).
Trees, A. R., Kerssen-Griep, J., & Hess, J. A. (2009). Earning influence by communicating respect:
Facework's contributions to effective instructional feedback. Communication Education, 58(3),
397-416.
I would like to thank my committee for the support and direction they have
provided. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Mayall for her
prompt responses, encouraging attitude, and incredibly helpful feedback. Also, I
deeply appreciate the work of Bess Kershisnik for coding a portion of my data so I
can establish if interrater reliability exists in regards to social presence. I would
like to thank my employer, Elmhurst College, for giving me the time to attend this
conference. And THANK YOU for taking the time to review my poster & share
your ideas, suggestions, questions, or other comments!
Preliminary Findings Regarding Impression Management and Social Presence
within Asynchronous Online Discussions
Kimberly M. Harrison, MA, Northern Illinois University, Doctoral Candidate Committee: Dr. Hayley Mayall (Co-chair), Dr. Cindy York (Co-chair), & Dr. Ying Xie
Research Questions
1. How do students use impression management to develop
social identities (whether intentionally or unintentionally)
within AOD?
2. How do students’ perceptions of AOD affect their social
identities within AODs?
Methodology
• Case study approach
• 5 students approaching graduation, ages 20-25 (2F & 3M)
• Individual & group Interviews; analysis of AOD transcripts
• Theoretical frameworks:
• “Face is the social presentation of ourselves; the ‘self’
that we want and believe others perceive us as having”
(Trees et al., 2009, p. 398) – based within Goffman’s
(1959, 1967) Impression Management theory
• Social presence is “the ability of participants in online
discussions both to perceive other participants as ‘real
people’ and to project themselves socially and affectively
into the discussion” (Swan, 2005, p. 20) – based within
Garrison, Anderson, & Archer’s (2001, 2010) Community
of Inquiry framework
Jay
I'm required to post. I kind of
feel like I have a voice, but it's
assigned to me.”
I try to present myself
professionally....I want
someone to read my
answer and be like,
“Oh, that's a really
good answer.”
I want to say my
opinion, but....I love
to have people tell
me I'm wrong. I like
to have that debate.
In face
Disagreement is
not a face threat;
line = debater
• Affective* : Emotions, beliefs, values: “how invested I was”
• Cohesive: Group references (we/our) & vocatives
• Interactive: Agreement/disagreement
• Affective* : Self-disclosure, paralanguage, values
• Cohesive: Vocatives, some group references
• Interactive*: Approval, personal advice, acknowledgment
• Affective* : Self-disclosure, values, humor
• Cohesive: Vocatives, typically to agree or compliment
• Interactive: Agreement, personal advice
• Affective : Value, humor
• Cohesive: Vocatives
• Interactive*: Agreement / disagreement, acknowledgment
• Affective : Self-disclosure, paralinguistic cues, values
• Cohesive: Vocatives
• Interactive*: Approval, agreement
Threaded discussion can
be a necessary evil...It can
be fun...and actually
useful to understand and
learn.
I would put more thought
into it and more of
myself...it shows here, too.
Sometimes when you hear that
real-life experience, it shows that
you are human. You actually did
this stuff and it's not just words.[If] the instructor is into it…you
feel more obliged to put more
effort into it….Especially if they
respond back personally, that's
almost like another push. It's
like, “Well, now I have to
respond back to it!”
Mark
Al Marti
Social
presence
Self-disclosure
Instructional
Face Support
I never really had
anything to
say...."What are they
looking at that I'm
not?"....So, I was
definitely more shy
to respond and
discuss....I didn't
know what people
were going to think
of my post.At first, since I wasn't
really used to it and
I'm not a good
writer…I struggled a
lot. But…I've been able
to pick up on it
more....I feel like I can
give my opinion. I will
respond to others.
I'm thinking
about them as
people. I don't
necessarily
picture "I know
who this is”…I
just think, "Oh,
someone just
went through
this!“… I almost
think about it
like if I was
doing my own
research and
someone said
this about it.
Any countering opinion makes
for a good conversation because
you can get more in-depth with
it....I was just trying to keep the
conversation going. Throw my
own little two cents in there and
just keep the information
coming.
A "big pet peeve is
just not getting
responses in
general. That one,
just absolutely kills
me."
Al quickly responded
that he writes, "I
disagree!” One of
the other
participants
described how he
monitors his tone in
his dissenting
opinion and Al said,
“Yeah. That makes
sense. Basically it's to
say, ‘I feel that your
post is wrong or
inaccurate or unjust
in some way.’ Explain
why in some way.
And then back it up
with a fact.
Disagreement
& Face
Threats to
Classmates
Face Threat =
No response
Avoidance
Ritual
No mutual face
support but social
presence
I don't want easy
points; I want to learn
something. I want to
get value out of it.
It was going back and forth….But in
the end, it came full circle....“This was
a really great conversation and I hope
I didn't offend you. You didn't offend
me.” And it was a cool moment: “This
is a safe place and we're all really
comfortable with each other!”.
You don't really
know what to put
there. You put
something and then
you realize, "Oh
crap. That's
wrong."…It's public,
and then everyone
is judging you.
Face threat: Shame
Face support:
Mutual respect