Benjamin Kehrwald Massey University College of Education Democratic Rationalisation on the Network: Social Presence and Human Agency in Networked Learning Benjamin Kehrwald Massey University College of Education

The intention… “…to develop a perspective on networked learning that tries to articulate the overall relationship between technology and the policies and pedagogies applied in the name of networked learning. That perspective needs to emphasize choice and the ways in which human intervention mobilizes technologies…rather than being the simple outcome of the technology itself” (Jones & Steeples, 2002, p. 5)

The focus Social presence …involves the experience of being with another salient social actor despite the fact that the experience is mediated by technology.

The problem Does the technology control the way networked learners experience one another? Or Do networked learners exercise agency over the technology to control their experiences of one another?

The questions Do learners in technology-mediated learning situations experience social presence as a property of media or as a feature of human activity and agency? How does social presence operate within the tension between technological determinisms and human agency to promote productive learning activity? Following, what are the implications for the design, development and use of technology-mediated learning situations in networked learning?

The research Collective Case Study: 4 Cases, each an online course One group of volunteer respondents from each case Dialogical process: Q’naire, Int1, Focus Group 1, Int 2, FG 2 Multiple analyses: within the process, after each case, after all cases As preliminary findings emerged they were reflected back to respondents for confirmation or amendment. Findings represent the socially constructed synthesis of learner experiences.

The findings

(1) The effects of technological determinism were evident in respondent comments about: the structuring of the learning environments, the selection and use of CMC tools as venues for learning activity and participants’ experiences of one another as real and present social actors.

(2) The effects of technology to structure and control the learning experience were viewed with a mix of acceptance and rejection. Participants acknowledged the importance of structure in facilitating activity (e.g. design choices) Participants questioned some of those choices, expressed frustration with the learning management system, described their struggles with text-based communication and highlighted strategies for overcoming the (perceived) limitations of the technology

…I reflected upon the group activity at the start of this course …I reflected upon the group activity at the start of this course. We were instantly put into "pods" that limited or eliminated the chance for us to interact with the rest of the group. -Kath, Case 4 …the positive effects of social presence may be undermined by a poor course design. I’m talking about the organizational aspects of the course; perhaps this would be called the course framework. -Frank, Case 4

(3) Respondents’ experiences support a view of social presence which is premised on human agency and users’ abilities to overcome perceived limitations of technology The definition of social presence: …an individual’s ability to demonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so signal his/her availability for interpersonal transactions

(4) Links between social presence and human agency Social presence is demonstrative. It is premised upon an individual's ability to make observable demonstrations of presence and thus project her/himself into the social environment or situation.

Some participants have posted very “minimalist” messages on the Discussion Boards, and many participants have not directly addressed what anyone else has written. In this CMC medium, you can only get to know people to the extent that they are willing to communicate openly in online discussions. -Julie, Case 2

…to my perception there is a range of degrees of social presence exhibited by other learners. The whole course group has been divided into 3 discussion groups. The people in the other two groups besides my own have little social presence to me; just a little picked up from general introductions and the occasional message in the general forum. Within my own group, the social presence is certainly stronger than for people outside the group…. -Don, Case 1

(4) Links between social presence and human agency Social presence is dynamic …in the sense that a participant’s social presence fluctuates based on the number, frequency and quality of interactions.

The depth and manner of my social presence depends largely on the tone, quality and the extent to which I am responded to by others and the manner, depth and tone of representation of the respondent’s social presence in turn. -Kevin, Case 3

(4) Links between social presence and human agency social presence is cumulative insofar as it is based upon ongoing demonstrations of presence and a sense of continuity.

Int: What does [the facilitator] do to convey a sense of presence? Marco: Her messages, almost daily, her feedback on what she has learnt from our submissions, the chat forums she organized. She is almost as present as an f2f teacher! Int: That response would indicated that presence is generated “by volume”…is that correct? More input, more presence? Marco: Not quite the “volume” but rather the “thread of communication” that is there every day. It’s like she’s accompanying us all the time. -Marco, Case 1

Implications The establishment, cultivation and operation of social presence is dependent on the participants in the environment. What learners do affects their social presence

Implications The abilities to cultivate a social presence and read the social presence of others as part of online communication and interaction are learned As learners gain experience, their abilities to read and convey social presence improves

Implications In using social presence, learners exercise agency over technology. Social presence is a form of democratic rationalisation in which users realise productive activity in spite of limiting or difficult conditions

So what?

The intention… “…to develop a perspective on networked learning that tries to articulate the overall relationship between technology and the policies and pedagogies applied in the name of networked learning. That perspective needs to emphasize choice and the ways in which human intervention mobilizes technologies…rather than being the simple outcome of the technology itself” (Jones & Steeples, 2002, p. 5)

Consider …the relationship between social presence as agency and key elements of networked learning including learner centeredness, interaction, productive collaboration and social processes …learner agency, efficacy, motivation and the implications for learner support …technological determinism as a form of control and challenges to ownership and control of learning processes …technological determinism vs human agency in the context of skillsets required to operate in contemporary societies

My related work Kehrwald, B. A. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89-106. Kehrwald, B. A. (2010). Being online: Social presence and subjectivity in online learning. London Review of Education, 8(1), 39-50. Kehrwald, B. A. (2010). Social presence and online communication: A response to Mersham. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 14(1), 29-46. Kehrwald, B. A. (2010, in press). Towards more productive online discussions: Social presence and the development of interpersonal relations. In L. Shedletsky & J. E. Aitken (Eds.), Cases on online discussion and interaction:Experiences and outcomes.