際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo
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 discussions purpose. However, a greater level of impression
management and social presence is visible when learners understand
AODs purpose & are willing to actively engage in dialogue. When learners
don't understand AODs 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 participants
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 Goffmans
(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, & Archers (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 ityou
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
writerI struggled a
lot. ButI'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 isI
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

More Related Content

Harrison_AECT_2015_poster

  • 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 discussions purpose. However, a greater level of impression management and social presence is visible when learners understand AODs purpose & are willing to actively engage in dialogue. When learners don't understand AODs 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 participants 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 Goffmans (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, & Archers (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 ityou 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 writerI struggled a lot. ButI'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 isI 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