Learning Effectiveness Via Learning Affectiveness

I just read a great article by Karen Swan called “Immediacy, Social Presence, and Asynchronous Discussion,” published in one of the Sloan-C’s books. (Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be available online.) The paper appears to be an empirical study to follow up an earlier paper by Swan and several colleagues (which is available online, albeit in PDF format). At the heart of it is something called the “equalibrium model of social presence.”Basically, the model posits that humans tend to seek a balance point, or equalibrium, in terms of the appropriate level of intimacy in their communications. If you step a little too close to me in our conversation, I’ll take a step back. If you’re too far away, I’ll come a little closer. It’s homeostatic.

What makes the model interesting for online learning is the second factor in the model, which is bandwidth. In this case, the researchers mean bandwidth for communicating intimacy. So, for example, I can’t step closer or farther away from you in (most) online environments. Likewise, I can’t read your facial expressions in most online environments. Text-based online learning environments are “low-bandwidth” with respect to their ability to communicate intimacy because they do not afford non-textual channels for communicating affect. Swan and her colleagues suggest that, in such cases, we tend to ratchet up our level of verbal intimacy to compensate. So you’ll tend to see higher usage levels of stuff like the following:

• Paralanguage: The (in)famous smile faces 🙂
• Emotion: Affectively charged adjectives like “love,” “hate,” “sad,” and “silly”
• Vocatives: Addressing students by name, (e.g., “I agree, Mary”)
• Group reference: Heavy use of “we,” “us,” “our,” etc.
• Aproval: The (in)famous “amen” posts
• Invitation: Anything that invites a response, e.g., “Any suggestions?”

These are just a few of the 15 indicator types that Swan lists, which she categorizes into three groups: affective (i.e., expressing feelings), cohesive (i.e., expressing a sense of grouphood), and interactive (i.e., providing evidence that you are paying attention).

Swan has found (not surprisingly) high levels of usage of these verbal intimacy indicators in text-based online learning classes. I’d love to see a study comparing usage in online and face-to-face versions of the same class taught by the same teacher.

At any rate, I think there is some practical application here. Teachers who are aware of these intimacy indicators can use that knowledge to both foster an atmosphere of intimacy through modeling and gauge (and even coach) students on their own level of connection with the group.