3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Determining sociability, social space, and social presence in (a)synchronous collaborative groups

期刊

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 155-172

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/109493104323024429

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effectiveness of group learning in asynchronous distributed learning groups depends on the social interaction that takes place. This social interaction affects both cognitive and socioemotional processes that take place during learning, group forming, establishment of group structures, and group dynamics. Though now known to be important, this aspect is often ignored, denied or forgotten by educators and researchers who tend to concentrate on cognitive processes and on-task contexts. This one-sided educational focus largely determines the set of requirements in the design of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments resulting in functional CSCL environments. In contrast, our research is aimed at the design and implementation of sociable CSCL environments which may increase the likelihood that a sound social space will emerge. We use a theoretical framework that is based upon an ecological approach to social interaction, centering on the concept of social affordances, the concept of the sociability of CSCL environments, and social presence theory. The hypothesis is that the higher the sociability, the more likely that social interaction will take place or will increase, and the more likely that this will result in an emerging sound social space. In the present research, the variables of interest are sociability, social space, and social presence. This study deals with the construction and validation of three instruments to determine sociability, social space, and social presence in (a) synchronous collaborating groups. The findings suggest that the instruments have potential to be useful as measures for the respective variables. However, it must be realized that these measures are first steps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据