Online learning is on the rise, as this recent story in the US News and World Report shows, although this is not without challenges. Is online learning the future of higher education? I believe so. Given the combination of increased time and life pressures faced by professionals today, improving technology for delivery of online programs and the cost-efficiencies for universities that shift to this format, I think online education will make strong gains in popularity over the next 10 years.
However, online learning and traditional classroom delivery of content have significant contrasts that both students and teachers need to wrestle with. I explore some of these differences below.
Differences between online and traditional learning
Online learning requires that students make a paradigm shift in order to be successful. There are many differences between online and traditional learning, but I focus below on three key ones that have implications for my academic success.
1. Social dynamics of computer-mediated learning
The computer mediated delivery of online learning, particularly its asynchronicity, affords great convenience and flexibility to working adults, but it also carries peculiar burdens. Traditional classrooms provide a form of face-to-face social connection, immediacy and sense of presence (between student and teacher, as well as among students) that is quite different from the social dynamics of the online classroom. Traditional learners may miss the characteristic social immediacy of the brick-and-mortar classroom and the interpersonal communication that it affords.
The traditional and online classroom present very different communication environments. Without proper care, the computer-mediated format can make communication in the online classroom seem impersonal at best and harsh at worst. While synchronous multimedia channels, such live video conferencing, can ameliorate some of this perceived online detachment, text-based asynchronous online learning platforms, such as group discussion boards, may accentuate them. Misunderstanding or even “flaming” may ensue because “online communicators are particularly prone to faulty assumptions because [it] excludes rich and significant cues on which people normally rely as information sources” (White, 2004, p. 44).
Fortunately, research suggests these challenges can be overcome and positive social dynamics can be forged in the online classroom (Cox & Cox, 2008). There are various strategies for preventing miscommunication and fostering psychosocial connection in the online classroom. For example, White (2004) suggests a communication approach based on warmth, responsiveness, inquisitiveness, tentativeness and empathy (the WRITE way), as well following proper netiquette (pp. 46-51).
Another important strategy good transition is the use of “communal scaffolding” and various Community Building Activities (CBAs) to provide a robust psychosocial support system in the online classroom (Woods & Ebersole, 2004). Helpful CBAs include mentorships, service learning/volunteering, and opportunities to interact with classmates and the teacher outside the requirements of the course module (e.g. by personal e-mail or phone).
2. Sage-on-the-stage vs. guide-on-your-side pedagogy
Another fundamental difference between online learning and face-to-face learning relates to the increased role of the virtual student to lead his/her own academic growth. Traditional classroom learning tends to lean towards a sage-on-the-stage pedagogy in which students may sometimes be spoon-fed with information. On the other hand, the guide-on-your-side approach of online instruction calls for self-regulated learning. According to Zimmerman (2001), “this approach views learning as an activity that students do for themselves in a proactive way, rather than as a covert event that happens to them reactively as a result of teaching experiences” (p. 1).
3. Pace and work demands
Online learning also differs from traditional classroom courses in pace and work demands. Online courses tend to incorporate a lot of reading to compensate for the lack of lectures (Baker, 2004, p. 36) and many are compressed and delivered over a shorter period of time than traditional classroom courses. This will require that students pursue their academic work with commitment and self-discipline. The heavy demands on the student’s time presents unique challenges that need to be handled with wisdom.
Several factors may account for the student’s success in handling the demands of online learning, but the single biggest determinant appears to be the source of their motivation. Compared to traditional learners, online students need stronger conative learning attributes, using their learning “as an intrinsic resource to achieve personal goals and satisfy personal needs” (Martinez, 2004, p. 67). This is confirmed by research by Rovai et al. (2007) suggesting that online learners have greater intrinsic motivation than traditional students. In practical terms, this means that the online student needs to have a clearly defined personal goal/vision that drives their academic efforts.
The online learning advantage
Notwithstanding the challenges of online learning, it provides significant opportunities to develop sound and competent scholars. In fact, online study may yield stronger value than on-campus courses, given the former’s constructionist approach to learning. As Lynch (2004) notes, “this [online learning] paradigm seems to be inherently more suited to producing deep understanding because it is based on the principle that learning must be personally constructed” (p. 141).
References
Baker, J. D. (2004). A taxonomy of online courses. In K.W. White & J. D. Baker (Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Cox, B., & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous
threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education, 128(4), 553-565.
Lynch, M. M. (2004). Learning online: A guide to success in the virtual classroom. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Martinez, M. (2004). Know thyself: Taking charge of your online learning. In K.W. White & J.
D. Baker (Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Rovai, A., Ponton, M., Wighting, M., & Baker, J. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and e-learning courses. International journal on e-learning, 6(3), 413-432.
White, K. W. (2004). Communicating in the online classroom. In K.W. White & J. D. Baker
(Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Woods, R. H., & Ebersole, S. (2004). Connecting for success in the online classroom. In K.W.
White & J. D. Baker (Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview and analysis. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Saturday, October 26, 2013
On social penetration theory
I have found the immersion into communication theory to be quite interesting – nothing shows the interdisciplinary nature of communication more clearly than the vast array of fields from which we draw our theoretical constructs. I will share some of my favourite theories as we go along on this blog.
Here’s the first one, related to interpersonal communication –social penetration theory.
This theory posits that relationship development is akin to penetrating increasingly resistant personal psychosocial layers (depicted through onion metaphor) to achieve greater depth and breadth of intimacy. According to the theory, "social interaction is generally predicted to proceed only gradually and systematically from superficial to intimate topics" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29). So, outer layers of the “onion” (e.g. biographical data) are penetrated more easily/quickly than deeper layers (self-concept; deeply held fears/fantasies).
This process occurs through self-disclosure, is guided by the “law of reciprocity”, and is motivated by consideration of outcomes. According to the theorists, "people assess interpersonal rewards and costs, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, gained from interaction with others, and that the advancement of the relationship is heavily dependent on the amount and nature of the rewards and costs" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 6). A reverse process of “depenetration” can occur, which is “a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal” (Griffin, 2012, p.116).
The social penetration theory falls into the objective camp of communication theories because it is based on the assertion that self-disclosure (cause) will result in increased relational intimacy (effect). Use of language such as “law” of reciprocity is another clear indication of the deterministic bent of this theory.
Axioms of social penetration theory
The theory has four axioms related to the depth and breadth of self-disclosure.
1. Peripheral self-disclosure is the first step of the process, occurs relatively early in the relationship, and related information is exchanged more frequently and easily, compared to self-disclosure at the core of the “onion.” Peripheral self-disclosure deals with shallow conversation topics such as basic facts about the person (e.g. name; where they live; where they work; etc.). If the process of social penetration continues, the parties progress gradually to the sharing of more intimate subject matter, from personal preferences, to goals/aspirations, and ultimately to a revelation of “self” (Griffin, 2012, p. 115). As the theorists explain, "social interaction is generally predicted to proceed only gradually and systematically from superficial to intimate topics (e.g., one does not ordinarily discuss serious personal problems immediately after meeting a stranger and after exchanging only introductory biographical information)" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29).
2. Self-disclosure operates under a “law of reciprocity,” especially in the early stages of the relationship. The basic idea behind this axiom is that disclosing personal information to another causes them to also self-disclose.
3. Social penetration is fast at the start of the relationship then slows down as the parties get to the inner layers. This is understandable given that the issues addressed in the inner layers are much more private. The lesson here is that intimacy in relationships is not achieved overnight – it requires time, work and commitment.
4. “Depenetration” (the unraveling of a relationship) is a reversal of the penetration process and similarly, occurs gradually. If parties begin to close off their private lives to each other, the relationship will deteriorate. The lesson here is that the intimacy gains in a relationship can be lost, if the relationship is not properly maintained over time.
Altman and Taylor made a distinction between “depth of penetration” (exposure related to specific area of personality) and the “breadth of penetration,” which is the range of areas in which self-disclosure takes place. Using the onion metaphor, they note that "the breadth category hypothesis involves the insertion, over time, of more and more pins into the onion, each pin entering a broad category of personality as each person gradually unfolds more of himself to the other" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29). Healthy relationships must therefore deepen and expand into and over the areas of personality.
Some applications of social penetration theory
How true are these axioms? Here are a few personal examples:
I have seen the law of reciprocity play out especially in a small group that I belonged to at church. This group dealt with difficult subjects in peoples’ past. Over time, as the more courageous individuals shared their stories, it broke the ice, so to speak, and the result was increasing reciprocity from the others.
Axiom 3 is one that we see in many work places, in interaction with peers. When we start a new job, we quickly share a lot of peripheral information with our new workmates. As the outer layers of information were exhausted, sharing does not proceed to the inner layers, in most cases, with the exception of a few close friends. Altman later theorized that environment has an impact on social penetration (Griffin, 2012, p. 121) so I would think self-disclosure/social penetration is not as strong in work places as in other spaces such as homes or community clubs.
Now to a personal example of depenetration. Having lived abroad for many years, I find that it’s now difficult to connect with friends back in Africa when I go back for a visit. So much has happened in our lives that we haven’t been able to share with each other, weakening our relationship. Although we try to catch up, the conversation can be awkward. Altman and Taylor would say that our friendship has experienced depenentration.
Social penetration theory in computer mediated communication
Recent research into the theory has looked at its application on online contexts. For example, Tang and Wang (2012) examined self-disclosure among bloggers, using the social penetration theory. The online study compared self-disclosure online and in real life, using a sample of 1,027 Taiwanese bloggers. Tang and Wang (2012) explored the topics that bloggers self-disclosed about online and in the real-world; to whom they disclosed this information; and the depth and breadth of these disclosures, based on the wedge model proposed by theorists Altman and Taylor (see Griffin, 2012, p. 115.)
The researchers came up with some interesting findings. Generally, the bloggers self-disclosed on a wide range of issues in their online and real-life communication. Tang and Wang grouped this into nine topics: attitude, body, money, work, feelings, personal, interests, experiences and unclassified. Self-disclosure varied significantly depending on the target audience or recipient of that disclosure, namely face-to-face disclosure to best friends; face-to-face disclosure to parents; and online self-disclosure on their blogs.
In both the depth and breadth of self-disclosure, the researchers discovered that the bloggers self-disclosed the most in their face-to-face interaction with their best friends. This was followed by face-to-face self-disclosure to parents and self-disclosure online, in that order. The female bloggers self-disclosed more than the males in their face-to-face communication, but there was no significant difference between the genders related to the breadth and depth of online self-disclosure. Also, younger bloggers (below 20 years) showed greater breadth in their face-to-face self-disclosure, but there was no significant difference in the depth of their online self-disclosure, compared to other age groups.
The study results tell us the following:
1. In terms of the application of the social penetration theory in online and face-to-face communities, individuals are more likely to self-disclose (both in depth and breadth) in their face-to-face interaction than online. This makes sense within the context of the theory, which suggests that self-disclosure is a gradual process and so greater penetration would be expected in relationships with people whom the bloggers know well, or whom they have known for sometime.
2. Self-disclosure to best friends, has greater breadth and depth, than self-disclosure to parents.
(I guess this is not altogether surprising so I won't comment further on it!)
3. In their face-to-face/interpersonal relationships, women show greater self-disclosure than men.
4. Those who are younger tend to have greater width of self-disclosure in their interpersonal, face-to-face communication than those who are older. I am not sure that this is accounted for in the theory as proposed by Altman and Taylor; at least I haven't seen any references to this in my readings thus far. My own hypothesis as to why younger individuals self-disclose more -- the older guys have exhausted all topics in their many years of interaction with their friends!
The key take-away for me, from this “testing” of social penetration theory in today’s online environment, is that demographic factors have an influence on the social penetration theory/process in face-to-face interpersonal communication, but appear to be insignificant or neutralized in the online context.
I welcome thoughts and reflections from readers.
Divine Agodzo
References
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tang, J. and Wang, C. (2012). Self-disclosure among bloggers: Re-examination of social penetration theory. Cyberpsychology, behaviour, and social networking, 15 (5), 245-250.
Here’s the first one, related to interpersonal communication –social penetration theory.
This theory posits that relationship development is akin to penetrating increasingly resistant personal psychosocial layers (depicted through onion metaphor) to achieve greater depth and breadth of intimacy. According to the theory, "social interaction is generally predicted to proceed only gradually and systematically from superficial to intimate topics" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29). So, outer layers of the “onion” (e.g. biographical data) are penetrated more easily/quickly than deeper layers (self-concept; deeply held fears/fantasies).
This process occurs through self-disclosure, is guided by the “law of reciprocity”, and is motivated by consideration of outcomes. According to the theorists, "people assess interpersonal rewards and costs, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, gained from interaction with others, and that the advancement of the relationship is heavily dependent on the amount and nature of the rewards and costs" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 6). A reverse process of “depenetration” can occur, which is “a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal” (Griffin, 2012, p.116).
The social penetration theory falls into the objective camp of communication theories because it is based on the assertion that self-disclosure (cause) will result in increased relational intimacy (effect). Use of language such as “law” of reciprocity is another clear indication of the deterministic bent of this theory.
Axioms of social penetration theory
The theory has four axioms related to the depth and breadth of self-disclosure.
1. Peripheral self-disclosure is the first step of the process, occurs relatively early in the relationship, and related information is exchanged more frequently and easily, compared to self-disclosure at the core of the “onion.” Peripheral self-disclosure deals with shallow conversation topics such as basic facts about the person (e.g. name; where they live; where they work; etc.). If the process of social penetration continues, the parties progress gradually to the sharing of more intimate subject matter, from personal preferences, to goals/aspirations, and ultimately to a revelation of “self” (Griffin, 2012, p. 115). As the theorists explain, "social interaction is generally predicted to proceed only gradually and systematically from superficial to intimate topics (e.g., one does not ordinarily discuss serious personal problems immediately after meeting a stranger and after exchanging only introductory biographical information)" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29).
2. Self-disclosure operates under a “law of reciprocity,” especially in the early stages of the relationship. The basic idea behind this axiom is that disclosing personal information to another causes them to also self-disclose.
3. Social penetration is fast at the start of the relationship then slows down as the parties get to the inner layers. This is understandable given that the issues addressed in the inner layers are much more private. The lesson here is that intimacy in relationships is not achieved overnight – it requires time, work and commitment.
4. “Depenetration” (the unraveling of a relationship) is a reversal of the penetration process and similarly, occurs gradually. If parties begin to close off their private lives to each other, the relationship will deteriorate. The lesson here is that the intimacy gains in a relationship can be lost, if the relationship is not properly maintained over time.
Altman and Taylor made a distinction between “depth of penetration” (exposure related to specific area of personality) and the “breadth of penetration,” which is the range of areas in which self-disclosure takes place. Using the onion metaphor, they note that "the breadth category hypothesis involves the insertion, over time, of more and more pins into the onion, each pin entering a broad category of personality as each person gradually unfolds more of himself to the other" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29). Healthy relationships must therefore deepen and expand into and over the areas of personality.
Some applications of social penetration theory
How true are these axioms? Here are a few personal examples:
I have seen the law of reciprocity play out especially in a small group that I belonged to at church. This group dealt with difficult subjects in peoples’ past. Over time, as the more courageous individuals shared their stories, it broke the ice, so to speak, and the result was increasing reciprocity from the others.
Axiom 3 is one that we see in many work places, in interaction with peers. When we start a new job, we quickly share a lot of peripheral information with our new workmates. As the outer layers of information were exhausted, sharing does not proceed to the inner layers, in most cases, with the exception of a few close friends. Altman later theorized that environment has an impact on social penetration (Griffin, 2012, p. 121) so I would think self-disclosure/social penetration is not as strong in work places as in other spaces such as homes or community clubs.
Now to a personal example of depenetration. Having lived abroad for many years, I find that it’s now difficult to connect with friends back in Africa when I go back for a visit. So much has happened in our lives that we haven’t been able to share with each other, weakening our relationship. Although we try to catch up, the conversation can be awkward. Altman and Taylor would say that our friendship has experienced depenentration.
Social penetration theory in computer mediated communication
Recent research into the theory has looked at its application on online contexts. For example, Tang and Wang (2012) examined self-disclosure among bloggers, using the social penetration theory. The online study compared self-disclosure online and in real life, using a sample of 1,027 Taiwanese bloggers. Tang and Wang (2012) explored the topics that bloggers self-disclosed about online and in the real-world; to whom they disclosed this information; and the depth and breadth of these disclosures, based on the wedge model proposed by theorists Altman and Taylor (see Griffin, 2012, p. 115.)
The researchers came up with some interesting findings. Generally, the bloggers self-disclosed on a wide range of issues in their online and real-life communication. Tang and Wang grouped this into nine topics: attitude, body, money, work, feelings, personal, interests, experiences and unclassified. Self-disclosure varied significantly depending on the target audience or recipient of that disclosure, namely face-to-face disclosure to best friends; face-to-face disclosure to parents; and online self-disclosure on their blogs.
In both the depth and breadth of self-disclosure, the researchers discovered that the bloggers self-disclosed the most in their face-to-face interaction with their best friends. This was followed by face-to-face self-disclosure to parents and self-disclosure online, in that order. The female bloggers self-disclosed more than the males in their face-to-face communication, but there was no significant difference between the genders related to the breadth and depth of online self-disclosure. Also, younger bloggers (below 20 years) showed greater breadth in their face-to-face self-disclosure, but there was no significant difference in the depth of their online self-disclosure, compared to other age groups.
The study results tell us the following:
1. In terms of the application of the social penetration theory in online and face-to-face communities, individuals are more likely to self-disclose (both in depth and breadth) in their face-to-face interaction than online. This makes sense within the context of the theory, which suggests that self-disclosure is a gradual process and so greater penetration would be expected in relationships with people whom the bloggers know well, or whom they have known for sometime.
2. Self-disclosure to best friends, has greater breadth and depth, than self-disclosure to parents.
(I guess this is not altogether surprising so I won't comment further on it!)
3. In their face-to-face/interpersonal relationships, women show greater self-disclosure than men.
4. Those who are younger tend to have greater width of self-disclosure in their interpersonal, face-to-face communication than those who are older. I am not sure that this is accounted for in the theory as proposed by Altman and Taylor; at least I haven't seen any references to this in my readings thus far. My own hypothesis as to why younger individuals self-disclose more -- the older guys have exhausted all topics in their many years of interaction with their friends!
The key take-away for me, from this “testing” of social penetration theory in today’s online environment, is that demographic factors have an influence on the social penetration theory/process in face-to-face interpersonal communication, but appear to be insignificant or neutralized in the online context.
I welcome thoughts and reflections from readers.
Divine Agodzo
References
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tang, J. and Wang, C. (2012). Self-disclosure among bloggers: Re-examination of social penetration theory. Cyberpsychology, behaviour, and social networking, 15 (5), 245-250.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Welcome to Learning and Teaching Communication
I designed this blog as a place to share my thoughts and learning as a graduate student in the Masters in Communication program at Spring Arbor University. Most of the content you'll find here will therefore be material produced in my coursework, although I will often include additional insights and correlations to contemporary events or communication practice. You will occasionally find original material here (unrelated to my graduate studies), including journalistic writing on the field of communication and communication pedagogy (e.g. interviews with thought leaders). Given that my concentration is communication education, my aim is to focus as much on the teaching of communication as on the professional and academic aspects of the discipline.
Spring Arbor's graduate program in communication seeks to integrate communication and a Christian worldview so you will find that this goal colours some of the content on this blog. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of the program are no different from what pertains generally in graduate communication programs. In other words, you will find reflections here on the entire historical body of knowledge related to communication scholarship, with the occasional Christian perspective as an add-on. So, if you're not a Christian, you will still find much that is of academic relevance on this blog, and you are, of course, free to read, skip or challenge the Christian analysis provided. If you are a Christian, I trust you will find the biblical worldview applied to communication extremely beneficial. Bottom line -- this blog is about communication and covers all the core concepts in the field. If anything, a Christian worldview adds, rather than takes away, from this knowledge.
Whatever reason brings you to this blog, I hope you enjoy these posts and that they provide some intellectual and professional stimulation. Communication is an exciting, interdisciplinary field that touches every aspect of our lives and I am pleased to share the learnings from my journey as a graduate student.
Divine Agodzo
Spring Arbor's graduate program in communication seeks to integrate communication and a Christian worldview so you will find that this goal colours some of the content on this blog. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of the program are no different from what pertains generally in graduate communication programs. In other words, you will find reflections here on the entire historical body of knowledge related to communication scholarship, with the occasional Christian perspective as an add-on. So, if you're not a Christian, you will still find much that is of academic relevance on this blog, and you are, of course, free to read, skip or challenge the Christian analysis provided. If you are a Christian, I trust you will find the biblical worldview applied to communication extremely beneficial. Bottom line -- this blog is about communication and covers all the core concepts in the field. If anything, a Christian worldview adds, rather than takes away, from this knowledge.
Whatever reason brings you to this blog, I hope you enjoy these posts and that they provide some intellectual and professional stimulation. Communication is an exciting, interdisciplinary field that touches every aspect of our lives and I am pleased to share the learnings from my journey as a graduate student.
Divine Agodzo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)