The Effect of Social Presence on Language Learning: A Comparison between Face-to-Face Conversation and Videoconferencing

This paper examines the effect of social presence on learner-centered communicative language learning. Social presence is the “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project them solve socially and emotionally, as ’real’ people”, as defined by Garrison et al, (2004). We compared videoconferencing software which supports target expressions in English communication and face-to-face communication in English as an experimental study. For face-to-face communication, learning material and target expression material were distributed to learners. we investigated the effect of each communication medium on three features of language learning: perceived learning consciousness, perceived social presence, and learning performance. The results show that learners using videoconferencing software were significantly more conscious of the target expressions and uttered the target expression more frequently. On the other hand, face-to-face communication has a main effect on the enhancement of active communication from the viewpoint of social presence. Learners in face-to-face communication spoke significantly more, but also uttered native language more often than those using videoconferencing software. It can be said that social presence facilitates active communication through increased motivation for learning mixed with native language, while videoconferencing software promotes concentration on communicative language learning. Introduction Synchronous CMC and language learning As information and communication technology advances, interest has grown in using computer networks for second language learning. Lately, communication technology such as computer-mediated communication (CMC) is often used not only in the home, but also in educational settings such as in the classrooms. CMC allows second language teachers to offer Internet-based collaborative learning. Many researchers have suggested that CMC facilitates interactive language learning from the viewpoints of sociocognitive and sociocultural theories (e.g., Chapelle, 2003; Salaberry, 2000). CMC can promote social interaction such as negotiation of meaning between learners and comprehensive input as well as output. Interaction, comprehensive input, and output seem to play an important role in language learning. The importance of these factors in classroom-based communicative instruction has been verified by many previous studies concerning three important components: comprehensive input (e.g., written or spoken information in the target language which the learner can comprehend (Krashen, 1985)), interaction (e.g., meaningful communication to enable understanding, and drives comprehensive input (e.g., Long,1981)), and output (e.g., learning behavior in language education such as speaking or writing (Swain, 1995)). SCMC can be an effective tool for enhancing these factors to promote communicative learning. Language learners who have studied in synchronous CMC outperform learners who have studied in asynchronous CMC and without CMC in the amount of speech generated in face-to-face discussions (Abrams, 2003). Language learners use social communication devices in synchronous CMC, as well as in face-to-face communication (Lee, 2002; Smith, 2003); in particular, SCMC use in task-based communication is effective in promoting the use of communication strategies such as negotiation of meaning. These features assist learners’ language acquisition of a second language; they also promote interaction between learners, which many researchers regard as one of the most important skills in communication (e.g., Long, 1989). Recent advances in technology have created a new type of SCMC, videoconferencing which allows interlocutors to feel others’ presences to a much greater degree than in text-based communication. Several studies have suggested the effects of videoconferencing in language learning. Videoconferencing allows learners to eliminate physical barriers and motivates them to speak in the second language (McAndrew et al, 1996); it also allows learners to use communication devices such as facial expression and gestures for understanding each other (Bruce, 1996). On the other hand, learners tend to drop out of courses and fail to get credit in audio-graphic conferencing, compared with face-to-face settings (Rosell-Aguilar, 2006). However, the reasons for these effects of SCMC on language learning have not been considered from the viewpoints of media features and social psychology. Social presence and language learning The effect of CMC in language learning should be considered from the viewpoint of psychological factors. Saraberry (2000) pointed out that new paradigm of CMC use in language learning is not clear, due to the lack of evaluative study from the viewpoints of psychological factors and theories. With the spread of communication tools, one useful criterion to evaluate quality foreign language learning, is “social presence”, suggested by Short, Williams & Christie (1976) as the “degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationship”, that is, the perceived proximity to real time communication in face-to-face settings. Learners’ perception of presence seems to be affected by social presence. Short, Williams & Christie (1976) suggested that two factors which promote social presence are “immediacy”, the psychological proximity of the interlocutors, and “intimacy”, the perceived familiarity caused by social behaviors such as eye gazing, nodding, and smiling, from the viewpoint of socio-psychology. Garrison et al (2004, pp. 28-29) expand and define social presence as “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project them solve socially and emotionally, as ’real’ people, through the medium of communication being used”, based on previous research (Short et al, 1976; Garrison et al, 2004). Social presence seems to increase the learners’ satisfaction with learning (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). In asynchronous CMC (e-mail), social presence motivated learners and promoted interaction such as requests for help (Leh, 2001). Social cues such as nodding, smiling and gestures facilitated effective learners’ learning in interactive television settings (Hackman & Walker, 1990). Derks et al(2008) suggests that non-verbal devices transmit social meaning such as emotions from person to person. Social presence plays an important role in this transmission. The inability to see the interlocutor seems to have a special influence on realizing and understanding the interlocutor’s emotions, due to the lack of social cues in receiving messages from the interlocutor (Derks et al, 2008). In some types of SCMC, such as audioconferencing and text chat, learners cannot use social cues such as eye-gazing and nodding, and as a result “are not aware when one person starts to type a message and may continue with a topic, or else may change the direction of the discussion while a potential contributor to the discussion types his or her message” (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Moreover, social presence is effective in creating an active community, increasing the frequency of interaction between learners and consequently promoting learners’ engagement in communicative learning (Polhemus, et al, 2000). Lomicka & Lord (2007) also pointed out the effect of social presence in creating an active community; in particular social presence concerning interaction was seen the most frequently. It led to higher performance than individual learning in terms of received responsibility and precise description skill. Lomicka & Lord (2007) suggested that social presence seems to enhance interaction between learners, which has an effect on learning performance. The widespread availability of broadband network technology offers opportunities for advanced SCMC using multimedia such as audio and video; such richer media might be more effective for learning, due to the availability of social cues (e.g., Hackman & Walker, 1990; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Social cues such as smiling and gestures can promote active communicative learning in an interactive TV situation (Hackman & Walker, 1990). This study aims to illustrate the effect of videoconferencing software as an interactive language learning environment on the affective side and learning performance from the viewpoint of social presence, compared with face-to-face situations. Research aims The studies mentioned above mainly focused on learning performance. These studies suggested similar performance, such as the number of utterances, between videoconferencing and face-to-face communication in language learning. With respect to the affective side, McAndrew et al (1996) suggested the effect of videoconferencing on improving confidence in speaking a foreign language. However, the reasons for the success of videoconferencing in communicative learning, which seem to be unclear, should be examined from the viewpoint of social presence. In this study, the effect of videoconferencing software will be examined from the viewpoint of not only language learning but also social presence by investigating the following three points, compared with face-to-face situation: 1. Perceived learning consciousness, 2. Perceived social presence, and 3. Learning performance. For this study, we used videoconferencing software which allows learners to be conscious of their SLA objectives through learning activities in learner centered instruction. Figure 1 shows this videoconferencing software interface. Method The method in this study focuses on learning consciousness, consciousness of image and focus-on-form, and the perceived usefulness of the videoconferencing software.