Identity Construction and Dialogue Genres –
How Notions of Dialogue May Influence Social Presence in Networked Learning
Environments
Jenny Gustafson1, Vivien Hodgson2 and Sue Tickner3
Göteborg University1,
Lancaster University2, University of Glasgow3
jenny.gustafson@ituniv.se, v.hodgson@lancaster.ac.uk, s.tickner@udcf.gla.ac.uk
When analysing networked learning
environments, researchers commonly try to explain the variation in activity,
collaboration and learning outcomes by focusing on characteristics of the
environment that primarily concern design and functionality. We want to draw
attention to other aspects that affect networked learning, that concern how
participants engage in dialogue and what consequences notions of dialogue may
have on collaboration and learning. Building on theories of social presence and
discourse analysis, we show how online identities are formed and explain how
these influence the conditions for learning in networked-based environments.
The paper is primarily intended for researchers in networked learning, but is
also relevant for practitioners in the field, for example people involved in
teaching or monitoring network-based courses, who want to know more about how
group dynamics can be affected by what is going on in the dialogue between the
participants.
Dialogue, discourse, identity,
networked learning, collaboration, social presence
A central position in a
socio-cultural view of learning is that learning is a social activity, which
takes place through communication or interaction with others (Vygotsky, 1978).
Learning is seen as a matter of participation in a social process of knowledge
construction rather than an individual endeavour. Consequently, learning is not
a separate or individual process, but is viewed as part of a greater activity,
involving other participants that are targets for interaction, for example
other learners, teachers or artefacts. When learning takes place in groups,
learner interactions can stimulate deeper and more critical reflection by
learners as the learning situation provides them with opportunities for
exposure to multiple perspectives and interpretations (Koschmann, 1994).
Collaboration can therefore provide clear educational rewards and support to
learners (Oliver, 1997).
Vygotsky (1978) stresses the
importance of the medium of language for knowledge sharing and communication of
ideas and reflections. He claims that significant learning can be achieved
through interactions supported by different kinds of discourse though he
primarily focuses on spoken discourse.
In this paper discourse is used in its most general sense and refers to
verbal expressions in speech or writing. In order to apply Vygotsky’s ideas to
new forms of learning situations and environments, where spoken language is not
used, we need to assume that the same concepts and ideas apply for other realisations
of language such as in written discourse. The focus of the paper is to explore
how different notions of dialogue can affect the learning conditions in
networked learning environments, where the primary medium for communication is
written discourse, rather than spoken language.
Although it is natural to assume
that there are differences between learning realised by spoken interactions and
learning realised by written interactions, Asenio, Hodgson and Trehan (2000)
found written language could be experienced as an equal form of communication
for the expression of thoughts and feelings. They refer specifically to the
work of Derrida (1967) where he challenges the traditional view of speech as
superior to writing and where speech is supposed to be closer to thought, with
writing merely a weak extension of speech. On the contrary, Derrida stressed
that written language does not follow spoken language, but that it is an
entirely separate and unique medium which allows people to order and articulate
their perceptions of the world in a different way from any other medium. In
addition, Lipponen (2001), amongst others, points to other benefits that
learning realised by written discourse may have. He believes that asynchronous
communication allows time for reflection in a different way than learning that
takes place through spoken language. By making thinking visible in writing
participants are encouraged to reflect on their own and other’s ideas and share
their expertise. Garrison (1997) goes further, and claims that higher-order
thinking is seldom possible without writing. Garrison (2003) argues that
written forms of communication have special attributes to facilitate critical
reflection which gives it advantages in supporting collaborative learning. He
also says that writing should be viewed as a fundamental medium of expression
with its own properties and powers (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2001). In
line with such views, we intend in our paper to work from the assumption that
written dialogue in networked learning environments has great potential to be
one kind of language interaction that can realise learning.
Here,
it is also interesting to note that another difference between learning
realised by speech and learning realised through writing, is that written
dialogue has been claimed to have the potential of being more democratic than
other forms of interaction (Yates, 1997). Written dialogue in networked
learning environments has also been connected to the concept of ‘ideal discourse’
(cf Habermas, 1981), which is described by Mezirow (1988) to be a form of
communication that is open to other perspectives and points of view and that is
also accepting of others as equal partners. Written dialogue, it has been
claimed, has the potential to realise the concept of ideal discourse, in that
it contains no visual cues to reflect status, or the requirement to interact in
a turn taking manner. This contributes to making all participants equal and
enables them to have discussions on the same terms. Hodgson (2002) examines
these assumptions about networked learning dialogue and the view that online
dialogue is a realisation of ideal discourse, questioning the claim that this
form of communication is more democratic than face-to-face communication. Later,
we will continue to discuss these claims, connecting networked learning
dialogue to ‘ideal discourse’ and to the democracy aspect.
In any
learning situation, there is a need to create conditions for socialising
between learners in that particular situation. Without the social aspect of
collaboration, successful learning is not likely to take place (Kreijns and
Kirschner, 2001). When communication is mediated by any kind of technological
medium, it is important to understand that the technology and its design may
affect the interactions that take place in the collaborative process
(Dillenbourg et al 1995). Ellis (1999) points out that although individuals
create their own subjective meanings in exchanging and interpreting messages,
the nature of the medium is equally influential. Since all communication in
networked learning is mediated by technology and therefore potentially
different in its characteristics than face-to-face communication, the
conditions for learning are also potentially different than in face-to-face
settings. Wegerif (1998) found that the social dimensions are important to the
effectiveness of networked learning and argued that social factors and how
participants relate to each other need to be taken into account in the design
and development of networked learning environments. It is arguably crucial to
establish a social context in which the learning can occur and where the
learners can engage in both social interaction and task-oriented interaction.
Kreijns
and Kirschner (2001) point to certain properties that can be built into
networked learning environments, called social affordances, which they believe
can increase the likelihood of social interaction taking place, and which
potentially improve the conditions for learning in such environments. The
realisation of social affordances is based on the concept of teleproximity,
i.e. through mutual awareness of presence between the learners in the
networked-based environment. The main idea is that learners in such
environments must be aware of each other’s identities and perceive these as
authentic and reliable. In other words when a learner perceives the presence of
other learners, these can be identified as distinct individuals with whom real
conversations can be held. Hollan and Stornetta (1992) have similar ideas about
teleproximity in electronic communication media. They talk about the importance
of proximity in face to face communication and how to accomplish the feeling of
teleproximity in environments that do not allow face to face interaction, i.e.
how to create a feeling of being there, without the physical proximity.
The
social presence theory of Gunawardena, (1995) relates closely to the concepts
of teleproximity and social affordances, and says that collaborative learning
takes place through social negotiation, in which the participants need to
relate to each other, share a sense of community and work together towards a
common goal. Gunawardena (1995) stresses the importance of recognising the
difference in face to face collaboration and collaboration mediated by
technology, since networked-based learning creates a new social climate which
lacks a lot of the nonverbal cues that are present in the traditional classroom
environment, for instance facial expression, direction of gaze, posture and
other features connected to an individual’s physical presence. Gunawardena
claims that these nonverbal cues are very important, as they carry out the
integrational aspect of the communication process, for example keeping the
conversation going by indicating turn-taking, acting as points of reference to
the content of the messages and so on. In networked learning, the integrational
aspect of the communication process, which would normally fall on the nonverbal
cues, must be performed by another medium, namely the dialogue. In agreement,
Lipponen (2002) stresses that it is the dialogue in networked learning
environments that has to perform the social cues which are crucial for
collaboration, which would normally be performed by facial expressions,
gestures or intonation of speech in the face to face learning interaction. This
also connects with the idea from Hollan and Stornetta (1992) that new media
need new mechanisms, something to replace the nonverbal cues.
Gunawardena (1995), believes that successful collaborative learning will not work until positive affective relationships between participants have been established, which can only happen in the social interaction between learners. Gunawardena social presence theory claims it is necessary to have both intimacy and immediacy between learners. She believes that in networked learning environments, learners create social presence by projecting their identities and by building communities, which starts in the social exchanges between the participants. In such communities Gunawardena states, learners can develop feelings of trust and closeness and a sense of warmth and belonging, which will help them to engage in the learning activities.
It is
our contention that a closer examination of notions of dialogue will give
greater insights into the way online identities are constructed in networked
learning environments and affect the experience of social presence and also
potentially influence the learning conditions in those environment. We will try
to show how analysis of certain dialogue traits or characteristics can
reveal how issues such as online identity construction affect the conditions
and experience of intimacy, immediacy and teleproximity in networked learning.
In
networked learning environments, the communication medium most frequently used
is written dialogue, that is the exchange of written messages. The impressions
that learners make on each other can therefore be seen as strongly affected by
the characteristics of the exchanged messages, which relates to different
aspects of dialogue. How individuals present and position themselves towards
other participants has to do with how they express themselves in the dialogue with
others. In turn, this impacts on the group dynamics, especially when it comes
to the experience of social presence, i.e. people’s perception of intimacy and
immediacy. We would like to draw attention to the importance of exploring
notions of dialogue, when looking into what influences the experience and
creation of social space in networked learning. It is in dialogue with others that learners make impressions on
each other that will affect the climate of the environment when it comes to
feelings of teleproximity, intimacy, immediacy, trust etc.[rev 11]
Equally relevant is the process by which people create their own social
identity when engaging in dialogue in networked learning environments, and for
this reason, we now focus on online identity construction.
There
are different views on how participants acquire a sense of their own identity
in networked learning environments, but most of them point to different notions
of dialogue to answer the question. Consequently, we will now look more closely
at both notions of dialogue and methods for discourse analysis. As there seems
to be an agreement that online identity is something that is created in
dialogue we feel that discourse analysis provides us with a tool to examine the
nature of the dialogue created.
Shotter claims that identity
construction takes place within and through dialogue (Shotter, 1993) He
believes that, through using certain kinds of language, people construct
different social relationships, and in doing so they also construct a sense of
their own identity
Spears
and Lea (1992) argue that in networked learning environments social identity
derives from people’s presentation of identity as part of a group or in taking
on a social role within the interaction. They also say that such environments,
where there is no real visual feedback, can lead to a person actually being
more self-aware than in face-to-face settings. This could be taken to mean that
social identity online has the potential to be even stronger than social identity
face to face.[rev 12]
Yates (1997, 2001) sees online identity construction as something that takes
place through discourse, and points out that all texts carry markers that can
identify their authors in different ways. Similarly, Hodgson (2002) suggests
that by analysing people’s different ways of expression we can examine
processes where social relationships are constructed and where people acquire a
sense of their own identity. She further suggests that we need to look closely
at the use of language in networked learning environments in order to reveal
how the process of identity construction through dialogue works. We need to identify what characteristics of
dialogue are worthy of closer analysis when it comes to revealing the identity
construction process. What characteristics in dialogue actually influence
online identities? Methods of discourse analysis, such as Fairclough's (2003),
offer a framework for discourse analysis that reveals interesting things about
identity construction in dialogue. Fairclough in turn builds on Bakhtin’s ideas
on the subject; consequently, in the next section we explore further the ideas
and theories of Fairclough and Bakhtin.
Bakhtin
(1984) introduces ideas about identity construction in dialogue. Although his
views are about dialogue in general and not directly focused to online
settings, we believe they may be still applicable and relevant in the networked
learning context. Bakhtin suggests that life by its very nature is dialogic and
says that living means engaging in dialogue. Furthermore, he argues that a
person engaging in dialogue invests their entire self in discourse and that
this discourse enters into the dialogic fabric of human life, into the world
symposium. According to Bakhtin, one of the most interesting aspects of
language is the dialogicality of each spoken utterance or written message.
Dialogicality is, to Bakhtin, a concept that consists of two parts, one
concerns the relation between the message and preceding messages and the other
has to do with the addressivity of the message, i.e. the person to whom it is
directed.
One of
Bakhtin’s most important points is that an inherent aspect of dialogue is that
each spoken utterance or written message is related to other discourse, since
it describes how dialogue depends on how people relate their individual
messages to other people’s messages, and that this is what gives them their own
identity. This idea is also supported by Fairclough (2003), who writes about how
people create their identity by positioning themselves to others, and in the
way they relate their own contributions in dialogue to previous contributions.
Fairclough
(2003) sees discourses as ways of representing aspects of the world. In
agreement, Shotter (2000) says that what one individual perceives as real or
true, might not count for everyone else in the world. Since the world can be
described in many ways, from different perspectives, Fairclough points to the
need of considering the relationship between discourses. Different discourses
provide us with different descriptions of the world, which are associated with
the author of the discourse and the relations that person has to the world.
This also depends on the person’s social identity and the social relationship
that he or she has with other people.
Fairclough
(2003) discusses two characteristics of dialogue that are closely related to
Bakhtin’s concept of dialogicality that could also affect online identity
construction; these are intertextuality and assumption. The former concept
means that a contribution in discourse brings other voices into a text and
therefore relates to other people’s discourses, whereas the latter concept
reduces the difference by assuming common ground and leaving out such explicit
relations to other people’s discourses. Using Bakhtin’s terms, a discourse with
a high degree of intertextuality, which is rich in references to other
discourses and open to other voices, is more dialogical than a discourse that
uses a lot of assumption. Such a discourse is closed to other voices and
therefore dialogicality is diminished. Fairclough says that a message which
includes connections to other people’s ideas and reflections is likely to come
across as open and approachable, whereas undialogised language may be perceived
as authoritative and absolute. Fairclough suggests that people using such
language are likely to project a confident identity that may take a position of
authority in relation to others, while people using more dialogical language
may come across as more open and welcoming.
Intertextuality
and assumption are interesting aspects of dialogue, as they relate to how
orientation to difference is fundamental in social interaction. Fairclough
stresses that implicitness is a property of text which is of considerable
social importance, since productive and meaningful interaction must build on
active and continual negotiation of differences of meaning and that the use of
assumptions therefore will influence the conditions for this negotiation
negatively. There are other similarities between Fairclough’s concepts of
intertextuality and assumption and Bakhtin’s dialogicality, since they also
capture the addressivity of an utterance or a written message in discourse.
According
to Bakhtin (1986), the addressivity of a message is how it positions itself in
relation to ‘the Other’. At this point, it is appropriate to further explain
Bakhtin’s understanding of different voices in dialogue. The first voice is the
one represented by oneself, simply referred to as Self. The second voice is the
one represented by one or several interlocutors in the dialogue and the third
voice is represented by a superaddressee who stands above the particularity of
dialogue as a kind of reference or authority – an absolute truth. The second
and third voices are together referred to as ‘the Other’ in dialogue, i.e. all
actual or imagined interlocutors that are separate from Self. Bakhtin describes
addressivity of a message as a trait of being directed at someone, since all
messages are constructed in anticipation of the Other’s active responsive
understanding. Fairclough’s concepts of intertextuality and assumption relate
closely to Bakhtin’s addressivity since they reflect a person’s perception of
reality. Basically they tell us what a person in the discourse experiences as
the truth, through their use of or reference to either the second or third
voice (intertextuality), or by omitting such references and taking the third
voice as a given (assumption).
Fairclough
(2003) shows how another characteristic of dialogue, namely choice of modality,
can tell us more about how a person positions a contribution in discourse to
the Other, either second or third voice, and how this relates to
intertextuality and assumption. The modality of a spoken utterance or a written
message is the relationship it sets up between the author and the author’s
representations, i.e. what the author commits to in terms of truth or necessity
(Fairclough, 2003). Language can be modalized in several ways, for example by
using modal verbs such as ‘may’, ‘might’ and ‘seem’. Fairclough says that
modalized sentences are often more open in their character than non-modalized
ones. They leave room for other possibilities, for other interpretations or
solutions, and are more open to the inclusion of other voices in a text
(intertextuality). Non-modalized language, on the other hand, is often closed
for interpretation and doesn’t include other voices, but in its nature keeps
other people and their interpretations at a distance (assumptions exist).
Further Fairclough stresses how modality is connected to identity since
modality choices are an important part in texturing identities in networked
learning environments. Fairclough points out that what you commit yourself to
in any kind of discourse, is closely related to your identity, i.e. to who you
are, how you see yourself in relation to other people and how strongly you take
this position towards others.
Thus far, we have shown that several authors agree that identity construction in networked learning environments is something that takes place in dialogue between participants. We have also shown that by applying methods for discourse analysis, i.e. by looking at characteristics of dialogue, such as degree of dialogicality, use of intertextuality and assumption, and different modality choices, it is possible to reveal more about how the process of identity-construction occur within the dialogue. We argue, in agreement with Bakhtin and Fairclough, that it is by positioning oneself towards the rest of the world that a person acquires a sense of his or her own identity. Next, we will look at how, by constructing different identities online, individuals may affect the different genres of dialogue that can arise in networked learning environments. We then consider how these dialogue genres might influence the conditions for social presence in networked learning
Bakhtin
(1990) suggests that productive dialogue presupposes that the people engaging
in that dialogue speak from different viewpoints, and that they bring their
different opinions and perspectives to the dialogue. This is in contrast to
Vygotsky’s notion of the ideal speech situation which is where the shared given
is maximal and misunderstanding is minimized. In contrast, Bakhtin argues that
disagreement can be more productive than full agreement and that the notion of
a shared apperceptive mass should neither be the ground nor the goal of
communication (Cheyne and Tarulli, 1999). According to Cheyne and Tarulli the
main difference between Bakhtinian and Vygotskian notions of dialogue lies in
the different views on the relationship between Self and Other. Bakhtin sees
difference in dialogue as something productive and essential, while Vygotsky
stresses the need for interlocutors to strive for congruence in communication.
Cheyne
and Tarulli (1999) build on the Bakhtinian as well as the Vygotskian notion of
dialogue and draw distinctions between genres of dialogue. The first genre is
the most typical kind of dialogue that Vygotsky is referring to in his theory
of the Zone of Proximal Development, namely a kind of dialogue where there is
an asymmetry between the interlocutors, which is primarily based on differences
in knowledge and power. Cheyne and Tarulli call this dialogue genre the
Magistral dialogue and say that the asymmetry between the interlocutors arises
from the third voice, from which knowledge and power flow. Cheyne and Tarulli
argue that it is the relation to the third voice, i.e. what Bakhtin would call
addressitivity, which decides what kind of dialogue arises. In the Magistral
dialogue Cheyne and Tarulli argue that it is by drawing on the authoritative
third voice that the first voice can achieve its own authority and maintain the
asymmetry between the first and second voice.
Consequently,
the Magistral dialogue presupposes that the interlocutors have asymmetries in
knowledge and power, which manifests itself around a deficit or absence on the
part of the second voice, which is responded to by the first voice, drawing on
the third. In this kind of dialogue, it is the first voice that authoritatively
formulates meaning in reaction to the perceived deficit in the second voice.
The Magistral dialogue genre also presupposes that the first voice presumes to
know where the dialogue is heading, i.e. to a consensus between the voices in
the final stages of the dialogue, where the second voice comes together with
the first in total agreement.
A
second genre of dialogue is the Socratic dialogue, which is a more open-ended
kind of dialogue, where the first voice isn’t trying to steer the dialogue in a
predetermined way. On the contrary, this kind of dialogue is suspicious of
consensus and is characterised by the second voice not being easily silenced by
appeals of the first voice to the authority of the third voice. Instead, the
second voice is allowed to question the first, and the first voice may in turn
become confused and lose its path by this questioning. Most importantly, the
relationships between the participants engaging in the Socratic dialogue are
not set up asymmetrically, but are based on more equal identities agreeing only
on what questions are relevant to answer, but not necessarily agreeing on what
those answers are.
In the
Magistral dialogue, one person takes on the authoritative identity, and the
other person is perceived to have less knowledge on a subject and therefore
gets a weaker, less credible identity. This kind of dialogue is likely to
influence the conditions for social presence in a negative way if, as according
to social presence theory, the goal is to create fruitful learning conditions
by providing the environment with a sound social climate and intimacy and
immediacy between the participants. Arguably, the asymmetry between the
identities in the Magistral dialogue actually diminishes the chances for
intimacy and immediacy, as it clearly distances the interlocutors from each
other and divides them into one authority figure and one weaker party. It is
also doubtful whether the conditions for teleproximity can be met, so the
participants can perceive each other as real and approachable, when the
dialogue is based on this unequal relationship between the interlocutors. More
likely, if one participant projects an identity of authority on the other
participants, by for example using authoritative and absolute language,
steering the discussion in a predetermined way, and by trying to get everyone
else to come together in agreement, that person will likely be perceived by the
others as trying to dominate the dialogue. This, in turn, might make the person
taking on the first voice in the Magistral dialogue appear as unapproachable
and distanced from the rest of the participants.
In the
Socratic dialogue, participants take on more equal identities. This comes from
the fact that the first voice is not constantly drawing on the third voice and
also from the second voice being allowed to question the first, which may lead
to the first voice actually changing its stance. This kind of dialogue arises
when the interlocutors use a way of expression that is not presuming that they
know more about a certain matter or positioning themselves above anyone else.
We suggest that dialogue which is based on identities that are more open and
inviting to other’s views and opinions gives rise to this kind of Socratic
dialogue, where the aim is not to strive for consensus or to reach a
predetermined conclusion about what is the absolute truth. Consequently, since
the interlocutors are not distanced from each other as in the Magistral
dialogue genre, but are actually invited to question each other on equal terms,
we believe that conditions for social presence are more likely to be influenced
in a positive way. The interlocutors in
this kind of dialogue are also more likely to perceive their learning
environment to be based on intimacy, immediacy and trust and, consequently, to
be in a better position to disagree and, in a Bakhtinian sense, as well as from
a learning perspective, to experience difference as something productive and
essential.
We
suggest that by using different styles of language in collaborative dialogue in
networked learning environments, individuals reveal their perceptions of the
world and how they see themselves fitting in that world. Depending on the
degree of dialogicality in their messages, as well as other characteristics of
dialogue that we have described in this paper, we argue that people acquire a
sense of their own and others online identity through the way they express
themselves in writing. Depending on what kinds of identities come together in
the networked learning environment, different genres of dialogue may arise,
which in turn may influence the conditions for teleproximity in that
environment, and also the conditions for social presence, i.e. perceptions of
intimacy and immediacy between the participants.
We
argue that the Magistral dialogue genre, where the identities of the interlocutors
are polarized, one taking the role of authority and constantly drawing on the
absolute truth of the third voice, is not the most fruitful kind of dialogue in
networked learning, if learning is intended to take place by collaborative
learning activities between equal learners in a social context. We believe that
when people use a low degree of dialogicality in their language, by for example
using assumptions about what is correct or seen as common knowledge or by using
an assertive language style with a low degree of modality, they may be
perceived as trying to take on an authoritative and absolute identity in
relation to their peers. This in turn is likely to weaken the conditions for
intimacy and immediacy between participants in the networked environment.
Therefore, our argument is that the Magistral dialogue genre potentially has
negative effects on the conditions for social both presence and for
collaborative networked learning.
On the
other hand, we believe that participants who use a high degree of
intertextuality and modality in their language are open and inviting of other
voices. This may encourage other participants to question their views and
positions, which potentially will give rise to the Socratic kind of dialogue,
where the dialogue patterns between the interlocutors are based on equal roles
and not constantly anchored in the absolute authority of the third voice.
Further, we believe that this kind of dialogue is likely to be more rewarding
in networked collaborative learning, since the conditions for socialisation in
this type of dialogue are much more productive than in a situation where the
participants are more distanced from each other by taking positions of
authority towards each other.
At
this point, we would like to return to the claim that networked learning
dialogue is potentially more democratic than other forms of dialogue and more
able to realise the concept of ‘ideal discourse’. In our view, it is not
possible to generally state that this is the case, but we consider this claim
to be an idealistic ambition in practice. We agree that the characteristics of
written dialogue in theory might have the potential of realising ‘ideal
discourse’ and being a democratic form of communication, but in reality there
are, as we have shown, other factors that will influence what kind of dialogue
actually takes place and that in turn will influence aspects of power and
control over the dialogue. We believe that it is depending on how the language
is used in dialogue that gives the interlocutors their online identities and
that this also sets up the conditions for what kind of dialogue will arise.
These different kinds of dialogue can then be more or less democratic in the
way they are related to what is considered to be common knowledge or truth and
how open they are to differences of opinion. We see the Socratic dialogue as
having greater potential of becoming democratic than the Magistral dialogue,
where one interlocutor is steering the dialogue towards a predetermined goal.
To conclude,
we would like to stress the importance of discourse analysis as a tool/method
for looking closer at dialogue patterns when researching networked learning
environments and trying to explain the possible failures or successes of such
environments. It is clearly important to provide a networked learning
environment with a social context in order for it to be a productive learning
environment and as we have shown, the best way to do this is to regard the
medium’s own characteristics. Therefore, researchers need to put the dialogue
in focus, as it clearly performs very important social tasks in the
collaborative learning activities in networked learning environments. We
believe it is by engaging in dialogue with others that participants construct
their own identity, by positioning themselves towards others and also to the
third voice and that this in turn will give rise to different genres of
dialogue. Depending on people’s different identities and the kind of dialogue
that arises conditions for social presence is affected in terms of feelings of
intimacy and immediacy between participants. Therefore, we believe that it is
by using discourse analysis to further reveal aspects of identity construction
that we can understand how different kinds of dialogue are related to people’s
identities in online discussion. Also, we believe that this can explain the
existence or lack of social presence in networked learning environments, which
we believe to be a potentially crucial factor in explaining why certain environments
are perceived to be more successful than others. Furthermore, we argue that it
is in the Socratic dialogue genre, where people are more equal and allowed to
question each other’s positions and identities, that successful conditions for
social presence and teleproximity may become a reality.
Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Trehan, K. (2000) Is there a difference? Contrasting experiences of face to face and online learning, in Proceedings of Networked Learning Conference, Lancaster, pp 12-19.
Bakhtin, M. (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University Of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1984) Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. (C. Emerson, Ed. and Trans.), Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986) Speech genres and other late essays. C. Emerson and M. Holquist (Eds., V. W. McGee, Trans.), Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1990) Art and answerability. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Cheyne, J.A., Tarulli, D (1999) Dialogue, Difference, and the “Third Voice” in the Zone of Proximal Development. Theory and Psychology, 9, 5-28.
Derrida, J (1967) De la Grammatologie, Paris, Minuit. Translated by Chakravorty Spivak, G (1976) Of Grammatology. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker M., Blaye A. & O'Malley, C. (1995) The Evolution of research on collaborative learning, in Spada E. & Reiman P. (eds) Learning in Humans and Machine: towards and interdisciplinary learning science, 189- 211. London: Pergamon.
Ellis, D. G. (1999) Crafting society: Ethnicity, class, and communication theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London/New York: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. (1997) Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance education. Open Learning 12(2): 3-11.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) Critical thinking and computer conferencing: a model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of distance education, 15(1).
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice, London: Routledge
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995) Social presence theory and implications for interaction collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3).
Habermas, J (1981) The theory of Communicative Action, Vol 11. Beacon Press, Boston
Hodgson, V. (2002) Issues for democracy and social identity in CMC and networked learning, in Networked Learning; Perspectives and Issues, (eds) Steeples C, Jones C, Springer Verlag, London, pp 229-242.
Hollan, J., Stornetta, S. (1992) Beyond being there. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'92), pp 119--125, Monterey, CA, May 1992. ACM, ACM Press.
Koschmann, T.D. (1994) Toward a theory of computer support for collaborative learning. Journal of Learning
Sciences, 3 (3), 219-225.
Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001) The Social Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, Nevada, USA.
Lipponen, L. (2001) Supporting collaboration with computers. In M. Lakkala, M. Rahikainen, M., & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Perspectives of CSCL in Europe: A Review (7-17). A report for the European Commission, ITCOLE Project, IST-2000-26249.
Lipponen, L. (2002) Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In Gerry Stahl, editor, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, pp 72-81.
Mezirow, J. (1988) Transformation Theory. In Proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference, Calgary, Alberta p.p. 223-227
Oliver, R. (1997) Using computer-based learning environments to connect learners: Learning through collaboration, communication and talk. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction, Taipei, 16-21.
Shotter, J. (1993) Conversational Realities: Constructing Life through Language. London: Sage.
Shotter, J. (2000) Constructing 'Resourceful or Mutually Enabling' Communities: Putting a New (Dialogical) Practice into Our Practices. Presidental Session on “In Search of the Meaning of Learning” at the International Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, 2000.
Spears, R., Lea, M. (1992) Social influence in CMC. In. Contexts in CMC. London Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society, Harvard UP, Cambridge
Wegerif, R. (1998) The Social Dimension of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1), 34-49.
Yates, S. (1997) Gender, Identity and CMC, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol 13, (4) 281-90.
Yates, S. (2001) Researching Internet Interaction, in Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. J. (eds) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage.