is there a mobile social presence?
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries]On: 21 December 2014, At: 00:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Media InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/remi20
Is there a mobile social presence?Chih-Hsiung Tu a , Marina McIsaac b , Laura Sujo-Montes a &Shadow Armfield aa Educational Technology, Northern Arizona University , Flagstaff ,Arizona , USAb Arizona State University , Tempe , Arizona , USAPublished online: 20 Nov 2012.
To cite this article: Chih-Hsiung Tu , Marina McIsaac , Laura Sujo-Montes & Shadow Armfield(2012) Is there a mobile social presence?, Educational Media International, 49:4, 247-261, DOI:10.1080/09523987.2012.741195
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.741195
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Is there a mobile social presence?
Chih-Hsiung Tua*, Marina McIsaacb, Laura Sujo-Montesa and Shadow Armfielda
aEducational Technology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA; bArizonaState University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
(Received 5 July 2012; final version received 2 October 2012)
Mobile learning environments are human networks that afford the opportunityto participate in creative endeavors, social networking, organize/reorganizesocial contents, and manage social acts at anytime, anywhere through mobiletechnologies. Social acts that elicit identities, develop awareness, cement rela-tionships, ensure connections, and promote interactions are necessary for interac-tive learning. This study was to understand mobile social presence and how itinfluences social interaction and relates to online and network social presences.It concluded that mobile social presence is similar to virtual social presence in away; however, it is different from online and network social presences in theaspects of personalized control, and location-free digital interaction. Mobilesocial presence is defined as the degree of enriching social context-awareness,managing location-based communication, personalized multi-layered interactiv-ity, and optimized digital and social identities to other intellectuals throughdigital mobile technologies.
Keywords: online social presence; mobile social presence; context-awareness;location-based technology
Introduction
With the pervasion of digital technologies, online educators research the ways toenhance online and network social presences to support physical social presence.Mobile devices are highly personal, portable, easily distributable, connective, con-text-sensitive, and have the potential to be the pedagogically complementaryresources in education (Kim et al., 2011; Schofield, West, & Taylor, 2011). Digitalmobile technology exhibits a high penetration rate from day to day to learning con-text; therefore, researchers ask whether there is a mobile social presence. If there is,is it the same or different from physical, online, and network social presences?Physical social presence is considered paramount. As virtual social presences,online and network social presences tend to imitate to enhance, to replicate, or toreplace physical social presence. Therefore, physical social presence and virtualsocial presences grow apart as two different entities. Is mobile social presence simi-lar to virtual social presence to imitate physical social presence?
Social interaction with mobile technology is very different from Computer Med-iated Communication (CMC) or Web 2.0 networking technologies. Researchers(Koole, McQuilkin, & Ally, 2010) are aware of mobile technology and that through
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Educational Media InternationalVol. 49, No. 4, December 2012, 247–261
ISSN 0952-3987 print/ISSN 1469-5790 online� 2012 International Council for Educational Mediahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.741195http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
human interaction on mobile technology both the user and the technology areshaping each other. Mobile technology connects learners virtually at anytime andanywhere while mobile learners utilize it in fairly nontraditional ways to interactwith each other (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2007). Research has shown thatmobile technology has impacted human social relationships (Jones & Issroff, 2007)and interaction both positively and negatively (Rau, Gao, & Wu, 2008).
Mobile learning environments are human networks that afford learners theopportunity to participate in creative endeavors, social networking, organize socialcontents, reorganize social contents, learner-created cognitive space (Cornelius &Marston, 2009), and manage social acts at anytime and anywhere through mobiletechnologies. Social acts that elicit identities, develop awareness (Kekwaletswe,2007), cement relationships, ensure connections, and promote interactions betweenand among learners are necessary for interactive learning. Mobile social presence isentrenched in sociocultural learning theory (Driscoll, 2000). The aim of a sociocul-tural approach (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999) is to comprehend the develop-mental processes involved in rituals (activities), at the level of individuals(identities), social (interpersonal), and cultural (community) processes. To obtain acomprehensive understanding of mobile social presence, one should examine acommunity from the existing aspect of online social presence and network socialpresence by evaluating interpersonal actions.
While it is unclear that there is mobile social presence, there is not a clear defi-nition of mobile social presence. Understanding of mobile social presence throughresearch, leading to development of clear guidelines, must occur to allow soundinstructional design to support mobile learning environments. The current mobilelearning literature focuses on mobile technologies (Schofield et al., 2011; Traxler,2010) rather than on social interaction that mobile technology may afford.
The purpose of this study was to understand mobile social presence and how itinfluences online interaction and relates to online social presence and network socialpresence. Research questions are:
• Is mobile social presence the same or different from online social presenceand network social presence?
• Do social relationships affect mobile interaction?• How does communication impact interaction on mobile technology?• Does the use of mobile technology intensify social interaction among mobilelearners?
• Do issues of privacy influence mobile social interaction?
Virtual social presences
Researchers applied physical social presence to understanding virtual social pres-ence. Logically, researchers applied face-to-face human communication to under-stand online social presence in CMC setting while employing online social presenceto comprehend network social presence in social media, Web 2.0, and networklearning environments. Rationally, it is necessary to comprehend mobile socialpresence by applying virtual social presences since mobile learning environmentsfundamentally can achieve types of online and network interactions.
Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) defined presence as the ability of partici-pants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as
248 C.-H. Tu et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
real people through the medium of communication being used. More explicitly, Tuand McIsaac (2002) concluded that online social presence denotes the degree offeeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectualentity through electronic media. Online social presence consists of four dimensions:social context, online community, interactivity, and privacy. Social context describesthe social feelings and experiences of learners toward the CMC environment.Online communication represents the learners’ perception of the use and attributesof online communication technology. Interactivity consists of active communicationand learning activities conducted by learners, and their communication styles.Privacy refers to how confidently learners perceive online security.
Network social presence is defined as the degree that network participantsengage in creating, maintaining, sharing, connecting social content, digital andsocial identities, network linkages, and collaborative community (Tu, Yen, Blocher,and Chan, 2012). Online social presence focuses on a “dialogue” type of socialinteraction while network social presence converges social interactions into theforms of: creating, editing, and remixing social content; building digital and socialidentities; networking resources, people, and tools; and collaborative community.Learners may adjust their level of “online” social presence according to theirfeelings, perceptions, and reactions throughout the learning process in CMC whilenetwork interaction engage learners in different and multiple social media.
Online and network social presences could be a critical factor to the understand-ing of social interaction in mobile learning environments. Although Shin and Lowes(2008) preliminarily concluded that active network users did not demonstrate highersocial presence in online discussion, Boulos and Wheelert (2007) and Dunlap andLowenthal (2009) argued that social network technologies would positively relate toonline immediacy and presence. Online and network social presences should not beoverlooked when one ponders integrating mobile learning environments to improvesociocultural learning. It is notable that mobile learners may be able to exhibit mul-tiple levels of social presence in temporal, spatial, and location-free interactions;therefore, mobile social interactions have the potential to be more dynamic, compli-cated, and personalized to support learning environments. It, virtually, lacks any lit-erature or studies to understand mobile social presence.
Mobile social interaction
Mobile social interaction can be examined from social, communication, and net-work aspects to understand its unique entities.
Social
From a social aspect, mobile interaction refers to the social mobile interactions inwhich learners are engaged. These mobile social interactions frequently refer tosocial networking with other learners by sharing social content to build positivesocial relationships (Conole & Culver, 2010). Therefore, these learners becomemobile social network learners. Mobile social networking is the fast-growing mobileapplication (Pimmer, Linxen, & Grohbiel, 2012). Social network platforms areattracting increasing amounts of network interaction. They are becoming portals,transit hubs, and cloud storage for increasing amounts of messages and email com-munications, audios, videos, photos, and games. Building digital social relationshipsis not limited to desktop or laptop computers. With mobile technologies and
Educational Media International 249
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
applications, digital learners build social relationships by communicating, creating,and sharing various social messages, contents, resources, and reflections. Manyapplications have the capability to impose additional layers of social interaction,such as location-based interaction, to existing digital social relationships to enrichthe social context and awareness.
Communication
From a communication aspect, mobile interaction refers to learners engaged in mul-tiple mobile communication channels rather than single channels or fixed locations.Mobile communication channels include mobile instant messaging, mobile email,and mobile multimedia. It allows learners to communicate with others via multime-dia formats at anytime and anywhere, rather than being location bound. Mobilecommunication is not limited to mobile phone calls. With applications, mobilelearners can interact with others via multiple channels (Andone, Dron, Pemberton,& Boyne, 2007), short message service (SMS), Skype, Twitter, etc. In fact, thesenew communication channels disrupt traditional communication methods. Mobilelearners are constantly connected and communicating with each other and, there-fore, have instant connectedness and awareness.
Mobile devices have begun to drive the mainstream adoption of mobile email asextensions to existing email communication. Traditionally, email communication islocation bound because users are required to access desktop or laptop computers.With the capability of communicating via mobile email, mobile learners are able tocommunicate ubiquitously to enrich communication context by eliminating the spa-tial and temporal constraints of computers. Frequently, mobile email applicationsallow users to personalize and manage their multiple email accounts and settings totransform their mobile devices into the gateway to personal learning environments.
Beyond text communication, mobile devices are capable of capturing, creating,and sharing multimedia communication messages, content, and resources. Mobiledevices with audio and video capturing and delivering capabilities advance mobilelearners from multimedia communication consumers into multimedia communicationcreators. More specifically, mobile devices with cameras advance multimedia com-munication to instant multimedia communication and collaboration from one-to-oneto many-to-many communication modes such as FaceTime, Google Hangout, etc.
Network
The network aspect of mobile interaction refers to networking technologies thathave the capability to connect people, content, and technologies through multiplelayers that can be overlapped to create context-rich learning environments. Thesenetwork technologies range from location-based technology, mobile network search,and context-aware interaction to object recognition.
Location-based technology or geo-location technology is one of the main ena-blers to enrich the context of social interaction (Fitzgerald, 2012) by adding thephysical location information to existing personal preference, digital identities,digital networks, digital collaborations, and interactions. In other words, mobilesocial interaction is no longer a single dimension or layer. Integrating location-basedtechnology into existing mobile social interaction could lead to innovative location-based learning.
250 C.-H. Tu et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Accessing mobile network content and resources becomes more meaningful andauthentic to mobile learners. Mobile learners can take actions to access digital net-works based on their needs for content and resources. Not just allowing access tocontent and resources immediately in a short time span, also they can search resultsthat would return just in time and with just enough content and resources.
Context-aware service/learning
Context-aware applications (Chen & Huang, 2012) provide improved learner experi-ences by using the information about a person’s interests, intentions, history, envi-ronment, activities, schedule, priorities, connections, and preferences to anticipatetheir needs and proactively serve up the most appropriate content, product, or ser-vice. Mobile technologies collapse multiple layers of interactions to provideexpanded location services to include, among other items, directory assistance, map-ping, and privacy controls. For example, in a museum, mobile learners are able toaccess exhibition and artwork information with visual and social information fromthe museum visitors information sources to enhance social navigation and learningat the museum (Charitonos, Blake, Scanlon, & Jones, 2012). Mobile learners canachieve different levels of mobile social interaction with such multi-layers of socialinteraction. More specifically, multi-layers of social interactions would enhanceOnline Community of Practice (Harasim, 2012) to provide more specific learningcontext and awareness. The learning context is related to context-aware learning.
Augmented reality (AR) is a live, direct or indirect, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented by computer-generated sensoryinput to recognize the mobile users’ surroundings and to input such elements assound, video, graphics, or global positioning system (GPS) data. This feature gener-ally is found in other computing equipment. Even so, they may not be portableenough to be used in the field. Mobile users will rely on the cameras or device sen-sors as communication tools when AR capabilities are combined with different lay-ers of information, content, and resources for any communication and learningpurpose (De Lucia, Francese, Passero, & Tortora, 2012). Many mobile applicationshave an embedded AR feature while some applications specifically focus on AR fea-tures. For example, at a historical site, mobile learners can use mobile devices to aimat certain locations or structures to obtain multi-layers of information about the loca-tions or structures (Griggs, 2011), such as audio and video guides, historical photosshowing the progression or evolution of the sites, locations, or structures. Addition-ally, a rich AR interaction may even include a social layer of interaction, such asother mobile learners’ shared contents, resources, thoughts, and reflections. Wikitudeapp and many museum AR applications are good examples of AR integration.
Method
Using a dramaturgical approach with qualitative methods an understanding of theparticipants’ experiences and perceptions of mobile social presence through amobile interaction were ascertained. The sociology of everyday life sees the actionsof human beings as the outcome of a process in which meanings constructed duringeveryday social interaction are used as the basis for individual action. Dramaturgyis a theatrical metaphor that is used to understand social interaction. Goffman(1959) contended that humans construct their self-presentations and carry them offin front of others. He suggested that dramaturgy is an intentional motive behind the
Educational Media International 251
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
planning and execution of human performances that are accomplished with an eyetoward presenting to others the best impression of themselves. Goffman called this“impression management.”
Study participants
Participant observation method with dramaturgy perspective (Goffman, 1959) wasused to understand the issues of social presence in mobile technology from the par-ticipants’ point of view. Fourteen students enrolled in a graduate level course, werethe subjects. Nine participants were female. Blackboard Learn, a computer confer-encing system providing email, bulletin board, real-time chat functions, mobileapplications, wiki, blog, Gmail, Google Docs, Twitter, Facebook page, Delicious, asocial bookmarking tool, Prezi, and VoiceThread were used for class instructionalcommunication and activities. All participants have an access to either or bothsmartphones or tablets. If the participants did have access to any mobile devices,they were able to check out an iPad from the course; therefore, the participants tomobile devices were in 1:1 ratio. All 14 participants had access to tablets or iPadswhile 10 participants had their own smartphones.
In the beginning of the class, the participants were instructed to download andto access various mobile applications to their mobile devices, such as email, Black-board Learn, Twitter, blogs, Google Docs/Drive, etc. The participants were alsoencouraged to add any additional mobile applications to support their learning.
Data collection
The data were collected through casual conversation, in-depth interview, directobservation, and document analysis. The casual conversations were conductedbetween the researcher and participants in different settings, the researcher’s office,the classroom, technology labs, and any convenient location. The questions werecasual, free flowing, and unencumbered by preconceptions of how the topics werediscussed. It was possible to capture information systematically through casual con-versation. Observations were conducted in the classrooms, the computer laborato-ries, the instructor’s office, and through mobile asynchronous and synchronous classdiscussions and demonstrations.
Table 1. Social presence coding criteria.
Category Descriptions Codes Sub-codes examples
Social context The social feelings and experiences oflearners toward the mobile learningenvironment
SC Control; Socialcontext-awareness
Communication The learners’ perception of the use andattributes of mobile communicationtechnology
C Management;Location-basedcommunication
Interactivity Consists of active communication andlearning activities conducted by learners,and their communication styles
I Personalized multi-layered interactivity
Privacy How confident learners perceive security P Optimized digital/social identity
252 C.-H. Tu et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
At the 12th week of the semester, eight semi-structured in-depth interviews wereconducted with eight participants. Document analysis included all communicationcorrespondences delivered on email, Blackboard Learn, outside email received by theinstructors, communication on Twitter, Facebook Page, and screenshots of applica-tions on mobile devices. The analysis began after some of the data had been acquiredwhich gave the researcher a better idea of where to focus further data collection. Thishelped to develop interview questions and decide which students to interview.
Data analysis
Two coders coded the descriptive data set independently based by utilizing criteriafor the four dimensions of online social presence (see Table 1). Orientation was pro-vided to both coders and included: (a) explanations of the coding process; (b) writ-ten coding rules and guidelines; (c) examples and nonexamples; and (d) practicewith sample data. Discussions acquainted them with the particularities of the codingscheme and to reach mutual agreement about the coding category to be selected.Both coders compared their results. When discrepancy occurred, both codersdiscussed and justified their codes until consensus was reached.
Result
This study concluded that there is a mobile social presence. Mobile social presenceis similar to online and network social presences but is different from online andnetwork social presences in the aspects of personalized control, and location-freedigital interaction. In a way, mobile social presence is engendered by the broaderalso the finer degrees of mobile social interaction. In other words, mobile socialpresence covers a wider range of social interaction than online and network socialpresences. What social interaction occurred in online or network social presencecould be found in mobile social presence; but certain mobile social interactions areunable to achieve by online or network social presence. Mobile social presence isdefined as the degree of enriching social context-awareness, managing location-based communication, personalized multi-layered interactivity, and optimized digitalsocial identities to other intelligents through digital mobile technologies.
Mobile technology empowers learners to take more personal control on theirmobile social presence. Learners are connected constantly and allowed to decidehow, when, and in what way that they prefer to interact with others; therefore,mobile social presence empowers the learners more when compared to online andnetwork social presences. In fact, both online and network social presences couldbe more challenging to project if access to computers is lacking, compared tomobile social presence because of the distinguished mobilizing characteristics ofmobile technologies.
Discussion
The context-richer type of interactions and communication sustains mobile socialpresence. Mobile social presence is different from and similar to online and networksocial presence in four dimensions of social presence. One female participant, age36, indicated that mobile technology allows them to “fill in” the interaction thatonline and network technologies cannot. For example, learners can interact with
Educational Media International 253
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
others on mobile technology to generate mobile social presence in kitchens, doctor’soffice, while on the go, and anywhere away from their desktop or laptop computers.
Social context
Mobile social presence can be engaging but withdrawing in digital social relation-ships in digital communication control, expectations, and conflict with real-worldrelationships. Digital social relationships are built in unique ways with mobiletechnology. The participants denoted that they could build social relationships byconstantly monitoring the social interaction on their mobile devices rather thanactually communicating with others. They are aware of, connected to socialinteraction, and can determine and control how, when, and in what way to inter-act with others.
The right expectation of digital communication to sustain social relationships iscritical. If one responds to mobile communication immediately, the other partieswould expect the same in the future. Unlike online and network technologies, peo-ple understand others must have access to the computers; otherwise, they wouldhave little or no online or network social presence since people understand emailand bulletin board discussions are asynchronous while real-time chat is synchro-nous. With mobile technology, mobile learners, in fact, can control the use of anasynchronous tool for synchronous methods or vice versa. The example would bethat people trade email in real time. The participants indicated that knowing others’mobile communication expectation is very critical so it would not impose any nega-tive impact on social relationships. One female participant in her mid-twentiesexpressed that with right mobile communication expectations, she is able to buildmore context-rich and positive relationships. She indicated that she and her groupmembers were aware of the situations in using SMS, Twitter, and email. In urgentneed, SMS or Twitter is applied to communicate. If one has not responded to theSMS or Twitter in a timely fashion, the person probably was unable to respondimmediately. When in need of a more comprehensive communication, email isused. Generally, her group has responded to email within a 24 h time span.
With right expectations and effective control in mobile communication, mobilesocial relationships could be engaging. When it is not utilized appropriately, it couldcreate negative impacts and withdrawing effects. One male participant in his lateforties indicated that using mobile technology at face to face (FTF) meetings couldcreate the withdrawing feeling for others because people check and use their mobiletechnologies frequently during the meetings. He called it “cellular phone prayers”because the users constantly look down and work on their mobile devices and hefelt it demonstrated disrespect to the meeting attendants.
Just in time, just enough
Communication
Mobile social presence, in fact, is not generated unless the learners take effectivecontrol of mobile technology. It may result in negative social presence if one doesnot take control on the mobile communication management. CMC on computersprovides less control to learners unless they have access to computers. If one cannotaccess the computers at certain times or circumstances, one’s online social presence
254 C.-H. Tu et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
is very minimal. On the positive side, mobile technology provides more and widerchoices of communication channels, such as just-in-enough, just-in-time, bite-size,and immediate two-way communication. Two participants indicated that they com-municate with themselves, such as using SMS to text themselves as reminders andto-do lists, etc. One female in her mid-thirties denoted she communicates with Siri,the intelligent personal assistant available on selected iPhones, to compost email, tocreate to-do, and reminder with GPS feature for her group collaboration to remindher when to arrive at the office, home, and other locations. Without effective controlon mobile technology, one’s mobile social presence could be lower. In fact, threeparticipants indicated that they feel they were obligated to respond to the incomingemails, SMS, Twitter, Facebook feeds, Face Time, or phone calls. If they do not,they feel stressful. In fact, all three expressed that they felt embarrassed when theirmobile device notification sound goes off while talking to others, or attendingmeetings. Although each communication channel has its own stereotype method tocommunicate, such as answering phone calls immediately, responding to emailsasynchronously, etc., three participants indicated they did not always follow the ste-reotype of communication methods to interact with others. Instead, they indicatedthey respond to incoming communications depending on their contexts with variousmobile applications, such as using email for synchronous, using SMS to capturetheir flash thoughts and learning reflections, and share it with others, etc. In otherwords, if users follow the stereotype communication methods, their online andmobile social presences are limited. By taking effective control of communicationtools, mobile social presence can be enhanced positively.
Interactivity
Does the use of mobile technology intensify social interaction among mobile learners?The learners project their online, network, and mobile social presences by man-
aging their idealized interactivity, making frequent interactions, and engaging in dif-ferent types of interactivity. Five participants indicated that they like to stayconnected constantly on their mobile devices so they can maintain minimum onlinesocial presence. When they need to engage more, they can immediately react togenerate higher network and mobile social presences because such idealized interac-tivity provides better and richer understanding for them on the context to communi-cate. One female participant said “I don’t need to be in constant e-mail contact withothers to stay in touch. Whenever necessary, I do contact them but not necessarilyusing e-mail.” Learners can engage at anytime and anywhere to project their idealsocial presence. One female participant also indicated that she uses a mobile deviceto “stay on the alert” and “to monitor communication interaction.” Another partici-pant agreed that “just in case something changes” she can react. This unfolds theperception behind the “stay on alert.” It enriches social context when ready to inter-act, they can have interactions with others via mobile devices. Mobile learners areempowered to manage and to control their interactivity based on their circumstance.Within online or network social presence, learners may be obligated to interactbecause they make an extra effort and arrange to access desktop or laptop comput-ers; therefore, they feel they are obligated to interact. Otherwise, they may not havea chance to do so.
Frequency of interactivity, two participants checked their mobile devices almostevery 7–8min, four participants checked when they were away from the computers,
Educational Media International 255
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
while one participant indicated that he rarely uses it and even if he does, it isprimarily for phone calls. One male participant in his early thirties expressed thathe checks his phone frequently even when working computers. In fact, he indicatedthat he displays his iPad next to his computer monitor another display device whileworking on the desktop computer. When he leaves his computer, he carries andchecks his phone in the kitchen, even while eating meals, etc.
Types of interactivity for mobile and network social presences are more diversethan online social presence. More additional interactivity does not replace comput-ers. The participants noted their interactivity on mobile devices are more than justemail, chat, text-based communication or phone calls, rather they “Like” others’postings on social network sites, post blog entries, tweet/retweet, create, share, andorganize text and multimedia content (photos, video, etc.). They collaborate onmobile devices. One expressed that her group utilized musical production applica-tions, Garage Band, on iPads to create music collaboratively for the class presenta-tion. Additionally, her three-female group collaborated their group presentation onPrezi on their iPads. She continued, explaining that when her group met in person,they have accomplished a lot already. Using mobile technology, the “in-personmeeting” was more meaningful and used to focus on something they could notaccomplish via mobile technologies and her group felt they had high level ofonline, network, and mobile social presences.
Privacy
Mobile privacy does not come automatically unless learners actively manage it fortheir digital social identities and digital cognition footprints. All participantsstrongly agree that they have high digital mobile identities by using mobile devicesto communicate with others. In fact, they also expressed their digital identities weremore social due to the fact that they have a stronger sense of social awareness andconnectedness. When discussing mobile privacy, the participants described a widerange of perceptions, from “I don’t communicate anything too personal on iPad” to“I give up my mobile privacy in exchange for the convenience.” All mobile con-tents and communications are transmitted wirelessly. Mobile privacy requires thatlearners have an accurate understanding of how wireless technology works.
Implications
This study is the initial step in understanding the complicated relationships amongonline, network, and mobile social presences. One must remember that social mediaare not inherently social (Siemen & Cormier, 2009). Media are social only when anindividual can perceive its use to interact with others. Although mobile technologieshold the promise and the potential to facilitate effective interactions, the true answeralways lies in how human uses mobile technologies. Online social presence inCMC is critical to distributed learning. Educators should advance their learning par-adigm from online social interaction in CMC to network social interaction to pro-mote “network social presence” and to mobile interaction to promote “mobile socialpresence” in addition to online social presence.
Online social presence should be transformed to network and mobile socialpresences to reflect the open, social, and networking dynamic in mobile learning.Positive mobile social presence does not indicate that learners should interact
256 C.-H. Tu et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
constantly. Positive and healthy mobile social presence should empower learners tomake better decisions to determine when, where, how, in what way, and with whatmeans to engage in better social interaction with other network learners. Positivemobile presence requires learners to analyze their social and mobile contexts toobtain appropriate understanding of what current social interactions are and todetermine how they should engage in these social interactions.
Distinctly, mobile social presence is different from online social presence andnetwork social presence in the aspects of control, context-awareness, multi-layers,and location-free digital interactions. How are online, network, and mobile socialpresences related to one another? Could it be that mobile social presence encom-passes both online and network social presences (see Figure 1)? Mobile technologyaffords wider and more diversified social interactions and empowers learners to takedetailed control of their mobile social presence. Learners are connected constantlyand allowed to decide how, when, and in what way they prefer to interact with oth-ers; therefore, mobile technology has a greater potential to empower learners to gen-erate higher levels of social presence compared to online or network socialpresences. In fact, from a context-awareness aspect, online social presence and net-work social presence are more difficult to project when compared to mobile socialpresence. Learners can interact with others on mobile technology to generate mobilesocial presence in museums, fields, parks, outdoors, and anywhere away from theirdesktop or laptop computers. Additionally, mobile social presence generates con-text-richer type of interaction and communication. Like online and network socialpresence, mobile social presence does not occur without strategic planning anddesigns. Simply providing learners with mobile devices does not result in an ideal
Figure 1. Online, network, and mobile social presences.
Educational Media International 257
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
level of mobile social presence. In fact, inadequate integration of mobile technologyfor learning may result in low and negative interaction and generate low mobilesocial presence.
How mobile social presence is related to physical social presence? Physicalsocial presence has always been considered paramount; therefore, in the past, edu-cators replicated physical social presence by enhancing virtual social presences suchas online and network social presences. Physical and virtual social presencesbecome two separately distinguished entities. In other words, virtual socialpresences are always the second best to physical ones. With mobile technology’sdistinguished features, mobile social presence might be a true entity to espouse andto fuse physical and virtual social presences or even encompass both (see http://
tinyurl.com/967pvsb or . Mobile social presence truly advances and extends
human’s physical presence because multiple context-awareness, location-based com-munication, multi-layered interactivity, and dynamic digital social identities cannotbe achieved by physical social presence. It should be denoted that mobile socialpresence is not necessarily higher than physical, online, or network social pres-ences; however, it holds great capacities and capabilities to empower mobile learn-ers. In early integration with mobile technologies, it is not uncommon thateducators used mobile technologies to replicate physical, online, or network socialinteraction to enhance mobile social presences. Educators should go beyond mobiletechnology rather than focusing on innovative and evolutional instructional strate-gies to truly advance and expand human capabilities for interactive learning. Effec-tive mobile learning does not come by default when using mobile technology.Effective personal control and management is essential; otherwise, it may producenegative results. It is not just the matter of which mobile technologies we have; itis about how we use them innovatively. Innovative mobile interaction does notexclude how learners have been interacting with others (see Table 2). In fact, it isthe innovative mobile social interaction that derives from and aggregates multipledimensions and layers of social interactions to empower human learning. In otherwords, mobile interaction can be scaled from FTF communication, to email, to cre-ating learning resources, and to multi-dimensional and layered communication.
A model for building mobile social presence
A model for building mobile social presence (Figure 2) is proposed to assist educa-tors in designing effective mobile learning strategies to enhance the mobile socialpresence of learners and instructors. The model consists of four dimensions:enriching social context-awareness; managing location-based communication; per-sonalizing multi-layered interactivity; and optimizing digital and social identities.Under each of these dimensions, there are a few suggested strategies that will assist
Table 2. Innovate mobile social presence.
Social presence Interaction
Mobile Personal control; Context-awareness; Location-based; Augmented realityNetwork Create; Edit; ShareOnline Email; Discussion board; ChatPhysical FTF; Phone call; SMS
258 C.-H. Tu et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
educators to integrate them into their instructions to enhance the mobile social pres-ence of learners.
Enriching social context-awareness:
• Building context-rich social relationships.• Linking instantaneous social connectedness.• Engaging in mobile etiquette.
Managing location-based communication:
• Establishing appropriate mobile communication expectations.• Dimensionalizing location-based communication.• Employing wider and more diversified ranges of social interactions.
Personalizing multi-layered interactivity:
• Creating and sharing social content.
Figure 2. Model for building mobile social presence.
Educational Media International 259
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
• Collaborating ubiquitous social interaction.• Bridging Spatial, temporal, and locale interaction (Augmented reality).
Optimizing digital and social identities:
• Illustrating digital identities.• Projecting ideal mobile social identities.• Securing self-awareness mobile privacy.
Conclusion
Mobile technology as an emerging technology holds promise to enhance humaninteraction and learning. Mobile technology may be instant on, ubiquitous, conve-nient, easy, fast, and powerful; however, if we take mobile technology to replicatewhat we interact, mobile interaction would be always a second best to FTF interac-tion. It would be just like using a computer as a typewriter or using mobile devices torespond to email as our convenience. In such a case, the emerging technology maywell become inferior in comparing it to the traditional ones. Doing tasks faster, easier,or more conveniently is an “improvement” for learning. As educators in facingmobile technology as an emerging technology, we should aim on “Innovative” and“Revolutionary” mobile learning integrations. We should do what humans could dowith mobile technology and what humans could not do without mobile technology.
ReferencesAndone, D., Dron, J., Pemberton, L., & Boyne, C. (2007). E-Learning environments for dig-
itally-minded students. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(1), 41–53.Boulos, M.N.K., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling
suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Informationand Libraries Journal, 24, 2–23.
Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012). Museum learning via social andmobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the visitor experience? Brit-ish Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 802–819.
Chen, C.-C., & Huang, T.-C. (2012). Learning in a u-museum: Developing a context-awareubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 59(3), 873–883.
Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2010). The design of cloudworks: Applying social networkingpractice to foster the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs. Computers &Education, 54(3), 679–692.
Cornelius, S., & Marston, P. (2009). Toward an understanding of the virtual context inmobile learning. Research in Learning Technology, 17(3), 161–172.
De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2012). A Collaborative augmentedcampus based on location-aware mobile technology. International Journal of DistanceEducation Technologies, 10(1), 55–73.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunlap, J.C., & Lowenthal, P.R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using twitter to enhancesocial presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–135.
Fitzgerald, E. (2012). Creating user-generated content for location-based learning: An author-ing framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 195–207.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environ-ment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
260 C.-H. Tu et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock, NY: OverlookPress.
Griggs, K. (2011). Geotagging digital collections: BeaverTracks mobile project. Computersin Libraries, 31(2), 16–20.
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. New York, NY: Routledge.Jonassen, D.H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing
constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development,47, 61–79.
Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2007). Motivation and mobile devices: Exploring the role appropri-ation and coping strategies. Research in Learning Technology, 15(3), 247–258.
Kekwaletswe, R.M. (2007). Social presence awareness for knowledge transformation in amobile learning environment. International Journal of Education and Development usingInformation and Communication Technology, 3(4), 102–109.
Kim, P., Hagashi, T., Carillo, L., Gonzales, I., Makany, T., Lee, B., & Ga‘rate, A. (2011).Socioeconomic strata, mobile technology, and education: A comparative analysis. Educa-tional Technology Research & Development, 59, 465–486.
Koole, M., McQuilkin, J.L., & Ally, M. (2010). Mobile learning in distance education: Util-ity or futility? Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 59–82.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2007). Learning design with mobile and wireless tech-nologies. In Helen Beetham & Rhona Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digitalage: Designing and delivering E-learning (pp. 180–192). Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/9541/
Pimmer, C., Linxen, S., & Grohbiel, U. (2012). Facebook as a learning tool? A case studyon the appropriation of social network sites from mobile phones in developing countriesBritish Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 726–738.
Rau, P.-L.P., Gao, Q., & Wu, L.-M. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in highschool education: Motivation, pressure, and learning performance. Computers and Edu-cation, 50(1), 1–22.
Schofield, C. P., West, T., & Taylor, E. (2011). Going mobile in executive education: Howmobile technologies are changing the executive learning landscape (No. Research for UNI-CON). Hertfordshire: Ashridge & UNICON. Retrieved from http://www.uniconexed.org/2011/research/UNICON-Going_Mobile_In_Executive_Education-Schofield-Taylor-West-Nov-2011.pdf
Shin, W., & Lowes, S. (2008). Analyzing Web 2.0 users in an online discussion forum. Pro-ceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommu-nications 2008 (pp. 1130–1137). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2009). Social media: Trends and implications for learning.Retrieved from http://aace.org/GlobalU/seminars/socialmedia/.
Traxler, J. (2010). Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock.Distance education, 31(2), 129–138.
Tu, C.H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase interactionin online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
Tu, C.H., Yen, C.-J., Blocher, J.M., & Chan, J.-Y. (2012). A study of the predictive relation-ship between online social presence and ONLE interaction. International Journal ofDistance Education Technologies, 10(3), 53–66.
Educational Media International 261
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
at B
ould
er L
ibra
ries
] at
00:
39 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014