Moving Towards Engaging Online Pedagogical Communication: From Distance to Presence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v18.nse1.86-102Keywords:
from remote presence, socio-emotional aspects, connivance, social salienceAbstract
Socio-pedagogical communication is a crucial mechanism that holds a central place in teaching situations, particularly in distance learning. This trending form of teaching remains a vast field of research that must address real constraints. The distinctive feature of pedagogical communication intersecting with digital media is to shape the destiny of distance learning and counter the risk of dropout. Faced with new dimensions of the problem posed by distance and therefore absence, all current pedagogical mobilizations embrace the socio-affective aspect as an entry point to build a pedagogical presence. It is evident that a prominent social presence in distance learning promotes inclusive education. The reflections conducted by Daniel Peraya (2011), extending Geneviève's initial questioning (1993), emphasize the importance of the relational dimension in any online training system, as illustrated by works published in the journal 'Distances & Savoirs'. Thus, the notion of 'distance-absence', often perceived as a barrier, is gradually giving way to that of 'proximity-presence' (Jézégou, 2014). This transition invites us to examine the conditions for effective distance learning, particularly from the perspective of presence (Lafleur, 2017). Finally, the socio-affective function, which can be called 'online connivance', plays a key role in building pedagogical presence: a semio-didactic approach developed by Guichon (2017). How can the relationship between 'distance-absence' transform into a dynamic of 'proximity-presence' in distance learning systems? How does the consideration of the socio-affective aspect, particularly through the concept of 'pedagogical presence', contribute to reducing the risk of dropout? To what extent does online 'connivance', as described by Guichon (2017), constitute a determining lever for maintaining a significant educational relationship despite geographical distance?"
References
A.Jézégou. (2014). The eLearning Presence Model. Theoretical modeling at the service of practice, particularly in a university context. In G. Lameul, & C. (eds.), University pedagogy in the digital age. Questioning and Illuminating Research (pp. 112-120). Brussels: de boeck Supérieur.
A.Jézégou. (2019, December 11). Distance, proximity and presence in e-Training. In A. (ed.), Traité de la e-Formation des adultes (pp. 143-163). Brussels: De Boeck.
B.Blandin. (1999). Open and distance learning. State of play at the beginning of 1999. Actualité de la formation permanente, 160 , 18-28.
B. Charrier, & S. Lerner-Seï. (2011). Relationship to Time and Distance Learning: A Clinical Perspective. In Distances and Knowledge (Vol. 9), 419- 443.
C.Deaudelin, M.Petit, & L.Brouillette. (2016). Ensuring Teacher Presence in Distance Education: Research Results to Guide Practice in Higher Education. Umlaut, 44, 1-20.
C.Dede. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66-69.
C.Develotte, N.Guichon, & C.Vincent. (2010). The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desk-top videoconferencing environment. ReCALL, vol. 23, n° 3, 293-312.
C.Dussarps. (2015). Dropout in distance education. Retrieved from Distances and Mediations of Knowledge. 10, 1-54: http://journals.openedition.org/dms/1039
C.Kerbrat-Orecchioni. (1990). Verbal Interactions, Volume I. Paris: A. Colin.
C.Kiyitsioglou-Vlachou, & E.Moussouri. (2010). Sociolinguistic and didactic approach to the "distance" factor in the training of teachers of French as a foreign language: the case of the Hellenic Open University. Distances and Knowledge, 8(3), 475-488.
D.Peraya. (2014). Distance(s), proximity and presence(s): evolving concepts. Distance end Mediation Knowledge, n°8.
D.Peraya, B.Charlier, & N.Deschryver. (2014, University of Mons – Belgium). Hybrid systems in higher education: theoretical, methodological and practical issues. Education & Training Review, 20.
D.Peraya, B.Charlier, & N.Deschryver. (2014). Hybrid Arrangements in Higher Education: Theoretical, Methodological and Practical Issues. Revue Education et Formation, N° e-301, 20.
De.H.C.Chanay. (2011). The construction of ethos in online conversations. In C.Develotte, R.Kern, & M.-N. (eds.), Describing the Online Conversation. The remote face-to-face (pp. 145-172). Lyon: ENS Éditions.
E.M.Esch. (1995). Exploring the Concept of Distance for Language Learning . ReCALL, vol. 7,n° 1, 5-11.
E. Morin. (1977). The Method. The nature of nature. Paris: France: Seuil.
E. Morin. (1986). The Method. The knowledge of knowledge. Paris: France: Seuil.
E. Morin. (1990). Introduction to Complex Thinking. Paris: France: Seuil.
E.T.Hall. (1971). The Hidden Dimension. Paris: France: Points.
F.Lafleur. (2017). The conditions that promote the effectiveness of distance education: state of play in higher education. In F. L. (ed.), Distance learning and higher education (pp. 7-16). Quebec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
F.P.F.Delegate. (1991). A training course in which you are the hero. The former Eastern European countries: European colloquium on distance learning.
G.Deleuze. (1983). The Moving Image. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
G. Gavelle, and E. Master of Pembroke. (1999). Distance University Training: What Distances Are We Talking About? Studies in Applied Linguistics, 113, 105-112.
G.Kress, & Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images : The grammar of visual design. New York : Routledge.
G.N.Fisher. (2015). The Fundamental Concepts of Social Psychology. Paris: France: Dunod.
G.Salomon. (1999). Interaction of Media, Cognition and Learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
G.Siemens. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380-1400.
H.H.Clark, & S.E.Brennan. (1991). Grounding in communication. Dans L.B.Resnick, J.M.Levine, & S. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association.
J.Geneviève. (1977). Image and Pedagogy, Semiological Analysis of Didactic Films. Paris: Coll SUP L'Educateur, PUF.
J.Geneviève. (1993). Taming the distance and eliminating the absence, or the challenges of distance learning. Revue française de pédagogie, 102(102), 55-67.
J.Hattie, & H.Timperley. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Education Research, 77 (1), 81-112.
J.M.Weissberg. (1999). Présences à distance. Paris: L'Harmattan.
J.Pereira, O.Díaz, Ó., & j.Fernandez-Rodriguez. (2019). Chabot enhanced learning: A state-of-the-art review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 1-20.
J.Perriault. (1990, February). The logic of use, reverse analysis of innovation. La recherche, n°218, pp. 216-220.
J.Seale. (2013). E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice. london: Routledge.
J.Short, E.Williams, & B.Christie. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Londres: John Wiley & Sons.
K.J.Topping. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.
K.O'Regan. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 78-92.
L.R.Tropp, & T.F.Pettigrew. (2005). Differential Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Affective and Cognitive Dimensions of Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(8) , 1145–1158.
L.S.Vygotsky. (1987). Thought and Language. Revue française de pédagogie, 98-103.
M.Alexandre. (2020). The relational issue of presence in distance education . Le Réseau de L'Université de Québec, V.9,N 6, 1-2.
M.Alexandre, J.Bernatchez, & D.Amyot. (2020). The Didactic Process in Distance Education at the University: A Multimodal Practice Focused on Relationality. In F. Lafleur, & G. (eds.), Status Report on the Hybridity of Distance Education in a Postsecondary Context: What the Research Says (pp. 47-58). Quebec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
M.Linard. (1992, March/July). Close-up. Revue française de pédagogie (n° 1 et 2 ), 120-124.
M.Petit, C.Deaudelin, & L.Brouillette. (2015). Distance education attendance: guiding higher education practice through qualitative research results. Retrieved from Adjectif.net: http://www.adjectif.net/spip/spip.php?article338
N.Guichon. (2011). Training Future Online Language Teachers through Retrospection. Alsic, vol. 14, no. 1.
N.Guichon. (2012). Towards the integration of ICT in language teaching. Paris: Didier.
N.Guichon. (2013). A semio-didactic approach to the activity of the online language teacher: methodological reflections. Education and didactics. Vol.7, n°1, 101-116.
N.Guichon. (2015, January 31). A semio-didactic approach to the activity of the online language teacher: methodological reflections . Retrieved from Education and Didactics [Online], 7-1 | 2013:http://journals.openedition.org/educationdidactique/1679
N.Guichon. (2017). Building an online educational presence. Didier. Teaching Oral Online- A Multimodal Approach. ffhal-01577843, 29-58.
N.Guichon, & C.Cohen. (August 2014). The Impact of the Webcam on an Online L2 Interaction. La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 70(3), 331–354.
N. Guichon, & S. Drissi. (2008). Language tutoring by videoconference: how to train in pedagogical regulations. Les Cahiers de l'ACEDLE, vol. 5, n° 1 , 185-217.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: Amodel end seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education. 31 (2), 199-218.
P.Dessus. (2008). What is teaching? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for this activity? Revue française de pédagogie, 164, 139-158.
P.Lowenthal, & D.Mulder. (2017). Social presence and communication technologies. Dans A.L.Whiteside, A. Dikkers, & K. (dir.), Social Presence in Online learning. Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing.
P.Perrin. (1992). Teleconferencing: services in the making. Plural Communication, 26-38.
P.Rabardel. (1995). Men and Technologies – A Cognitive Approach to Contemporary Instruments. Paris: Armand Colin.
P-A. Bernatchez. (2001). Proactive attitude, participation and collaboration in computer-mediated coaching activities. Montreal: domain_stic.educ. University of Montreal, French.
R.E.Mayer. (2009). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge : University Press.
R.M.Ryan, & E.L.Deci. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 68-78.
S.Ayachi-Ghannouchi, & L.Cheniti-Belcadhi. (2007). Tutoring experience in the context of distance learning. Distances and Knowledge. 4 vol. 5, 547-557.
S.Burgslahler. (2015). Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
S.Deterding, D.Dixon, R.Khaled, & L.Nacke. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". Proceeding of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference:Envisioning Future Media Environnements.
S.Drissi. (2011). Learning to teach by videoconference: a study of pedagogical interactions between future teachers and learners of French as a Foreign Language Thesis . Lyon: École Normale Supérieure de Lyon.
S.Hrastinki. (2008). Asynchronous and Synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31 (4), 51-55.
S.M.Brookhart. (2008). How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students. ASCD.
SOFRES. (1991). Survey of adults in training at the CNAM? an CNED in the distance education network at the National Education.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication &Information, 23-49.
T.Anderson, & D.R.Garrison. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practie. Routledge/Falmer.
T.H.Lamy. (1985). Telematics, a Collaborative Tool. Knowledge at home, 302-328.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Btissam Chinkhir, Marwan Serrar, Ahmed Ibrahimi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The BRAJETS follows the policy for Open Access Journals, provides immediate and free access to its content, following the principle that making scientific knowledge freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge and provides more international democratization of knowledge. Therefore, no fees apply, whether for submission, evaluation, publication, viewing or downloading of articles. In this sense, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms: A) The authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), allowing the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal. B) Authors are authorized to distribute non-exclusively the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publish in the institutional and non-institutional repository, as well as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal. C) Authors are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg, online repositories or on their personal page), as well as to increase the impact and citation of the published work.