Social Presence in Online Learning: Multiple Perspectives on Practice and Research 2016055651, 2017019966, 9781620365106, 9781620365113, 9781620365083, 9781620365090

Citation preview

“Social presence is widely recognized as an important strategy in developing online and blended learning environments. The high-quality research and practical applications explored in this book inform educators and ensure that social presence is well understood. My congratulations to the authors for illuminating the intricacies and nuances of this critical pedagogical approach.”

—Anthony G. Picciano, Professor and Executive Officer of the PhD Program in Urban Education, Graduate Center of the City University of New York and Hunter College; Founding Member of the Online Learning Consortium Board of Directors

“The editors of this book are leaders in the field, and this thoughtfully crafted collection of research and best practices related to social presence is impressive. These scholars, along with the distinguished authors of the chapters, have presented compelling guidance that bolsters this foundation of online learning. I strongly encourage educators to explore the insights shared in this extraordinary volume to inform their practice to the ultimate benefit of faculty and students.”

—Eric E. Fredericksen, Associate Vice President for Online Learning and Associate Professor in Educational Leadership, University of Rochester; and Vice President of the Board of Directors for the Online Learning Consortium

D

escribed as the degree to which online participants feel connected to one another, social presence is a key factor for successful online and blended learning experiences. This book presents key findings from the research on social presence, with its critical connections to community-

building, retention, and learning outcomes, and provides practical strategies to enable faculty and instructional designers to better support and engage students in online and blended learning courses.

ABOUT THE EDITORS Aimee L. Whiteside is an associate professor at the University of Tampa in Tampa, Florida. Amy Garrett Dikkers is an associate professor in educational leadership at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Karen Swan is the Stukel Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

Cover designed by Kathleen Dyson

HIGHER EDUCATION / COLLEGE EDUCATION / ONLINE & DISTANCE LEARNING

Published in association with

22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2102 www.Styluspub.com

SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb i

5/12/2017 10:59:52 PM

Current and forthcoming titles publishing in our ONLINE LEARNING AND DISTANCE EDUCATION series Edited by Michael Grahame Moore TEACHING SCIENCE ONLINE Practical Guidance for Effective Instruction and Lab Work

Edited by Dietmar K. Kennepohl Available LEADING THE e-LEARNING TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Meeting the Challenges of Technology and Distance Education By Gary Miller, Meg Benke, Bruce Chaloux, Lawrence C. Ragan, Raymond Schroeder, Wayne Smutz, and Karen Swan Available ASSURING QUALITY IN ONLINE EDUCATION Practices and Processes at the Teaching, Resource, and Program Levels

Edited by Kay Shattuck Available CULTURE AND ONLINE LEARNING Global Perspectives and Research

Edited by Insugn Jung and Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena Available ONLINE, BLENDED, AND DISTANCE EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS

Building Successful Programs Edited by Tom Clark and Michael K. Barbour Available

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb ii

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING Multiple Perspectives on Practice and Research

Edited by Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Karen Swan Series Foreword by Series Editor Michael Grahame Moore Foreword by Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena

Published in association with STERLING, VIRGINIA

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb iii

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

COPYRIGHT © 2017 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Whiteside, Aimee L., 1974- editor. | Dikkers, Amy Garrett, 1973- editor. | Swan, Karen, 1948- editor. Title: Social presence in online learning : multiple perspectives on practice and research / [edited by] Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Karen Swan. Description: First edition. | Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, [2017] Identifiers: LCCN 2016055651 (print) | LCCN 2017019966 (ebook) | ISBN 9781620365106 (Library networkable e-edition) | ISBN 9781620365113 (Consumer e-edition) | ISBN 9781620365083 (cloth : acid-free paper) | ISBN 9781620365090 (pbk. : acid-free paper) | Subjects: LCSH: Web-based instruction--Social aspects. Classification: LCC LB1044.87 (ebook) | LCC LB1044.87 .S6178 2017 (print) | DDC 371.33/44678--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016055651 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-508-3 (cloth) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-509-0 (paper) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-510-6 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-511-3 (consumer e-edition) Printed in the United States of America All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard. Bulk Purchases Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops and for staff development. Call 1-800-232-0223

First Edition, 2017 10

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb iv

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

CONTENTS

TABLES AND FIGURES

ix

SERIES FOREWORD

xi

Michael Grahame Moore, Series Editor

xiii

FOREWORD

Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena

xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING 1. MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING An Introduction to This Volume

3

Karen Swan 2. SOCIAL PRESENCE Understanding Connections Among Definitions, Theory, Measurements, and Practice

11

Amy Garrett Dikkers, Aimee L. Whiteside, and Bethany Tap

PART TWO: UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED 3. UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED Introduction to Part Two

29

Karen Swan 4. SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES Tales of Trial and Error

32

Patrick Lowenthal and Dave Mulder 5. EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE IN OPEN AND NETWORKED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

45

Chih-Hsiung Tu

v

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb v

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

vi

CONTENTS

PART THREE: UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS 6. UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS Introduction to Part Three

61

Karen Swan 7. SOCIAL PRESENCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

64

Karen Swan and Jennifer C. Richardson 8. SOCIAL PRESENCE AND STUDENT SUCCESS Retention, Satisfaction, and Evolving Expectations

77

Phil Ice, Melissa Layne, and Wally Boston 9. INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE Learners’ Needs and a Neglected Component of the Community of Inquiry Framework

86

Jennifer C. Richardson and Patrick Lowenthal 10. CREATING SOCIAL CUES THROUGH SELF-DISCLOSURES, STORIES, AND PARALANGUAGE The Importance of Modeling High Social Presence Behaviors in Online Courses

99

Jessica Gordon 11. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE Research and Practical Guidelines for Online Design

113

Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena

PART FOUR: UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY 12. UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY Introduction to Part Four

133

Aimee L. Whiteside 13. MAKING LEARNING RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL Integrating Social Presence Into Faculty Professional Development Programs

143

Aimee L. Whiteside APPENDIX: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR SCHEDULE 14. BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION TO DISRUPT LEARNING, INSPIRE REFLECTION, AND CREATE SPACE FOR INNOVATION

153

154

Amy Garrett Dikkers, Aimee L. Whiteside, and Somer Lewis 15. PERSONALIZED LEARNING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

170

Somer Lewis, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Aimee L. Whiteside 16. OVERCOMING ISOLATION ONLINE Strategies to Enhance Social Presence in Practice

180

Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Somer Lewis

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb vi

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

CONTENTS

vii

PART FIVE: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 17. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE Shared Metacognition, Emerging Technologies, and the New Educational Ecosystem

191

Jason C. Vickers and Peter Shea 18. THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL PRESENCE Advancing Research, Uniting the Perspectives, and Allowing for Innovation in Practice

207

Aimee L. Whiteside, Karen Swan, and Amy Garrett Dikkers EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

211

INDEX

215

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb vii

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb viii

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 10.1 Table 10.2 Table 12.1 Table 13.1 Table 14.1 Table 14.2 Table 14.3 Table 14.4 Table 15.1 Table 15.2 Table 15.3 Table 16.1

A Comparison of Categories and Indicators Between Original and Revised Specifications of Social Presence Categories Comparison of Use of Social Presence Indicators by Students Perceiving the Most and the Least Social Presence Social Presence Items in the Community of Inquiry Survey Three Types of Presence in the Community of Inquiry Framework Sample Items From Gorham’s (1988) Verbal Immediacy Behavior Scale Definitions and Examples for the Social Presence Model Components About the Participants Data Collection Methods Definitions of Social Presence Model Components for Student Participants Student Survey Responses to the Amount of Social Presence in Blended Course Work Student Survey Responses to the Importance of the Social Presence Model At-Risk Student Population Research Overview The Benefits and Challenges of Online Learning for At-Risk Populations of Students Percentage of Students Identifying Components of the Social Presence Model as Important or Very Important Social Presence Research Overview (U.S. Schools)

67 69 70 100 103 137 146 159 160 161 163 172 173 174 181

Figures Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 5.1. Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2.

Community of Inquiry framework. Social Presence Model. Concept of progression of social presence for digital lifelong learning. Community of Inquiry framework. SEM analysis of the effects of social and teaching presence on cognitive presence. Figure 12.1. Knowledge acquisition within Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Figure 12.2. Social Presence Model.

13 15 53 65 71 134 136

ix

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb ix

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

x

TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 13.1. Social Presence Model. Figure 13.2 Overall implications for practice. Figure 14.1. Social Presence Model. Figure 15.1. Social Presence Model. Figure 16.1. Social Presence Model. Figure 17.1. Practical Inquiry Model.

145 148 158 174 181 195

x

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb x

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

SERIES FOREWORD

P

revious books in our Online Learning and Distance Education series have focused on some of the broad domains in our field, addressing, for example, the roles of institutional leaders, cultural issues, and the various aspects of ensuring quality. These topics might be said to deal with the social and institutional contexts within which distance teaching and learning occur. In contrast, this latest book, focusing on the concept of social presence, focuses inward, looking deeply inside the teaching–learning process. Our contributors here have attempted to lay out what they know about managing social presence in practice and tease out researchable questions about this still-maturing concept. Social presence as a concept originated in the 1970s with distance teachers using video and audio teleconference technologies to “humanize” their programs. However, its importance as a key factor for consideration in every teaching-learning experience is still maturing, and it is only in the past decade that social presence has become generally recognized as one of so many consequences of the growth of distance education in its online form. I am not embarrassed to admit to having a personal attachment to this idea of social presence. For many years I was one of very few tenured university faculty to try teaching through telephone and videoconferencing systems. (Who now remembers slow-scan TV, Meet-Me bridges, and BITNET?) Although my department head at the time did not really consider this “teaching” but only “chatting on the phone,” I was thrilled to find how achievable (I did not say “easy”) it was to extend my teaching personality into distant environments; to generate an environment that was emotionally supportive, stimulating, and constructive—and fun!—and to generate a similar sense of presence by the students too, reaching even across international borders and multiple groups. I am not sure if I even knew about the concept of social presence at that time, in the 1980s, but today it is with great delight that I can understand better what was happening then as I read about the extensive body of knowledge surrounding this phenomenon, a body of knowledge that gives the lie, finally, to any reactionaries who still argue that intimate, exciting, and growing personal relationships can exist only within the walls of a physical classroom. For years, experience said, “It ain’t so!” and now research endorses that. Here in our new book from Stylus Publishing, adding research substance to such anecdotal knowledge, the three principal contributors have brought together more than a dozen of the world’s leading scholars to complement their own research of the theory and practice of social presence. I hope readers will find the structure as helpful as I did, with sections organized around the editors’ three complementary theoretical prisms. First, they provide a view from the perspective of the information and communication technologist; second, they provide a view through the eyes of the learner; and third, they consider what social presence looks like when viewed as a critical literacy. Within this xi

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xi

5/12/2017 10:59:54 PM

xii

SERIES FOREWORD

broad framework, individual chapters deal with an extensive range of subjects, ranging from definitions, history, and models of social presence; instruments intended to measure it; instructional strategies to achieve it; and research ideas for its advancement. It is not my intention to usurp the role of the editors by saying more about the content of the book; rather, I will recommend that readers move forward right away to chapter 1, which provides a detailed overview of what follows from there on. However, I will allow myself one other personal observation. Here I refer to an item discussed in the last part of the book—the challenge posed to the conceptualization and practice of social presence arising from the growing popularity in both K–12 and higher education of personalized learning. Having established up front my enthusiasm for instituting and managing learning in groups, whether face-to-face or at a distance, I am intrigued to note that others share my growing concern that the proverbial pendulum may have swung so far toward favoring learning in groups that sight has been lost of that older and equally valuable tradition in distance education, which is independent, self-directed, or autonomous learning. Such learning was never meant to be construed as learning without guidance, being a contradiction of the very concept of education, but it does mean the learner has a significant degree of control of the means and directions of the learning experience. Under such circumstances, questions must be asked about the value of social presence or at least the nature of social presence under those circumstances, raising a whole range of new issues for both teachers and researchers. There is no conflict of interest between the pedagogical practices of group learning and those of personalized and independent study; on the contrary, a good environment for learning must be one that provides optimum opportunity for both individual learning and social learning. The question is whether our success in exploring the latter should now be followed up with more inquiry into how to integrate it with the former. I will leave you with that, I hope, tantalizing question, wishing that you enjoy not only the last chapter but also every chapter of this book and leave at the end with many questions answered as well as with a few new ones to take you forward in further exploration of online learning and distance education. I congratulate Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Karen Swan on their accomplishment in completing this work—a long, sometimes very challenging, three-year enterprise. I am confident that many thousands of students, scholars, and practicing teachers will benefit hugely from the results of that effort. On their behalf, as well as for myself, I extend our thanks. Michael Grahame Moore, Series Editor Distinguished Professor Emeritus, The Pennsylvania State University

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xii

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

FOREWORD

H

ow do learners connect with each other in an online environment? Does the medium affect these connections? Do these connections create a sense of community among learners? Do these connections make an impact on their learning and their satisfaction with the learning experience? These were the questions I was pondering after implementing my first interuniversity computer-mediated collaboration, GlobalEd, among graduate students in the early 1990s, when I came across the term social presence. As I began discussing my curiosity and puzzlement about the connections students were making and their impact, a communications scholar I met at a conference pointed me in the direction of social presence and Short, Williams, and Christies’ (1976) book where the concept was first defined. Thus began my foray into examining the role of social presence in computer-mediated communication further fueled by a remark by my colleague Everett Rogers (the pioneer of Diffusion of Innovations [1995]) during a private conversation. He asserted that social presence is the one defining characteristic of distance education. With this new insight, I delved in to analyzing the GlobalEd data. I published my initial findings on social presence in 1995, followed by the subsequent publication in 1997, which established social presence as a significant predictor of learner satisfaction in computer-mediated communication. Since then, I have watched with great interest as other researchers took up the challenge of examining social presence and its role in online communication. However, to date, no book has focused deeply on the concept of social presence and its impact on learning, satisfaction, and retention as the editors of this book have done. Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Karen Swan not only fill a gap but also extend our understanding by gathering diverse perspectives to examine social presence more fully. The editors of this book have developed a consistent research agenda in social presence. Swan has been researching social presence for over a decade, beginning by examining social presence and students’ perceived learning and satisfaction and continuing on to research social presence within communities of inquiry. Whiteside developed the Social Presence Model discussed in this book, and she and Garrett Dikkers have researched how to use this model to maximize online and blended learning. Based on their research, they have offered a wealth of advice on how to build social presence online and how to integrate social presence into faculty development programs. The editors, while themselves expert researchers on social presence, have selected an illustrious group of social presence researchers to develop this compendium of multidisciplinary perspectives on the concept. If you are curious about how online learners connect with each other, how they develop a sense of belonging to a learning community, and how this connection and sense of community can support their learning and satisfaction and lead to retention, xiii

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xiii

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

xiv

FOREWORD

then this book is for you. Researchers and practitioners in distance education, online learning, and blended learning will find this book useful as they begin to consider how to develop socioemotional environments that support online learning. Swan sets the stage by introducing us to the multiple definitions of social presence and exploring how the concept has evolved through the years since Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) first defined it both as a factor of the medium’s intimacy and a factor of the psychological distance of the communicator’s immediacy. Social presence has continued to evolve with communications technology innovations and has become a key component of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000). Some chapters in this book discuss theoretical frameworks, research studies, and instruments used to measure ways in which online students project their presence and how they perceive social presence. Other chapters examine the concept of social presence within different technological configurations, social media, and even personalized learning environments. In chapter 11, I discuss social presence from a cultural lens and contend that the degree of social presence desired may differ in diverse cultures. From their diverse points of view, the authors of the chapters provide guidance on how to translate theory into practice in order to design social presence online and offer suggestions for future research. The editors take an excellent approach to making sense of the varied definitions of social presence by organizing the book into three differing perspectives—social presence as technologically facilitated, social presence as learners’ perceptions, and social presence as a critical literacy. They then give voice to these three perspectives from the standpoint of the contributors to this book. Perhaps it is in the concept of social presence as a critical literacy for online learners and instructors giving rise to a new language of teaching and learning that we see an emerging avenue for consideration in future research and practice. The significance of the book lies in the fact that it is not so much about technology but rather how to design the social environment to support online learning and how social presence can play a key role in this endeavor. This book provides practical guidance for designers and instructors alike on how to create a sense of connectedness and community to support the lonely distance learners and their learning. I wish I had this book 20 years ago when I began exploring how students were connecting and forming community in GlobalEd. Charlotte Nirmalani “Lani” Gunawardena Distinguished Professor of Distance Education and Instructional Technology The University of New Mexico

References Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xiv

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

FOREWORD

xv

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–25. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: John Wiley.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xv

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xvi

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

W

e hope this book helps our colleagues who believe in the impact and reach of emotion and connection in online and blended learning and who want some guidance to move forward, understand, and engage this concept called social presence. As we reflect on shaping this book, we want to express our gratitude to Stylus Publishing, and especially to Michael Grahame Moore, for giving us a chance to share our knowledge from practicing and researching the integration of social presence in online and blended learning. We would also like to thank the authors of the chapters in this book—Wally Boston, Jessica Gordon, Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena, Phil Ice, Melissa Layne, Somer Lewis, Patrick Lowenthal, Dave Mulder, Jennifer C. Richardson, Peter Shea, Bethany Tap, Chih-Hsiung Tu, and Jason C. Vickers—for sharing their extensive knowledge of social presence and for their patience in working with us to create this book. We also extend our thanks to Victoria Maxedon and Catherine Shubert for their great questions and help with copyediting, formatting, and coordinating many forms and details. Although technology matters, we know that it doesn’t define the learning experience. People do—instructors, instructional designers, and students who are led by pedagogy, passion, and prudent practice. Of course, it helps tremendously when we are guided by academic leaders and educational technologists who understand the value of social presence. Although social presence may have an ethereal, esoteric feel, it is real. Social presence plays a fundamental role in shaping online educational experiences. With this book, we hope we have brought an awareness of social presence that leads to continued exploration and new, innovative findings that advance future learning experiences. Ultimately, we believe social presence in online and blended learning offers great rewards for instructors and learners alike, and it offers a wealth of possibility for researchers and professionals. Thank you for the opportunity to share social presence research and the resultant practical approaches with you. Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Karen Swan Editors

xvii

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xvii

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb xviii

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

PART ONE Introduction to Social Presence in Online Learning

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 1

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 2

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

1 MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING An Introduction to This Volume Karen Swan The theory of social presence is perhaps the most popular construct used to describe and understand how people socially interact in online learning environments. However, despite its intuitive appeal, researchers and practitioners alike often define and conceptualize this popular construct differently. In fact, it is often hard to distinguish between whether someone is talking about social interaction, immediacy, intimacy, emotion, and/or connectedness when they talk about social presence. —Patrick Lowenthal (2010, p. 254)

T

he past decades have seen continuous growth in online learning. In the fall of 2014, 2.85 million students took all of their courses at a distance, and 2.97 million took some of their courses in this manner, while the number of students not taking any online courses continues to drop (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016). Although these numbers do not include massive open online courses (MOOCs) but rather include the online equivalents of traditional courses offered by accredited colleges and universities, online education of the more traditional variety still presents many challenges. Not the least of these challenges is that many online instructors feel disconnected from their students, and many online students feel disconnected from their classmates and instructors (Kim, Liu, & Bonk, 2005; Kruger-Ross & Waters, 2013), and this perceived separation leads to disengagement and loss of learning. The antidote to this issue is the development of social presence in online classes. The concept of social presence was introduced by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976). The authors were interested in how people could establish immediacy (Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968) and intimacy (Argyle & Dean, 1965) through various technologies with considerations for learning. Intimacy and immediacy are factors shown to enhance learning in face-to-face classrooms, although Short and colleagues were more concerned with task-oriented business communications. They defined social presence as the “salience of the other” in such mediated environments and attempted to classify communications media according to their ability to convey the subtle visual and vocal cues through which personal relationships are developed in face-to-face settings (Short et al., 1976, p. 224). They placed communication media on a continuum ranging from high social 3

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 3

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

4

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

presence (two-way video) to low social presence (computer-mediated communication) and moreover suggested that computer-mediated communication was a poor medium for transmitting social presence. As time progressed and technologies advanced, educators using online discussions in their courses found that student perceptions of social presence varied among participants in the same mediated conversations and that many participants perceived online discourse to be more personal than traditional classroom discussion (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Walther, 1994). Just as earlier researchers used social presence to explain why online communication was inherently impersonal, these researchers redeveloped the notion to explain how online discussion could be very personal and social. They thus argued that social presence was as much a matter of individual perceptions as an objective quality of the medium. Working within this frame, researchers have linked social presence to retention in courses and programs (Boston et al., 2010; see also chapter 8 in this volume), student satisfaction (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan & Shih, 2005), and perceived and actual learning in online classes (Joksimovic, Gasevic, Kovanovic, Riecke, & Hatala, 2015; Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rockinson-Szapkiw, Wendt, Wighting, & Nisbet, 2016; Swan, Day, Bogle, & Matthews, 2014). They also have accordingly explored ways of enhancing the development of social presence in online courses (Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2010; Richardson et al., 2012; Rogers & Lea, 2005; see also chapters 4, 5, 10, and 11 in this volume). In this vein, many educators have addressed the importance of making instructors and students aware of the significance of the development of social presence in the online learning process (Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, & Lewis, 2013; Garrison, 2016; Swan & Shih, 2005; Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, & Garrison, 2013). Two of the editors of this book made the significance central to their understanding of social presence. In Aimee L. Whiteside’s (2015) Social Presence Model, social presence is seen as the unifying component that synchronizes interactions among the instructor, students, academic content, media, tools, instructional strategies, and outcomes within an online learning experience. Whiteside and Garrett Dikkers (2016) contended that social presence functions as critical literacy for online learners and instructors in that it “engenders a new language of teaching and learning” (p. 238; see also chapters 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in this volume). The authors also emphasized connectedness and community as part of the social presence construct. Though the concept of social presence is central to our understanding of online learning (Benbunan-Fich, Hiltz, & Harasim, 2005; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Vrasidas & Glass, 2002), researchers in the field are still unable to pinpoint a central definition and continue to define and redefine social presence. Such definitions range on a continuum from Short and colleagues’ (1976) “salience of the other” (p. 224) and Gunawardena’s (1995) perceptions of others as “real people” (p. 151) to Garrison and colleagues’ (2000) ability of participants to project themselves “socially and emotionally” (p. 94); Tu and McIsaac’s (2002) “feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected” (p. 140); and Picciano’s (2002) “sense of being in and belonging in a course” (p. 22). Garrison (2016) incorporated all these definitions into “the ability of participants to identify with a group, communicate openly in a trusting environment, and develop

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 4

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

5

personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities” (p. 79). The premise of this book is that one way to make sense out of this variation in definitions, for practitioners and researchers, is to consider the point of view taken by particular scholars. The book’s parts carefully distinguish three differing perspectives— social presence as technologically facilitated, social presence as learners’ perceptions, and social presence as a critical literacy—and bring together online learning scholars to provide examples of how these differing viewpoints can inform research and practice. This chapter introduces the book’s parts and chapters. In chapter 2, “Social Presence: Understanding Connections Among Definitions, Theory, Measurements, and Practice,” Amy Garrett Dikkers, Aimee L. Whiteside, and Bethany Tap continue the introduction by providing a brief overview of the various definitions, guiding theoretical frameworks, and instruments designed to measure social presence, as well as the instructional strategies through which the former are transferred into the practice within the online classroom. In chapter 3, “Understanding Social Presence as Technologically Facilitated: Introduction to Part Two,” Karen Swan introduces Part Two and the chapters within it. As originally coined by Short and colleagues (1976), social presence was seen as a quality of communications media. Communications scholars saw computer-mediated communication as a particularly poor medium for transmitting social presence. Although only a minority of educators hold such a view today, there are quite a few educators exploring the use of differing technologies to enhance social presence in online environments. Although they mostly link social presence to participant perceptions, these scholars see it as, in some sense, technologically facilitated. Chapters in this section share that perspective. In chapter 4, “Social Presence and Communication Technologies: Tales of Trial and Error,” Patrick Lowenthal and Dave Mulder explore the background of the relationship between social presence and technology. They provide an extensive review of research adopting a “social presence as technologically facilitated” lens and the instructional strategies associated with it. In particular, they survey research and practice involving social presence and emerging technologies, including synchronous video, asynchronous video, digital storytelling, social networking, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as low-tech options, such as pictures and messaging. They conclude with well-considered general recommendations for using technology to enhance social presence. In chapter 5, “Evolvements of Social Presence in Open and Networked Learning Environments,” Chih-Hsiung Tu argues that the concept of social presence must evolve with emerging technologies. In particular, this chapter addresses the role of social presence in the open education and open educational resources movements. The author interestingly links social presence to social identity, self-presentation, and self-actualization and discusses how these factors manifest in personal learning environments and open networked learning environments. Tu concludes with an argument for the importance of social presence in lifelong learning. In chapter 6, “Understanding Social Presence as Learners’ Perceptions: Introduction to Part Three” Karen Swan introduces Part Three of this volume and the chapters within it. In the late 1990s when educators started using online discussions in their classes, they found that most of their students believed they “knew” each other. They, thus,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 5

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

6

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

argued that social presence was not a quality of a medium but rather a function of the perceptions of those communicating through it. The chapters in this section share this perspective on social presence. Probably the most famous instantiation of the concept of social presence is as one of the three presences that make up the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Chapter 7, “Social Presence and the Community of Inquiry Framework” by Karen Swan and Jennifer C. Richardson, explores how the concept of social presence has evolved within CoI research and how CoI scholarship has contributed to our understanding of that concept. In particular, it discusses measures developed to investigate both the ways in which online students project their presence in online discussion and participants’ perceptions of social presence. Findings from CoI research and their practical implications are also summarized. In chapter 8, “Social Presence and Student Success: Retention, Satisfaction, and Evolving Expectations,” Phil Ice, Melissa Layne, and Wally Boston report on important findings from two very large investigations using the CoI survey of the effects of teaching, social, and cognitive presences on student retention in online programs. Findings from both studies, done three years apart, revealed that just two affective social presence items accounted for almost all of the variance in retention linked to CoI presences. The findings suggest that social presence is a critical factor in student retention. Drawing from an analysis of open-ended responses on the survey, the authors conclude with suggestions for using the features of traditional learning management systems to support the development of social presence. In chapter 9, “Instructor Social Presence: Learners’ Needs and a Neglected Component of the Community of Inquiry Framework,” Jennifer C. Richardson and Patrick Lowenthal argue that there is an effective instructor behind every successful online course and that the social presence of instructors is a critical element in positive online educational experiences. In this chapter, Richardson and Lowenthal define instructor social presence, explain its importance, highlight its role in the CoI framework, and summarize research they and other experts have conducted on instructor social presence. Of particular interest in this chapter are the authors’ reflections on establishing instructor social presence in courses designed by other experts. The chapter concludes with additional implications for practice. In chapter 10, “Creating Social Cues Through Self-Disclosures, Stories, and Paralanguage: The Importance of Modeling High Social Presence Behaviors in Online Courses,” Jessica Gordon presents a brief history of the CoI framework, addresses social presence research, and uses accumulated findings to argue that online instructors must model and support the development of social presence in their online classes. In particular, she focuses on understanding teacher immediacy behaviors and translating them to verbal immediacy behaviors for online environments. Using examples from her own teaching experiences, Gordon provides a variety of useful ways to enhance social presence in virtual classes. Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena, the author of chapter 11, “Cultural Perspectives on Social Presence: Research and Practical Guidelines for Online Design,” is to social presence research what Grace Hopper is to computer programming. Gunawardena was the first to view social presence in terms of learners’ perceptions and to develop ways of measuring it and its effects on learner satisfaction and perceived learning. In this chapter, she reviews the steps leading to her findings and how in that process she became aware of

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 6

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

7

cultural differences in the perception of social presence. Gunawardena argues for broadening our understanding of the concept as online learning expands globally, and she concludes the chapter with practical guidelines for designing online courses to support the development of social presence with culture in mind. Chapter 12, “Understanding Social Presence as a Critical Literacy: Introduction to Part Four” by Aimee L. Whiteside, is both an introduction to the chapters in Part Four and an explanation of Whiteside’s Social Presence Model in which all the chapters in this section are grounded. It explores the foundation for the model in Vygotsky’s theories of social development and provides detailed descriptions of the five elements of the model: affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience. The author claims that what distinguishes this model is that in it social presence serves as the “guiding principle that drives learners, instructors, academic content, norms, behaviors, instructional strategies, activities, and outcomes” (p. 135). In chapter 13, “Making Learning Relevant and Meaningful: Integrating Social Presence Into Faculty Professional Development Programs,” Aimee L. Whiteside reports on the use of the Social Presence Model to bring an awareness of the concept of social presence for faculty participants engaged in a professional development program. These participants were preparing to teach blended learning courses and were introduced to the model to guide their own course development, along with other concepts, in a threeday seminar experience. The study results suggested that the faculty members involved appreciated the introduction to social presence, yet participants were unable to pinpoint which decisions about social presence derived from the professional development experience. Whiteside argues that participants seemed unable to make that distinction because social presence is a literacy rather than a discrete event. In chapter 14, “Blending Face-to-Face and Online Instruction to Disrupt Learning, Inspire Reflection, and Create Space for Innovation,” Amy Garrett Dikkers, Aimee L. Whiteside, and Somer Lewis explore the role of social presence in the success of a new high school blended learning program. The authors found that students appreciated the flexibility in their schedules, the mixture of traditional and blended learning in both elective and core classes, and the instructors’ dedication to their individual learning needs. In chapter 15, “Personalized Learning to Meet the Needs of Diverse Learners,” Somer Lewis, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Aimee L. Whiteside report on various studies of virtual high school students which found that social presence represented an important literacy for these students, especially students with disabilities and those at risk for failure. The authors argue that faculty should consider ways to make online learning accessible and help students feel connected in the online environment. In addition, instructor support is extremely important to that process, as is prior knowledge of the subjects being taught. They also found that hard and soft skills for online learning and support for the development of social presence as a critical literacy were equally important. In chapter 16, “Overcoming Isolation Online: Strategies to Enhance Social Presence in Practice,” Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Somer Lewis provide eight strategies based on their research for enhancing social presence in online classes. These include designing an intuitive and organized learning environment, creating connections to build community, connecting content to applied and authentic learning experiences, understanding a variety of tools and media, harnessing reflection and prior experiences,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 7

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

8

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

providing early and continuous feedback, designing with assessment in mind, and encouraging change in small steps. Chapters 17 and 18 stand alone in Part Five. Written by Jason C. Vickers and Peter Shea, chapter 17, “Future Directions for Social Presence: Shared Metacognition, Emerging Technologies, and the New Educational Ecosystem,” explores new technology-mediated ways to develop and support social presence and how social presence fits into the process of inquiry and emerging notions of shared metacognition. The authors also address aspects of the evolving online education ecosystem that future researchers should investigate to better understand and improve upon the social presence construct. In chapter 18, “The Future of Social Presence: Advancing Research, Uniting the Perspectives, and Allowing for Innovation in Practice,” Aimee L. Whiteside, Karen Swan, and Amy Garrett Dikkers revisit the three perspectives on social presence explored in this volume. They point out that the perspectives are not only really different but also not mutually exclusive. They conclude the chapter and the book by calling for more social presence research in the future.

Chapter Review • Many online instructors and their students feel disconnected from one another, and this perceived separation leads to disengagement and loss of learning. The antidote to this issue is the development of social presence. • Social presence is probably the concept most commonly used to explain interaction and engagement in online environments, yet it is just as commonly differently conceptualized in the literature. • This book distinguishes three differing perspectives on social presence—social presence as technologically facilitated, social presence as learners’ perceptions, and social presence as a critical literacy—and provides examples of how these differing viewpoints can help make sense of these seeming differences and so inform research and practice.

References Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussion. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2293 Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Oakland, CA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304. Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L. (2005). The online interaction learning model: An integrated theoretical framework for learning networks. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 18–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 8

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

9

Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 3–19. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2013). Virtual high school teacher and student reactions to the Social Presence Model. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(3), 156–170. Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-learning in the 21st century (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ jcal.12107/abstract Kim, K., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344. Kruger-Ross, M. J., & Waters, R. D. (2013). Predicting online learning success: Applying the situational theory of publics to the virtual classroom. Computers and Education, 61, 176–184. Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 124–139). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 70–72. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Richardson, J. C., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K., & Garrison, D. R. (2012). Using the Community of Inquiry framework to inform instructional design. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning (pp. 97–125). New York, NY: Springer. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Wendt, J., Wighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship among the Community of Inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). Retrieved from http://www .irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2203 Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behavior and Information Technology, 24(2), 151–158. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: Pitman Press.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 9

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

10

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

Swan, K., Day, S. L., Bogle, L. R., & Matthews, D. B. (2014). A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 74–81. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca, Alberta: Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120229 Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2002). A conceptual framework for studying distance education. In C. Vrasidas & G. Glass (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning (pp. 31–55). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Walther, J. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21(4), 460–487. Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium .org/index.php/jaln/article/view/453/137 Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2016). Leveraging the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on emotion in online and blended learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. P. McCreery (Eds.), Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 225–241). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 10

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

2 SOCIAL PRESENCE Understanding Connections Among Definitions, Theory, Measurements, and Practice Amy Garrett Dikkers, Aimee L. Whiteside, and Bethany Tap

T

he emergence of online and blended learning represents a small and recent part of the history of education. Though online and blended learning is only decades old, its rise at postsecondary institutions necessitates new pedagogies and instructional practices. To better understand students’ learning experiences and needs in online environments, researchers and practitioners have explored and improved upon different frameworks and theories. In their research, social presence emerged as a key factor in student satisfaction and success in online learning environments. This chapter provides a brief overview of the definitions of social presence, guiding frameworks, and different surveys or instruments to measure social presence, and it offers instructional strategies that transfer the theory and research of social presence into the practice of the classroom.

Social Presence Defined The term social presence was originally coined by social psychologists Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) as the “degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (p. 65). The concept for these authors consisted of “a quality of the medium itself ” with strong ties to the expression and perception of emotion through intimacy and technological immediacy (pp. 72–73). Since then, researchers have offered dozens of other definitions for social presence. Initially, as social presence and connectedness became an emerging topic in communication and instructional technology, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) defined social presence as the degree to which a person is perceived as “real” in computer-mediated communication (CMC). Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (1999) expanded on Gunawardena and Zittle’s definition, suggesting that there are three elements of social presence: affective, cohesive, and interactive. Similarly, Tu (2002) broke social presence into three dimensions: social context, online communication, and interactivity. Next, Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon (2003) defined social presence as “being together” or being with one another (p. 456). Swan and Shih (2005) referred to social presence as “the degree to which participants in computer-mediated communication feel affectively 11

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 11

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

12

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

connected one to another” (p. 115). Kehrwald (2008) defined social presence as “an individual’s ability to demonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so signal his/her availability for interpersonal transactions” (p. 94). Kehrwald suggested social presence is performative in nature with a development process that begins with the establishment of social presence and is maintained through learners’ “ongoing presence through visible activity” (p. 96). Garrison (2009) defined social presence as “the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” (p. 352). These are just a few of the dozens of definitions posed by social presence researchers in the past 40 years. From the original definition of social presence, coined by Short and colleagues (1976), the concept has evolved immensely as researchers began to explore the dynamic interplay among online learning environments, CMC, and learner satisfaction. Beginning with several early studies, social presence evolved and grew as a valuable concept in online and blended learning, and these studies paved the way for current and future research.

Early Studies: Importance of Emotion and Connectedness The early studies of Gunawardena (1995), Gunawardena and Zittle (1997), Swan (2002), and Swan and Shih (2005), in particular, helped later social presence researchers understand the importance of emotion and connectedness for learners. In one of the first studies to test the influence of social presence in distance education, Gunawardena (1995) demonstrated that social presence can be developed in CMC environments. In the first study to measure the effects of social presence on learner satisfaction in a CMC environment, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) showed results that indicated that social presence is a strong predictor of learner satisfaction in CMC environments. Two other early studies conducted by Swan (2002) and Swan and Shih (2005) point to social presence as a key factor in learner satisfaction as well as perceived learning. In addition, the second study explains how students work to achieve social presence through verbal immediacy behaviors, including affective behaviors (paralanguage, emotion, value, humor, and self-disclosure), cohesive behaviors (salutations, vocatives, group references, social sharing, and course reflection), and interactive behaviors (acknowledgment, agreement–disagreement, approval, invitation, and personal advice). Another early study by Biocca and colleagues (2003) called for clear delineation between social presence and the effects of social presence, claiming that most definitions were too broad and vague. Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, and Van Buuren (2004) discussed barriers related to contemporary computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and worked to refine three instruments: the Sociability Scale (a self-report questionnaire designed to measure the perceived sociability of a CSCL environment), the Social Presence Scale (another self-report questionnaire to measure the perceived degree of social presence in a CSCL environment), and the Social Space Scale (a two-part, self-report scale to measure the perceived quality of social space in distributed learning groups). These early studies laid the groundwork for a number of emerging models and frameworks.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 12

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE

13

Social Presence Models and Frameworks Social presence studies today have largely been defined within the realm of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010). Since the development of the CoI framework, other models for understanding social presence in online learning environments have been developed, including the Social Presence Model (Whiteside, 2007, 2015), the Social Connectedness Design framework (Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2009), and other models (Lin, Lin, & Laffey, 2008; Wei, Chen, & Kinshuk, 2012). This section addresses the origin of the CoI framework.

The Community of Inquiry Framework Garrison and colleagues (2000) introduced the first major framework for CMC in higher education: the CoI framework. Garrison and colleagues (2010) described how the framework emerged out of the context of computer conferencing in higher education (i.e., text-based, asynchronous communication). Drawing on such scholarship as that of Gunawardena (1995), the initial study was concerned with social presence as it related to the other two presences: teaching and cognitive. Made up of three presences (cognitive, teaching, and social), the CoI framework attempts to understand the learning process for students in online learning environments and who use CMC (see Figure 2.1). Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) suggested social presence interweaves with cognitive and teaching presence to form the “educational experience” (p. 88). While articles on the CoI framework tend to focus on learning and teaching processes, Rourke and Kanuka (2009) found that most articles lacked a focus on learning outcomes. In a review that focuses on learning as it has been investigated within the CoI framework, Rourke and Kanuka (2009) found 57 reports in which the CoI framework was the primary focus.

Figure 2.1. Community of Inquiry framework. Community of Inquiry

Supporting discourse

Social presence

Cognitive presence

Educational experience Setting climate

Selecting content

Teaching presence (Structure/process)

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 13

5/12/2017 10:59:55 PM

14

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

As the most prevalent and well-known of existing frameworks examining social presence, the CoI framework has been the focus of many suggestions to improve upon it. In a review of the literature, Annand (2011) called for the comparison of the CoI framework with other learning models, a necessary directive in light of the CoI framework’s dominance in online education and pedagogy. Rourke and Kanuka (2009) contended that the CoI framework overstates the influence of social presence in online learning. Others, such as Shea and Bidjerano (2010), Arbaugh and colleagues (2008), Cleveland-Innes and Campbell (2012), and Anderson (2015), have suggested the opposite: The CoI framework could better address the emotional needs of learners. For example, with a goal of developing a comprehensive model for understanding the benefits of online instruction, Shea and Bidjerano (2010) posited that social and teaching presence would affect students’ cognitive presence in a study of 2,418 students from 42 two- and four-year institutions. The results of the study called for a revision to the CoI framework that added learning presence (a factor that refers to learner selfefficacy and self-regulation) as one of three factors (teaching, social, and learner) that affect cognitive presence in online learning environments. Studies such as this may be one of the necessary steps toward extending the CoI framework through deeper understanding of students and their needs. Another study by Cleveland-Innes and Campbell (2012) suggested the addition of emotional presence to the CoI framework, defining said presence as the “outward expression of emotion, affect, and feeling by individuals and among individuals in a community of inquiry, as they relate to and interact with the learning technology, course content, students, and the instructor” (p. 283). As with the calls for expansion by Shea and Bidjerano (2010), this study by Cleveland-Innes and Campbell (2012) helps to expand the CoI framework, strengthening it through a greater understanding of students’ emotional needs. Further research has been done to provide evidence of the necessary roles of social presence in the CoI framework. Using a 34-item CoI survey instrument and administering it at four institutions, Arbaugh and colleagues (2008) provided further evidence for the solidity of social presence as a construct. A principal components analysis of the data from 287 participants (43% response rate) supported the construct validity of the framework while suggesting expansion in the area of teaching presence, calling for two categories of teaching presence: course design and course organization. Other studies following the guidelines set by the CoI framework have explored the mutuality of teaching and social presence. Caudle (2013), in a study on a hybrid community of practice composed of four mentor teachers with the researcher as facilitator, acknowledged the interconnectedness of the presences. Using a qualitative method of data collection and analyzing the results through descriptive coding followed by analytical coding, Caudle (2013) found that two dominant roles within teaching presence were facilitator (more social presence) and caretaker (more teaching presence) and stated, “These roles did not independently exist and often blended within a single situation” (p. 116). Likewise, in a study using quantitative analysis from two graduate courses, Lee (2014) related social and cognitive presence, suggesting that social presence directly affects cognitive presence. The higher the quality of social presence, the better the quality

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 14

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE

15

of cognitive presence, although social presence alone cannot ensure critical discourse in online learning. The significance of the CoI framework over the past decade is impressive. It could be argued that the CoI’s greatest contribution to the study of social presence lies within its own prolific and widespread following, which led to an outburst of research showcasing the concept of social presence. Short and colleagues (1976) coined the term, but it was numerous early studies and the CoI framework that shifted the momentum for social presence research. In addition, the framework provided a necessary structure within which to view social presence and its impacts. The CoI framework is certainly the most dominant one referenced in studies on social presence, and it is regularly evaluated, revised, and extended. As with any field of inquiry, the more the concept of social presence (as well as its effects and means of attainment) is studied and reevaluated, the closer researchers and instructors will come to discovering the most effective pedagogical techniques for teaching online and blended courses. It has been nearly 15 years since the origination of the CoI framework, which is addressed in Part Two and Part Three of this book. In that time frame, new and innovative studies surrounding the field of online learning and specifically social presence have arisen. Modifications and changes to the CoI framework and new models for understanding social presence in online learning environments have been called for. As a response to this call, Whiteside (2007, 2015) offered the Social Presence Model.

The Social Presence Model The Social Presence Model focuses on social presence as the predominant concept in understanding and learning to maximize learning in online and blended environments. Whiteside (2007, 2011, 2015) described a longitudinal study of a blended learning program that showcased the importance of social presence and unveiled the Social Presence Model and its five key elements: affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience (see Figure 2.2). Whiteside (2015) likened social presence in an online learning experience to a “symphony’s master conductor who synchronizes the instructor, students, norms, academic content, learning management system (LMS), media, tools, instructional strategies, and Figure 2.2. Social Presence Model. Affective association Knowledge and experience

Community cohesion Social presence

Interaction intensity

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 15

Instructor involvement

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

16

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

outcomes” (p. 11). Whiteside (2011) contended, “The [Social Presence] Model creates an awareness of the importance of creating critical connections and cultivating relationships in learning communities, which can result in increased student motivation and elevated learning outcomes.” The Social Presence Model can serve as a powerful heuristic and framework for instructors and students, as well as an important tool for current and future research (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, & Lewis, 2013; Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Whiteside, Hughes, & McLeod, 2005). In addition, Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, and Lewis (2012) noted the Social Presence Model “provides a framework to establish increased social presence, or connectedness, among teachers and students for a more enriching educational experience” (p. 22). Overall, the Social Presence Model strives to encourage the development of social presence in online learning environments as a means of improving the overall learning experience, including the development of best practices and techniques for instructors. In practice, the Social Presence Model has been applied and tested at both course and program levels, as well as in graduate-level, undergraduate-level, and K–12 learning environments. The Social Presence Model emerged from research begun in July 2003 with K–12 school and district administrators participating in a hybrid certificate program at a large university in the Midwest in the United States (Whiteside, 2007, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2016; Whiteside et al., 2005). Next, authors explored three years of the same online course in human rights education (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2009, 2010, 2016). In recent years, these authors have been exploring social presence in a southeastern virtual school (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2013; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2012, 2016; Whiteside et al., 2014a, 2015) and a midwestern high school simultaneously running traditional and blended learning programs (Whiteside et al., 2014b). Overall, the Social Presence Model sees social presence as an essential literacy that can enhance the overall learning experience and can aid in developing successful, meaningful learning experiences (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2015). The Social Presence Model and the idea of social presence as a critical literacy in teaching and learning is discussed in Part Four of this book.

Other Important Frameworks Slagter van Tryon and Bishop’s (2009) Social Connectedness Design framework purports three strategies for overcoming problems with social connectedness in online learning environments: increased interactions, comprehensive technical support, and persistent follow-up. The goal of this framework is “to provide more guidance to online instructors about which e-mmediacy strategies should be used and when they are needed in order to facilitate the development of group social structure in technology-mediated learning environments” (Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2012, p. 349). Similarly, Wei and colleagues (2012) broke the construct of social presence into three subconstructs: co-presence, intimacy, and immediacy. Two factors influence social

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 16

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE

17

presence, namely, user interface (perceptions about the ease and naturalness of the learning system) and social cues (perception of the richness of social cues in online classrooms). Specifically, Wei and colleagues detailed, “When a learning environment has a friendly user interface and rich media, learners can easily share social cues with each other. Verbal and non-verbal cues are very important resources for perceived social presence in online learning environments” (p. 539). These two factors are important predictors of social presence. From there, social presence is necessary for learners to feel comfortable interacting with one another. These learning interactions, affected positively by social presence, have an effect on learner performance. In other words, the perception of a high degree of social presence will help learners engage in learning interactions, the results of which will enhance learners’ performance (Wei et al., 2012). Other frameworks include a structural model developed by Lin and colleagues (2008), which characterized social ability based on four factors: social presence (students), social presence (instructors), social navigation, and written communication skills. It is significant that Lin and colleagues (2008) distinguished social presence (students) from social presence (instructors), isolating the social presence of instructors as a type of social presence, not as “teaching presence,” as it is labeled in the CoI framework. This is similar to the online learning environments of “instructor involvement” in Whiteside’s (2007, 2011, 2015) Social Presence Model or Richardson and colleagues’ (2015) “instructor presence.” The importance of frameworks is to provide guidance for present and future research, as well as provide structure and context for these studies. Working within a particular framework enables researchers to expand on previous studies in a systematic and progressive manner. The development of new frameworks investigating social presence is important to the field because it expands researchers’, instructors’, course designers’, and students’ abilities to work within online learning environments in a meaningful way. Increased research into existing frameworks and the development of new and improved frameworks on social presence will strengthen online learning and help students gain the tools necessary for deep, meaningful learning experiences.

Measuring and Evaluating the Impact of Social Presence The development of surveys and instruments to measure social presence both complements and triangulates qualitative coding measures derived from frameworks and models, and these tools represent an important step in uncovering more details about how to leverage social presence in educational contexts. Early measures include the Social Presence Indicators (Gunawardena, 1995), which is a collection of seventeen 5-point semantic differential scales, and the GlobalEd Questionnaire (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), which consists of fourteen 5-point Likert scale items.

Social Presence Indicators Survey and GlobalEd Questionnaire In an examination of two GlobalEd conferences in 1992 and 1993, researchers used the Social Presence Indicators survey to measure student reactions to CMC, with original results that indicated participants in the conference were able to create social presence

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 17

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

18

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

through building online communities (Gunawardena, 1995). Also based on a GlobalEd conference in the fall of 1993, the GlobalEd Questionnaire (which includes the Social Presence Scale and the Satisfaction Scale) was developed by Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) to “measure how effective social presence is as a predictor of overall learner satisfaction in a computer conference environment” (p. 11).

Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire and Computer-Mediated Communication Questionnaire Another early instrument, the Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire, was developed by Tu (2002) to measure social presence in CMC environments. Revised from the earlier Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire (Tu, 2002), the Computer-Mediated Communication Questionnaire (CMCQ) consists of twenty-four 5-point Likert scale items and was administered to 210 graduate student participants with results that supported the theoretical framework underlying the survey. In other words, social context, privacy, interactivity, and online communication were found to be valid aspects of social presence. These instruments helped researchers and instructors broaden their understanding of social presence and its impact in online learning environments.

Social Presence Survey and Indicators Swan and Shih’s (2005) exploration led to the development of a survey and a set of indicators (affective, cohesive, and interactive) to begin to better understand social presence and how it manifests in online learning environments. Their early findings suggest the importance of instructors in the process and the role of course design (Swan & Shih, 2005).

Social Presence Scale and Student Readiness Since these early instruments were developed, scales and instruments continue to emerge to measure the perceived degree of social presence (Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, & Van Buuren, 2011) and student readiness for online learning (Dray, Lowenthal, Miszkiewicz, Ruiz-Primo, & Marczynski, 2011). The self-reporting Social Presence Scale developed by Kreijns and colleagues (2011) consisted of five items that were used to derive a one-dimensional social presence measure. The scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .81) with results that showed a direct impact of sociability on social presence and showed the potential for this scale’s use in further research. Because the quality and ability to be sociable affects students’ social presence, it is necessary to perform further research to see how sociability can be heightened to achieve greater social presence in online learning environments. Dray and colleagues (2011) developed an instrument with two subscales to measure the combination of learner characteristics and technology capabilities that contribute to student readiness for online learning. Through a three-phase validation process, the survey was developed and reviewed by a team of experts, put through item analysis, and checked for reliability and validity through statistical analysis. The revised survey acts as

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 18

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE

19

a first step for learners to evaluate their own readiness for online learning in order to help institutions improve their online course offerings.

Online Social Presence Questionnaire and Other Instruments In an effort to identify affective factors associated with social presence in online learning environments and to confirm their consistency, Sung and Mayer (2012) developed the Online Social Presence Questionnaire, the results of which revealed five facets of social presence: social respect, social sharing, open mind, social identity, and intimacy. These five facets represent the effects of social presence and can be used for designing future courses and online learning environments. Additional studies have sought to understand the factors contributing to social presence. In a study by Kim (2011), an instrument was developed to find the four factors that construct social presence: affective connectedness, mutual attention and support, sense of community, and open communication. Similar to the three elements proposed in the CoI framework (affective expression, open communication, and group cohesion), these factors attempt to explain how social presence works in an affective manner. Some instruments have been developed to test the validity of the CoI framework, a necessary step because of the prominence of the framework. Arbaugh and colleagues (2008) developed a 34-item CoI framework survey instrument, which was tested and validated as a reliable measure of teaching, social, and cognitive presences. Yen and Tu (2008) developed and revised another instrument, the CMCQ, to measure online social presence through four factors (social context, privacy, interactivity, and online communication). Many other instruments focus on the concept of student connectedness (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2012). Bolliger and Inan (2012) set out to develop a survey instrument to measure student connectedness. The study confirmed four factors attached to student connectedness: comfort, community, facilitation, and interaction and collaboration. The final version of the survey instrument employed 25 Likert scale items and had a reliability of α = .98. Slagter van Tryon and Bishop (2012) developed the Social Perceptions in Learning Contexts Instrument, which tests the validity of the Social Connectedness Design framework. Made up of three subscales (status assessment, norm development, and online learning environments differentiation), the instrument resulted in promising initial findings, validating the three-construct instrument, but because of limitations of sample size, follow-up technical validity studies are needed. These surveys and instruments serve to help researchers and instructors understand the nature of social presence and student connectedness, as well as develop theories for best pedagogical practices. From surveys that validate frameworks (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2012) to surveys that work to gain more extensive knowledge of the composition of social presence as a valid factor of online learning (Kim, 2011; Sung & Mayer 2012), instruments are an integral part of the research on social presence. With the help of instruments, improvements can be made to online learning environments and student learning through helping instructors and students assess their needs and practices.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 19

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

20

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

Emerging Instructional Strategies for Cultivating Social Presence It is clear that with the rise of online learning environments and instruments to measure social presence, there is also a need to change and develop pedagogies, instructional strategies, and practices that correspond to the new needs of learners. Many researchers and instructors have modified their teaching practices to allow for greater social presence and, hence, greater cognitive learning in the classroom. Social presence is mediated through cognitive absorption in order to influence learner satisfaction. In addition, interest in a course can positively affect social presence (Leong, 2011). These findings lead to questions of how to pique interest in a course and how to ensure social presence will lead to cognitive absorption and, therefore, learner satisfaction. Key findings include focusing on the instructor’s role, personalization, and feedback; creating community; engaging digital storytelling and figurative language; and evaluating those emerging instructional strategies.

Focusing on the Instructor’s Role, Personalization, and Feedback Regardless of how the instructor attempts to achieve social presence in a course, “instructors play significant roles in helping students understand and apply appropriate conduct and in guiding the course activities” (Arbaugh et al., 2008, p. 136). In an article on strategies for creating social presence in online learning environments, Aragon (2003) focused on three groups of individuals within three functions of online learning environments, namely, course designers, instructors, and students. Social presence can be integrated into the actual course design through welcome messages; student profiles, audio and video communication; and collaborative learning activities, such as group assignments and projects. Instructors can also contribute to the development of social presence through prompt responses to e-mails, frequent feedback, and the use of humor and emoticons. Similar to instructors, students should be quick to respond and give feedback to peers. They should also be encouraged to share personal stories (Aragon, 2003; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2010).

Creating Community In an effort to understand the role of social identity as it pertains to social presence, Rogers and Lea (2005) discovered that in distributed group environments, social presence is “enabled through the emphasis on the shared social identity at the level of the collaborating group rather than the creation of interpersonal bonds between individual group members” (p. 156). This study demonstrates that social presence is not dependent on physical presence.

Engaging Digital Storytelling and Figurative Language Digital storytelling is one method that instructors have used to try to engage their online students in an innovative way (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2010). Digital storytelling can be used to enhance social presence because these stories are “essentially personal expression with a purpose” (p. 72). These can be especially useful in helping faculty establish their social presence early on in an online course and can be used by students throughout the

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 20

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE

21

course in a variety of ways, including as substitutes for written essays and as a means of teaching others about a concept. A study by Delfino and Manca (2007) focused on the use of figurative language as a means of increasing social presence in online learning environments. Although the results of the study showed the use of figurative language to be more of a personal response than a response to increased social presence, it was also observed that figurative language tends to be used when meaningful or critical events occur. In other words, figurative language serves individual needs for social expression and development of social presence.

Evaluating Emerging Strategies Studies have also been performed to assess the trends and effectiveness of instructors’ teaching styles and techniques. Hughes, Ventura, and Dando (2007) surveyed a cohort of 460 undergraduate students, analyzing cohesive, affective, and interactive messages to better understand social presence coding. Having such information gives researchers a means to assess and build group socialization and social presence. In addition, the established coding template has the potential to help instructors assess student progress in courses. In the future, such a tool could even be used to monitor the trends and effectiveness of teaching methods. In examining the different teaching methods and ways that instructors have attempted to use their social presence, it is clear that establishing social presence in a course is not a simple task, but it is a rewarding one for instructors and learners alike.

Concluding Thoughts The year 2016 marked the 40-year anniversary of the landmark work by Short and colleagues (1976). Since that time, social presence has seen dozens of definitions, several frameworks and measurement tools, and many innovative teaching strategies and pedagogies. Each helps move us closer to harnessing the full potential of social presence in blended and online learning environments. Examining the CoI framework (Garrison et al., 2000) against other frameworks, such as the Social Presence Model (Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015), the Social Connectedness Design framework (Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2009), and others (Lin et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2012), helps researchers gain a more complete understanding of what social presence means in online learning environments. Because social presence clearly affects learner satisfaction (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Rogers & Lea, 2005), the question remains how to best develop social presence within online learning environments. Frameworks such as the CoI and Social Presence Model have been used with instructors for positive results (Akyol, Vaughan, & Garrison, 2011; Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2013). Although frameworks and models can help with course design and help build pedagogy for instructors, it is the practice of these theories that has the greatest impact on learners. Along these lines, it is important to study the difference between learning environments (blended versus online) and delivery methods (asynchronous versus synchronous) to determine which environment and delivery method are ideal for each particular

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 21

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

22

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

circumstance and learner. Chapters throughout this volume merge research, theory, and practice in efforts to move the field of social presence forward through such study.

Chapter Review • Social presence has emerged as a key factor in student satisfaction and success in online learning environments. • The concept of social presence evolved as researchers began to explore the dynamic interplay among online learning environments, computer-mediated communication, and learner satisfaction. • From surveys that validate frameworks to surveys that work to gain more extensive knowledge of the composition of social presence as a valid factor of online learning, instruments are an integral part of the research on social presence. With the help of instruments, improvements can be made to online learning environments and student learning through helping instructors and students assess their needs and practices. • As with any field of inquiry, the more the concept of social presence (as well as its effects and means of attainment) is studied and reevaluated, the closer researchers and instructors will come to discovering the most effective pedagogical techniques for teaching online and blended courses. • Although frameworks and models can help with course design and help build pedagogy for instructors, it is the practice of these theories that has the greatest impact on learners. Along these lines, it is important to study the difference between learning environments (blended versus online) and delivery methods (asynchronous versus synchronous) to determine which environment and delivery method is ideal for each particular circumstance and learner.

References Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a Community of Inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231–246. Anderson, T. (2015). A new twist to teaching online: Considering learners’ emotions. Retrieved from https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/tag/emotional-presence-online/ Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the Community of Inquiry framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 40–56. Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a Community of Inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. MIT Press, 12(5), 456–480.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 22

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE

23

Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 41–65. Caudle, L. A. (2013). Using a sociocultural perspective to establish teaching and social presences within a hybrid community of mentor teachers. Adult Learning, 24(3), 112–120. Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 269–292. Delfino, M., & Manca, S. (2007). The expression of social presence through the use of figurative language in a web-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2190–2211. Dray, B., Lowenthal, P., Miszkiewicz, M. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Marczynski, K. (2011). Developing an instrument to assess student readiness for online learning: A validation study. Distance Education, 32(1), 29–47. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2008, August). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize online learning. Paper presented at the 24th annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2013, October). Creating social presence in asynchronous online learning. Paper presented at the Global Learning Technology Conference, Wilmington, NC. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2012). Get present: Build community and connectedness online. Learning and Leading With Technology, 40(2), 22–25. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2013). Virtual high school teacher and student reactions to the Social Presence Model. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(3), 156–170. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning: Social, teaching and cognitive presence. In C. Howard et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the Community of Inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Hughes, M., Ventura, S., & Dando, M. (2007). Assessing social presence in online discussion groups: A replication study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 17–29. Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89–106. Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 763–777. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Van Buuren, H. (2004). Determining sociability, social space, and social presence in (a)synchronous collaborative groups. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(2), 155–172. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Van Buuren, H. (2011). Measuring perceived social presence in distributed learning groups. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), 365– 381.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 23

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

24

INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE LEARNING

Lee, S. M. (2014). The relationships between higher order thinking skills, cognitive density, and social presence in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21(1), 41–52. Leong, P. (2011). Online learning environments of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning environments. Distance Education, 32(1), 5–28. Lin, Y.-M., Lin, G.-Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2008). Building a social and motivational framework for understanding satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 1–27. Lowenthal, P., & Dunlap, J. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(12), 70–72. Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J. E., & Mueller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 16(3), 256–297. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The online learning environments of social identity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(2), 151– 158. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 51–70. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: Pitman Press. Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291–315. Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2012). Evaluating social connectedness online: The design and development of the social perceptions in learning contexts instrument. Distance Education, 33(3), 347–364. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738–1747. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication, and Information, 2(1), 23–49. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34–45. Wei, C. W., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529–545. Whiteside, A. L. (2007). Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L. (2011). Integrating the Social Presence Model to maximize blended and online learning experiences: Effective practices. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http:// olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/integrating-social-presence-modelmaximize-blended-and-online-learning-experienc

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 24

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE

25

Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/453/137 Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2009, April). Strategies for maximizing learning outcomes and student engagement in online and blended learning environments. Workshop presented at the Academy of Distinguished Teachers Teaching and Learning Conference, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2010, October). Strategies to maximize online interactions using the Social Presence Model. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2012). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize interactions in online environments. In K. St. Amant & S. Kelsey (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication across cultures: International interactions in online environments (pp. 395–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2016). Leveraging the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on emotion in online and blended learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. P. McCreery (Eds.), Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 225–241). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014a, May–June). The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/ article/power-social-presence-learning Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014b, October). Looking to the future of social presence: Theory, research, and practice. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2015, April). Connectedness, learning, and the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on online and blended learning in higher and K–12 education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Whiteside, A. L., Hughes, J. E., & McLeod, S. (2005). Interconnecting cognition, contact, and comprehension: The influence of social presence in a hybrid-model certificate program. In Proceedings of the new media research conference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Yen, C.-J., & Tu, C.-H. (2008). Online social presence: A study of score validity of the Computer-Mediated Communication Questionnaire. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 297–310.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 25

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 26

5/12/2017 10:59:56 PM

PART TWO Understanding Social Presence as Technologically Facilitated

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 27

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 28

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

3 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED Introduction to Part Two Karen Swan

T

he concept of social presence was first used by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) to classify communication media according to their ability to transmit the salience of communicators interacting through them. They argued that people view differing media as more or less capable of conveying the subtle visual and vocal cues through which personal relationships are developed in face-to-face settings, and indeed they confirmed this idea through surveys. Short and colleagues thus envisioned a social presence continuum ranging from face-to-face communications, to video- and audio-based interactions, all the way to computer-mediated communications, which they reasoned were cold and impersonal and not a good medium for conveying social presence. Short and colleagues and other communication researchers who adopted similar approaches (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Picard, 1997; Rice, 1992; Suh, 1999) were primarily concerned with business communications using computers. In particular, they examined the use of e-mail, discussion boards, and other related technologies under the broader term computer-mediated communication (CMC). Chapters in Part Two share that perspective. The development of the Internet led educators to experiment with the use of CMCs and to revisit the notion of social presence. Their experiences led them to reject the idea that CMCs were intrinsically impersonal and rather could be, as Walther (1994) averred, “hyperpersonal.” On the basis of his own experiences using CMC with students, Walther rejected what he called “deficit theories of social presence” (p. 481) because he believed that although certain verbal and visual cues were indeed not available in CMC, CMC had its own affordances that allowed participants the time to share and reflect on personal information. Researchers studying online discussion thus came to see social presence as determined by participant perceptions (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Interestingly, there are quite a few researchers exploring the use of differing technologies, such as audio (Dringus, Snyder, & Terrell, 2010; Ice, Curtis, Philips, & Wells, 2007), video (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2010), social media (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009), and virtual worlds (McKerlich, Riis, & Anderson, 2011) to enhance social presence in online classes. These 29

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 29

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

30

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

scholars view technology as affecting learners’ perceptions of social presence. This learners’ perceptions perspective is explored in Part Three of this text. Chapter 4, “Social Presence and Communication Technologies: Tales of Trial and Error,” provides a comprehensive overview of scholarship that is concerned with the relationship between social presence and communications media. Patrick Lowenthal and Dave Mulder, the chapter authors, begin with an examination of the early communications research that linked social presence to qualities of media and the reasons why educators working with Internet technologies abandoned this perspective. They maintain that such educators have nevertheless explored the effects of a variety of technologies on the development of social presence. They review what we know about social presence and online video, digital storytelling, social networking, pictures, and text messaging in regard to the implications of that understanding for the practice of online teaching and learning. They conclude with excellent general recommendations for the use of technology to enhance social presence. Chapter 5, “Evolvements of Social Presence in Open and Networked Learning Environments” by Chih-Hsiung Tu, explores the sociocultural aspects of social presence and their importance in lifelong learning. Specifically, Tu reviews personal learning environments, open networked learning environments, and the open education movement in general in relationship to social presence, identity, and self-presentation. Interestingly, he considers self-actualization and the development of multiple identities as important parts of lifelong learning that are grounded in social presence and explores how these can be realized through open education. The following two chapters summarize much of the research that adopts a social presence as a technologically facilitated perspective. They also both provide thoughtful suggestions for incorporating such ideas into online teaching and learning, both formal and informal.

Chapter Review • The concept of social presence was developed by communications scholars who considered it the capacity of a particular medium to transmit the verbal and vocal cues they believed necessary to establish individual “presence.” • Although online educators initially disputed the notion that social presence was technologically determined, arguing that it was instead determined by learners’ perceptions, educators experimenting with emerging technologies have recently begun to view such participant perceptions as technologically facilitated.

References Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. Dringus, L. P., Snyder, M. M., & Terrell, S. R. (2010). Facilitating discourse and enhancing teaching presence: Using mini audio presentations in online forums. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 75–77.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 30

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

31

Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–132. Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing presence using digital storytelling. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 70–72. McKerlich, R., Riis, M., & Anderson, T. (2011). Student perceptions of teaching presence, social presence and cognitive in a virtual world. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 324. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rice, R. E. (1992). Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration of media richness. Organization Science, 3(4), 475–500. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: John Wiley. Suh, K. S. (1999). Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: An examination of media-richness theory. Information and Management, 35(5), 295–312. Walther, J. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21(4), 460–487.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 31

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

4 SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES Tales of Trial and Error Patrick Lowenthal and Dave Mulder

S

ocial presence, as evident in the chapters throughout this book, continues to be a hot topic in online education. Social presence resonates with people because education depends on effective communication, but communication changes when it is electronically mediated. From its inception, social presence theory has focused on how technology influences communication. In the 1970s, the new hot technology was telecommunications. Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) and others at the Communications Studies Group at the University College in London began studying the effects this new technology had on communication. They developed the theory of social presence based on their research. They defined social presence as the degree of salience (i.e., quality or state of being there) between two communicators using a communication medium; they argued that people perceive some media as having a higher degree of social presence (e.g., video) than other media (e.g., text) and that media with a high degree of social presence are seen as sociable, warm, and personal, whereas media with a low degree of social presence are seen as less personal. During the 1990s, though, online educators began to question the technological deterministic perspective of Short and colleagues (see Danchak, Walther, & Swan, 2001; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Tu, 2000). They argued that it matters more what one does with—and how one uses—a communication medium than what any supposed inherent capabilities of a communication medium are (Walther, 1992, 1996). However, at the same time, and partly motivated by their dissatisfaction with the predominate forms of asynchronous communication used in online courses, online educators have continued to explore the affordances and constraints of emerging communication technologies. As communication technologies evolve, online educators will likely continue to experiment with how to best leverage the affordances of these technologies to establish participants as being “real” and “there” in online courses. In this chapter, we provide a background of the relationship between social presence and technology, summarize research that can be seen as adopting a “social presence as technologically facilitated” lens, and conclude with implications for practice. 32

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 32

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

33

Background of Social Presence and Technology Short and colleagues (1976) focused on how communication media influence the way people communicate. Influenced by earlier work done by Argyle and Dean (1965) and Wiener and Mehrabian (1968), Short and colleagues (1976) were interested in how people establish immediacy and intimacy using communication media. They defined social presence as the “salience of the other” (p. 65) when using a communication medium, which they believed was largely due to the type of communication medium being used. They believed that some media have high social presence capabilities, whereas others have low social presence capabilities based on the availability of nonverbal and relational cues. During the 1980s, as the use of e-mail increased, researchers continued studying the social capabilities of communication media. Taking a technological deterministic approach similar to that of Short and colleagues (1976), Daft and Lengel (1986) developed the media richness theory. The media richness theory stated that communication media “vary in the capacity to process rich information” (Daft & Lengel, 1986, p. 560). For instance, they argued that face-to-face communication is more media rich than, say, an impersonal written document (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). Around the same time, Rutter and colleagues developed the Cuelessness Model; this model basically states that the fewer social cues available, the greater the psychological distance between communicators (Rutter, 1984; Rutter, Pennington, Dewey, & Swain, 1984). Rutter and colleagues were specifically interested in how social cues decreased when using different communication media. These theories are often referred to as cues-filtered-out theories because they focus on what is missing and not on what is gained when using different media. In fact, Walther (1992, 1996) labeled these deficit theories. Walther argued that just as cues are filtered out, other cues are filtered in and therefore computer-mediated communication (CMC; CMC was his specific area of interest) could have some affordances that face-to-face communication lacked. He believed that given enough time, people’s social nature would eventually drive them to use CMC in very personal or even hyperpersonal ways (Walther, 1992, 1996). Over time, and likely influenced at least in part by the work of Walther, people, especially online educators, started to question these highly technological deterministic cues-filtered-out perspectives. For instance, although these perspectives suggest that asynchronous CMC was inherently antisocial, Gunawardena (1995) argued that social presence can actually be cultured between participants in text-based online learning environments. Tu (2000) later promoted a balanced perspective that acknowledged that communication media have some limitations in terms of the amount of information they can transmit but that people’s social immediacy behaviors can make up for these constraints. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) pushed this thinking a little further when they developed the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model that recognized not only that social presence was important (which, as Walther suggested, will naturally develop when given enough time) but also that there were things instructors could do to help design for and elicit social presence (i.e., through teaching presence). In their foundational article on assessing social presence, Garrison and colleagues (2000) concluded,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 33

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

34

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

We do not believe that the effect of media per se is the most salient factor in determining the degree of social presence that participants develop and share through the mediated discourse. Rather, the communication context created through familiarity, skills, motivation, organizational commitment, activities, and length of time in using the media directly influence the social presence that develops. (pp. 94–95)

Research on Social Presence and Technology Despite the commonly held belief that electronically mediated communication can be very social and personal and even hyperpersonal depending on one’s experience and context, online educators regularly experiment with the educational, and specifically the social, capabilities of new communication technologies. In the following section, we highlight some of the more popular technologies that online educators use in hopes of improving social presence in online courses.

Online Video and Social Presence People have always been attracted to the fidelity of video (see Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986; Daft et al., 1987; Rutter, 1984; Short et al., 1976). Online educators in particular, especially in terms of social presence, like that video enables people to visually see each other while they communicate. Although synchronous video conferencing is the prototypical example of using video as a communication technology, today there are actually many different ways to use video to communicate with others. For instance, video can be synchronous (e.g., Skype) or asynchronous (e.g., a YouTube video)—each of which can then be used for one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many communication (Lowenthal, 2015).

Synchronous Video Synchronous video can be one-to-one (e.g., a Skype call between a teacher and a student), one-to-many (e.g., a webinar in which the presenter focuses only on his or her presentation and doesn’t interact with the audience), or many-to-many (e.g., a collaborative live meeting in which every member has audio and video access). Each use of synchronous video communication can address common challenges of asynchronous communication. For instance, synchronous video happens in real time and therefore can be more expedient and help establish others as being “real” and “there” by enabling people to visually see each other in real time (Dray, 2011; Fadde & Vu, 2014). At the same time, synchronous video does require that a teacher and student(s) be online at the same time, which can present challenges of its own. Fadde and Vu (2014) identified multiple benefits of using synchronous video in asynchronous online courses, such as improving engagement, instructor social presence, and the formation of a community of learners, but they also identified some drawbacks, such as a decrease in instructional efficiency. They acknowledged that the challenge of using synchronous video “is to find a combination of synchronous and asynchronous activities that leverage the technology affordances of each mode, are within the capabilities of instructors, and satisfy the preferences of learners” (p. 33).

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 34

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

35

In another study, Olson and McCracken (2015) examined the use of weekly synchronous video-based class meetings in primarily asynchronous online courses. They were interested to see if the benefits of synchronous class meetings were worth the effort involved to plan and host them (Olson & McCracken, 2015). The authors found no statistical difference when comparing learning outcomes, sense of community, and student satisfaction between students in a completely asynchronous online course and students in an asynchronous online course with weekly synchronous video meetings. Olson and McCracken (2015) identified additional challenges of synchronous meetings, including the time it took to prep for the synchronous meetings and the struggle to schedule live meetings at a time that worked for all students. They concluded three elements were essential to consider before deciding to incorporate synchronous video into online courses: the student’s learning, experience, and time and resource investment (Olson & McCracken, 2015).

Asynchronous Video Online learning grew out of the distance education tradition that places emphasis on enabling learners to do their course work at a time that is convenient for them. Therefore, online educators have been especially interested in the power of asynchronous video. Asynchronous video is video that is recorded and shared with others to watch at their convenience. This can be video recorded (e.g., with a webcam or even a phone) and shared with others (e.g., e-mailed, uploaded to a learning management system [LMS], or hosted on a video server like YouTube) or even video hosted in web-based applications like VoiceThread. VoiceThread enables instructors and students to narrate and record presentations and then discuss the recording using multimodal commenting tools (Ching, 2014; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2011b). Online educators have been particularly interested in using VoiceThread for multimodal discussions, and the potential multimodal communication has to “humanize” or make more “authentic” the online discussion experience (Ching & Hsu, 2013; Pacansky-Brock, 2012, 2014; Trespalacios & Rand, 2015). Borup, West, and Graham (2012) investigated student perceptions of asynchronous video. Faculty in three different online courses used VoiceThread or YouTube to engage students in asynchronous video discussions. Borup and colleagues (2012) found that asynchronous video “had a substantial impact on establishing the instructor’s social presence” (p. 201) but less of an impact on establishing the social presence of students’ classmates. Borup, West, Thomas, and Graham (2014) conducted a follow-up study in which they interviewed four different types of online learners about their perceptions of asynchronous video. Interestingly, they found that extroverts enjoyed making asynchronous videos but did not enjoy watching the videos of others. They also found that the type of discussion prompt influenced students’ perceptions of asynchronous video use in the classroom. In another study, Pacansky-Brock (2014) set out to encourage the use of video commenting in VoiceThread; she noticed over the years that her students would often choose to leave text instead of video comments when given the chance. She found that she was able to increase the number of video comments students left in VoiceThread by (a) using a VoiceThread icebreaker early in the course, (b) requiring students to leave a voice or video comment the first time they used VoiceThread in the course, (c) providing choices

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 35

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

36

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

about what students could respond to, and (d) welcoming students by name to comment on the VoiceThread (Pacansky-Brock, 2014). Participants reported stronger perceptions of community and improved nuance and emotion when leaving voice or video comments instead of text-only comments. Working from the theory that the more visual cues the better, Lyons, Reysen, and Pierce (2012) investigated recorded online lectures that included a free-floating instructor in the corner of the lecture. Contrary to public opinion, they found that adding social presence cues (i.e., a video of the instructor talking) negatively affected perceived learning and interactivity, especially among students with lower technological efficacy. An additional and increasingly popular approach to using asynchronous video involves the use of video feedback. Lowenthal and Dunlap (2011) found that detailed feedback—specifically asynchronous video feedback in the format of screencasts of students’ work—was one of the best ways to establish instructor social presence in the courses they taught. Borup and colleagues (2014), however, found no significant difference in students’ perceptions of instructor social presence between those who received video feedback and those who didn’t in their mixed-methods study of video feedback in blended online courses. Despite this finding, instructors and students in Borup and colleagues’ study stated that the power of video feedback is that it allows instructors to speak in a conversational tone, share emotion in their voice, and create a sense of closeness. Students suggested, though, that the blended nature of the course lessened the impact of video feedback.

Digital Storytelling In addition to video feedback, Lowenthal and Dunlap (2011; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014) also found in their study comparing various strategies to establish social presence that digital storytelling was a powerful way to use asynchronous video to establish social presence. Research has shown that sharing stories and self-disclosing can help establish social presence (Rourke et al., 1999). Digital stories are unique—short personal stories told with the use of graphics, audio, and video (Lowenthal, 2009; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2007). The basic idea is that sharing personal multimodal stories can help establish someone as a “real” person. Lowenthal and Dunlap (2010) identified multiple ways of using teacher- and student-created digital stories in the online classroom; they later reported that students actually identified digital storytelling to be one of the best strategies they used for establishing social presence (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2011). Although digital storytelling holds much promise for elevating social presence, it has some pitfalls. First, although much of the power of digital stories lies in hearing the emotion in one’s voice as one shares a personal story, some faculty and students are simply not comfortable recording their own voice or self-disclosing personal details about their life. Second, as Walsh and Hoskisson (2015) pointed out, despite the aforementioned benefits, digital stories lack a live listener providing immediate feedback. Motivated by the popular belief that video is a superior communication medium for social presence and by his own personal experience with students not watching videos he created, Lowenthal (2015) investigated student perceptions of various forms

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 36

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

37

of video (e.g., video announcements, instructional screencasts, and video feedback). He found that although students reported that video was a better communication tool to establish and maintain social presence, in practice it depends on when and how the video is used, and there are times when it is just easier and more expedient to use text.

Social Networking and Social Presence Social networking applications such as Twitter and Facebook have also attracted online educators because of their “social” capabilities; these applications alone have hundreds of millions of regular users. In addition, and perhaps even more important, many of these social network users are already adept (i.e., literate) with socially interacting with others in electronically mediated environments where cues are filtered out (Ostashewski, Reid, & Dron, 2013; Veletsianos & Navarrete, 2012).

Twitter Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009a, 2009b) were attracted early on to the possibilities of using Twitter for social presence in online courses. They found that online courses often lack the just-in-time hallway interactions often present in face-to-face courses. Thus, they explored using Twitter to enhance social presence by providing a mechanism for just-in-time social interactions. They found that students who regularly used Twitter reported that it did help them get a sense that others in the class were “real” or “there.” However, follow-up interviews with students later suggested that although many students liked using Twitter, some hated it, and still many others actually preferred other ways of establishing and maintaining social presence (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2011). Other researchers have since investigated using Twitter to increase student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction, engagement, and ultimately social presence in online courses (Munoz, Pellegrini-Lafont, & Cramer, 2014; Rohr & Costello, 2015; Thoms, 2012). However, overall, they have had mixed success. For instance, although Rohr and colleagues (Rohr & Costello, 2015; Rohr, Costello, & Hawkins, 2015) found Twitter was effective at encouraging engagement and community in large online classes, Munoz and colleagues (2014) found that Twitter did not help build a sense of social presence with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Bartholomew and Anderson (2010) also had mixed success using Twitter to post class announcements. Bartholomew and Anderson also pointed out that the instructor in their study made little effort to educate students on how to use Twitter in the first place.

Facebook Facebook is the world’s most popular social network; there are over 150 million active users in the United States alone (Statista, n.d.). As such, there are natural benefits of using a social network for educational purposes when millions of learners already log in each day. However, this very affordance can also be a constraint. Facebook is more of a friendship-driven social network than other platforms like Twitter (Dunlap &

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 37

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

38

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

Lowenthal, 2011a); therefore, teachers and students alike can find it uncomfortable to “friend” each other (Wang, Scown, Urquhart, & Hardman, 2014). Despite possible constraints like this (which some address by creating special groups or avatars), educators (online or not) continue to experiment with using Facebook for social presence purposes. Online educators like to blame any shortcomings of online education on the LMS (Lane, 2009). Therefore, it is not surprising to find that many have turned to Facebook in hopes of a less restrictive experience. DeSchryver, Mishra, Koehler, and Francis (2009), though, found in their investigation of using Facebook as an LMS that participants did not post longer or more frequent messages on Facebook than the traditional LMS. Participants also did not report any higher sense of social presence using Facebook as compared to the traditional LMS. They explained that this could be due to the fact that they did not require students to “friend” each other. They used Facebook only for course discussions, and they still used the traditional LMS for other functions (e.g., grade book, calendar) (DeSchryver et al., 2009). The researchers also suspected that students’ reactions could have been influenced by the fact that discussions in Facebook are not threaded. Despite their results, DeSchryver and colleagues (2009) remained optimistic about Facebook’s ability to develop social presence and recommended further research in this area. Wang and colleagues (2014) also investigated using Facebook to create social presence in online courses. They were interested in how students use Facebook for personal and academic purposes. They found that Facebook strengthened relationships in both teacher-to-student and student-to-student interactions and that Facebook was useful for group work, especially in forming groups and facilitating discussion (Wang et al., 2014). Regardless of the social network, the results are clearly mixed. Faced with inconsistent findings like these, researchers are quick to point out the importance of up-front planning. For instance, Rohr and colleagues (2015) pointed out, From a learning-design perspective, Twitter’s use ought to be carefully considered for suitability to the course’s philosophy, content, and participants’ capabilities. It should be closely tied to other class activities and content, both in terms of topics and timing. Its reason for being used ought to be communicated to students, be it for communication of course logistics, reporting on current events, or other assessment-related activities.

One additional thing appears to be clear. Just because learners are comfortable communicating in social networks does not mean that they are prepared to use these tools for educational purposes. Additional research is definitely needed on the power of social networks to establish social presence.

Low-Tech Strategies and Social Presence Online educators do not always focus on high-tech tools. Some have found multiple ways to use low-tech strategies to establish and maintain social presence.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 38

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

39

Pictures Many researchers believe that photographs may help to “humanize” online interactions (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2011). For instance, Kear, Chetwynd, and Jefferis (2014) found that simply adding a photograph to an online profile can increase social presence. In fact, providing students with the opportunity to use pictures as part of their self-presentation has been found to help students develop relationships in computer-mediated environments (Sachdev, 2011). Kear and colleagues (2014) found in one study that a majority of students (61%) immediately uploaded a profile picture when they accessed their course. Although headshots were the most common, some students would even upload pictures that provided a sense of their interests or hobbies. Students reported that they uploaded profile pictures because they believed it would help foster a sense of community— “putting a face with a name” (Kear et al., 2014, p. 6). Kear and colleagues (2014) went on to explain that adding personal pictures helped individuals project their identity into the community, shaping how they would like others to perceive them and providing classmates with a visual cue to help them “get a feeling for who they are” (p. 9). Dunlap and Lowenthal (2014) experimented with multiple ways to use photographs to increase social presence. One easy strategy they used was cocreating a photo roster with students using a Google document (that includes a photograph and a brief bio); students were then encouraged to print the roster so that they would have a quick overview of their fellow students at a glance. Another creative activity was to have students create a “virtual paper bag” where students chose five photographs to illustrate aspects of themselves using Flickr; the students then had the opportunity to explore each others’ paper bags and learn more about how “real” their classmates actually are (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014). Using pictures in both simple and more creative ways has the potential to help establish each student as a “real” and unique person (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2010, 2014).

Messaging Online discussions are often thought of as the central place for all course communication. As useful as asynchronous discussion forums can be, online educators must not forget the value of one-to-one communication for increasing social presence (Lowenthal, 2015). Although many people like to poke fun and say that e-mail is dead, personal e-mails between an instructor and an individual student can be a powerful way to connect and foster social presence (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2010). There are also a host of other messaging applications one can use to communicate with students (see DuVall, Powell, Hodge, & Ellis, 2007; Zawacki-Richter, Müskens, Krause, Alturki, & Aldraiweesh, 2015). For instance, DuVall and colleagues (2007) investigated using text messaging on cell phones as a means of developing and supporting social presence. In their study, they examined a computer-to-phone texting application; the instructors composed messages on the computer that were then sent directly to their students’ phones as text messages. Instructors sent messages about course updates, grade information, calendar reminders, and weekly “hot topics” for the course. The results were mixed; some students definitely enjoyed the stronger connection to the instructor, whereas other students reported that the text

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 39

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

40

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

communications were really not necessary (DuVall et al., 2007). Other online educators are exploring the usefulness of group messaging tools like Slack (see Whalen, 2016).

Implications for Practice Emerging communication technologies can be alluring. However, online educators must not forget what decades of research have shown: It is not the medium but rather how one uses the medium that makes the difference (Clark, 1983, 1994). To complicate matters further, at least in terms of using media to establish social presence, research has suggested that people perceive social presence differently and each person has different social presence needs (i.e., some people might desire a stronger sense of immediacy and intimacy when communicating than others). Therefore, one strategy might not work equally for all learners. Furthermore, students have historically reported feeling isolated and alone in online courses, but their social presence needs are likely to change as they spend more time and become more adept (i.e., literate) with electronically mediated communication and learning online. With this in mind, the following are some rules of thumb to follow when experimenting with new communication technologies in online courses: • Media alone does not establish social presence; people establish social presence. Every communication technology has affordances and constraints. For instance, video can provide more visual cues than other types of communication technology, but that does not mean that video is always the best or right media for every situation. • The way you use communication technologies matters, and your context should always influence your use. Teachers and students need to focus more on how they use communication media than any so-called inherent capabilities of media. Just as a written letter can be impersonal or highly personal (e.g., a love letter), video as well can be impersonal or highly personal. Instructional designers in particular need to conduct research (e.g., design-based research) on better ways to use certain media given the context (which includes understanding the unique needs of the teachers and the students). • Teachers and students need practice using new communication technologies. Simply because one has experience using some communication technologies does not mean that he or she is versed in the nuances of all communication technologies or how to use the technologies for teaching and learning purposes. Online educators need to take time introducing and supporting students as they use new communication technologies. • Share the purpose for using emerging communication technologies. Online educators should have a good reason for introducing new communication technologies into their courses. They must take the time to share the reason and purpose with their students and explain how the technologies will help students meet the course learning objectives. • Give students options when appropriate. Students are different, and they are taking courses online for a variety of reasons. Although there are good reasons to have

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 40

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

41

all students complete a specific assignment in the same way, there are also times when you can give students a choice. For instance, some students might not feel comfortable sharing a recording of their voice each week. This does not mean that education should not challenge students’ comfort level but rather that we should not assume that all students have the same social presence needs and comfort levels using emerging communication technologies.

Conclusion The relationship between social presence and technology has interested researchers and practitioners for decades. Although online educators, generally speaking, have come to acknowledge that it matters more what one does with a communication technology than any inherent capabilities of that technology, they still continue to explore the affordances and constraints of each new emerging communication technology. Online educators will likely continue to experiment with how to best leverage the affordances of new technologies. In this chapter, we provided a background of the relationship between social presence and technology, summarized some research on social presence and various communication technologies, and concluded with some implications for practice.

Chapter Review • Social presence theory has evolved from a focus on inherent qualities of a medium to a focus on how a medium is used. • Different communication technologies have different affordances. • Online educators are attracted to the affordances of synchronous and asynchronous online video. • Low-tech strategies, such as including photos and engaging in one-on-one communication, can improve social presence. • Media alone does not establish social presence; people establish social presence within mediated environments.

References Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304. Bartholomew, K. W., & Anderson, J. E. (2010). Using Twitter to deliver class announcements: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Issues in Information Systems, 11(2), 83–87. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. Borup, J., West, R. E., Thomas, R., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Examining the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence in blended courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ irrodl/article/view/1821/2909

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 41

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

42

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

Ching, Y.-H. (2014). Exploring the impact of role-playing on peer feedback in an online casebased learning activity. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1765/2906 Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 5(3), 298–314. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 191–233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366. Danchak, M. M., Walther, J. B., & Swan, K. P. (2001, November). Presence in mediated instruction: Bandwidth, behavior, and expectancy violations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Orlando, FL. DeSchryver, M., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Francis, A. (2009). Moodle vs. Facebook: Does using Facebook for discussions in an online course enhance perceived social presence and student interaction? In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 329–336). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Dray, B. J. (2011). Telling stories and teachable moments: The possibility of Adobe Connect. In P. R. Lowenthal, D. Thomas, A. Thai, B. Yuhnke, M. Edwards, & C. Gasell (Eds.), The CU online handbook, 2011 (pp. 81–85). Denver, CO: University of Colorado Denver. Retrieved from http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/CUOnline/FacultySupport/Handbook/ cuonlinehandbook2011/Documents/chapter12.pdf Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009a). Horton hears a tweet. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32(4). Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009b). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–136. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). Defeating the Kobayashi Maru: Supporting student retention by balancing the needs of the many and the one. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(4). Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2011a). Learning, unlearning, and relearning: Using Web 2.0 technologies to support the development of lifelong learning skills. In G. D. Magoulas (Ed.), E-infrastructures and technologies for lifelong learning: Next generation environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-983-5 Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2011b). VoiceThread virtuosity. In P. Shank (Ed.), The online learning idea book: Proven ways to enhance technology-based and blended learning (Vol. 2, pp. 288–292). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2014). The power of presence: Our quest for the right mix of social presence in online courses. In A. A. Piña & A. P. Mizell (Eds.), Real-life distance education: Case studies in practice (p. 41–66). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. DuVall, J. B., Powell, M. R., Hodge, E., & Ellis, M. (2007). Text messaging to improve social presence in online learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(3), 24.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 42

5/12/2017 10:59:57 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

43

Fadde, P. J., & Vu, P. (2014). Blended online learning: Benefits, challenges, and misconceptions. In P. R. Lowenthal, C. S. York, & J. C. Richardson (Eds.), Online learning: Common misconceptions, benefits, and challenges (pp. 33–48). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., & Jefferis, H. (2014). Social presence in online learning communities: The role of personal profiles. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 1–15. Lane, L. M. (2009). Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems affect teaching. First Monday, 14(10). Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Digital storytelling: An emerging institutional technology? In K. McWilliam & J. Hartley (Eds.), Story circle: Digital storytelling around the world (pp. 252–259). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Lowenthal, P. R. (2015, April). Did video kill the asynchronous post? Exploring students’ perceptions of asynchronous online video and social presence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association conference, Chicago, IL. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2007). Digital stories. In P. Shank (Ed.), The online learning idea book: 95 proven ways to enhance technology-based and blended learning (pp. 110–111). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 70–72. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.004 Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011, April). Investigating students’ perceptions of various instructional strategies to establish social presence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Lyons, A., Reysen, S., & Pierce, L. (2012). Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and social presence in online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 181–186. Munoz, L. R., Pellegrini-Lafont, C., & Cramer, E. (2014). Using social media in teacher preparation programs: Twitter as a means to create social presence. Perspectives in Urban Education, 11(2), 57–69. Olson, J. S., & McCracken, F. E. (2015). Is it worth the effort? The impact of incorporating synchronous lectures into an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 19(2), 73–84. Ostashewski, N., Reid, D., & Dron, J. (2013). Scaffolds not handcuffs: Bringing social media into the instructional design mix. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2013 (pp. 2199–2204). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Pacansky-Brock, M. (2012). Best practices for teaching with emerging technologies. New York, NY: Routledge. Pacansky-Brock, M. (2014). Learning out loud: Increasing voluntary voice comments in online classes. In P. R. Lowenthal, C. S. York, & J. C. Richardson (Eds.), Online learning: Common misconceptions, benefits and challenges (pp. 99–114). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 43

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

44

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

Rohr, L. E., & Costello, J. (2015). Student perceptions of Twitters’ effectiveness for assessment in a large enrollment online course. Online Learning Journal, 19(4). Rohr, L. E., Costello, J., & Hawkins, T. (2015). Design considerations for integrating Twitter into an online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4), 241–249. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Rutter, D. R. (1984). Looking and seeing: The role of visual communication in social interaction. London, UK: John Wiley. Rutter, D. R., Pennington, D. C., Dewey, M. E., & Swain, J. (1984). Eye-contact as a chance product of individual looking: Implications for the intimacy model of Argyle and Dean. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8(4), 250–258. Sachdev, V. (2011). Motivations for social computing. IT Professional, 13(4), 18–23. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Statista. (n.d.). Facebook—Statistics and facts. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/topics/751/ facebook/ Thoms, B. (2012, January). Integrating blogging and microblogging to foster learning and social interaction in online learning communities. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (pp. 68–77). New York, NY: IEEE. Trespalacios, J., & Rand, J. (2015). Using asynchronous activities to promote sense of community and learning in an online course. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 5(4), 1–13. Tu, C.-H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2, 27–37. Veletsianos, G., & Navarrete, C. (2012). Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 144–166. Walsh, R. L., & Hoskisson, D. (2015). Problematic issues in digital storytelling. In S. Carliner, C. Fulford, & N. Ostashewski (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2015 (pp. 220–225). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. Wang, R., Scown, P., Urquhart, C., & Hardman, J. (2014). Tapping the educational potential of Facebook: Guidelines for use in higher education. Education and Information Technologies: The Official Journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education, 19(1), 21–39. Whalen, Z. (2016, February). Notes on teaching with Slack. Retrieved from http://www.zachwhalen.net/posts/notes-on-teaching-with-slack/ Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Zawacki-Richter, O., Müskens, W., Krause, U., Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2015). Student media usage patterns and non-traditional learning in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(2), 136–170.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 44

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

5 EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE IN OPEN AND NETWORKED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Chih-Hsiung Tu

O

nline social presence has gained attention in the research arena over the past two decades as educators obtained a more complete understanding of how critical it is in online learning. With new learning movements (e.g., open learning, networked learning, open educational resources [OERs], and emerging digital technologies), how should educators reflect these emerging movements on social presence? Should social presence evolve with emerging digital learning movements? What role does social presence play in these emerging movements? Historically, social presence has been examined in more formal learning contexts. Open learning pedagogy, tools, and resources blur the lines between formal learning, nonformal learning, and informal learning. Is social presence always “the higher, the better?” If yes, how high should it be? Should an educator then always facilitate the highest level of social presence? If not, why not? Can social presence become too high, resulting in negative impacts on learning?

Social Presence for Experiential Learning Social presence initiates, enhances, and empowers experiential learning in digital “networked” learning environments. Researchers have concluded social presence is critical to virtual experiential learning (Cho, Yim, & Paik, 2015; Jarmon, Traphagan, Mayrath, & Trivedi, 2009), experiential gaming learning (Kraten, 2015), and teaching professional development in real-life interaction in experiential learning (Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014). When educators promote social presence for experiential learning in open education, students can learn how to adapt to meet the demands of personalizing and customizing social learning contexts. Many educators are reexamining their curriculum and instructional strategies to help prepare learners to become competent digital lifelong learners in formal and informal learning environments. In particular, educators are concerned about current education becoming more about careers and “competencies” and less about inquiry, meaning-making, and a broadly humane view of human capacity. Kuh (2008) argued that with the current education trend, learners might become alienated from their own 45

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 45

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

46

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

social learning experiences. Open education emphasizing experiential learning could be the solution to reemphasize inquiry and meaning-making in education and learning. The open education movement is being adapted and modified to meet the demands of local contexts. With this movement, digital social presence requires more attention and deeper examination at a more profound level in open and networked learning environments, specifically for online social presence, networked social presence, and mobile social presence. Social presence is a critical factor for experiential learning. With open, networked, and mobile technologies, networked social presence and mobile social presence may enhance experiential learning in different and deeper levels. Campbell (2016) argued that mobile social presence and interaction deepen learners’ understandings of the condition of learning itself, especially within a strongly social context that can mobilize communities of practice quickly and effectively. Networked social presence was articulated by Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, and Robison (2009) and Jenkins, Ito, and Boyd (2015) as the networked mediation of “participatory culture” and “connected learning” to extend learning experiences beyond schools and formal learning. To understand social presence thoroughly, it is necessary to understand the relationship between social presence and social identity.

Social Identity Social presence and social identity intertwine and are the essences for social interaction and collaborative learning communities. Rogers and Lea (2005) contended that social presence is enabled through the emphasis of shared social identity at the level of the collaborating group, whereas Shen, Yu, and Khalifa (2010) concluded that social presence positively affects the social identities of community members. More specifically, based on the framework of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000), social presence is the ability to project one’s personal or social identity as the first step in the online community. Social presence and social identity would occur in collaborative, group, and community settings. In other words, social presence and social identity should be examined in the networked environment. Social presence is multidimensional because there are different types of social presence and multiple social identities. If digital learning environments allow learners to customize and personalize, social identities would enhance ideal social presence. Digital learning literacy would be defined by projecting ideal digital identities or personas through optimizing dynamic, ideal social presence (Shen et al., 2010). Open and networked learning discloses the area for dynamic social presence. That ideal identity will guide us to project our dynamic and ideal social presence. Learning is a journey of self-actualization and self-realization within a deeply relational social context, an adventure in synthesis and integration (Kuh, 2008). Digital open networked learning transforms the learners’ experiences of education to become the ideal whole person via self-presentation and social interaction. The attributes of open, social, and networked digital technologies empower learners to project personalized digital social identities as self-presentations to enhance social presence.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 46

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE

47

Self-Presentation Self-presentation is a fundamental process communicated in everyday life and a social act necessary to understand and examine social identities and social presence. It is an act of creative, personalized, and ideal expression. Goffman (1959) defined self-presentation as “the performance of an individual that accentuates certain matters and conceals others” (p. 67). Self-presentation could be described as the “clothing” people wear to “craft” their identities to impress others (Tu, Blocher, & Roberts, 2008). Self-presentation in more formal learning contexts is affected by the social and learning cultural contexts. When we place self-presentation in a more open and networked learning environment, it is transformed into a more dynamic and diversified entity because social and cultural context in open learning is more prolific, particularly when open pedagogy, such as connectivist design, is applied as the main instructional design. Learners are given freedom to connect and build their learning networks.

Multiple Identities Framed from self-presentation theory, open and networked learning empowers learners to project dynamic social presences by building ideal social identities. According to the theoretical perspective of social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), individuals have multiple layers of “self,” including not only a personal identity but also a range of possible social identities. With a dramaturgical lens, different social and cultural contexts may affect learners constructing different personal and ideal social identities to optimize social presence. In other words, social presence is not always necessarily “the higher, the better” but, rather, it is best that learners have the freedom to construct and craft their ideal and intended identities in learning communities based on their purpose, time, intentions, and social learning contexts. Weller (2014) reflected on Mead’s (1934) identity argument that one’s concept of self is most fully developed when community attitudes and values are integrated from an open-learning aspect. He argued that with an open environment, learners are able to project multiple identities (Ewins, 2005) to describe these multiple identities, with perhaps a different one for their discipline persona, their campus-based persona, and their online persona. Weller (2014) concluded that increasing integration of open learning offers learners a new digital literacy that helps guide them to operate effectively and safely in personal learning environments (PLEs) and open and networked learning environments (ONLEs) and to develop digital identities. Thus, Weller (2014) suggested that constructing digital identity is part of a larger literacy. He contended that people are afraid of social media because they lack confidence in building their ideal identity; therefore, they struggle to project social presence. It is not uncommon to see learners who do not know how to react to emerging open, networked, and social tools and environments. Some learners may project inappropriate or nonideal identities, whereas others may decide not to use open and networked tools to avoid any potential embarrassment because of the lack of confidence in constructing ideal identities. This level of control and personalization linked to the individual learners, not the institution, is essential in establishing digital networked identities (Groom, 2014).

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 47

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

48

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

Although open and networked learning may empower learners to construct ideal identities to enhance social presence, simply providing open and networked tools or environments is insufficient. Cormier (2009) argued that open and networked practices are not a panacea. Digital networked literacy is critical to help learners build a PLE to construct and craft their ideal and personal social identities to strengthen ideal social presence within a well-designed ONLE.

Self-Actualization in PLEs PLEs as learning integration strategies and pedagogies are grounded in sociocultural learning theory to address the capacity of human beings to make their own choices as human agencies by personalizing their lifelong learning (Tu, 2014). PLEs enable individuals to personalize their learning environment through the integration of learning networks, people, resources, and tools, to which they refer in order to meet their learning interests and needs. PLEs are composed of multiple subsystems and technologies and are a collection of tools integrated under the concepts of openness, interoperability, and learner control. Learners are required to use a personalized portal in which multiple tools are organized in one central location to create a system of open networked learning, such as mobile app platforms like Symbaloo, Netvibes, and MyYahoo. A PLE is an action of self-actualization to endow learners with the ability to personalize their digital learning environments to project and envisage ideal online social presence, networked social presence, and mobile social presence. In Kuh’s (2008) framework, support for the networked discovery of connections is the center of PLEs as created and experienced by students. Open and networked technologies enable individuals to personalize the environment, the PLE, where they learn by connecting and managing learning networks and appropriating a range of tools by connecting people, resources, and tools to meet their learning interests and needs (Tu, 2014). To fulfill self-actualization, individuals should be empowered to create, organize, personalize, and optimize their three networks (people, resources, and tools) based on their lifelong learning goals to develop their PLE. Within PLEs, learners are empowered to make their own choices and may enhance the choices they make (their freedom to choose and personalize) for learning. Campbell (2016) emphasized that learner-initiated connections for learning networks identify both the nodes and the lines between them rather than merely connect the dots that teachers established. This change allows students to cocreate a structure to sustain creative thought and provide frameworks for judgment. PLEs through the active development of self-actualization can shape online social presence, networked social presence, and mobile social presence. Research (Tu, Yen, Blocher, & Chan, 2012) has shown that networked social presence and mobile social presence are related to and intertwined with but different from online social presence. Networked social presence characterizes the degree to which networked participants engage in creating, maintaining, sharing, and connecting social content, digital and social identities, networked linkages, and collaborative communities (Tu, Yen, et al., 2012). In

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 48

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE

49

other words, networked social presence focuses on social interactions in creating, maintaining, sharing, and connecting learning processes. Mobile social presence is defined as the degree of enriching social context awareness, managing location-based communication, personalizing multilayered interactivity, and optimizing digital and social identities to other intellectual entities through digital mobile technologies (Tu, McIsaac, Sujo-Montes, & Armfield, 2012). Mobile social presence distinguishes itself from online and networked social presences in the aspects of personalized control and location-free digital interaction. Mobile learning environments are human networks that afford the opportunity to participate in creative endeavors, social networking, organization and reorganization of social content, and management of social acts anytime, anywhere through mobile technologies. Social acts that elicit identities, develop awareness, cement relationships, ensure connections, and promote interactions are necessary for interactive learning. PLE practices transfer power to learners, redistribute the power of instructors to learners, promote more equitable relationships, and ensure and extend learners’ experiences through having voice and agency. On the basis of social and cultural perspectives, learners are seen as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating, not simply as reactive organisms shaped by environmental forces or driven by inner impulses (Carlson, 2008). Learners are seen as human learning agencies with the capacity to make their own choices. As these attractive benefits unfold, it is increasingly realized that everything known about a learner can be compiled and tailored to individual attributes, patterns, and competencies (Bartow, 2014). Therefore, learners negotiate, interpret, evaluate, and analyze rapid and complex digital messages and regularly choose to compose and produce communication in increasingly self-directed and socially connected ways to construct their PLEs. Although PLE practices may optimize social presence, they are only nurtured within ONLEs created and facilitated by educators. Giving ultimate autonomy to optimize social presence in open, networked, and personalized learning environments is a genuine practice of social justice in education for lifelong learning. Social presence plays a key role in individuals’ interpersonal essence to become competent digital lifelong learners. By projecting ideal social identities for learners to fulfill self-actualization by actively personalizing and managing their learning within digital open networked environments, this chapter addresses social presence from sociocultural aspects to explore and examine emerging digital learning through the movements of OERs and open learning. PLEs and ONLEs are key pedagogical and instructional strategies that empower learners to deploy their freedom to choose, to be, to do, and to project and optimize ideal online social presence, networked social presence, and mobile social presence. Thus, PLEs and ONLEs can embody experiential learning as well as the key instructional strategies and integration to enhance social presence by empowering learners to personalize and manage their learning environment. Therefore, certain technologies can offer educators a platform for learning by networking learners to collaborate, build, and organize PLEs and ONLEs. This practice allows learners a firsthand approach to understanding the importance of optimizing social presence and constructing social identities in a projectbased, authentic setting.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 49

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

50

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

The ability and capability to build and organize PLEs and ONLEs as a networked learning literacy is critical to networked learners and educators who pursue becoming competent digital lifelong learners by optimizing social presence through constructing ideal social identities. With lifelong goal realization, learning is extended from formal to lifelong and from personal to environmental.

Integration of ONLEs ONLEs built and facilitated by instructors and educators are essential to enable networked learners to construct their PLEs. This is a large-scale effort to empower networked learners to optimize ideal social presence. Research has suggested that an ONLE with effective collaboration and community building is the key instructional strategy to enhance online social presence (Rogers & Lea, 2005). Tu, McIsaac, and colleagues (2012) stated, “ONLE is a digital environment that empowers learners to participate in creative endeavors, conduct social networking, organize and reorganize social contents, and manage social acts by connecting people, resources, and tools by integrating Web 2.0 tools to design environments that are totally transparent, or open to public view” (p. 14). This open, transparent, and socially networked architecture is the critical blueprint for educators to promote PLEs within ONLEs. Researchers have concluded that computer-mediated communication and ONLEs have different dynamics in social interaction (Tu, Yen, et al., 2012). ONLEs focus on “social” and “networking” linkages to transform online learners into “network learners” to project their ideal and preferred “network social presence” rather than online social presence. More recently mobile social interaction has been concluded and identified as mobile social presence to reflect dynamic personalized self-actualization (Tu, McIsaac, et al., 2012). While instructors design ONLEs to facilitate learners’ PLE practices, educational institutions should promote open education to nurture digital lifelong learning goals.

Open Education Open education is an educational belief and vision for all lifelong learning practices. The simple availability of open instruction or open content is unlikely to be a definitive solution for education (Richter & McPherson, 2012). Open education is a broader visualization and movement to encourage learners to craft their social presence to become competent digital lifelong learners. Learners, educators, educational institutions, and government agencies should draw on open education to address social justice theories in learning, as well as apply PLEs and ONLEs as strategies to liberate their lifelong learning. Recent research has identified social presence as a critical element in open education, such as massive open online courses (Kilgore & Lowenthal, 2015; Miller, 2015), OERs (Koroivulaono, 2014), open education and learning (Angelaki & Mavroidis, 2013), open pedagogy (Kop, Fournier, & Mak, 2011), and open scholarships (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). Open education is a philosophy about the way people should produce, share, and build on knowledge. Generally, most would agree it refers to OERs, open tools, and open

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 50

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE

51

pedagogy. Open education makes learning more flexible, diversified, and democratic. Open networked learning has been perceived as a part of the social revolution, although not a technical part, which invites educational leaders to innovate and create more adaptive organizational models that enable open learning experiences and new ways and new disciples for assembling them into much more varied courses of learning. Couros (2014) argued that the open education movement is an informal, worldwide phenomenon characterized by the tendency of individuals and groups to work, collaborate, and publish in ways that favor accessibility, sharing, transparency, and interoperability. Advocates of openness value the democratization of knowledge construction and dissemination and are critical of knowledge-controlling structures. Open movement will give more freedom to learners to project and optimize their online social presence, networked social presence, and mobile social presence. When addressing open education, most may think only about open content. Open education should be extended to open pedagogy, how learners want to be taught and how they want to communicate. In other words, “open” is denoted as open instructions, open tools, and open control for customization and personalization in addition to open content. The web-enabled open source movement presents pointed challenges to traditional notions of property, expertise, authority, and authorship. Learners make their own decisions about how they want to communicate, learn, create, and consume knowledge about their shared lives (Leu, O’Byrne, Zawilinski, McVerry, & Everett-Cacopardo, 2009). More specifically, digital learners develop expertise, skills, and knowledge in directing how, where, when, and by whom they choose to be educated (Barron, 2006; Greenhow, 2011); therefore, social presence becomes a critical factor. Social media opens more progressive and participatory discursive practices as a neolearning culture. Open instructions with the integration of open tools offer a fundamental reorientation in pedagogy for educational technology. Social media potentially offers tools and spaces for more radical democratic processes, tools, and spaces that promote “inquiry, discourse, and equity in participation and outcomes” (Gauss, Reitzug, & Villaverde, 2007, p. 218). Brown (2005) suggested neoliberalism is a constructivist project that “produces rational actors and imposes a market rationale for decision-making” (p. 40) in all domains of society. Citizens are required to be entrepreneurs and consumers in all aspects of their life, and social policies are redesigned to provide incentives to transform citizens into neoliberal subjects. With the suggestions of neoliberalism, participatory culture allows learners to decide how widely and how much they want to consume, participate, and communicate.

Digital Lifelong Learning Lifelong learning is the ultimate action for all citizens to reach their lifelong goal realizations started from optimized social presence. Lifelong learning is skills, knowledge, and disposition. If open education can embrace the complexity of networked learning and can value the condition of emergence that networked learning empowers, there should be time to encourage networked learning as a structure and a disposition, a design and a habit of being (Campbell, 2016).

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 51

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

52

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

Digital lifelong learning is the critical concept in open and networked learning. Digital lifelong learning is a learner-centered activity in which learners of different cultures use technology to improve their diversified learning perspectives (Gibson, Rimmington, & Landwehr-Brown, 2008). Effective digital lifelong learning does not occur in one course, and one cannot just become a good cybercitizen; it requires human beings with the necessary skills and knowledge to participate effectively as responsible members of society (Waters, 2012). Certainly, digital lifelong learning is not just for senior citizens. It’s essential for people of all ages and for all types of learning, rather than just informal learning and senior citizens. Bartow (2014) argued that although formal education is but one factor affecting digital divides, whatever vibrancy is happening outside its boundaries will increasingly be available to those with access and will divert transformative benefits from the purview of only the able and more affluent. For one to become a competent digital lifelong learner, learning goes beyond using networked technology civilly, securely, and responsibly (Waters, 2012). To grasp the interdependent and interconnected nature of digital learning, lifelong learners must permeate formal and informal learning experiences on the home campus, in the local community, and then in the global community (Olson, Green, & Hill, 2006) to assume social learning responsibilities to make learning communities and environments better. With the integrations of PLEs and ONLEs sustained by learning practices, digital lifelong learning would be more open, personalized, and flexible in access, curriculum, pedagogy, and management for formal and informal learning. To educational institutions, promoting open learning would prepare lifelong learners in formal and informal learning through curricular or cocurricular approaches to ensure effective informal learning.

Networked Learning Literacy Framed from social presence and social identities, networked learning literacy should be seen as basic education that aims to develop human personality, implying social interaction and self-presentation between people and the development of communication skills. Networked learning literacy is defined as the ability, capability, skill, and knowledge to apply digital networked technology; to connect and manage learning networks; to appropriate a range of tools by connecting people, resources, and tools; to reflect; and to meet their lifelong learning interests, needs, and goals (Tu, Yen, & Sujo-Montes, 2016). Networked learning literacy is more than a technological development. Sayers (2012) defined digital humanities as the combination of technical competencies in computing with critical thinking in areas such as history, literary criticism, cultural studies, textual studies, media studies, geography, musicology, and information studies. Basic education should go beyond simply serving the purpose of accumulating information needed for developing literacy skills. A UNESCO (2009) report defined basic education as being “directed to the full development of the human personality. It develops the capability for comprehension and critical thinking, and it inculcates the respect for human rights and values, notably, human dignity, solidarity, tolerance, democratic citizenship and a sense of justice and equity” (p. 2). The claim for developing a human personality implies social interaction and social presence between people

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 52

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE

53

and the development of communication skills. In other words, networked learning literacy is the ability, knowledge, skills, and disposition to process the progressive action from social presence (social interaction) and social identity (self-presentation) to PLE (self-actualization), ONLE (integration), open education (visualization), and digital lifelong learning (goal realization) (see Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1. Concept of progression of social presence for digital lifelong learning.

For learners to reach digital lifelong learning, networked learning literacy cannot be limited to each individual at a personal level. All practices should be applied to individuals, educators, institutions, and government agencies. When educational institutions and governmental organizations examine basic education from open and networked learning, two issues arise: accessing online technology and accessing online technology skills. Accessing online technology with appropriate steadiness and speed is essential to conduct proper communication as a minimum requirement but is not possible in all regions of the world (Richter & McPherson, 2012). Furthermore, even with the access of online technology, many may not have skills and knowledge in communicating to engage in digital social interaction. Networked learning literacy is for both learners and instructors; thus while educational institutions and local governments should ensure that their basic education is preparing their citizens to acquire networked learning literacy to build a better community.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 53

5/12/2017 10:59:58 PM

54

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

Conclusion It is inevitable that digital social presence should evolve with emerging technologies and human lifelong goals and needs. Social presence should go beyond limited perceptions or practices in formal learning contexts. Kuh’s (2008) conceptual framework assumes a progressive culture of education and learning, one that emphasizes individual learning within a growing network of connections ranging from the personal to the highly conceptual and experiential. In other words, digital lifelong learning practices should be premeditated and arranged in a cornerstone-to-capstone design that explicitly merges curricular and cocurricular (i.e., not course- or classroom-defined) learning and education. Whether it is formal or informal learning, learning is always open, networked, and personalized. It is a process of meaning-making for self-actualization and self-realization. It is more than just “doing” things. Is it viable to go fully personalized yet diversified, collaborative, and networked in open and networked learning? On the surface, this argument may be conflicting. Taking a broader lens, open and networked environments would grant more self-determination to each individual to personalize and optimize social presence. From educators’ perspectives, learners’ social presence may be “the higher, the better.” When turning to the learners’ point of view, social presence may not necessarily be “the higher, the better”; particularly, the ideal degree of social presence is not determined by educators. Learners should be empowered with more open, networked, and personalized environments to optimize levels of online social presence, networked social presence, and mobile social presence. Learners should be the ones to determine how their dynamic social presence is to be projected, presented, and optimized. As educators, how can we research, design, and develop ONLEs that fully confer individuals’ capability and strength to manage their social interaction, self-presentation, self-actualization, integration, and visualization to lifelong goal realization?

Chapter Review • Social presence initiates, enhances, and empowers experiential learning in digital networked learning environments. • Social presence is a critical component of experiential learning. • Learners need the freedom to construct and craft their ideal and intended identities in learning communities based on their purpose, time, intentions, and social learning contexts. • Some people are afraid of social media because of a lack of confidence in building their identity; therefore, they struggle to project their social presence. The suggested strategy is to empower people to build their PLEs by connecting people, resources, and tools to meet their learning interests and needs. • Social presence plays a key role in the interpersonal elements needed to become competent digital lifelong learners.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 54

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE

55

• PLEs and ONLEs are key pedagogical and instructional strategies that empower learners to deploy their freedom to choose to be, to do, and to project and optimize ideal online social presence, networked social presence, and mobile social presence.

References Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2013). Communication and social presence: The impact on adult learners’ emotions in distance learning. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 16(1), 78–93. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224. Bartow, S. M. (2014). Teaching with social media: Disrupting present day public education. Educational Studies, 50(1), 36–64. Brown, W. (2005). Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy. In W. Brown (Ed.), Edgework critical essays on knowledge and politics (pp. 37–59). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/cogn_150/Readings/brown.pdf Campbell, G. (2016). Networked learning as experiential learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 51(1). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/1/networked-learning-as-experiential-learning Carlson, D. (2008). 2008 AESA presidential address conflict of the faculties: Democratic progressivism in the age of “No Child Left Behind.” Educational Studies, 43, 94–113. Cho, Y. H., Yim, S. Y., & Paik, S. (2015). Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-play for pre-service teachers. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 70–77. Cormier, D. (2009, November 14). Open educational resources: The implications for educational development (SEDA) [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2009/11/24/ open-educational-resources-the-implications-for-educational-development-seda/ Couros, A. V. (2014). Hacking education: How openness and sharing can transform learning. In R. J. Coombe, D. Wershler, & M. Zeilinger (Eds.), Dynamic fair dealing: Creating Canadian culture online (pp. 164–174). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Ewins, R. (2005). Who are you? Weblogs and academic identity. E-Learning, 2(4), 368–377. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Gauss, C. P., Reitzug, U., & Villaverde, L. (2007). Beyond generic democracy: Holding our students accountable for democratic leadership and practice. In D. Carlson & C. P. Gauss (Eds.), Keeping the promise: Essays on leadership, democracy, and education (pp. 217–232). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Gibson, K. L., Rimmington, G. M., & Landwehr-Brown, M. (2008). Developing global awareness and responsible world citizenship with global learning. Roeper Review, 30(1), 11–23. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Greenhow, C. (2011). Online social networks and learning. On the Horizon, 19(1), 4–12. Groom, J. (2014, March 1). Innovation lost. Retrieved from http://bavatuesdays.com/innovationlost/ Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2009). Virtual world teaching, experiential learning, and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in second life. Computers and Education, 53, 169–182.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 55

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

56

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY FACILITATED

Jenkins, H., Ito, M., & Boyd, D. (2015). Participatory culture in a networked era: A conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books/about/Participatory_Culture_in_a_Networked_Era .html?id=C_6aoAEACAAJ Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press. Kilgore, W., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2015). The human element MOOC: An experiment in social presence. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Student–teacher interaction in online learning environments (pp. 373–391). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 74–93. Koroivulaono, T. (2014). Open educational resources: A regional university’s journey. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 11(3), 91. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.7238/rusc .v11i3.2121 Kraten, M. (2015). Social presence theory and experiential learning games. Business Education Innovation Journal, 7(2), 6–16. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Leu, J., O’Byrne, W., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H. (2009). Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 264–268. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Miller, S. L. (2015). Teaching an online pedagogy MOOC. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 104–119. Olson, C., Green, M., & Hill, B. (2006). A handbook for advancing comprehensive internationalization: What institutions can do and what students should learn. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Richter, T., & McPherson, M. (2012). Open educational resources: Education for the world? Distance Education, 33(2), 201–219. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(2), 151–158. Sayers, J. (2012, March 13). Making things in the humanities. Off Paper: The Project Rooms’ Literary Journal. Retrieved from http://www.projectroomseattle.org/off-paper-blog/2014/1/ making-things-in-the-digital-humanities Shen, K. N., Yu, A. Y., & Khalifa, M. (2010). Knowledge contribution in virtual communities: Accounting for multiple dimensions of social presence through social identity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 29(4), 337–348. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tu, C.-H. (2014). Strategies for building a Web 2.0 learning environment. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Tu, C.-H., Blocher, M., & Roberts, G. (2008). Constructs for Web 2.0 learning environments: A theatrical metaphor. Educational Media International, 45(3), 253–268.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 56

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

EVOLVEMENTS OF SOCIAL PRESENCE

57

Tu, C.-H., McIsaac, M., Sujo-Montes, L., & Armfield, S. (2012). Is there a mobile social presence? Educational Media International, 49(4), 1–15. Tu, C.-H., Yen, C.-J., Blocher, J. M., & Chan, J.-Y. (2012). A study of the predictive relationship between online social presence and ONLE interaction. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 10(3), 53–66. Tu, C.-H., Yen, C.-J., & Sujo-Montes, L. (2016). Network learning literacy: PLE and ONLE for digital lifelong learning. In K. Becker & D. H. Becker (Eds.), Technology for transformation: The confluence of educational technology and social justice (pp. 87–104). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. UNESCO. (2009). Experts’ conclusions on the operational definition of basic education: Conclusions. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001802/ 180253e.pdf Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 166–189. Waters, J. K. (2012). I pledge allegiance. . . . Becoming a “good citizen” in the digital age. T. H. E. Journal, 39(3), 33–38. Weller, M. (2014). Battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London, UK: Ubiquity Press. Whiteside, A., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014). The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/5/the-powerof-social-presence-for-learning

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 57

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 58

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

PART THREE Understanding Social Presence as Learners’ Perceptions

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 59

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 60

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

6 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS Introduction to Part Three Karen Swan

T

he chapters in this section all reflect the perspective of social presence as learners’ perceptions. Led by Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena (1995), this perspective stems from the work of educators working with students in computer-based environments who marveled at what Joe Walther (1994) called the “hyperpersonalness” (p. 481) of online discourse. They noted that in their experience, participants in asynchronous online discussion perceived the presence of each other and adapted their purely text-based verbal behaviors to enhance such perceptions (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). These scholars thus co-opted the term social presence from the communication theorists who viewed it as a quality of a medium (Picard, 1997; Rice, 1992; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) and revised it to refer to “the degree to which a person is perceived as ‘real’ in mediated communication” (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997, p. 8) or “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry” (Rourke et al., 2001, p. 50). Arguably, this view is the most commonly accepted notion of social presence, yet definitions of social presence within this perspective can vary widely (e.g., Picciano, 2002; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu, 2000). Chapters in this section share such perspective and variations within it. Probably the most famous instantiation of the concept of social presence is as one of the three presences that make up the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The CoI framework originated from a five-year grant project titled “A Study of the Characteristics and Qualities of Text-Based Computer Conferencing for Educational Purposes” by educational researchers D. Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer. As a result of that study, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) discovered the CoI model helped make “optimal use of computer conferencing as a medium for realizing educational goals in a distributed learning context” (p. 103). In chapter 7, “Social Presence and the Community of Inquiry Framework,” Karen Swan and Jennifer C. Richardson explore how the concept of social presence has evolved within CoI research and how CoI scholarship has contributed to our understanding of that concept. In particular, chapter 7 discusses 61

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 61

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

62

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

measures developed to investigate both the ways in which online learners project their presence in online discussion and perceptions of social presence. These authors address findings from CoI research and summarize their practical implications. In a landmark work employing mixed-method research in social presence, experts Phil Ice, Melissa Layne, and Wally Boston report in chapter 8, “Social Presence and Student Success: Retention, Satisfaction, and Evolving Expectations,” on essential findings from two large-scale investigations of over 10,000 students. These studies employed the CoI framework to determine the effects of cognitive, social, and teaching presence on student retention in online programs. This set of studies by Ice, Layne, and Boston presents important findings for social presence because the results from both studies, done three years apart, revealed that just two (affective) social presence items accounted for almost all of the variance in retention linked to CoI presences. Drawing from an analysis of open-ended responses on the survey, the authors conclude with suggestions for using the features of traditional learning management systems (LMSs) to support the development of social presence. In chapter 9, “Instructor Social Presence: Learners’ Needs and a Neglected Component of the Community of Inquiry Framework,” Jennifer C. Richardson and Patrick Lowenthal argue that there is an effective instructor behind every successful online course and that the social presence of instructors is a critical element for such success. In this chapter, Richardson and Lowenthal define instructor social presence, explain its importance, highlight its role in the CoI framework, and summarize research they and others have conducted on instructor social presence. These authors conclude by offering practical advice for establishing instructor social presence in courses. In chapter 10, “Creating Social Cues Through Self-Disclosures, Stories, and Paralanguage: The Importance of Modeling High Social Presence Behaviors in Online Courses,” Jessica Gordon draws from a brief history of CoI-based social presence research and uses it to argue that online instructors must model and support the development of social presence in their online classes. In particular, she focuses on understanding teacher immediacy behaviors and translating them to verbal immediacy behaviors for online environments. Using examples from her own teaching experiences, Gordon provides a variety of useful ways to enhance social presence in virtual classes. In chapter 11, “Cultural Perspectives on Social Presence: Research and Practical Guidelines for Online Design,” Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena shares her experience. Gunawardena was the first to view social presence in terms of learners’ perceptions and to develop ways of measuring it and its effects on learner satisfaction and perceived learning. She reviews the steps leading to her findings and how in that process she became aware of cultural differences in the perception of social presence. Gunawardena thus argues for broadening our understanding of the concept as online learning expands globally and concludes the chapter with practical guidelines for designing online courses to support the development of social presence with culture in mind. The chapters in this section represent a good range of the research on social presence and student perceptions. They present some of the more vital findings in this strand and provide direct implications for practice. It is hoped they will be useful to instructors, instructional designers, and educators at all levels.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 62

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

63

Chapter Review • The majority of online educators understand social presence as in some sense arising from learners’ perceptions, but the ways in which such educators define it can vary meaningfully. • Different learners perceive differing levels of social presence in the same online interactions; they correspondingly behave differently. • Social presence is seen as one of three presences that support online learning in the CoI framework, one of the major theoretical models of learning online. • It is good practice for instructors to tell students about social presence and to model social presence behaviors.

References Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Rice, R. E. (1992). Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration of media richness. Organization Science, 3(4), 475–500. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Tu, C.-H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37. Walther, J. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21(4), 460–487.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 63

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

7 SOCIAL PRESENCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK Karen Swan and Jennifer C. Richardson

M

any people first encountered, and perhaps still understand, the concept of social presence as one of three presences that support the development of a Community of Inquiry (CoI) in the model of the same name, as represented in Figure 7.1. This chapter explores how that concept has evolved within CoI scholarship and how CoI scholarship has added to our understanding of social presence. It also considers the practical implications of such findings. The CoI framework is a process model of learning in online environments that was developed by Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer (2000). It is grounded in a social constructivist view of higher education, which assumes that effective learning at the postsecondary level requires the development of community and that such development is not a trivial challenge in an online environment. The CoI framework is a dynamic model of the necessary core elements—cognitive, teaching, and social presence—for both the development of community and the pursuit of meaningful inquiry with learning located at the intersection of these three presences. Garrison and colleagues (2000) maintained that all three presences are necessary for the development of a CoI. The CoI approach to social presence, then, importantly places it in the context of the learning process and in an integral relationship with knowledge construction and instruction. The overlapping nature of these elements is depicted in Figure 7.1. The CoI framework was originally conceived as a way of organizing research in online discussion by providing a structure around which content analyses could be undertaken. In the CoI framework, cognitive presence is defined as the extent to which participants in a CoI “are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). It is seen as a social-constructivist process involving a truncated version of Dewey’s (1933) cycle of practical inquiry. Categories of cognitive presence include a triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution. In the CoI framework, teaching presence is defined as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the realization of personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001, p. 5). Teaching 64

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 64

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

65

Figure 7.1. Community of Inquiry framework.

SOCIAL PRESENCE

COGNITIVE PRESENCE LEARNING EXPERIENCE

TEACHING PRESENCE

Source. Adapted from “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education,” by D. R. Garrison, T. Anderson, and W. Archer, 2000, The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. Used with permission.

presence behaviors fall into three instructional categories: the design and organization of instruction, the facilitation of discourse, and direct instruction. In the CoI framework, social presence is viewed primarily in terms of the communication behaviors and perceptions of participants in online discussions. CoI researchers have variously defined it as “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry” (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001, p. 51), “the degree to which a person is perceived as ‘real’ in mediated communication” (Richardson & Swan, 2003, p. 70), “the degree to which participants in computer-mediated communication feel affectively connected one to another” (Swan & Shih, 2005, p. 115), and “the ability to project one’s self and establish personal and purposeful relationships” (Garrison, 2007, p. 63). As reflected in these definitions, researchers investigating social presence from a CoI perspective have explored both communication behaviors in online discussions through content analyses of behavioral indicators of the same (see de Bruyn, 2004; Richardson et al., 2015; Rourke et al., 2001; Swan, 2003; Swan & Shih, 2005) and participants’ perceptions of those behaviors through self-report surveys (see Arbaugh et al., 2008; Richardson & Swan, 2003). This dual approach to understanding social presence in terms of participants’ perceptions and the behaviors that elicit them is one of the ways that CoI-based studies have enhanced our understanding of social presence.

Research on Participant Behaviors in Online Discussions As noted previously, the earliest CoI research centered on content analyses of online discussion. Content analyses focused on specific behaviors used by online discussants to project their personas through purely text-based, asynchronous communication. Indeed, two groups of researchers (Rourke et al., 2001; Swan, Polhemus, Shih, & Rogers, 2001) independently investigating online discourse developed remarkably similar indicators of social presence based on the immediacy research of Wiener and Mehrabian (1968). This work resulted in the common acceptance of the three categories of social presence behaviors acknowledged in the CoI framework.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 65

5/12/2017 10:59:59 PM

66

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Affective behaviors are personal expressions of emotion, feelings, beliefs, and values. Swan and colleagues (2001) identified five indicators in this category: paralanguage, features of text outside formal syntax used to convey emotion; emotion, the use of descriptive words that indicate feelings; value, the expression of personal values, beliefs, and attitudes; humor ; and self-disclosure, the sharing of personal information and expression of vulnerability. Cohesive behaviors are behaviors that build and sustain a sense of group commitment. Indicators identified within this category include greetings and salutations; vocatives, addressing others by name; group reference, referring to the group using inclusive pronouns such as “we,” “us,” and “our”; social sharing (of information unrelated to the course); and self-reflection, reflecting on the course itself (Swan et al., 2001). Interactive behaviors provide evidence that others are attending and support interactions among communicators. Indicators in this category include acknowledgment, referring directly to the contents of others’ messages and quoting from others’ messages; agreement–disagreement, expressing agreement or disagreement with others’ messages; approval, expressing approval and offering praise or encouragement; invitation, asking questions or otherwise inviting response; and personal advice, offering specific advice to classmates (Swan et al., 2001). Identifying specific behaviors that enhance social presence has practical implications for online instructors. By modeling such behaviors in their discussion responses and encouraging similar behaviors among their students, online instructors can elicit similar behaviors from student participants and so raise the overall level of social presence. In 2007, Randy Garrison modified the social presence categories to highlight social presence’s role in knowledge creation. It was his belief that “social presence must move beyond simply establishing socio-emotional presence and personal relationships . . . . Social presence in a community of inquiry must create personal but purposeful relationships” (Garrison, 2007, p. 63). The categories were then renamed as affective expression, open communication, and group cohesion. These categories roughly equate with the affective, cohesive, and interactive categories of the earlier designations. This has led to some confusion, as both sets can be found in the research base, and each is currently used on a regular basis. A comparison of these categories and sample indicators can be found in Table 7.1. Given this mapping of original to new categories, it becomes clear that CoI researchers have found similar patterns in social presence behaviors across time in online discussions. In general, the numbers of affective behaviors, which outnumber the other two categories considerably, seem to peak a little after the middle of a course and then decline; cohesive and group cohesion behaviors are most numerous at the start of a course, and their numbers steadily decrease from there, while the numbers of interactive and open communication behaviors steadily increase over time (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Swan et al., 2001; Vaughan & Garrison, 2008). These replicated findings add to our collective understanding of social presence and represent another area in which CoI research has made a significant contribution. They tell us how social presence supports learning across an online course. They suggest that cohesive and group cohesion behaviors are very important at the beginning of an online course discussion to establish trust, but once trust has been established, their importance fades. They also intimate that

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 66

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 67

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

Interactive Behaviors Provide evidence that others are attending, and support interactions among communicators

Cohesive Behaviors Behaviors that build and sustain a sense of group commitment

Expressing emotions

Emotion

Addresses or refers to the group using inclusive pronouns

Group reference

Expressing agreement–disagreement Complimenting, expressing appreciation Asking questions

Agreement–disagreement Approval Invitation Personal advice

Quoting from others’ messages, referring explicitly to others’ messages

Acknowledgment

Self-reflection Continuing a thread

Vocatives

Vocatives

Social sharing

Phatics, salutations

Self-disclosure

Self-disclosure Greetings and salutations

Use of humor

Humor

Value

Use of unconventional expressions to express emotion

Paralanguage

Affective Behaviors Personal expressions of emotion, feelings, beliefs, and values

Sample Indicators

Sample Indicators

Swan, Polhemus, Shih, and Rogers (2001); Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer ( 2001); de Bruyn (2004)

Open Communication Encouraging critical reflection by recognizing, complimenting, and responding to others

Group Cohesion Students identify with the group and perceive themselves as a part of the CoI

Affective Expression Interpersonal communication, self-projection, expressing emotions

Garrison (2007), Akyol and Garrison (2008), Vaughan and Garrison (2008)

TABLE 7.1 A Comparison of Categories and Indicators Between Original and Revised Specifications of Social Presence Categories

68

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

interactive and open communication behaviors become more important across time as they support the social construction of knowledge. Moreover, they provide some evidence that the seemingly frivolous, “purely social,” affective behaviors are important to participants in online discussions.

Research on Participant Perceptions of Social Presence One of the real strengths of the social presence research conducted within the CoI community is that it looks both at how participants in online discussions project themselves emotionally and socially and at such participants’ perceptions of the social presence of their classmates and how that affects their learning. Concurrent with the early content analyses reviewed in the previous section, Richardson and Swan (2003) developed a survey instrument, which was adapted from the work of Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) and designed to explore perceptions of social presence. The survey asked respondents to indicate their agreement–disagreement (on a 6-point Likert-type scale) with three items concerned with perceived learning, course and instructor satisfaction, and the following social presence items: • • • • • • • • • •

Online or web-based education is an excellent medium for social interaction. I felt comfortable conversing through this medium. I felt comfortable introducing myself in this course. The introductions enabled me to form a sense of online community. The instructor created a feeling of an online community. I felt comfortable participating in course discussions. The instructor facilitated discussions in the course. I felt comfortable interacting with other participants in the course. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other participants in the course. I was able to form distinct individual impressions of some course participants.

Richardson and Swan (2003) found that student perceptions of social presence were significantly correlated with their perceived learning and satisfaction with the course and the course instructor. Perhaps more interestingly, they found that students perceived some degree of social presence in six categories of course activities, including individual activities where it would not be expected, such as lectures and tests, and that such perceived social presence was significantly correlated with perceived learning from those activities. These findings attest to the importance of social presence in that they indicate social presence permeates not only activities designed to be social but also those designed to be individual. They also hint at the importance of instructor feedback. The development of the survey instrument also made it possible to link projected and perceived social presence. Swan and Shih (2005), for example, used a version of the social presence survey (Richardson & Swan, 2003) to identify the five students who perceived the most social presence and the five students who perceived the least social presence from among the 54 students enrolled in four online courses who completed it. They then used content analysis of discussion posts to compare the social presence behaviors of the five high-perceiving students with the behaviors of the five low-perceiving students.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 68

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

69

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

All the discussion postings of these students were collected and coded for social presence indicators using Swan and colleagues’ (2001) classifications of affective, interactive, and cohesive indicators and aggregated by category using a social presence density index (Rourke et al., 2001) that gives the average frequency of use of the indicators for every 1,000 words of text. Table 7.2 presents this comparison.

TABLE 7.2 Comparison of Use of Social Presence Indicators by Students Perceiving the Most and the Least Social Presence Interactive Total (Open Communication)

Affective

Cohesive

Low social presence group

17.5

4.4

6.7

28.6

High social presence group

26.3

6.0

10.0

42.3

Source. From “On the Nature and Development of Social Presence in Online Course Discussions,” by K. Swan and L.-F. Shih, 2005, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Used with permission.

Table 7.2 shows a considerable difference in the density of social presence behaviors between students who perceived very high levels of social presence and students who perceived very low levels, thus linking the performance of social presence with its perception. This research reminds us that not all students perceive social presence in the same way, something that has important implications for practice. For example, Swan and Shih (2005) found that both groups of students reported changing communication styles to adjust to the asynchronous format, but while high social presence students adopted a more conversational style, low social presence students adopted a more formal style. Similarly, all students reported learning from discussions, but although the high social presence group believed they learned from others’ postings, students in the low social presence group thought they learned solely by articulating their own ideas. These findings suggest that online designers and instructors should work not only to model social presence behaviors but also to orient students to the concept of social presence and its importance in the learning process.

Social Presence in the CoI Survey The social presence survey (Richardson & Swan, 2003) was also the starting point for the development of the social presence items in the standardized CoI survey that has been used worldwide to inform online learning research and practice. In December 2006, eight researchers began work on creating the CoI survey. Commonalities between items in previous instruments were reconciled, and where appropriate, new items were created to fully capture each of the presences. The survey consists of 34 items. Each item is a statement with which respondents are asked to indicate their agreement–disagreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale. It consists of 13 teaching presence items, 9 social presence items, and 12 cognitive presence items, which include at least 3 items addressing each of the categories within each of the presences (Swan et al., 2008). The CoI survey was

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 69

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

70

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

TABLE 7.3 Social Presence Items in the Community of Inquiry Survey Item Number Statement

Agreement–Disagreement

14

Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.

1

2

3

4

5

15

I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.

1

2

3

4

5

16

Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction.

1

2

3

4

5

17

I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.

1

2

3

4

5

18

I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions.

1

2

3

4

5

19

I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.

1

2

3

4

5

20

I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still maintaining a sense of trust.

1

2

3

4

5

21

I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants.

1

2

3

4

5

22

Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.

1

2

3

4

5

Note. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree.

validated at four institutions in the United States and Canada using confirmatory factor analysis (Arbaugh et al., 2008), which confirms the conceptual strength of the three presences. Table 7.3 shows the social presence items in the CoI survey. Items 14 through 16 specifically relate to affective expression, items 17 through 19 are group cohesion items, and items 20 through 22 are open communication (interactive) items. It can be seen that the survey items also provide insights into the necessary practice-based requirements of each presence. For example, the group cohesion items (see Table 7.3, items 17–19) suggest that instructional designers and online instructors need to provide opportunities for students to feel comfortable conversing, participating, and interacting online and foster such behaviors.

Research Contextualizing Social Presence Within the CoI Framework The development of the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Swan et al., 2008) also notably made possible numerous studies addressing the CoI framework as a whole and the interacting effects of cognitive, teaching, and social presence. Many of these studies have extended our knowledge of social presence in important ways. For example, Archibald (2010) used hierarchical multiple regression to assess the ability of teaching and social presence to predict the development of cognitive presence.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 70

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

71

He found that teaching and social presence explained approximately 69% of the variance in cognitive presence and that teaching and social presence continued to make significant contributions to the prediction of cognitive presence after controlling for self-directed learning readiness, prior online learning experience, and prior collaborative learning experience. Shea and Bidjerano (2008) used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to study relationships between the CoI presences, specifically, the impacts of teaching and social presence on cognitive presence, all as measured by the CoI survey. The results of their analysis are illustrated in Figure 7.2. They reveal that teaching and social presence together account for over 50% of the variation in students’ reported levels of cognitive presence. However, the authors also found that the development of social presence was contingent on the establishment of teaching presence and that social presence served as a mediating variable between teaching and cognitive presence. This finding was confirmed by Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Fung (2010). Kozan and Richardson (2014) similarly used the CoI survey to explore relationships among teaching, social, and cognitive presence. Using CoI survey data from 211 students in six online courses, they conducted correlation and partial correlation analyses. The correlation analyses identified medium to large, significant and positive relationships between and among the presences, supporting the assumption that the presences are closely interconnected. Results from the partial correlations found that when cognitive presence was controlled, the relationship between teaching and social presence disappeared completely. However, after controlling in turn for teaching and then social presence, the relationships between cognitive and social presence and between teaching and cognitive presence were reduced but stayed significantly positive. This suggests that cognitive presence may function as a mediator between teaching and social presence. Kozan (2016) went on to conduct multiple SEM analyses to further investigate which presences served as mediators in the CoI model. Using CoI survey data from 388 students in 11 online courses, he tested and compared five different models. Interestingly, results indicated that the model with cognitive presence as a full mediator (between teaching and social presence) was not significantly different from the model with social presence as a partial mediator (between teaching and cognitive presence); a full mediator Figure 7.2. SEM analysis of the effects of social and teaching presence on cognitive presence. Social Presence

.52

)**

(.5

9 .4

2)

2(

**

.5

Teaching Presence

.49(.47)**

Cognitive Presence

Source. Detail adapted from Community of Inquiry as a Theoretical Framework to Foster “Epistemic Engagement” and “Cognitive Presence” in Online Education, by P. Shea and T. Bidjerano, March 2008, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. © 2008, Peter Shea. Used with permission.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 71

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

72

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

model indicated a direct relationship, whereas a partial mediator model indicated a significant yet indirect relationship. Both of these models achieved an equally good data fit. This leads us to contemplate complicated interrelationships among the presences and suggests that social presence is indeed necessary but not sufficient to ensure a CoI that leads to meaningful learning. These results provide a clearer picture of the complex way social presence functions with the other presences in the creation of knowledge. They also highlight the important roles designers and instructors can play in the development of social presence. Ke (2010), for example, explicitly studied the nature and interactions of teaching, cognitive, and social presence and their relationship to online instructional design and teaching. Ke’s (2010) results identified online instructional design and teaching elements that are crucial prerequisites (e.g., instructors with high social presence, design of online discussions, opportunities for team and group work) for a successful online experience for adult students, while informing designers of online courses on the relationships among online teaching, cognitive, and social presence.

CoI Research Examining Social Presence Effects and the Effects of Instructional Choices on Social Presence The creation of the CoI survey has also enabled a variety of research that examines the effects of social presence on the educational experience and the effects of various educational interventions on the development of social presence. In this sort of research, the CoI survey functions as an outcome measure, quantifying the effects of teaching, cognitive, and social presence on the educational experience and changes in learning processes resulting from educational innovations. Boston and colleagues (2010), for example, used linear regression to explore the relationship between the CoI survey responses of over 28,000 students and their likelihood to persist in online programs. They found that a total of 21.1% of the variance in student reenrollment was accounted for by 19 of the CoI survey items. However, all but 0.9% of that variance was accounted for by 2 of the 3 affective social presence items: Item 16: Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction. Item 15: I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants. Item 16 accounted for 18% or almost all of the total variance related to the CoI presences, and item 15 accounted for 2.2%. This suggests that student perceptions of social presence in general and affective expression in particular are important determinants of retention and progression in online education. As attrition rates are a significant issue in online education, the results put a particular practical importance on the development of social presence in online courses and especially on support for affective expression. They again provide evidence that “purely social” affective behaviors are important to participants in online discussions. In addition, considerable research has explored the effects of technology interventions on the development of social presence. Multiple research studies have documented

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 72

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

73

the positive effects on the development of social presence of the use of audio feedback by online instructors (Dringus, Snyder, & Terrell, 2010; Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells, 2007). Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) found that the use of Twitter could enhance student perceptions of social presence in online classes; Lowenthal and Dunlap (2010) reported similar results for the use of digital storytelling in online classes; and McKerlish, Riis, Anderson, and Eastman (2011) explored the effects of virtual worlds on perceived social presence. These studies have considerable practical importance in that they provide instructions for using technologies to support the development of social presence in online classes, and they are fully explored in chapters 3 through 5 of this volume.

Conclusions and Implications for Practice In this chapter we have examined the ways in which CoI scholarship has enhanced our understanding of social presence and how that enhanced understanding can improve online learning practice. First, the concept of social presence that has emerged from CoI research places it as one of several integrally related processes that support learning in online environments (Archibald, 2010; Garrison et al., 2010; Kozan & Richardson, 2014; Shea & Bidjerano, 2008), a necessary but not sufficient condition for the development of a learning community online (Kozan, 2016). The implication for online designers and instructors is to always consider social presence in context. Research has suggested that designers need to provide opportunities for social presence to develop and that instructors need to encourage such development. For example, designers should include a variety of discussion formats to allow for a collective-inquiry approach by students rather than discussions for the sake of discussion or to conduct knowledge checks of students. Similarly, to increase social presence among students, instructors should include opportunities for meaningful group work and perhaps even build from the strengths of each student. Second, CoI research has taken a dual approach to understanding social presence. Research on student perceptions of social presence documents its importance in regard to student satisfaction and perceived learning in online courses (Richardson & Swan, 2003). Indeed, it is CoI research that has demonstrated the critical relationship between social presence and retention (Boston et al., 2010) and provided some evidence that seemingly frivolous, or “purely social,” affective behaviors are important to participants in online discussions (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Swan et al., 2001; Vaughan & Garrison, 2008), things that online educators must not forget. Similarly, although CoI research on social presence clearly approaches it as primarily arising from participant perception, it also has identified the immediacy behaviors that support such development (Rourke et al., 2001; Swan et al., 2001) and documented the link between the two (Swan & Shih, 2005). The implication for practice is that specific social presence behaviors should be modeled and encouraged. Examples of this include the use of paralanguage, salutations, self-disclosure and humor. Third and finally, CoI researchers have produced an important way to measure social presence outcomes: the CoI survey (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Swan et al., 2008). The CoI survey is a validated instrument that not only enables diverse research contextualized within online learning processes but also makes it possible to practically explore the

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 73

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

74

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

effects of diverse learning interventions on the development of social presence within that same context (Dringus et al., 2010; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009; Ice et al., 2007; Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2010; McKerlish et al., 2011). Although the CoI instrument is most commonly used as an end-of-course evaluation, it has also been used as a framework for developing online courses and redesigning such courses, as well as for faculty awareness training (Powell & Ice, 2007; Richardson et al., 2012; Richardson & Kozan, 2017; Swan, Day, Bogle, & Matthews, 2014). Indeed, the practical applications of the concept and its measurement through the CoI survey are only just now being realized. New generations of instructors and designers will surely find many new and useful applications for both.

Chapter Review • CoI research demonstrates the importance of the development of social presence for student retention, satisfaction, and learning. • Affective; cohesive; and, especially, interactive behaviors in online discussions support social presence and therefore should be modeled by online instructors. • The CoI survey provides a validated measure of student perceptions of social, teaching, and cognitive presence in online courses and, therefore, a way for experimenting with course designs that enhance social presence.

References Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a Community of Inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 3–22. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2008). Developing a Community of Inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133–136. Archibald, D. (2010). Fostering the development of cognitive presence: Initial findings using the Community of Inquiry survey instrument. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 73–74. Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 3–19. De Bruyn, L. L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67–81. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. Dringus, L., Snyder, M., & Terrell, S. (2010). Facilitating discourse and enhancing teaching presence: Using mini audio presentations in online forums. Internet in Higher Education, 13(1–2), 75–77.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 74

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK

75

Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–136. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online Community of Inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among cognitive, social and teaching presence: Student perceptions of the Community of Inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and student sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers and Education, 55, 808–820. Kozan, K. (2016). A comparative structural equation modeling investigation of the relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence. Online Learning Journal, 20(3), 210–227. Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68–73. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 70–72. McKerlish, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student perceptions of teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence in a virtual world. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 324–336. Powell, K., & Ice, P. (2010, January). Using the Community of Inquiry framework for faculty assessment and improvement of online courses. Paper presented at the eighth annual Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI. Richardson, J. C., Arbaugh, B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K., & Garrison, D. R. (2012). Using the Community of Inquiry framework to inform effective instructional design. In L. Moller & J. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of education (pp. 97–125). New York, NY: Springer. Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J. E., & Mueller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 16(3), 256–297. Richardson, J. C., & Kozan, K. (2017). Digging deep into Communities of Inquiry at Purdue. In M. Orey & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 40, pp. 85–97). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 51–70. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008, March). Community of Inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 75

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

76

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147–164). London, UK: Kogan. Swan, K., Day, S. L., Bogle, L. R., & Matthews, D. B. (2014). A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 74–81. Swan, K., Polhemus, L., Shih, L.-F., & Rogers, D. (2001, April). Building knowledge building communities through asynchronous online course discussion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Swan, K., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-mentor, 2(24). Retrieved from http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul_v2.php?numer=24&id=543 Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). How blended learning can support a faculty development Community of Inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 139–152. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 76

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

8 SOCIAL PRESENCE AND STUDENT SUCCESS Retention, Satisfaction, and Evolving Expectations Phil Ice, Melissa Layne, and Wally Boston

I

n the context of online learning, social presence is described as the ability to project one’s self through media and to establish personal and meaningful relationships. The three main factors that allow for the effective projection and establishment of social presence are affective communication, open communication, and group cohesion. Although numerous studies have been done on the community of inquiry (CoI) and each of the presences, it is important to note that little attention has been given to the genesis of the theory, the CoI survey instrument, and the notion that it should be considered an organic instrument that is likely in a constant state of evolution paralleling the evolution of online learning itself. For us to understand the importance of this evolution, it is informative to look at the issue of retention and correlations with findings from administration of the survey instrument.

History Starting in 2008, the American Public University System (APUS) embarked on a series of initiatives to develop a better understanding of student retention in online learning environments. The work began with correlational analysis and, over time, grew to include more sophisticated techniques such as neural network analysis, vector machines, and latent semantic analysis. Work in this area provided a foundational perspective on factors such as student achievement, changing perspectives of the importance of ethnicity in online environments, program progression, and student satisfaction as they pertained to online retention. The work initiated at APUS also provided the impetus for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation–funded Predictive Analytic Reporting Framework and several related commercial ventures. For the purposes of this chapter, the relationship between student satisfaction as measured by the CoI survey instrument and retention is the focal point. American Military University (AMU), the predecessor of APUS, accepted its first students in 1993. It originally offered a single master’s program in military studies through a modified correspondence format. In January 1996, the institution offered 77

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 77

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

78

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

its first bachelor’s degree programs, and in January 2000, it offered its first associate degree. AMU began converting its curriculum from the correspondence format to online instruction in 1998. By the end of 2000, all courses in all degree programs at AMU were online. Following the North Central Association accreditation, APUS grew rapidly, with a 72.1% increase in new students between 2006 and 2007 and approximately 100,000 students enrolled in 2016. Because of its open enrollment policy, the lack of physical restrictions limiting enrollment, the increasing popularity of online programs for adult learners, and an adequate supply of qualified instructors, the number of returning undergraduate students was slightly less than the number of new students, in contrast to the ratio of new students to returning students at a traditional institution. In other words, there were slightly fewer returning students, as a percentage, at APUS as compared to traditional universities. Because of this exceptional growth rate, the administrative and academic leadership expressed concern about the institution’s ability to measure the impact of growth on student retention. In 2007, new students dropped out at a rate of 23.8% after taking their second course at APUS. With total enrollments approaching 80,000 in late 2010, the need for developing an understanding of those factors influencing retention patterns was considered imperative. Thus, there was an expansion of the initiatives described earlier, including a study in which CoI survey results were correlated with issues related to retention.

Retention and the CoI Survey The problem addressed in this study was whether CoI survey indicators could be used to predict students’ likelihood of remaining enrolled in an online educational program of study. The following research question was used to examine this problem: Research question 1: Is there a statistically significant predictive relationship between CoI survey indicators and the likelihood to remain enrolled in an online educational program of study? Students who completed the CoI survey were all enrolled in bachelor’s- or associate-level courses that were delivered fully asynchronously. The survey was administered at the end of each semester to all students taking classes; this sample constitutes a response rate of 38.91%. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 62 years old, with a mean of 28.2 years. Males composed 68% of the sample, and females composed 32%. In a typical year, it is not uncommon for APUS to collect over 50,000 survey responses, thus the n used in any analysis at the institution is considered significant by any measure. Linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between a linear combination of the 34 independent variables (i.e., Likert scale responses to each of the 34 CoI survey items) and the binary dependent variable measuring whether a student enrolled in the subsequent semester. A binary dependent variable typically demands logistic, as opposed to linear, regression. This use of a binary dependent variable with linear regression is supported in the literature (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) even though it assumes that residuals are normally distributed about the predicted dependent variable

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 78

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND STUDENT SUCCESS

79

scores. The number of participants included in this study (n = 28,877) ensures adequate statistical power by far exceeding the minimally adequate sample size recommendations found in the literature. Multicollinearity is a limitation inherent in this study given the instances of high correlations among the predictor variables. Data used in this study were collected over a period of six semesters. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the means and standard deviations for each item. Principal axis factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation was used to ensure the conceptual integrity of the data by inspection of alignment with the findings of Swan and colleagues (2008). Following confirmation of the expected factor pattern, linear regression was applied to the data. The dependent variable was established as enrollment status in the semester following the completion of the CoI survey. As enrollment status is a categorical variable, a dummy variable was created to represent the criterion variable. The predictor variables were student responses to each of the 34 CoI survey items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. For this linear regression, the forward method was used in the SPSS version 17. This means that the order in which variables are listed indicates their relative statistical significance in the predictive model. The analysis revealed that a total of 21.1% of the variance in student reenrollment was accounted for by 19 of the CoI indicators. However, all but 0.9% of that variance could be accounted for by the following indicators: Item 16: Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction. Item 15: I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants. These two items are two of the three affective expression indicators. The former item accounts for 18% (i.e., almost all) of the total variance, and the latter accounts for 2.2%. This suggests that projections of social presence in general and affective expression in particular are important determinants for persistence in online education. Social presence, the degree to which a person is perceived as a real person in a technologically mediated environment, has been found in research studies to have an impact on students’ satisfaction with a course (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), their perceived learning (Christophel, 1990; Richardson & Swan, 2003), and their actual learning (Picciano, 2002; Russo & Benson, 2005). In addition, a recent study by Liu, Gomez, and Yen (2009) suggested that social presence as a construct is a significant predictor of course retention and final grade in the community college online environment. Perhaps more to the point for these findings, Tu and McIssac (2002) found that students who felt more like insiders in the learning community were more likely to achieve success. In a computer-mediated environment, feelings of community and social presence may be considered to be strongly connected to other students and to online instructors (Hostetter & Busch, 2006). Rodríguez, Plax, and Kearney (1996) claimed that teacher-immediacy behaviors influenced students’ affective learning, which in turn influenced cognitive learning and, similarly, that the ability to construct knowledge in online environments is contingent on the capacity of teachers and learners to move beyond direct instruction to establish forms of communication. The implication is that teaching and social presence represent the

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 79

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

80

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

processes needed to create paths to social integration and cognitive presence for online learners (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). In other words, students who positively perceive online learning environments, which is potentially increased by their perception that they are part of a larger (social) learning community, are more likely to be retained. Of the remaining 17 significant indicators, it is notable that 6 are from the social presence category. As such, all but 1 of the social presence indicators was a significant predictor of reenrollment; in other words, 88% of all social presence indicators were significant predictors of student reenrollment. Of the remaining significant indicators, 4 were from teaching presence (33% of all teaching presence indicators), and 9 were from cognitive presence (75% of all cognitive presence indicators).

Further Inquiry Despite a wealth of insight gained from this study, any understanding of causality was educated guesswork at best. Thus, in 2011, the previously described study was rerun using three years of data and focusing exclusively on 21,892 student surveys from the College 100 preparatory course (38% response rate). The findings from this run were even more compelling. The overall variance accounted for was 37.1%, with the same 2 items accounting for the overwhelming variance in the likelihood that a student would not reenroll: Item 16: Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction (R-squared = .332). Item 15: I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants (R-squared = .036) (Boston et al., 2014; Boston, Ice, & Burgess, 2012).

Examining Causality Thus, for students in the introductory course, the overall variance accounted for was greater than that in the general population, as was the variance associated with each of the predictor variables. At this juncture, the data were so compelling that there was an imperative to engage in discovery around causality. To facilitate this, SPSS Text Analytics was used to categorize recurrent themes within the qualitative feedback, which was provided in open-ended questions related to positive and negative perceptions at the end of the survey, for individuals who responded to item 15 and item 16 with a 1 or 2 on the 5-point Likert scale. For students in this group, approximately 71% of the qualitative feedback expressed displeasure with the structure of the learning environment. When comments related to the learning management system (LMS), or components thereof, were isolated, over 85% of replies from this group used terms such as outdated, old, tired, boring, or awful. The following are examples of the feedback provided: The discussions are just a mess. They are really hard to work with. It’s not like the discussions you get on Facebook or sites like that. They are just really difficult to find your way around.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 80

5/12/2017 11:00:00 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND STUDENT SUCCESS

81

The discussions in Sakai are just dinosaurs. The layout is pathetic. This is supposed to be an online university, so they should have really modern technology, not 2005 all over again. This is so pathetic. I have attended classes online here and at other universities and they all suck when it comes to the LMS. It’s just ancient. Why can’t they be like the other online sites we use? I feel like I am being forced into the 10-year-old place to learn. The LMS is just sad and that goes double for the discussion area. I will look for another university that has something better, but from what I hear this is pretty much the norm. Guys, respect your students and give us what we want for our money!

Notably, only 22% of students in this group expressed displeasure with the instructor, and 16% expressed displeasure with other students. As multiple themes were present in responses, it is important to note that 8% of students also expressed dissatisfaction with various other course and administrative components. However, it is clear that a strong relationship exists between student expectations of the learning environment in terms of modern functionality and satisfaction measured within the two relevant social presence items (Layne & Ice, 2015). For us to understand why this is the case, it is necessary to examine the relationship between the origins of the CoI and the technological backdrop against which it was developed.

Examining Technological Groundings of Platform Development Despite the extensive amount of research concerning the CoI and its general acceptance in the field, as witnessed by the overwhelming number of references in Google Scholar, one of the least-researched aspects of the construct is its grounding and dependence on the technological foundations of online learning—specifically, the LMS. When viewed as a blank canvas for course creation, the LMS can be conceptualized as a collection of lightweight authoring tools and communication devices against which content and activities are developed. Depending on the instructional design paradigm being used, courses are systematically constructed to move learners from a set of goals through a series of activities and culminating assessment activities. Notably, with the exception of a few emerging platforms, such as the Fishtree LMS, instructional designers must follow a linear pathway in which there is little potential for deviation. However, the ease with which courses can be designed and developed has almost always outweighed limitations inherent in LMSs. In other words, the ability to use simple tools to create courses rapidly has been given greater importance than creating rich, immersive experiences. In academia, this trade-off has been reinforced by the need to ensure student privacy by using systems that can reside entirely behind firewalls, another attribute of the LMS. Against this backdrop, online learning and the CoI framework have evolved. However, recent advancements in learning technologies offer alternatives to the LMS-centered learning experience. In particular, the rise of mobile-first technologies, advances in digital publishing, flexible component-based platforms, rich media, and virtual environments have quickly and drastically enhanced the potential for creating immersive, ubiquitous learning

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 81

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

82

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

environments. In the commercial sphere, these advancements are dramatically altering the way the Internet is accessed and interacted with, as can be clearly seen with the proliferation of the iOS App Store and Google Play Store. Meanwhile, education remains reliant on platforms that are a decade old. Furthermore, advanced web analytics underlie these platforms, providing real-time feedback to stakeholders, while academia is mired in untangling unwieldy databases. If fully leveraged, these analytics technologies could provide extremely powerful solutions that would provide dramatically more insight into student behavior, as well as true adaptive provisioning of optimized learning experiences. As an example, it is possible to imagine the same technology stack that empowers sales campaigns on Amazon being used to provision learning content that will optimize the probability of student mastery. With respect to the social presence findings discussed in this chapter, it is particularly informative to look at two of the more dominant categories of LMS tools and understand their origins, their impact on social presence, and how contemporary technologies are disrupting student expectations.

Announcements Announcements are online tools that the instructor typically uses to post important information. Announcements are commonly found on the students’ home pages upon logging in to the LMS and can include multimedia, text, images, hyperlinks, and so on. Often used in conjunction with a calendar, announcements were the basis for the instructional design and organization component of the CoI’s teaching presence construct. It was here that expectations were set and students were briefed on upcoming events and changes to course assignments, as well as where the instructor provided brief thoughts on the week’s or unit’s assignments. However, as the LMS is housed behind a firewall, students have to go through a log-in process to access this information. In other parts of their life, students likely use Twitter, Facebook Messenger, text messages, and so on to receive these types of updates. As such, accessing this type of announcement service in a closed environment may actually have a negative impact on student performance, as students may believe that it is an unnecessary burden to have to go through a log-in process to receive snippets of information that would otherwise be pushed to them. In response, some LMS providers are starting to offer push services that allow for access to announcement information vis-à-vis the types of services previously mentioned. Moving forward it will be interesting to see what impact these push services will have on students’ perception of the online classroom. Will they continue to view it as an isolated entity? Or will the definition of classroom be expanded? If the latter is true, we may see a strengthening of perceptions of teaching presence, but social presence indicators may decline, as the concept of a classroom will become far more distributed.

Discussion Boards, Forums, and Wikis Discussion boards, forums, and Wikis are online tools that allow for asynchronous, communicative exchanges among multiple users within an LMS. For educational purposes,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 82

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND STUDENT SUCCESS

83

discussion boards have allowed for the sharing and receiving of information and opinions relating to a particular topic. Originally designed to facilitate dialogue around a given topic within the course, the discussion forum provided a convenient means of achieving what was a rather complex piece of scripting in the early days of the LMS. However, there are now numerous standalone services that offer discussion board functionality, which can be embedded in any web page with a modicum of effort. In fact, it is hard to think of any service-oriented website that does not have this type of functionality for purposes of customer feedback and elaboration. In its simplest manifestation, the discussion forum was one of the very earliest forms of social media, with remnants still visible in such services as Facebook. However, contemporary social media offers functionality that far exceeds that of the humble discussion forum. The downside is that many students do not want to have their personal online lives intertwined with academia, as has been discovered when numerous instructors have attempted to offer courses on Facebook, despite the considerable gains in social presence that might be achieved by doing so. A solution that may offer a healthy compromise is Hoot.me (hoot.me). Hoot.me connects Facebook, where students are, with LMS providers such as Canvas and Blackboard, where instructors are, to ensure that every question can be exposed to the widest possible audience. Hoot.me also has filters that allow users to define which networks, internal or external, messages will be viewed on. Beyond the ability to expand networking to find solutions to problems, services such as this dramatically expand the potential for the exploration phase of cognitive presence, allow for deeper reflection in the integration phase, and provide richer responses in resolution, as discussed in more detail in chapter 7 of this book. However, there are also a few potential downsides. One of the foundations of teaching presence is that the instructor should keep students’ discussions on track and provide guidance where necessary. This may become much more difficult if networks expand and faculty choose to not participate. Second, there is the question of whether these expanded networks around course problems will affect coherence of the learning community and thus social presence.

Pathways Forward Though rich media is not a general function of the LMS, it is important to note the importance of it, or the lack thereof, in learning environments. Although there has long been debate over whether rich media in and of itself can increase cognition, the studies cited in this chapter clearly demonstrate that contemporary students expect rich media to be included. For institutions this presents a serious dilemma. Over the past two decades, large sums of money and effort have been put into codifying teaching materials and placing them within the current LMS structure, albeit typically in a very flat textbased format that is occasionally interlaced with some visual elements and the sporadic YouTube link. Although it is certainly possible to convert these assets to rich, interactive learning artifacts and environments, such efforts come with significant costs in terms of both capital expenditures and infrastructure change. In fact, it is not unreasonable to estimate that such transformations cost well in excess of $40,000 per course. At a time when

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 83

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

84

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

academic budgets are stretched, this reality presents a significant dilemma to institutions of virtually all sizes. However, the alternative to not altering the way we conceptualize the development of social presence and the tools used to implement it has significant impacts in terms of student satisfaction and retention. Thus, it will likely be necessary for successful institutions to reenvision what their online learning environments need to consist of and what will be necessary to retain students. Although not a term widely favored in academia, return on investment is a consideration that must be carefully assessed in such planning and weighed against the costs of heavy swirling and churning among students looking for a learning experience that is commensurate with their expectations. From a theoretical perspective, we must also consider how a mature construct such as social presence has been affected by advancements in online technologies. This should also consist of attempting to refine such models to align with evolving paradigms and engaging in work to more fully understand the hotly debated relationship between pedagogy and technology. The alternative is to do nothing and continue to allow students to become more and more disengaged and institutions to falter as a function of their failure to evolve.

Chapter Review • Students who positively perceive online learning environments, which is potentially increased by their perception that they are part of a larger (social) learning community, are more likely to be retained. • A strong relationship exists between students’ expectations of the learning environment, in terms of modern functionality, and their satisfaction measured through the CoI survey. • The rise of mobile-first technologies, advances in digital publishing, flexible component-based platforms, rich media, and virtual environments has quickly and drastically enhanced the potential for creating immersive, ubiquitous learning environments. • It will be necessary for successful institutions to reenvision what their online learning environments need to consist of and what will be necessary to retain students. Return on investment analyses should evaluate the cost of student swirling and churn versus the cost of implementing updated technology. • Tools to measure social presence and engagement should evolve to more fully understand the relationship between pedagogy and technology.

Authors’ Note This chapter was excerpted in part from “An Exploration of Differences Between CoI and Course Completion: Community of Inquiry Indicators in Low and High Disenrollment Online Courses,” by P. Ice, A. M. Gibson, W. Boston, and D. Becher, 2011, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(2), 44–69. Used with permission.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 84

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

SOCIAL PRESENCE AND STUDENT SUCCESS

85

References Boston, W., Díaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2014). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67–83. Boston, W., Ice, P., & Burgess, M. (2012). Assessing student retention in online learning environments: A longitudinal study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer152/boston_ice_burgess152 .html Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323–340. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12. Ice, P., Gibson, A. M., Boston, W., & Becher, D. (2011). An exploration of differences between COI and course completion: Community of Inquiry indicators in low and high disenrollment online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(2), 44–69. Layne, M., & Ice, P. (2015). Redesigning scholarship in online environments. Journal of Advanced Distributed Learning Technology, 3(7), 5. Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. J. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165–182. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Rodríguez, J. I., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1996). Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator. Communication Education, 45(4), 293–305. Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of Inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers and Education, 52(3), 543–553. Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-mentor, 2(24), 1–12. Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 85

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

9 INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE Learners’ Needs and a Neglected Component of the Community of Inquiry Framework Jennifer C. Richardson and Patrick Lowenthal

S

ocial presence theory was the term first proposed in 1976 to explain how telecommunications influence how people communicate (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Short and colleagues (1976) defined social presence as the degree of salience (i.e., quality or state of being there) between two communicators using a communication medium. This theory became particularly important for online educators trying to understand how people communicated in primarily text-based online courses during the 1990s (Lowenthal, 2009). In fact, social presence was identified as one of the core elements of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, a widely used guide for planning, developing, evaluating, and researching online learning (Boston et al., 2009; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Kumar, Dawson, Black, Cavanaugh, & Sessums, 2011; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2014; Swan, Day, Bogle, & Matthews, 2014). The CoI framework is a dynamic process model of online learning based on the theory that effective learning requires a community based on inquiry (Garrison, 2011, 2015). At the heart of the model are the interdependent constructs of cognitive, social, and teaching presence (Swan, Garrison, & Richardson, 2009). Social presence, the first element, is the ability of participants “to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to other participants as ‘real people’” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, p. 89). The second element, teaching presence, involves instructional management, building understanding, and direct instruction. And the third element, cognitive presence, is “the extent to which the participants in . . . a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). As useful as the CoI framework is for the research and practice of online learning, we contend that it fails to acknowledge the unique roles teachers play in all courses but especially in successful online courses. Research has shown us that students’ relationships with faculty have a direct and significant effect on their scholarly engagement (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh, 2002, 2009; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008). Therefore, it is not surprising to find a high-quality instructor behind every quality online course (Dunlap, 2005; Wilson, Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam, & Dunlap, 2004). 86

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 86

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

87

The CoI framework recognizes the importance of teaching presence, but Garrison and his colleagues specifically labeled this element teaching presence rather than teacher presence because they saw this teaching role as a role that any learner in a CoI could take on (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Although this learner-centered mind-set is admirable, it fails to truly appreciate the unique roles that teachers play in online courses—roles that go beyond simply designing instruction, providing direct instruction, and facilitating discussions. Online students care about getting a sense of who their instructors are and that they are “real” people and “there”—namely, their social presence (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014). The CoI framework, though, does not clearly articulate or validate this important aspect of communities of inquiry. Students in online courses continue to report feelings of isolation, disconnection from peers and instructors, impersonal detachment, lack of clarification of instructional goals, and issues with receiving feedback in a timely manner, all of which can result in higher dropout rates and the perception of a less-than-optimal educational experience (Hostetter & Busch, 2006; K. Kim, Liu, & Bonk, 2005; Kruger-Ross & Waters, 2013; Liu, Gomez, & Yen, 2009; Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004). An instructor’s social presence, which is dependent on the frequency, type, and quality of interactions between the instructor and the students (Richardson, Koehler, et al., 2015; Swan, 2003; Swan & Shih, 2005), can address these issues and much more. In this chapter, we will describe what instructor social presence is, explain its importance, highlight its role in the CoI framework, summarize research others have conducted on instructor presence, and conclude with implications for practice.

Background Overview of Social Presence Research Social presence, as previously mentioned, dates back to the 1970s. Researchers were interested in how the absence of nonverbal and relational cues influences how people communicate. As access to and use of computer conferencing increased during the 1990s, online educators began thinking more and more about how the lack of nonverbal and relational cues in computer-mediated communication influences the social process of teaching and learning. Most of the initial research focused on the conceptualization of social presence and the degree to which it was influenced by a communication medium or a person. Research has since determined that social presence can be strongly felt by participants (Gunawardena, 1995; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Walther, 1996). Research has also shown that social presence can influence students’ learning experiences, including students’ participation and motivation to participate (Jorge, 2010; Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Weaver & Albion, 2005). Although a majority of studies on social presence have focused on student satisfaction, research has shown that social presence can affect both actual (e.g., course grades, assignment grades) and perceived learning (Hostetter & Busch, 2013; Joksimović, Gašević, Kovanović, Riecke, & Hatala, 2015; Kang & Im, 2013; Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Russo & Benson, 2005;

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 87

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

88

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Wise, Chang, Duffy, & del Valle, 2004). Moreover, social presence has also been linked to student retention and intention to reenroll in online course rates (Boston et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2009; Reio & Crim, 2013). In fact, Boston and colleagues (2009) found that two affective expression indicators of social presence—“Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social interaction” and “I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants”—as measured by the CoI survey accounted for more than 20% of the variance in student retention. In addition, students’ perception of social presence has been found to affect overall course satisfaction and satisfaction with the instructor (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Cobb, 2009; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan & Shih, 2005). These findings point to the importance of instructors’ social presence in the learning experience.

Overview of Instructor Social Presence Researchers and online educators have recognized the unique and various roles instructors play in online courses. For instance, online instructors perform pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical functions (Berge, 1995; see Baran, Correia, & Thompson, 2011, for a review of the literature on the roles of online instructors). We posit that many of these roles are rarely addressed by other learners, even in the best CoI. Thus, we believe that instructors have a unique responsibility for the teaching presence (even if students might help contribute to it), as well as their own instructor social presence in the online courses they teach. Instructor social presence is simply the social presence of the instructor. But because of the unique roles of the instructor (e.g., assigning grades), getting a sense that an instructor is “real” and “there” takes on an increased importance in facilitated online courses. Part of instructor social presence involves instructor immediacy (Hodges & Cowan, 2012; Sheridan & Kelly, 2010). The communication concept of immediacy was originally defined by Mehrabian (1969) “as the extent to which communication behaviors enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with another” (p. 213), and he found that behaviors used to accomplish this include verbal behaviors and nonverbal behaviors (e.g., smiling, eye contact, body language, humor). Likewise, research has shown that instructor immediacy is important in face-to-face courses (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004) and online courses (Baker, 2010; Hutchins, 2003), even if it might be accomplished in different ways. However, instructor social presence also involves the concept of intimacy (Argyle & Dean, 1965), which in instructional terms can be thought of as supporting and meeting the needs of individual learners. Although an instructor’s social presence, and specifically this type of immediacy and intimacy, depends largely on teacher-to-student interaction, it also depends on the design and development decisions that permeate all aspects of a course, including individual projects or assignments (Hostetter & Busch, 2013; Richardson & Swan, 2003). Researchers have been investigating instructor social presence for many years; we will summarize some of this research in the next section. However, it is not always clear when a research study is focused more on an instructor’s social presence, an instructor’s teaching presence (sometimes referred to as teacher presence or instructor presence),

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 88

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

89

or a combination of instructor and student social presence as research dimensions. For example, Lear, Isernhagen, LaCost, and King (2009) conducted a study on instructor presence—based in part on Robyler and Wiencke’s (2004) Rubric for Assessing Interactive Qualities in Distance Courses (e.g., elements included social/rapport-building, instructional activity design, technology resources, and instructor engagement)—in which they conceptualized instructor presence as including teaching presence and some aspects of social presence (exchanges of personal information among students, class activities designed to increase social rapport among students). Sheridan and Kelly (2010), in contrast, conducted a study in which they acknowledged the differences between teaching presence (based on CoI model dimensions: instructional design, facilitation of discourse, and direct instruction) and teacher presence (personality traits and dispositions) with their construct aligning more with the former. Finally, Ekmekci (2013) conducted research on establishing “instructor presence” but clearly stated in the article that they were investigating teaching presence.

Trends in Instructor Social Presence Research Once one is able to distinguish among social presence, instructor social presence, and teaching presence, one can find numerous studies examining instructor social presence or studies that at least touch on the concept. Much of this research can be seen as taking one of the three lenses described in this book; that is, social presence as technologically facilitated, social presence as learners’ perception, or social presence as a critical literacy. The following research is simply meant to serve as an overview of the research being done on instructor social presence. Wise and colleagues (2004) examined teacher social presence (instructor social presence) defined by dimensions of message friendliness, familiarity with the instructor, and instructor friendliness by manipulating the levels of instructor social presence in two groups. They found that social presence did affect learners’ interactions with and perception of the instructor but did not affect students’ perceived learning, satisfaction, or engagement or the quality of their final course product. Similarly, Sheridan and Kelly (2010) examined the aspects of instructor presence that students felt were most important, such as making course requirements clear, being responsive to students’ needs, providing timely information, and offering instructor feedback. They also found that students did not place much importance on synchronous or face-to-face communication or consider being able to “hear” the instructor as very important. Like other research (e.g., Hodges & Cowan, 2012), these studies found that instructor social presence enabled learners to see their instructors as caring, helpful people and that students value instructors who are responsive to their needs. Implications indicate a need to pay particular attention to communication techniques employed by instructors. Work by Dennen (2005, 2007, 2011) looked not only at communication techniques but also at finding an appropriate balance to allow students to participate fully in the learning process. In one study, Dennen (2005) investigated instructor presence in online discussions. She found that an instructor’s presence influenced student participation in online discussions. Although instructor presence can be established both within and outside of online discussion forums, she found that it was most ideal when an instructor lets

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 89

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

90

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

“students know that their messages were being read without taking over the discussion” (p. 142). Dennen suggested that there might even be too much instructor presence at times and that one does not have to frequently contribute to each discussion to have a presence. In a follow-up study, Dennen (2011) investigated the role of instructor presence and identity in online discussions. She found that instructor presence was more than simply clicks; instead, it was more of a qualitative essence that was influenced by an instructor’s orientation to teaching and learning. Russo and Benson (2005) and Baker (2010) also examined instructor social presence in relation to students’ outcomes. Russo and Benson (2005) investigated the relationship between students’ perceptions of others in an online class (students and instructor) and both affective and cognitive learning outcomes. They found that perceptions of the instructor’s presence were significantly correlated both with affective learning and with student learning satisfaction. In addition, perceptions of instructor presence were strongly related to both attitudes and satisfaction, yet satisfaction with learning was correlated more highly with perceptions of others (r = .69) than with perceptions of the instructor (r = .52). Baker (2010) investigated instructor immediacy and presence in online courses. Specifically, she was interested in how instructor immediacy (a part of the social presence construct) and instructor presence (teaching presence) related to undergraduate students’ affective learning, perceived cognition, and motivation. Baker found that instructor immediacy was positively related to student affective learning, perceived cognition, and motivation but was not a significant predictor of any of these variables. Yet, instructor presence (teaching presence) was a significant predictor of student affective learning, perceived cognition, and motivation. Ultimately these findings would go to the heart of the CoI framework and the idea that neither learning activities nor interactions alone are enough for a CoI that leads to meaningful learning (Garrison et al., 2000).

Instructor Social Presence in Courses Designed by Others As the demand for online courses and programs grows, colleges and universities are increasingly using team-based approaches to design “master” online courses that can be taught by any faculty member (see Lowenthal & White, 2009). As a result, a growing number of instructors are finding themselves teaching online courses that they did not design and might have little ability to modify (i.e., they might lack authoring rights to the course). In situations like this, instructor social presence becomes more critical than ever. Lowenthal (2016) investigated instructor social presence in accelerated online courses which the instructors did not design and in which they did not have authoring access to the courses. In courses like these, the instructors could only share things about themselves—and that they were “real” and “there”—through the course discussions and the grade book. In this mixed-methods exploratory study that focused solely on analyzing online course discussions, Lowenthal found that instructors spent some time establishing their own social presence (e.g., greetings and salutations, inclusive language, empathy) but that they quickly shifted their focus from social presence behaviors to teaching presence behaviors (e.g., dealing with course logistics), most likely because of the lack of time in eight-week accelerated online courses. In another study, Richardson, Koehler, and colleagues (2015) also examined instructor practice by instructors teaching courses that they did not design. In this study, they

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 90

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

91

defined instructor presence as the specific actions and behaviors taken by the instructor to project himself or herself as a real person socially and pedagogically in an online community. Using a descriptive multiple-case study approach, they examined the instructor presence of 12 instructors in three different courses. The study reported the top 10 techniques used by the instructors for establishing their instructor presence as follows: using names (cohesive), using greetings (cohesive), referencing groups (cohesive), acknowledging work (interactive), clarifying for instructional purposes (direct instruction), providing tips for how to succeed in the course (facilitating discourse), providing general information or just-in-time information about the course (design and organization), offering praise and encouragement (interactive), using unusual punctuation or paralanguage to express nonverbal emotions (affective), and using emphasis to heighten awareness (affective). They also noted that many of these techniques are not overly time-consuming, and there are thereby easy ways for instructors to go about projecting themselves as “real” and “there.”

Measuring Social Presence One more line of inquiry regarding the work on instructor social presence is related to how it is measured and reported (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2014; Richardson, Maeda, Caskurlu, & Lv, 2015). Richardson, Maeda, and colleagues (2015) conducted a metaanalysis of social presence in relation to student perceived learning and satisfaction in online learning. Among other things, they found that the results showed a strong positive relationship between social presence and satisfaction (r = .56, SD = 0.02). The magnitude of the relationship was moderated by the course length (in weeks), discipline area, and scale used to measure social presence. Investigating various scales used to measure social presence, one finds that although two scales may purport to measure the same construct, the dimensions may vary (e.g., intimacy, immediacy, co-presence, influence, cohesiveness, open communication, group cohesion, affective expressions, instructional communication) and capture a different element of the social presence construct based on the set of items (operationalization) included in the scale; this could result in differing outcomes. For example, the Richardson and Swan (2003) scale incorporates items that speak to the general sense of community (“The instructor created a feeling of an online community”) as well as includes an item for instructor-related social presence (“The instructor facilitated discussions in the course”). In contrast, although the CoI survey (Swan et al., 2008) includes similarly worded items (“The instructor’s actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants” and “The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant issues in a way that helped me to learn”), these scales factored into the teaching presence subscale and were therefore not included in the analysis (Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan et al., 2008).

Implications for Practice Theory, research, and practice all illustrate the importance of instructor social presence in online courses. However, there is a fine line between being “there” (which some like to think of as being “present”) and being an overly controlling instructor or being a completely absent instructor. Research has suggested that an instructor does not have to

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 91

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

92

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

be online constantly (Dennen, 2005, 2011; Dunlap, 2005) to establish instructor social presence; however, at the same time, an instructor’s social presence is still influenced by the frequency, type, and quality of interactions between the instructor and the students (Richardson, Koehler, et al., 2015; Shea, Hayes, Vickers, Gozza-Cohen, et al., 2010; Swan, 2002; Swan & Shih, 2005). The following are a few strategies based on themes in the literature that online educators can use to establish and maintain instructor social presence in online courses.

Instructor Persona One of the first steps to establishing instructor social presence in online courses is finding ways to establish one’s personality—or what Dennen (2007) termed persona. One’s personality includes those things that make one unique—that is, things that make one appear “real.” Students want to get a sense of who their instructor is as a person. This is more about being authentic and “real” than fitting some stereotype of what a teacher is or is not. The following are some things online instructors can do: • Add a detailed biography to the learning management system, including as much personal but relevant information as they are comfortable sharing (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014) • Post a recent picture of themselves (Aragon, 2003; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999) • Share their teaching philosophy (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014) • Share scholarship or creative works (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2012) • Create welcome and orientation announcements (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2010; Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, & Lewis, 2012; Shea, Hayes, & Vickers, 2010) • Provide personal feedback that reveals their personality and knowledge of the students (Borup, West, & Thomas, 2015; Cox, Black, Heney, & Keith, 2015; Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells, 2007; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Shea, Hayes, & Vickers, 2010; Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014).

Course Design Instructor social presence begins at the course design phase of an online course. Online courses reflect the design decisions of those designing the courses. Therefore, it is important, whenever possible, to design courses that reflect not only your personality but also, most importantly, your own instructional values (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2013). The following are a few ways that course design decisions can and should reflect instructors’ social presence: • Intentionally design opportunities for teacher-to-student interaction (e.g., a five-minute phone call) (see Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2010) • Create assignments or projects that reflect teachers’ passion for their subject matter

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 92

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

93

• Clearly set expectations and how instructors see their role in class discussions (as Dennen, 2005, found, there is not one right way to facilitate discussions) (Shea, Hayes, & Vickers, 2010) • Add humor when appropriate (e.g., post content-related comic strips) (see Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Rourke et al., 1999; Sung & Mayer, 2012; Wise et al., 2004)

Online Communication Communicating with students during a course is still the number one way that instructors establish their instructor social presence. Instructors communicate—whether one-to-one or one-to-many—with students in a variety of ways; for instance, they post announcements, send e-mails, take part in asynchronous and synchronous discussions, and provide feedback and assessment. Each of these types of communication provides instructors with an opportunity to establish their instructor social presence. The following are some strategies online educators can use to establish and maintain instructor social presence: • Regularly communicate with the class in a consistent, predictable, and public manner, whether in the discussion forums, class e-mails, or announcements (Arbaugh & Hwang, 2006; Lowenthal & Thomas, 2010) • Occasionally send individual e-mails or messages to students (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2010) • Provide timely and detailed feedback (Borup et al., 2015; Cox et al., 2015; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2014; Ice et al., 2007) • Have students post assignments in discussion forums rather than in digital drop boxes (Lowenthal & Thomas, 2010) • Self-disclose and share personal stories (Lowenthal & Thomas, 2010) • Address students by name (Rourke et al., 1999)

Conclusion The CoI framework posits that effective learning requires a community of teachers and students focused on inquiry (Garrison, 2011, 2015). Garrison and his colleagues recognized the importance of both teaching presence and social presence in communities based on inquiry but failed to highlight the unique role teachers play in online courses. Researchers have since argued that the social presence of the instructor, or what we are calling instructor social presence, is an important component in CoIs (Pollard, Minor, & Swanson, 2014). In this chapter, we described what instructor social presence is, explained its importance, highlighted its role in the CoI framework, summarized research conducted on instructor social presence, and concluded with implications for practice.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 93

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

94

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Chapter Review • The CoI recognizes the importance of teaching presence, which is often referred to as teacher presence, yet teaching presence indicates any learner in a CoI could take on the role. This chapter specifically looks at instructor social presence, which could be considered teacher presence. • Instructor social presence is especially important to consider when the instructor is not the course designer. • It is important for instructors to develop their online persona, a way to make them feel “real” and authentic to students. • The designer of online courses needs to consider how he or she and others teaching a course will be able to leverage design features such as built-in interactions and avenues for communication.

References Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a Community of Inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(2–3), 3–22. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57−68. Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 9–21. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–30. Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 15(1), 22–30. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161–184. Boston, W., Díaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67–83. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 40(7), 3–7. Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241–254. Cox, S., Black, J., Heney, J., & Keith, M. (2015). Promoting teacher presence: Strategies for effective and efficient feedback to student writing online. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 42(4), 376.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 94

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

95

Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. Dennen, V. P. (2007). Presence and positioning as components of online instructor persona. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 95–108. Dennen, V. P. (2011). Facilitator presence and identity in online discourse: Use of positioning theory as an analytic framework. Instructional Science, 39(4), 527–541. Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Workload reduction in online courses: Getting some shuteye. Performance Improvement, 44(5), 18–25. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). Defeating the Kobayashi Maru: Supporting student retention by balancing the needs of the many and the one. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(4). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/12/defeating-the-kobayashi-marusupporting-student-retention-by-balancing-the-needs-of-the-many-and-the-one Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2013). What was your best learning experience? Our story about using stories to solve instructional problems. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 269–274. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/ IJTLHE1563.pdf Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2014). The power of presence: Our quest for the right mix of social presence in online courses. In A. A. Piña & A. P. Mizell (Eds.), Real life distance education: Case studies in practice (pp. 41–66). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Ekmekci, O. (2013). Being there: Establishing instructor presence in an online learning environment. Higher Education Studies, 3(1), 29–38. doi:10.5539/hes.v3n1p29 Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2012). Get present: Build community and connectedness online. Learning and Leading With Technology, 40(2), 22–25. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Garrison, D. R. (2015). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the Community of Inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Hodges, C. B., & Cowan, S. F. (2012). Preservice teachers’ views of instructor presence in online courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 139–145. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2013). Community matters: Social presence and learning outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 77–86. Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/hutchins63.html

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 95

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

96

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and student sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25. Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654. doi:10.1111/jcal.12107 Jorge, I. (2010). Social presence and cognitive presence in an online training program for teachers of Portuguese: Relation and methodological issues. Proceedings from IODL and ICEM 2010 Joint Conference and Media Days (pp. 427–435). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle .net/10451/8674 Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 292–301. doi:10.1111/jcal.12005 Kim, K., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344. Kruger-Ross, M. J., & Waters, R. D. (2013). Predicting online learning success: Applying the situational theory of publics to the virtual classroom. Computers and Education, 61, 176–184. Kuh, G. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Bloomington. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/Psychometric_framework_2002.pdf Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 683–706. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563. Kumar, S., Dawson, K., Black, E. W., Cavanaugh, C., & Sessums, C. D. (2011). Applying the Community of Inquiry framework to an online professional practice doctoral program. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 126–142. Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2014). Adapting the Community of Inquiry survey for an online graduate program: Implications for online programs. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 59–71. Lear, J. L., Isernhagen, J. C., LaCost, B. A., & King, J. W. (2009). Instructor presence for webbased classes. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 51(2), 86–98. Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C.-J. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 165–182. Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 124–139). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Lowenthal, P. R. (2016). A mixed methods examination of instructor social presence in accelerated online courses. In L. Kyei-Blankson, J. Blankson, E. Ntuli, & C. Agyeman (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategic management of interaction, presence, and participation in online courses (pp. 147–159). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2012). Intentional web presence: 10 SEO strategies every academic needs to know. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/ articles/2012/6/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-to-know Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2014). Problems measuring social presence in a Community of Inquiry. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 19–30.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 96

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

INSTRUCTOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

97

Lowenthal, P. R., & Thomas, D. (2010). Death to the digital dropbox: Rethinking student privacy and public performance. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(3). Retrieved from http://er.educause .edu/articles/2010/9/death-to-the-digital-dropbox-rethinking-student-privacy-and-publicperformance Lowenthal, P. R., & White, J. W. (2009). Enterprise model. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed., pp. 932–936). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers and Education, 49, 193–213. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.011 Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 213–217. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Pollard, H., Minor, M., & Swanson, A. (2014). Instructor social presence within the Community of Inquiry framework and its impact on classroom community and the learning environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga .edu/~distance/ojdla/summer172/Pollard_Minor_Swanson172.html Reio, T. G., & Crim, S. J. (2013). Social presence and student satisfaction as predictors of online enrollment intent. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 122–133. doi:10.1080/089 23647.2013.775801 Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256–297. Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Caskurlu, S., & Lv, J. (2015, November). The relationship between social presence in online learning and student’s satisfaction and learning: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2004). Exploring the interaction equation: Validating a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4). Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n4/v8n4_roblyer .asp Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Retrieved from http://www. ijede. ca/index. php/jde/issue/view/27 Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62. Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the Community of Inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 127–154. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A., & Rangan, P. (2010). A re-examination of the Community of Inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 10–21.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 97

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

98

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to students in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 767–779. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738–1747. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication, and Information, 2(1), 23–49. Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online course discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147–164). London, UK: Kogan Page. Swan, K., Day, S. L., Bogle, L. R., & Matthews, D. B. (2014). A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 74–81. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-mentor, 2(24), 1–12. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 131–150. doi:10.1207/ S15389286AJDE1603_2 Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 Weaver, C. M., & Albion, P. (2005). Momentum in online discussions: The effect of social presence on motivation for participation. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Balance, fidelity, mobilitymaintaining the momentum? ASCILITE 2005 (pp. 703–706). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology, Teaching and Learning Support Services. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014). The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/5/thepower-of-social-presence-for-learning Wilson, B. G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C. L., & Dunlap, J. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3). Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184– 207.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 98

5/12/2017 11:00:01 PM

10 CREATING SOCIAL CUES THROUGH SELF-DISCLOSURES, STORIES, AND PARALANGUAGE The Importance of Modeling High Social Presence Behaviors in Online Courses Jessica Gordon

A

lthough the literature about student engagement in face-to-face (FTF) classes is well known, scholarship about how to engage students in virtual classes remains in its infancy. As a result, many faculty who teach courses with online components share concerns about student engagement and develop assignments aimed to increase collaboration in the hope that students will feel themselves participants in a community. In the virtual world, however, engagement is often manifested as social presence, and scholarship is beginning to focus on ways to increase social presence in online classes. In this chapter, I use the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework as the foundation for effective learning experiences, and I provide a brief history of scholarship that shows that social presence is often correlated with course satisfaction and student learning. This premise is the foundation for my argument that teachers in virtual classrooms must learn to model behaviors that are high in social presence by remaining cognizant of and implementing teacherimmediacy behaviors, sharing personal anecdotes and stories, and using paralanguage as a substitute for FTF social cues. These recommendations for increasing social presence are supported by research and yield practices that online teachers can implement. Ultimately, I argue that our current generation of learners was not born with the knowledge of how to be “present” in virtual classrooms, and thus we must not only model effective behaviors but also provide students with ample opportunities for practice. The theory of social presence, first developed by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976), explains the effects a communication medium has on the way that people converse. Short and colleagues defined social presence as the “degree of salience of the other person” (p. 65) in a mediated communication, and they understood social presence to be how “real” a person seemed when communicating in a given medium (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). However, they were careful to explain that social presence depended not only on the words that were said but also on the nonverbal cues that were given. As a 99

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 99

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

100

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

result, they argued that forms of media varied in their potential for social presence, ranging from FTF communications, which naturally had the highest potential, to written text in computer-mediated communication (CMC), wherein social presence was most difficult to maintain. It is important to note that they defined social presence as a quality or capacity of the medium itself—a definition that contradicts the literature today, which, in the field of education, indicates that social presence in the virtual classroom is often a function of both student and instructor. Although research about social presence was popular in the 1970s and 1980s in the field of telecommunications, it was many years before this research was applied to education. Indeed, it was not until D. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) developed their CoI framework that the theory of social presence became a well-known concept in the field of education. The CoI framework is grounded in social learning theory, which proposes that modeling is an essential part of learning, but CoI expands this theory by suggesting that community is created in the online classroom by maintaining high levels of cognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence. These types of presence are explained in Table 10.1. TABLE 10.1 Three Types of Presence in the Community of Inquiry Framework Type of Presence

Definition

Cognitive presence

The extent to which participants in a CoI are able to make meaning through continual communication

Social presence

The ability of participants in a CoI to present themselves as real people by projecting personal characteristics through the medium of communication

Teaching presence

The way the teacher designs and facilitates learning experiences to support social and cognitive presence

Inherent in their argument that all three types of presence are needed to create a successful CoI is the fundamental departure from the common belief that the medium itself is the most salient factor in determining the potential for presence and a new claim that presence can be generated and maintained by the user. This shift in thinking is important because for the first time, rather than believing that social presence was entirely a function of the medium of communication, users of CMC understood that they had the ability to create social presence.

Perception of Social Presence as a Predictor of Course Satisfaction Before we begin a discussion of ways to increase social presence in the online classroom, it is useful to address why increasing social presence is important. Studies have shown that students’ perception of social presence is a strong predictor of student satisfaction and learning in a course, and scholarship has suggested that social presence is correlated with course satisfaction and learning as a whole. Gunawardena and Zittle (1997)

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 100

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CREATING SOCIAL CUES

101

conducted one of the first studies to measure the effectiveness of social presence in indicating overall learner satisfaction in a CMC environment. The 50 graduate students who were participants at a conference focused on CMC completed a 61-item questionnaire called the Social Presence Scale that compared two variables, social presence and course satisfaction. The results of their study suggest that “social presence alone,” as opposed to other variables such as students’ perception of equal opportunity for participation and students’ technical skills, “is a strong predictor of satisfaction in a text-based computer conference” (p. 19). Using the same Social Presence Scale with only a few modifications, Richardson and Swan (2003) conducted a study of 97 undergraduates that examined the “relationship among students’ perception of social presence in online courses, students’ perceived learning and their satisfaction with the instructor” (p. 71). Richardson and Swan (2003) concluded that students who reported high perceptions of social presence also reported higher levels of perceived learning than those of students with lower perceptions of social presence, that students who reported being most satisfied with their instructor also reported higher perceived learning than those who were not satisfied with the instructor, and that students who had high scores for social presence indicated that they were highly satisfied with the instructor. Thus, social presence proved to be an important indicator of factors related to course satisfaction. Although Gunawardena and Zittle’s (1997) and Richardson and Swan’s (2003) studies were foundational and created a successful method for further research into this area, additional studies offer further support for a correlation between social presence and course satisfaction and/or learning (Akyol & Garrison, 2014; Arbaugh & BenbunanFich, 2007; Beaudoin, 2002; Bulu, 2012; Shen & Chen, 2014; So & Brush, 2008). This correlation is the primary reason why teachers should consider ways to increase social presence in their virtual classes.

Increasing Social Presence in Virtual Classrooms Translating theoretical knowledge into pedagogical practice can be challenging; thus, the rest of this chapter focuses on practical ways to increase social presence in virtual classrooms. Although some of this research suggests methods for applying what we already do in FTF classes to online classrooms, the constant application of FTF practices to the online environment can be both limiting and dangerous because it prevents us from developing new methods that might be specifically tailored for and successful in the virtual environment. Thus, the following practices are drawn from those methods in FTF classes that can successfully transcend the brick-and-mortar classroom and from studies that focus on methods for increasing social presence specifically in online environments.

Maximizing Teaching Presence to Model Effective Social Presence Behaviors D. Garrison and colleagues (2000) defined teaching presence as “the binding element in creating a community of inquiry for educational purposes” and claimed that “when education based on computer conferencing fails, it is usually because there has not

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 101

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

102

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

been responsible teaching presence and appropriate leadership and direction exercised” (p. 96). Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001) characterized teaching presence in the following way: Teaching presence begins before the course commences as the teacher, acting as instructional designer, plans and prepares the course of studies, and it continues during the course, as the instructor facilitates the discourse and provides direct instruction when required. Through adequate teaching presence, formal learning that facilitates personally relevant and educationally defined outcomes is achieved. (p. 5)

Although this characterization of teaching presence is apt, I argue that an instructor with high teaching presence must also consciously model behaviors that are high in social presence because students not only might not know how to exhibit these behaviors but also do not always know that there is an expectation that they should. Indeed, many of the same studies that correlate social presence with overall satisfaction with learning have also suggested a positive correlation between the instructor’s ability to effectively model behaviors that increase social presence and the students’ perception of social presence (Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003; Swan & Shih, 2005). Thus, instructors who teach online courses must support learners by understanding that their own social presence and social cues are important predictors of social presence in the virtual classroom, and they must model those social behaviors and create a classroom community and culture that encourage students to reciprocate in similar ways.

Remaining Cognizant of Teacher Immediacy Behaviors One way for online teachers to increase social presence is by adapting well-known knowledge about teacher immediacy behaviors in the FTF classroom to the virtual environment. Research has indicated that teacher immediacy behaviors, those verbal and nonverbal cues that signal psychological closeness between communicators, shape learners’ perceptions of social presence (Baker, 2010; Bozkaya & Aydin, 2008; Tu & McIsaac, 2002), and they are positively correlated in FTF classes with both cognitive learning (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001; Kelley & Gorham, 1988; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987) and positive student evaluations (McCroskey, Richmond, Sallinen, Fayer, & Barraclough, 1995; Moore, Masterson, Christophel, & Shea, 1996). Here, I suggest that teachers in virtual classrooms must remain cognizant of these teacher immediacy behaviors and learn to apply them in online educational spaces. To explain the need for this application, I provide a brief history of scholarship pertaining to teacher immediacy. The immediacy principle, as defined by the social psychologist Mehrabian (1971), refers to patterns of behavior that people exhibit during communication experiences. In short, Mehrabian argued, “people are drawn toward persons and things they like,” and immediacy is “produced through eye contact, facial expressions, tone of voice, postures, and movements” (as cited in Baringer & McCroskey, 2000, p. 178). Anderson first adapted the term to education in her dissertation in the late 1970s (as cited in Thomas,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 102

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CREATING SOCIAL CUES

103

Richmond, & McCroskey, 1994), and in the 1980s, McCroskey and Richmond further developed the concept of teacher immediacy in their work at West Virginia University. Along with Gorham, they helped to develop the Immediacy Behavior Scale, which was a scale that defined and measured nonverbal (Richmond et al., 1987) and verbal (Gorham, 1988) immediacy behaviors in FTF classes. Although many teachers value these immediacy behaviors in the FTF classroom and apply them naturally, we often forget their importance as we struggle with the many challenges of adapting our teaching to the virtual classroom. However, a quick review of the practices denoted in the Verbal Immediacy Behavior Scale, outlined in Table 10.2, reveals that many of these verbal behaviors are very important for developing relationships between instructors and students, and they are easily adaptable for use in online classes. TABLE 10.2 Sample Items From Gorham’s (1988) Verbal Immediacy Behavior Scale Sample Item Number

Behavior Denoted in Verbal Immediacy Behavior Scale

1

Uses personal examples and talks about experiences had outside of class.

3

Diverts from lesson plan to discuss topics students bring up.

10

Refers to class as “our class” or what “we” are doing.

13

Asks how students feel about an assignment, due date, or discussion topic.

16

Asks questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions.

Source. From “The Relationship Between Verbal Teacher Immediacy Behaviors and Student Learning,” by J. Gorham, 1988, Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53.

Although Gorham’s scale contains 17 items in total, these 5 sample items reflect some of the teacher immediacy behaviors that are common and natural in the FTF classroom but easily neglected in the virtual environment. When we are trying to convey course content, it is easy to neglect these behaviors that define who we are as people and increase teacher immediacy. However, an application of the Immediacy Behavior Scale for verbal behaviors to the online classroom reveals how easy it is to overlook what we know about how to increase teacher immediacy and, similarly, how easy it will be to consciously increase these behaviors in the online classroom. The following section offers suggestions for how teachers can increase immediacy in online classes.

Sharing and Encouraging Stories The Immediacy Behavior Scale indicates that teachers who share personal examples and discuss experiences that occurred outside the classroom have higher immediacy than those who don’t. Sharing personal experiences is an act of self-disclosure, and D. Garrison and colleagues (2000) believed that self-disclosure is an example of “emotional expression contributing to the development of social presence” (p. 100). Thus, self-disclosure is an immediacy behavior that is clearly linked with social presence.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 103

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

104

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Many teachers create teacher immediacy and increase social presence in the FTF classroom by sharing stories about their own life and perceptions of experiences—both academic and social. D. Garrison and colleagues (2000) explained that when we describe our emotions, many of the adjectives that we use have “secondary meanings derived from primary meanings related to physical presence—e.g., closeness, warmth, and attraction” (p. 99). In this way, students get to know their instructors through the stories they tell; when students know their teachers, they can more effectively make meaning of their cues and may be less likely to misunderstand an ambiguous signal or misinterpret their teachers’ intentions. How natural it is to share stories in the FTF classroom before, after, and sometimes during class—and how easy it is to forget to do so when teaching and learning online. Because it can be challenging to convey course content in online classrooms, we often forget how much our students learn about us as teachers through those brief but important conversations before class begins and through the anecdotes we share as we teach. When, before a class begins, we tell students about a movie we saw over the weekend or a great new restaurant that is near campus, the interaction takes only a moment and comes quite naturally for many teachers. We usually don’t plan these stories in advance. However, in our virtual classes, we need to be more intentional. At least at first, this basic interaction may take effort to replicate, so loosely planning a time to share a story can be a wise idea. Of course, as we grow accustomed to sharing stories in the virtual classroom, these behaviors will become more natural and no longer necessitate the forethought that may be useful at the beginning. There are many opportunities to share personal experiences and stories in our online classes (see Table 10.2, item 1). Just as we frequently do introductions and/or icebreakers on the first day of a FTF class, instead of jumping right into the first lesson on day one of an online course, we might create a video introduction of ourselves in which we share personal stories and then ask students to create video introductions of their own. (Perhaps in response to my own modeling of personal experiences in the video introduction I created this past summer, students produced videos in which they featured pets and pictures of their family, and in one case, the student took us on a visual tour of a car he was rebuilding and of which he was quite proud. In this way, we laid the foundation for a CoI and exhibited high social presence behaviors from the start of class.) When we begin a videoconference with a student (or group of students), we must make time for self-disclosures that increase teacher immediacy and ultimately social presence. Likewise, when during a videoconference a student makes a comment that does not seem relevant to the work at hand, rather than trying to immediately return to the task, we might embrace these diversions as opportunities to create immediacy by asking the student follow-up questions and encouraging discussion (see Table 10.2, item 3). Similarly, when we record a video lecture, we might consider in advance what stories we can share. As with most behaviors, we will grow accustomed to these new teaching behaviors, and ultimately they will become a natural part of our online demeanor. Several other methods for sharing personal stories in online classes become obvious possibilities when framed in the social presence context. Sharing current photos and anecdotes with students through a social networking site that allows you to create a private group for your class is one possibility. In fact, my own study of a class Facebook

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 104

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CREATING SOCIAL CUES

105

group revealed a clear correlation between social presence and student self-disclosures and showed that students used the social media platform as a medium for sharing experiences (Gordon, 2014). Similarly, creating a hashtag for a class in Twitter can increase immediacy by generating opportunities to discuss what “we” are doing in “our” class (see Table 10.2, item 10). Offering office hours through Google Hangout, Skype, or another application and chatting with students in a relaxed and casual environment provides a subtle and natural way to seek feedback from students about class assignments and prior discussions (see Table 10.2, item 13). In sum, teachers should make good use of available technologies to exhibit teacher immediacy behaviors and ultimately increase social presence in the online environment.

Creating Social Cues: Encouraging Paralanguage Although a teacher’s instinct may be to require students to compose all writing in standard written English, the research has suggested that this requirement may actually decrease social presence in online classes. In fact, studies have indicated that the use of nonstandard symbols such as paralanguage—here defined as nonlexical components of oral or written language, such as emoticons, emojis, or onomatopoeic utterances1—can increase social presence, which, as explained previously, is associated with course satisfaction and learning. Paralanguage can increase social presence because it is a way to express emotion, which is often absent from CMC (Jibril & Abdullah, 2013). Yet, D. Garrison and colleagues (2000) cited expression of emotion as a major category of social presence indicators (p. 99). Indeed, it can be quite difficult to express emotion clearly in CMC, and misunderstandings often arise because visual cues that we naturally convey in FTF settings can be far more difficult to communicate in this environment. D. Garrison and colleagues (2000) argued, “A key aspect of establishing social presence in FTF settings is visual cues, and when computer-conference participants have never met, the lack of visual cues may present particular challenges to establishing social presence” (p. 95). Wei, Chen, and Kinshuk (2012) echoed these findings and claimed, “Verbal and nonverbal cues are very important resources for perceived social presence in online learning environments” (p. 539). They explained, “When learners perceive a high degree of social cues from other people, they will get a better perception of social presence” (p. 540). This suggests that emoticons or emojis, such as a smiley face or frown, might act as cues to be used by students and instructors in CMC because they allow participants to express their emotions in the absence of the body language indicators that typically function as social cues in the FTF classroom. There are numerous emoticons, ranging from indifference { ||:-| } to boredom { :-| } to confusion { (:-/ }. In addition, a plethora of emojis are commonly used to communicate an even greater array of feelings. Thus, many emotions can be effectively expressed through these semiotic channels. Scholarship has directly linked paralanguage with increased social presence in CMC. For example, Gunawardena and Zittle’s (1997) study, which was mentioned earlier, found that students who used emoticons (e.g., :( and :)< >) and paralanguage (e.g., “hmm,” “yuk”) in written form as a substitute for social and nonverbal cues experienced higher levels of social presence and immediacy during CMC. Likewise, in “The Impact

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 105

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

106

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

of Text-Based CMC on Online Social Presence,” Tu (2002) reported a study of 51 graduate students’ use of CMC in three online formats and found that students believe “the application of emoticons and paralanguage” make CMC “more vivid, warm, personal, friendly and casual” (p. 15). The value of paralanguage for increasing social presence is not limited to students, however. Whipp and Lorentz (2009) found that teachers with high social presence in online classrooms “exaggerated punctuation or spelling (e.g., ‘Whheeeww!’ ‘Here gooeess . . .’),” emphasized words with capital letters, and projected emotions by literally spelling them out; for example, they would say “‘I’m excited’ or ‘Sorry if I sound angry here’” (p. 182). In addition, they projected empathy by naming their responses to student feelings: “‘I hear your frustration’ or ‘That feeling of panic can be productive’” (p. 182). Although social presence has been studied extensively, further research about the correlation between paralanguage and social presence is needed. That said, the existing research, as well as common sense, appear to suggest that using emoticons and other forms of paralanguage can help a writer convey emotions more effectively. As a writing teacher, I admit I was at first resistant to this research that suggests that I should not only allow but also encourage students to stray from standard written English in their writing. I reacted with skepticism and questions. Even if the use of emoticons does increase social presence, is the benefit worth the cost if students transfer the use of informal paralanguage into their formal academic writing? If teachers support the use of emoticons, do we also encourage communication through the language that is commonly used for texting—a discourse characterized by a lack of capitalization, the substitution of numbers for letters, and the use of ellipses to separate complete thoughts and sentences? If we stray from the expectation that all writing should be composed using standard grammar and punctuation, how will we explain when the use of paralanguage is—and is not—appropriate? Will we be able to teach students such subtle genre-specific expectations? These were questions with which I struggled, but the research supporting the benefits of paralanguage in CMC is persuasive and indicates that there are actually few, if any, costs. In fact, scholarship has demonstrated the important role of nonverbal codes in comprehension during FTF encounters (Argyle, 2013; Luor, Lu, Wu, & Tao, 2010), and because research has shown that CMC often lacks emotion (Jibril & Abdullah, 2013), emoticons can be used in informal conversations to “alleviate undesirable connotation” (Wolf, 2000). Some research has even contextualized emoticons as formal linguistic signs. In Amaghlobeli’s (2012) study of French text messages, she found that “emoticons are not only paraverbal devices but also structural markers and play a significant role in the formation of sentences” (p. 348). Although emoticons are often perceived as a supplement to the written word or a way to show emotion, A. Garrison, Remley, Thomas, and Wierszewski (2011), in their study that investigated the role of emoticons in instant messaging discourse, suggested that emoticons are important semiotic units within conversation and should not be perceived as “compensatory” (p. 123). In fact, they argued that when an emoticon appears alone, it functions as “an utterance of its own” and should not be understood as secondary to the role of “print-linguistic text” (p. 123). Furthermore, prominent linguist Ben Zimmer believed emoticons are not a “threat to written language” at all but should be seen “as an enrichment.” He explained, “The punctuation that we use to express emotion is rather limited. We’ve got the question mark and the exclamation

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 106

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CREATING SOCIAL CUES

107

point, which don’t get you very far if you want to express things like sarcasm or irony in written form” (as cited in Robb, 2014). A translation of pedagogical approaches from the FTF classroom to the virtual one is also quite useful in explaining how paralanguage, and perhaps even texting discourses, might play an important role in the virtual classroom. I argue that class discussions in FTF classes are comparable to a discussion board or blog posts in virtual courses. In FTF classes, teachers often encourage informal small group and whole class discussions that give students an opportunity to develop and apply course concepts. During these discussions, students try to express new concepts for the first time, building on and rearticulating ideas based on those conveyed by peers and the instructor. As instructors, we may challenge students or ask them for more detail, but we do not often pick apart their sentences for grammar mistakes, and we don’t monitor their facial expressions, gestures, or social cues. Likewise, in my virtual classes, students use discussion boards (through a learning management system such as Blackboard or a blogging platform like Wordpress) for the same purposes: to apply course concepts, analyze texts they have read by authors in and out of the classroom, and give and receive feedback in the form of comments. Thus, these written discussions are comparable to those that occur orally in the everyday FTF classroom, and as opposed to a formal essay or other written product, paralanguage can play an important role in these written conversations.2 Interestingly, studies of emoticon use during CMC in the workplace have suggested that emoticons can temper criticism or soften the blow of critique. This is useful research when applied to virtual classrooms where teachers often use online workshops—in which social presence is affected by nonexistent or ambiguous social cues—as a means for students to give and receive feedback about their writing. Wang, Zhao, Qiu, and Zhu (2014) researched the effects of emoticons on the acceptance of negative feedback during CMC in the workplace. They found that although facial expressions and body language in FTF situations can help “alleviate the losing-face threats of negative feedback (Baron, 1990; Byrne, Masterson, & Rogers, 2004; Koreto, 1998; Smith, 2006; Watts, 2007), feedback providers in a CMC context are unable to use these nonverbal clues to sugarcoat and soften the feedback’s negativity (Sussman & Sproull, 1999; Walther & D’Addario, 2001; Yigit, 2005)” (Wang et al., 2014, p. 455). These findings suggest the need for paralanguage that can be used in CMC as nonverbal cues and that can temper criticism. For example, including a smiley face at the end of a sentence communicating constructive criticism can alter the way the receiver of that criticism perceives the tone and intention of the writer. In fact, Wang and colleagues (2014) found that use of a “liking emoticon” increases the perception that the person providing the negative feedback has good intentions. Naturally, when a person receives critical feedback but believes the deliverer of those comments to have good intentions, that person may be more open to the suggestions that were made. Thus, although future research is needed to more thoroughly investigate this application of workplace research to the classroom, encouraging the use of emoticons in online workshops where feedback is delivered through writing is likely to improve workshops in two important ways. First, the quality of feedback provided may improve because students who provide feedback in workshop situations frequently fear inadvertently offending the writer. Accordingly, teaching students to use paralanguage to convey emotion may alleviate some of these

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 107

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

108

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

concerns and provide a method to help students feel more confident when delivering critical responses. Second, as noted previously, the writer whose work is being critiqued may be more open to the feedback provided when it is clear that the responder’s intentions are thoughtful and kind. In sum, use of paralanguage in discussion boards and blog posts, and especially in online workshops, may be an effective linguistic strategy that improves workshops while simultaneously increasing social presence. Our challenge as teachers, then, is threefold. First, we must remember that studies have shown the use of paralanguage is correlated with high levels of social presence, which in turn often increases course learning and satisfaction. As such, teachers must resist the potential instinct to judge the strength of students’ ideas and writing solely based on the use of nonstandard English such as paralanguage. Second, we must help students understand when the use of paralanguage is beneficial and when it is inappropriate and will damage their credibility. We have long taught students to consider the rhetorical situation—audience, purpose, and context—in writing, and this new application simply adds one additional context in which to do so. Students must learn that emoticons convey tone, and just as we adopt one tone when texting a friend and another when writing a letter to an employer, emoticons are useful in the former situation but perhaps not in the latter. Third, we must do more than lecture our students about how to use emoticons effectively: We must demonstrate effective usage. In fact, in “Humanizing the Online Classroom,” Weiss (2000) not only argued that teachers must model appropriate interaction in CMC but also suggested that teachers encourage students to use emoticons by supplying a glossary of these varying notations. Demonstrating the breadth of these symbols can help students express their meaning in a humanizing and articulate manner. Thus, through our own modeling of appropriate paralanguage in CMC, students can be encouraged to mimic our behaviors and use paralanguage in effective and appropriate ways that help increase social presence in our virtual classes.

Conclusion I have come to believe that my students simply don’t know how to behave in an online classroom, and they are not aware that they should be more than passive listeners. In fact, many have been taught in their FTF classes that passive listening isn’t only okay, it’s expected. Because I often teach general education courses and students tend to be in their first or second year of college, most of them have taken few if any online classes when they arrive in my course. Thus, they have no experience with how to behave in the virtual classroom. When we tell these freshmen and sophomore students that we want them to participate in our online classes and that participation is worth a given portion of their grade, they often don’t know how to be socially present in an online class because they have never done it before. We frequently assume that students know how to behave online, and although they may radiate social presence on Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram, they do not believe, or they do not know, that these customs are transferable to a learning platform. Merely telling our students that they must participate in an online class is not a clear articulation of how to engage in an online course; rather, just as elementary school teachers instruct young students on FTF classroom behaviors—teaching them to raise their hand and not

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 108

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CREATING SOCIAL CUES

109

put their head down on their desk—we should expect that our students do not know how to behave in an online course, and we must explain to students how to show signs of engagement. Thus, we must accept that our students are novice online learners and don’t necessarily know how to be socially present, and we must create opportunities for them to learn how to manifest their presence in online courses.

Chapter Review • The CoI framework is a foundation for developing effective and engaging online learning experiences. • Studies have shown that social presence is correlated with learning and course satisfaction. • Instructors should remain cognizant of the teacher immediacy behaviors in which they naturally engage in the face-to-face classroom and consciously apply these verbal and nonverbal cues in their online classes. • Instructors should consider encouraging paralanguage in online conversations because it provides an opportunity for students to convey emotion and is associated with increases in social presence. • Students need opportunities to practice exhibiting social presence in online courses.

Notes 1. Although paralanguage was traditionally understood to be nonverbal communication in oral language—such as one’s pitch, intonation, timbre, and so on—much scholarship has acknowledged paralinguistic elements of written language such as those discussed in this chapter. 2. Some scholars have argued that schoolwork that is published online in open spaces like blogs should be free of grammar and punctuation mistakes because future employers may see this writing and make snap judgments about the authors of such work. Although I agree with this premise and share their concern, rather than not allowing students to publish schoolwork online, I teach my students that they must curate what they publish. Although our class may use the Internet as a medium for communication throughout the semester, not everything that is communicated should remain online in a curated space. Learning to curate schoolwork is important, and teaching this practice helps students learn to curate all content that they publish in online spaces.

References Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2014). The development of a Community of Inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 3–22. Retrieved from http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/olj_main Amaghlobeli, N. (2012). Linguistic features of typographic emoticons in SMS discourse. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(2), 348–354. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.2.348-354

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 109

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

110

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Retrieved from http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/olj_main Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 853–865. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.12.013 Argyle, M. (2013). Bodily communication. London, UK: Routledge. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–30. Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/ Baringer, D. K., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy. Communication Education, 49(2), 178–186. Beaudoin, M. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 147–155. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/theinternet-and-higher-education/ Bozkaya, M., & Aydin, İ. E. (2008). The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and learners’ perceptions of social presence and satisfaction in open and distance education: The case of Anadolu University open education faculty. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4), 72–78. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/ Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers and Education, 58(1), 154–161. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.024 Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(1), 59–68. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rced20/current# .VsjNnnQrIy4 Garrison, A., Remley, D., Thomas, P., & Wierszewski, E. (2011). Conventional faces: Emoticons in instant messaging discourse. Computers and Composition, 28(2), 112–125. Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-internet-and-higher-education/ Gordon, J. (2014). How is language used to craft social presence in Facebook? A case study of an undergraduate writing course. Education and Information Technologies, 1–22. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline .com/toc/rced20/current#.VsjNnnQrIy4 Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970 Jibril, T. A., & Abdullah, M. H. (2013). Relevance of emoticons in computer-mediated communication contexts: An overview. Asian Social Science, 9(4), 201. doi:10.5539/ass.v9n4p201 Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction, and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ riie20/current Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37(3), 198–207. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rced20/ current Luor, T., Lu, H. P., Wu, L. L., & Tao, Y. H. (2010). The effect of emoticon in simplex and complex task-oriented communication: An empirical study of instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 889–895. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.003

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 110

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CREATING SOCIAL CUES

111

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., & Barraclough, R. A. (1995). A cross‐cultural and multi‐behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44(4), 281–291. Retrieved from http:// www.tandfonline.com/toc/rced20/current#.VsjNnnQrIy4 Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Oxford, UK: Wadsworth. Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., & Shea, K. A. (1996). College teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45(1), 29–39. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rced20/current#.VsjNnnQrIy4 Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Retrieved from http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/olj_main Richmond, R. P., Gorham, J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574–590. Retrieved from https://www.icahdq.org/pubs/commyearbook.asp Robb, A. (2014, July 7). How using emoji makes us less emotional: And what linguists say it means if your smiley face has a nose. New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic .com Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. Retrieved from http://cpd.suny.edu/files/ TeachingPresence.pdf Shen, L., & Chen, I. L. (2014). Social presence in online dissertation classes. In V. Venkatesh, J. Wallin, J. C. Castro, & J. E. Lewis (Eds.), Educational, psychological, and behavioral considerations in niche online communities (pp. 175–191). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York, NY: Wiley. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers and Education, 51(1), 318–336. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computersand-education/ Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Retrieved from http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/olj_main Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11(1), 107–115. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08824099409359946 Tu, C.-H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1–24. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/ Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. Retrieved from http://www .tandfonline.com/toc/hajd20/current#.VsjZYYwrIy4 Wang, W., Zhao, Y., Qiu, L., & Zhu, Y. (2014). Effects of emoticons on the acceptance of negative feedback in computer-mediated communication. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(8), 454. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/ Wei, C., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529–545. Retrieved from http://link .springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11423-012-9234-9.pdf Weiss, R. E. (2000). Humanizing the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(84), 47–51. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/ (ISSN)1536-0768

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 111

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

112

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Whipp, J. L., & Lorentz, R. A. (2009). Cognitive and social help giving in online teaching: An exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 169–192. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9104-7 Wolf, A. (2000). Emotional expression online: Gender differences in emoticon use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(5), 827–833. doi:10.1089/10949310050191809

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 112

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

11 CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE Research and Practical Guidelines for Online Design Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena

S

ocial presence or the degree to which an individual is perceived as a “real person” in mediated communication has been established by distance education research as a key ingredient in the social environment of online learning (Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, & Buuren, 2011; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rourke, Anderson, & Garrison, 2001). I became intrigued by the concept of social presence developed by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) in 1993 when I conducted an interuniversity collaboration called “GlobalEd” among graduate students in several universities using a Listserv. In my initial exploration of this interuniversity collaboration, I found that even though computermediated communication in this instance was by means of a text-based medium and low in nonverbal and social context cues, conference participants percieved it as interactive, active, interesting, and stimulating. However, it was the kinds of interactions that took place among online participants and their sense of community that affected their perceptions of the medium as a “social medium” (Gunawardena, 1995). Examining the two concepts of social presence and interaction, Rafaeli (1988, 1990) observed that social presence is a subjective measure of the presence of others as Short and colleagues (1976) defined it, whereas interactivity is the actual quality of a communication sequence or context. Interactivity is a quality (potential) that may be realized by some or remain an unfulfilled option. When it is realized, and when participants notice it, there is social presence. Therefore, I realized that it is important to examine how social presence is generated in interactive sequences and how participants communicate their “immediacy,” or psychological distance, in interactive sequences. This realization began my deeper exploration into social presence and its role in online communication. In a second study researching a revised implementation of GlobalEd, we found that, among eight independent variables, social presence was a strong predictor of learner satisfaction (the dependent variable) in a computer conference (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). This finding established the key role of social presence in online communication. The social presence and satisfaction scales we developed for this study were considered valid and reliable by Cobb (2009), who encouraged further use of these scales 113

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 113

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

114

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

in educational research. Additional findings in the Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) study showed that participants who felt a higher sense of social presence within the conference enhanced their socioemotional experience by using emoticons to express missing nonverbal cues in written form. Conversely, participants who judged social presence to be low seemed to not want to enhance their socioemotional expression through this text-based medium. Did these group members just throw up their hands in social frustration and try to muddle through a tedious computer-mediated communication experience? Or was the social component ever important to them? This raised the question of individual differences along personality or social-psychological lines and begged the need for future research to investigate individual differences as mediating factors in developing the social environment for online learning.

How Does Culture Affect Social Presence? The initial awareness that the degree of social presence desired may be different for learners from diverse cultural backgrounds came when we conducted a study of online group process and group development with participants from Mexico and the United States (Gunawardena et al., 2001). We found that social presence emerged as a theme addressed by both U.S. and Mexican focus group participants. U.S. participants felt that social presence was important for the smooth functioning of the group to provide a sense that the members of the group are real people. Social presence can build trust and lead to self-disclosure, and building relationships certainly enhances civility online. The Mexican focus group participants, however, felt that having personal information about the participants was not important. For these participants, the way interaction happened online and how participants contributed to the conference was far more important than knowing personal information about participants. There were differences in the way that the U.S. participants and Mexican participants perceived social presence, and some of these differences could be attributed to cultural differences. Given the power distance that exists in Mexican society (Hofstede, 1980), it is possible that Mexican participants looked to the online medium as an equalizing medium that equalized status differences present in society and therefore did not want their peers to interject social context cues that would take away the equalizing power of the online environment. Given that the degree of social presence desired can be different for diverse learners, we need to broaden our understanding of this concept, as online learning expands globally, and ask questions such as the following: How do learners from diverse cultural backgrounds perceive social presence? How does culture influence the perception of online social presence? In this chapter, I begin to explore these questions, starting with a definition of culture for the online learning context and then with an exploration of how culture can influence the perception of social presence online. I review literature that has examined cultural differences in the perception of social presence and present one of my previously published studies that explored cultural perspectives on social presence and properties related to the construct of social presence in informal online communication in the Moroccan and Sri Lankan sociocultural contexts (Gunawardena, Bouachrine, Idrissi Alami, & Jayatilleke, 2006; Gunawardena, Jayatilleke, Bouachrine, & Idrissi Alami,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 114

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

115

2009). On the basis of these discussions, I conclude the chapter with practical guidelines for designing online social presence with culture in mind.

Definition of Culture Culture is a complex concept to define. For the online context, a good beginning is the early definition put forward by Edward T. Hall (1959), “Culture is communication and communication is culture” (p. 186), because it focuses on both culture and communication where social presence is generated. This definition also accommodates the notion that culture can be negotiated online through a communication process mediated by technology interfaces that are culturally produced. Also, Hall’s distinction between high-context (indirect) communication, where many things are left unsaid, letting the context explain, and low-context (direct) explicit communication plays a role in online communication. Although researchers have used Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism–collectivism, masculinity–femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation) to describe online cultures, we have found that these bipolardimensional constructs can be limiting when applied to the online context. For instance, in our study of group process and group development in Mexico and the United States discussed earlier (Gunawardena et al., 2001), we found that although Mexico was considered a high power distance country by Hofstede, the Mexican participants approached the online medium as a liberating one that equalized status differences. Therefore, their interactions online would not necessarily reflect high power distance communication. Understanding culture in a more flexible, dynamic, and negotiable way is appropriate in order to understand its application in the online learning context. To conceptualize cultures that emerge online and accommodate the notion of culture as negotiated by online participants whose ethnic, gender, and religious identities are enacted, concealed, or merged into hybrid identities, we (Gunawardena, Idrissi Alami, Jayatilleke, & Bouachrine, 2009a) adopted the following definition of idioculture, a concept developed by Fine (1979) and used by Cole and Engeström (2007) to show how culture emerges through an interacting unit: Idioculture consists of a system of knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and customs shared by members of an interacting group to which members can refer and employ as the basis of further interaction. Members recognize that they share experiences in common, and these experiences can be referred to with the expectation that they will be understood by other members, and further can be employed to construct a social reality. (Fine, 1979, p. 734)

This definition focuses on the interaction, as culture is experienced as part of the communication system of a small group. It accommodates the idea of culture as emerging from a local activity system such as Internet communication (Cole & Engeström, 2007), where multiple cultural selves and hybrid identities interact with each other to form unique cultures of their own. Cole and Engestrom noted that by focusing on the interacting unit, Fine showed that each group has, to some extent, a culture of its own, which he referred to as the idioculture. This definition allows for the development of

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 115

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

116

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

culture through communication by dialoguing, sharing experiences, and interacting with each other. It supports the concept of a discourse community, groups that have goals or purposes and use communication to achieve these goals (Swales, 1990). The definition of idioculture fits well with the ephemeral, fluid nature of the Internet that fuels the development of cybercultures, cultures that emerge among those who use the Internet to communicate, developing their own etiquette, norms, customs, ethics, and mythology, just as an idioculture does (Gunawardena & Jung, 2014). I use this definition to conceptualize culture and focus on the interacting unit as I explore the role of culture in social presence.

Review of Literature on Culture and Perceptions of Social Presence Only a few studies have examined cultural perceptions of social presence. Tu (2001) found that Chinese students perceived online communication as a more comfortable medium to express their thoughts because of the lack of confrontation and face-saving concerns, and thus they increased their social presence in an interactive online collaborative learning environment. They were concerned, however, that their messages might appear in public areas and cause them to lose face and privacy. In a subsequent study, Yen and Tu (2011) confirmed that the results of their study suggested that cultural groups perceived online social presence in slightly different manners. Al-Harthi (2005) conducted in-depth telephone interviews with Arab students in order to understand how they perceived the values related to study in an American distance learning program. The study found that Arab students considered the lack of physical presence in the online environment to be a positive feature, because, in addition to accessibility advantages, it provided a reduced risk of social embarrassment. Female Arab students in particular felt more comfortable studying online, as it allowed for an easy conformity with the separation of genders that is traditional in Muslim culture. The notion of “shame” was also a factor in Al-Harthi’s (2005) study of Arab distance learners for whom guarding family reputation is key. One of the Arab female participants reported that she would log off an online discussion when joined by a fellow student who was acquainted with her family to avoid the risk of saying anything that would reflect negatively on her family. This is an example of how social conventions that exist in the real world translate into online interaction. In a study that examined the impact of national culture and social presence on interpersonal trust in both culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of Chinese and U.S. participants, Lowry, Zhang, Zhou, and Fu (2007) found that the level of individualism of group members, social presence, and group composition are important factors in trust building in both culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. They observed that interpersonal trust is higher in homogeneous, low-individualism groups (represented by Chinese participants) than in homogeneous, high-individualism groups (represented by U.S. participants); however, interpersonal trust in heterogeneous groups is lower for low-individualism group members than for high-individualism group members. They noted that the development of interpersonal trust is particularly crucial and challenging when a group consists of high-individualism members and/or when the group is

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 116

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

117

culturally heterogeneous. They also found that social presence has a positive impact on interpersonal trust. Yildiz (2009) examined how linguistic and cultural differences influenced social presence among graduate students in English as a second language online courses that comprised both native and nonnative speakers. The absence of social context cues in the web-based forum provided nonnative speakers with a reduced anxiety-provoking environment in which they could interact with native English speakers more often, reveal personal information, and express their beliefs, values, and attitudes. The forum environment also gave them an opportunity to talk about their native culture, which they indicated was rarely available to them in the face-to-face classroom because they found the face-to-face communication more challenging and face threatening. However, nonnative speakers expressed concern that their contributions might be judged less favorably because of their less fluent English writing skills, whereas others found some of the American students too direct and interpreted this directness as being impolite. Postings that expressed support and encouragement; revealed personal information; were personalized with greetings, closures, and/or vocatives; and showed interest in participants’ native cultures were identified as high in social presence. Whiteside and Garrett Dikkers (2012) discussed how to maximize multicultural online learning experiences with the five key elements of the Social Presence Model developed by Whiteside (2007): affective association, community cohesion, interaction intensity, knowledge and experience, and instructor involvement. In explaining both the affective association and the community cohesion elements, they discussed the important role of initial introductions to the online community that involve greetings, social sharing, and self-disclosure. Providing activities such as icebreakers that help learners get to know each other better is a key social foundation for the rest of the course. Drawing from the work of Tu (2001) and Yildiz (2009), Whiteside and Garrett Dikkers (2012) pointed out the importance of including “netiquette” to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts. This need to examine individual differences in the perception of social presence has been highlighted by Kear, Chetwynd, and Jefferis’s (2014) research that examines the role of personal profiles in generating social presence. They found that when using online forums, some students saw value in adding information and a photo to their personal profile and found it helpful to read the profiles of other students, whereas others felt no need for personal profiles, had privacy concerns, or expressed the view that reading others’ contributions was a better way to get to know them. Champion (2006) made an attempt to define the distinction between social presence and cultural presence in virtual worlds. He observed, “Perhaps textual communities can build an idea of social presence, but it can only be sustained if the users have an idea of whom they are talking to and what they (over time) consistently believe in” (p. 96). He further noted, “To gain a full sense of cultural presence we also need to experience culture itself as a process rather than as a product” (p. 96). Although the idea of cultural presence has to be developed further, Champion made two important points: Interaction is necessary to negotiate culture across space and time, and we need to experience culture as a process rather than as a product in online text-based communication.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 117

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

118

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

This review highlighted aspects of culture and language that have an impact on the perception of social presence. These previous studies, however, examined social and cultural presence in academic contexts, studying learners already enrolled in university online courses. To develop a more comprehensive understanding of perceptions of social presence, we will find it useful to examine how social presence is generated in informal use of the online medium. In the following study conducted predominantly with Internet café users in two very different social and cultural contexts, Morocco and Sri Lanka, we examined how social presence is generated in chat forums, the more informal online communication undertaken by Internet chatters who use synchronous, or real-time, communication to build relationships with strangers (Gunawardena et al., 2006; Gunawardena, Jayatilleke, et al., 2009).

A Study of Culture and Perceptions of Social Presence in Informal Chat Employing qualitative ethnographic analysis (Merriam, 1998) and grounded theory building (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), my Moroccan and Sri Lankan colleagues and I explored cultural perspectives on social presence in informal synchronous chat in the Moroccan and Sri Lankan sociocultural contexts and presented our findings in our studies (Gunawardena et al., 2006; Gunawardena, Jayatilleke, et al., 2009). I discuss excerpts from this study here to show how culture played a role in generating social presence in informal chat by Internet café users in Morocco and Sri Lanka. Morocco is a predominantly Arab and Muslim country whose citizens speak Moroccan Arabic and French, and Sri Lanka is a predominantly Buddhist country whose citizens speak Sinhala, Tamil, and English. Both countries are similar in that they have diverse minority groups with different languages and religions represented in the population. At the time the study was conducted (2004–2005), social media and social networking had not entered the Internet communication scene in these two countries, and chat was the more favored form of informal communication. Asynchronous text-based communication in forums was considered more formal and academic and was hardly used by Internet chatters. The study objectives were to (a) explore social presence in online communication from a cultural perspective and (b) determine the properties or characteristics related to the construct of social presence in the two sociocultural contexts. In addition, we wanted to examine questions such as the following: (a) What techniques do people use to reveal their persona online? (b) What cues prompt them to reveal their true self to a person they do not know? (c) How do they negotiate their identity online? (d) How do they build trust? (e) How do they resolve conflict? and (f ) How do they use language? Interview questions were developed from these research questions, and the study was conducted using a qualitative research paradigm to enable ethnically and culturally appropriate understanding of the factors that influence online communication. Interviews were conducted with 55 adults in Morocco, which included 36 males and 19 females, and with 50 adults in Sri Lanka, which included 33 males and 17 females. In both countries, fewer women frequented Internet cafés, reflecting social taboos. In Morocco, the café was the domain of men, and this transferred to the

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 118

5/12/2017 11:00:02 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

119

concept of the Internet café as well. In a midsize town in Sri Lanka, Galle, only 1 in 10 users was female.

Social Presence in Informal Chat Analysis of interviews conducted in Morocco and Sri Lanka indicates that social presence emerged as a central phenomenon in the communication patterns of Internet chatters. In some instances, traditional culture influenced the generation of presence, whereas in other instances, participants took advantage of the anonymity of the medium to create their sense of presence through a different identity. From the point of first contact, chatters spent their time trying to figure out how “real” the other person was. As the communication sequences developed, chatters used a variety of techniques to establish the “realness” of the other and generate the “realness” of their own persona for the other. It is when this feeling of realness was established to some extent that relationship building occurred. Participants who engaged in online communication described their sense of presence in different idioms. Some talked about “feeling” from the language and ideas what the other users’ reality was and “knowing” whether they lied or told the truth. Group identity seemed to play a determining influence in constructions of identity online. Sadiqi (2003) observed, “Whereas the Western concept of ‘self ’ is based on the individual, the Moroccan concept of self is based on the Islamic notion of jamaçah ‘community/group’ and is, thus, inherently plural” (p. 65). Those who subscribe to this view of the collective self have difficulty talking about themselves in public because it is generally considered to be a “lack of modesty” (p. 67) in Moroccan society. Sadiqi further noted that the language of introductions reveals many aspects of a Moroccan’s self. Introductions involve an interplay of cultural, social, situational, and identity variables that include gender, local geographical origin, class, setting, age, and self-interest. Given the influence of this sociocultural context, it was interesting to observe the freedom with which many Moroccans played with their identity online. Some chatters admitted that they posed as Europeans or claimed a different gender identity. In doing so they revealed the complex web of cultural codes and social patterns of behaviors that enabled them to construct a variety of scenarios based on group identity. Identity expression was fluid and dynamic. Some claimed multiple identities, maximizing the anonymity afforded by the Internet, whereas others were more influenced by traditional cultural practices. Identity expression generated social presence.

Self-Disclosure Many participants indicated that the realness of the other was expressed through disclosure of private life. They insisted on the importance of personal experiences, intimate problems, and ideas to get to know each other better. In establishing social presence, the participants in the study used different approaches. Youssef presented his persona depending on the person he talked with. If he felt that the other person was forthcoming with information about himself or herself, he would do the same. If not, he would discuss issues with some reservation. Here, we note that observing how others introduce themselves online is critical to the level of self-disclosure a participant will engage in. Hassan stressed the importance of initial contact in establishing social presence. He tried

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 119

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

120

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

to make funny remarks starting with his pseudo name. He always insisted on introducing himself on the positive side. Badr stressed the importance of conveying social presence through ideas, grasping how the other person thinks. For all participants, trust and honesty were seen as important in creating social presence online. Spending time online chatting helped to determine if the person was genuine. Ideas or opinions that acknowledged the chatter’s culture, such as feasts or national holidays, generated a feeling of seriousness and enhanced social presence. For Habiba, a chatter from the West who asked about her culture indicated seriousness and interest. She was happy after Ramadan to find a message saying “Blessed Eid,” which meant the person was seriously interested in getting to know her. There was a difference between Moroccan women and Sri Lankan women in the amount of self-disclosure they were comfortable with; the latter hardly divulged information on private life in a chat forum. Sri Lankan female respondents were very cautious of the way they revealed their identity to unknown people. They also expected respectful interactions from others. Manel, a 27-year-old woman, observed, “Yes, I am very cautious. I won’t reveal my personal information. I think twice and write. It’s too much effort from my part to write answers like this and is an additional burden for me.” Another respondent discussed the importance of being mindful of cultural norms when communicating with others and not revealing too much information about oneself in initial encounters, which might lead to stereotyping and harassment. Moroccan women, on the other hand, took advantage of the anonymity afforded by the Internet, which transcended the separation between public space (the domain of men—street and marketplace) and private space (the domain of women—home) that exists within Moroccan society (Sadiqi, 2003). Graiouid (2005) noted that this might explain why female chatters enjoy the anonymity of the Internet, which allows them to build relationships without compromising themselves. Therefore, the amount of self-disclosure chatters are comfortable with will differ based on the sociocultural context. Self-disclosure was difficult for Sri Lankan women, who rarely used a different identity to represent themselves, whereas Moroccan women thrived on the anonymity afforded by the Internet to build relationships without compromising themselves.

Trust Building Social presence is closely linked to building trust. From the initial encounter, chatters spent their time trying to determine the trustworthiness of the other, which in turn led to an enhanced sense of presence. The most common trust-building technique was to ask a series of questions in the initial online contact and ask the same questions again later to determine the consistency or inconsistency in the answers. Many mentioned time as an important factor for building trust. This is clear in the technique of using questions over time and repeating them to establish continuity and sameness. When asked about how he trusts the information the other person delivers, Youssef said that when people give their e-mail and their personal information, it means that he could somewhat trust them. Many would not reveal their true identity until they could trust the other person. For example, Zakaria felt that a person could be trusted depending on the conversation

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 120

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

121

and how it unfolded. From the questions and answers, and their pattern, he would know whether that person was being serious. Participants talked about giving photographs or mobile phone numbers when they felt the chatter was trustworthy. Trust and honesty are important for the relationship to continue. When trust is established, there is an enhanced sense of social presence. Given the two sociocultural contexts where power is distributed unequally and where relationships are important, positive social presence, a building of trust, and a level of comfort with the other are critical for the online relationship to continue.

Anonymity Anonymity increased the ability to self-disclose and generated a heightened sense of social presence. In a high power distance society like Morocco, online communication equalizes participants. Respondents felt that talking online could break barriers to communication between the genders that exist in the more traditional areas of Moroccan society. This view was expressed by Sri Lankans as well but to a lesser extent. Anonymity also encouraged relationships that are superficial. A Sri Lankan male noted his feeling that it was unnecessary to reveal the truth because he did not intend to continue the friendship.

Conflict Resolution The nature of the relationship determined reactions to insults and the resolution of conflict. When a misunderstanding occurred, chatters would end the conversations if the relationship was weak and employ a variety of techniques to resolve conflict if the relationship was stronger. Generally, they would first seek an explanation and then decide on other courses of action, such as shutting down the communication, ignoring the person, insulting back, or asking for an apology. An apology was requested if the person or the relationship was valued. E-mail was resorted to in order to clarify the situation, settle misunderstandings, and present apologies. E-mail was preferable if the relationship had gone on for a long time and if the insulted person thought that the problem was not intentional but a result of a misunderstanding. Therefore, attempts to resolve conflict depended on the strength of the relationship that had been built and the sense of reality of the other. Face-saving strategies were adopted when there was a bond and when there was an interest in maintaining the relationship. Sadiqi (2003) observed that the concept of collective self is so deep in the Moroccan psyche that an individual’s selfimage is not cultivated internally but derives from others’ opinions and attitudes, which is manifested clearly in the concept of hchouma, or shame, which may be defined as the “fear of losing face in front of others” (p. 67). This explains why a Moroccan participant would make the effort to save face and clear the misunderstanding even in the anonymous world of Internet chat. According to Ting-Toomey (1994), low-context cultures, such as the United States, emphasize individual identity, self-face concern, and direct verbal and nonverbal expression, whereas high-context cultures, such as Morocco, emphasize group identity, otherface concern, and indirect verbal and nonverbal expression. However, when people are online, traditional high-context or low-context communication preferences may be

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 121

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

122

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

overtaken by anonymity in the attempt to negotiate face. If the person who threatens face is a stranger, he or she will be ignored. Therefore, building relationships is key to maintaining civility and harmony online.

Additional Media Chatters enhance their social presence by using other media, such as mobile phones and webcams. It was fairly common to see chatters talking on the mobile phone to the same person they were chatting with online. Some Moroccans spoke Arabic on the mobile phone and French online, indicating their versatility in moving between different languages. The use of the two types of media enhanced their presence and connection with each other. If in the same country, chatters give out their mobile phone numbers to verify the trustworthiness of the person. The phone call thus established credibility and the reality of the other. Most respondents preferred e-mail when the online relationship got longer and stronger. They felt that e-mail communication was more “serious” and “honest” than chat. Another advantage of e-mail is that there is less time pressure to answer immediately. Some people cannot write fast, and this can affect the flow of communication and even the chatter’s interest. Therefore, the speed of writing can be a factor in generating social presence. Although chat was considered a playful activity, a form of entertainment, a therapeutic agent, and a game that did not require the disclosure of true identity from the beginning, asynchronous forum discussions on a topic of interest were regarded as more serious because they represent an arena for debating ideas and defending opinions. Therefore, respondents felt more comfortable divulging their true credentials in a forum discussion.

Emoticons Some chatters used emoticons (icons that express emotion) to enhance their presence. Others stated that they used text to express their emotions. “I use emoticons. Those are quick. Use font like comic sans for friends and Arial and Centre Gothic with official group. Use short cuts like Y, U, etc. Different techniques for different people.” Chatters had developed various conventions to present their identity and persona online.

Language of Chat Communicating in the native language, or short forms of the native language using a Latin keyboard, increased the level of social presence. Many Moroccans chatted in French. Some used Moroccan Arabic expressions in Latin script to connect more closely and enhance their presence. Moroccan Arabic is an oral language, and its transliteration in Latin script enhanced presence and connection between communicators. Hassan stated that he could convey his true feelings by using Moroccan Arabic expressions when the other party knew them. Mounia chatted in English and French and switched to French when she became angry. She felt that insulting in Moroccan Arabic was “low” and despicable, but insulting in French was acceptable. Many who were fluent in French and Arabic indicated that French would be the language to use for insults, as insulting in Arabic would lower their status.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 122

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

123

In Sri Lanka, the predominant chat language was English for the different ethnic groups—the Sinhalese, Tamils, and Muslims. Ramani explained that writing in Sinhala generates more feeling than writing in English. Sri Lankans also felt that phrases such as “machan” or “buddy” when written in English generate closeness and social presence. Very often they code switched, moving from one language to the other as they do in daily life.

Summary of Results Results of this study indicate that social presence is key to building online relationships through the use of chat. Several dimensions emerged from the analysis that can be related to the construct of social presence. They include self-disclosure, identity, trust building, anonymity, conflict resolution, emoticon use, and language forms to generate immediacy. The following propositions emerged from the data analysis: • There is a relationship between social presence and disclosure of private life. Participants tend to expect chatters to tell them about their problems because that makes them “real.” • Identity expression generates social presence. Some claimed multiple identities, maximizing the anonymity afforded by the Internet, whereas others were more influenced by traditional cultural practices. • Social presence is closely linked to building trust. When trust is established, there is an increased sense of social presence. • Anonymity increases people’s ability to self-disclose and generate a heightened sense of social presence. • Communicating in the native language, or short forms of the native language using a Latin keyboard, increases the sense of social presence. These findings provide guidance for designing social presence in online learning environments through the use of chat.

Practical Guidelines for Designing Online Social Presence With Culture in Mind Drawing from the discussion of previous research, the chat study in Morocco and Sri Lanka discussed in this chapter, and my own experience designing online learning environments for the past 25 years, I present practical guidelines for designing social presence while considering the diversity presented by national and ethnic cultures, as well as the emergence of culture through interaction in group spaces on the Internet. As you read through the following guidelines, it is important to keep in mind that the level of social presence desired will be different for each interacting participant. Knowing one’s learners and the context will help to design appropriate social presence strategies. Introductions and self-disclosure. The expression of identity and the amount of selfdisclosure online participants are comfortable with will vary depending on cultural

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 123

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

124

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

background and gender. For some, self-disclosure is not easy, especially for female participants. Others would prefer a degree of anonymity. Posting photographs with introductions can lead to stereotyping and reduce anonymity. Therefore, it is important to carefully develop self-presentation activities when asking participants to introduce themselves to the online community. This activity is critical, as it can generate social presence, build relationships, and create trust to help participants connect with each other and develop the social environment that supports online learning. One technique is to ask students to post an image that represents them and to explain why they chose that image. There will be a certain level of self-disclosure in the description of the image, but it would also maintain a level of anonymity. Because many students may not know how to introduce themselves online, it is a good strategy to provide guidelines on how to do so, being mindful of issues related to identity expression, self-disclosure, and power distance. When self-presentation is difficult, introducing each other online may be more comfortable. In a cross-cultural graduate student collaboration with a university in China, I paired one of my students in the United States with a Chinese student, and they learned about each other through e-mail and introduced each other online. In another context, for a faculty development program in Sri Lanka where participants were new to online learning, I provided the following guidelines for online introductions that worked well to generate a sense of presence: • Tell us about your professional interests (and not your job title). • Tell us about any personal interests such as your hobbies that you feel comfortable sharing. • Upload a picture or image that reflects you and say why it reflects your character. Do not upload your photograph. Developing an inclusive learning community. Depending on the role, the facilitator, instructor, or teacher has a critical responsibility to facilitate social presence and build an inclusive environment for online learning. Participants from high power distance societies and societies in which interaction between male and female members is regulated look to the online medium as an equalizing medium. Therefore, it is critical to prevent the interjection of social context cues present in society that might make the online environment less equal. Facilitators should maintain the online environment as an equal playing field where all participants have the opportunity to participate and feel comfortable communicating their opinions. The facilitator must make the concepts of community and interaction central to the online learning experience, so participants see the value of interacting with each other and learning from each other while not worrying about status differences. The facilitator should engage students in community-building activities. When power is distributed unequally in a community, such as the power between a teacher and a student, and when relationships with others are critical for the well-being of an individual, positive social presence and trust must be established for the relationships to continue. One of the activities I have used as a facilitator at the beginning of the course is a “Mutual Interests” forum or discussion where students connect with each other and share their common interests and get to know each other better. Once students have introduced themselves to each other and posted in the “Mutual Interests” forum,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 124

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

125

I develop a gallery of student profiles, noting their accomplishments, skills, interests, and cultural backgrounds and the images they posted, and share it with the class. This indicates my recognition of the diversity present in class and the diverse talents each individual brings, and it creates a level playing field for online participation. Another technique that has worked well is the “Help Wanted, Help Given” forum that stays open throughout the semester where participants post their requests for help. I encourage participants to help each other in this forum, and very often peers, and sometimes the facilitator, provide the assistance needed. Students who use this forum gradually begin an informal peer mentoring process, helping and supporting each other and building trust among a diverse group of participants to create a cohesive community. Once the learning community is established in the beginning of the course and participants feel comfortable with each other, they take charge of their own learning. Therefore, facilitators need to spend a great deal of time and effort at the beginning of an online course to develop the social environment that will support learning. Informal social spaces. Very often at the beginning of online courses, students are nervous about formal asynchronous discussion spaces, as they feel their contributions to class topics may be inadequate, perhaps because of a lack of fluency in English or they are worried about their writing skills or are new to the discipline or topic. Others, such as participants in Morocco in the research study discussed earlier, make a clear distinction between formal and informal online spaces and will contribute differently in the two types of spaces. Therefore, an informal virtual space assigned for social interaction where participants can demonstrate a sense of their own social presence and feel fully represented may make many comfortable enough to enter online discussions. A “Virtual Pub,” “Virtual Café,” or “Virtual Canteen,” depending on the cultural context within which the course is developed, can ease communication anxiety and provide a space to practice online discussions. An activity that has worked well in this separate social space in two different cultural contexts, the United States and Sri Lanka, is when I ask students to discuss the biggest risk they have taken in their life and complete the following sentence: “The biggest risk I have taken in my life is . . . .” This activity generates camaraderie and social presence and makes students feel comfortable talking online and learning about what constitutes risk in diverse cultural contexts. As with the Moroccan chatter who felt the presence of others when they acknowledged her cultural feasts and national holidays by leaving a message such as “Blessed Eid,” the questions that are generated about a person’s perception of risk can make a participant feel welcomed and acknowledged online. Another fun icebreaker in this social space is a virtual costume party—an activity where social presence and interaction can be generated by asking participants to adopt an identity and then describe the costume so class members can guess the identity. This activity allows for identity play where social presence can be generated by an imagined persona and will engage participants who are less likely to self-disclose because of cultural taboos and conventions. The Moroccan participants, especially women participants in the Internet chat study, enjoyed the anonymity afforded by the Internet, which helped them connect with people they did not know without compromising themselves. If the activity is run during Halloween in the United States, it will also provide participants the opportunity to discuss cultural practices and holidays, as well as their meaning and significance.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 125

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

126

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

Designing formats for interaction. Designing for inclusion means creating opportunities for learners to choose among learning activities that reflect different ways to communicate, interact, and process information. As we have seen, participants may be used to either high-context (indirect) or low-context (direct) communication. Acknowledging these differences in communication styles and asking participants to provide the context for their messages may reduce the misunderstandings that occur. Others may wish to communicate visually or by audio or video rather than text. In predominantly asynchronous courses, real-time (synchronous) interaction with other learners and the instructor through chat or desktop conferencing builds a sense of social presence. Those who are unable to attend will benefit from listening to the recording. Carefully developing appropriate formats for interaction, such as storytelling, a method of communicating and teaching in oral cultures, will help learners from these societies to feel comfortable communicating in online spaces. Small group discussions rather than whole class asynchronous discussions are more conducive for generating social presence and camaraderie among culturally diverse learners who need time to build trust. Akcaoglu and Lee (2016) found that in small group discussions, students perceived a higher level of social presence in terms of sociability, social space, and group cohesion, and they recommended placing students in small and permanent discussion groups to augment social presence. Facilitator, instructor, or teacher presence. Facilitators must reflect on their own cultural programming and cultural biases and how these might influence communication before they engage in facilitating online learning for diverse learners. Continuous self-reflection is key to keeping oneself in check and knowing if an incident or situation was handled appropriately. In a networked learning environment, the facilitator plays a critical role in connecting learners, generating interaction, and maintaining a healthy social environment. Building trust and caring about student responses will enable the facilitator to build a conducive environment among diverse learners. Being mindful of appropriate face-saving strategies will help a facilitator find meaningful solutions when conflict occurs. Using private e-mail to provide guidance and feedback is often appreciated. This is especially important if a difficult situation has occurred in discussion spaces. Because social presence can be cultured, facilitators who are new to online teaching should be guided on how to create the appropriate amount of social presence for diverse learners within a learning context. Students who are used to traditional lecture-based classrooms and have looked to the teacher as the authority on the subject will expect the teacher to guide them throughout the course. This can be achieved by a podcast or screen-capture video developed using a program such as Screencast-O-Matic that can guide students through the navigation of the course. Orienting students to online social presence and communication protocols. Designing for cultural inclusivity involves orienting students to communication online. Rules of common courtesy should be used when interacting with people at any time. In an online environment this is doubly important because body language and tone of voice are not seen and heard but inferred. Posting the netiquette, or the communication protocols for the class, with culture in mind makes it easier for students to know what is expected of them. For example, direct students to provide the context necessary to interpret the message, as this will help high-context communicators. This is especially important if participants use words and acronyms that have specific meanings in a specific culture.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 126

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

127

Language. Chatters in Morocco and Sri Lanka had developed unique forms of textual language and visual expressions to communicate their ideas and feelings through a new medium. They bring with them the conventions of their native language, which embody cultural traits, as well as their prior use of the second language, English or French. This implies that as online learning cultures develop, students and facilitators will have to adjust to new modes of communication and interaction. Goodfellow, Lea, Gonzalez, and Mason (2001) suggested, “An important step towards cross-cultural understanding could therefore be the development of policies and practices which allow for an element of multi-lingual communication, making space for the expression of social behavior free of the constraints of operating in a second language” (p. 80).

Concluding Remarks With advances in telecommunication systems, online learning has become a global enterprise transcending national, political, and geographical boundaries. Yet, the greatest challenge to educators today is to determine how to design learning environments that accommodate the differences in sociocultural contexts and the values and expectations of diverse learners and educational systems. We need to rise up to this challenge and reexamine our notions of teaching and learning to address issues of culture inherent in cross-border delivery of online courses and programs. We need to shift from expecting students to adjust to our Western academic values to changing our designs to accommodate others. This chapter has begun this shift by examining cultural perceptions of social presence from previous research, as well as from the Internet chat study I conducted in Morocco and Sri Lanka, and by providing guidance on how to design social presence with culture in mind. There is a critical need for future research to guide us on designing online environments with culture in mind. I encourage future researchers and designers to engage in understanding learners from a cultural perspective in order to design more inclusive online learning environments.

Chapter Review • How social presence is perceived and presented varies among cultures. • Online environments develop their own idioculture through the interactions of participants. • Some ways to support the development of social presence online across cultures include designing formats for interaction, orienting students to online communication, and creating an inclusive learning community.

Author’s Note The research study in Morocco and Sri Lanka was supported by a Fulbright Regional Research Scholarship.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 127

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

128

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS LEARNERS’PERCEPTIONS

References Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293 Al-Harthi, A. S. (2005). Distance higher education experiences of Arab Gulf students in the United States: A cultural perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl Champion, E. M. (2006). Cultural presence. In S. Dasgupta (Ed.), Encyclopedia of virtual communities and technologies (pp. 95–101). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-563-4 Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241–254. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for development. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 484– 507). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Fine, G. A. (1979). Small groups and culture creation: The idioculture of Little League baseball teams. American Sociological Review, 44(5), 733–745. Goodfellow, R., Lea, M., Gonzalez, F., & Mason, R. (2001). Opportunity and e-quality: Intercultural and linguistic issues in global online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 65–84. Graiouid, S. (2005). Social exile and virtual H’rig: Computer-mediated interaction and cybercafé culture in Morocco. In M. Wiberg (Ed.), The interaction society: Practice, theories, and supportive technologies (pp. 57–92). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2–3), 147–166. Gunawardena, C. N., Bouachrine, F., Idrissi Alami, A., & Jayatilleke, G. (2006, April). Cultural perspectives on social presence: A study of online chatting in Morocco and Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Gunawardena, C. N., Idrissi Alami, A., Jayatilleke, G., & Bouachrine, F. (2009). Identity, gender, and language in synchronous cybercultures: A cross-cultural study. In R. Goodfellow & M. N. Lamy (Eds.), Learning cultures in online education (pp. 30–51). London, UK: Continuum. Gunawardena, C. N., Jayatilleke, G., Bouachrine, F., & Idrissi Alami, A. (2009). A cross-cultural study of online social presence: Implications for designing virtual learning communities. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) world conference. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Open Universiteit. Retrieved from www.ou.nl Gunawardena, C. N., & Jung, I. (2014). Perspectives on culture and online learning. In I. Jung & C. N. Gunawardena (Eds.), Culture and online learning: Global perspectives and research (pp. 1–14). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Gunawardena, C. N., Nolla, A. C., Wilson, P. L., López-Islas, J. R., Ramírez-Angel, N., & Megchun-Alpízar, R. M. (2001). A cross-cultural study of group process and development in online conferences. Distance Education, 22(1), 85–121. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–25. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York, NY: Doubleday. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 128

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL PRESENCE

129

Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., & Jefferis, H. (2014). Social presence in online learning communities: The role of personal profiles. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 197–210. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.19710 Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Buuren, H. (2011). Measuring perceived social presence in distributed learning groups. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), 365–381. Lowry, P. B., Zhang, D., Zhou, L., & Fu, X. (2007). The impact of national culture and social presence on trust and communication quality within collaborative groups. In Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2007.534 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, S. Pingree, & J. Weimann (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Sage annual review of communication research (Vol. 16, pp. 110–134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rafaeli, S. (1990). Interaction with media: Parasocial interaction and real interaction. In B. D. Ruben & L. A. Lievrouw (Eds.), Information and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 125–181). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Rourke, L., Anderson, J. E., & Garrison, R. D. (2001). Assessing social presence in text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 12(2), 50–71. Sadiqi, F. (2003). Women, gender, and language in Morocco. Leiden, the Netherlands, and Boston, MA: Brill Academic. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Face and facework: An introduction. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 1–14). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Tu, C.-H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Education Media International, 38(1), 45–60. Whiteside, A. L. (2007). Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2012). Maximizing multicultural online learning experiences with the Social Presence Model, course examples, and specific strategies. In K. St. Amant & S. Kelsey (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication across cultures: International interactions in online environments (pp. 395–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Yen, C., & Tu, C.-H. (2011). A multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis of the scores for online social presence: Do they measure the same thing across cultural groups? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 219–242. Yildiz, S. (2009). Social presence in the web-based classroom: Implications for intercultural communication. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13, 46–67.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 129

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 130

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

PART FOUR Understanding Social Presence as a Critical Literacy

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 131

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 132

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

12 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY Introduction to Part Four Aimee L. Whiteside

T

he importance of the emotional aspects of teaching and learning in any medium should never be understated. Humans crave interaction with others in their daily life, and their learning experiences do not present any exception to this rule. Likewise, over a decade of research in online and blended learning have led this author to contend that social presence embodies a critical, essential literacy for cultivating emotions and relationships that enhance the overall learning experience. It is a concept that instructors, instructional designers, and students should consider, understand, and employ to help maximize their learning experience; each plays a crucial role. Moreover, this author contends that social presence is a vital concept, larger than any individual part of the process, such as instructor presence, cognitive presence, or teaching presence. Therefore, through the Social Presence Model (SPM), social presence exists as a critical literacy—similar to any influential literacy, such as technological literacy, rhetorical literacy, and digital literacy— and serves an influential role in advancing and sustaining successful, meaningful learning experiences. It is a literacy that requires careful consideration, cultivation, and continued exploration. This chapter offers an explanation of the underpinnings of this view, provides an introduction to the SPM, makes the connection to literacy, and introduces the chapters in this section.

Social Development Theory’s Relationship to Social Presence As a guiding framework, this approach employs the lens of Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) Social Development Theory. Vygotsky offered a very different perspective to social presence than the commonly used Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Short and colleagues’ Social Presence Theory views social presence as sensing the “real person” during the online communicative experience; Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) sociocultural approach allows us to examine social presence holistically within a given contextual situation. Specifically, this approach centers on two guiding concepts within Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory: inner speech and the zone of proximal development. 133

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 133

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

134

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

Inner Speech Vygotsky’s notion of inner speech illustrates how learners need collaboration in the process of moving from mere thoughts to actual speech. First, according to Vygotsky, the learner develops speech for oneself to reflect on his or her initial thoughts. Second, the learner shares these thoughts with others in a process termed speech for others, in an effort to achieve validation through peers. As Vygotsky (1986) stated, “It is a complex, dynamic process involving the transformation of the predicative, idiomatic structure of inner speech into syntactically articulated speech intelligible to others” (p. 249). Vygotsky contended that students learn from reflecting on their own thoughts and then sharing those thoughts with their peers and instructors. Although Vygotsky’s work was conducted long before the advent of online learning, his concept of inner speech sheds light into understanding how language and interaction with others online enhances the learning process and builds students’ worldviews. Conrad and Donaldson (2011) explained, “Vygotsky believed that social interaction helped students learn the viewpoints of others in order to build a more complex world view” (p. 18). Thus, the concept of inner speech helps us understand the ways in which students reflect on the material, interact with others, and articulate their learning in online discussions and within other instructional contexts. These functions play a crucial role in stimulating and sustaining social presence.

Zone of Proximal Development Whereas inner speech helps students to better articulate their understanding of an individual’s process of knowledge development and acquisition, the zone of proximal development (ZPD) shows the big picture potential knowledge a student can gain in a given learning experience. Vygotsky (1978) defined the ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Figure 12.1 illustrates Vygotsky’s ZPD by showing how students can increase their present knowledge into the proximal zone with the help of their instructors and peers. The ZPD relates directly to social presence and learning because an increased amount of meaningful connections and interactions among students and instructors can result in an increase of present knowledge. The ZPD serves as a powerful model that illustrates how knowledge and learning increase through collaborative experiences with both instructors and peers. Figure 12.1. Knowledge acquisition within Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Distal zone

Zone of proximal development

Present knowledge

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 134

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

135

In short, because of the positive interweave of social interaction, knowledge acquisition, and learning, Vygotsky’s social development theory played a central role in the development of the SPM, described in the next section, and in understanding social presence as a critical literacy.

The Emergence of the SPM The SPM derives from the longitudinal research of Whiteside (2007, 2011, 2015), as well as from several subsequent studies at the graduate, undergraduate, and K–12 levels (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, & Lewis, 2012; Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Whiteside, Hughes, &, McLeod, 2005). Whiteside (2007, 2011, 2015) discovered that the concept of social presence played a valuable role in educational discourse, yet also found that social presence theory and its resultant measures and coding schemes fell short in conceptualizing the features that define social presence and its key importance in learning. In the SPM, the concept of social presence becomes the central component that synchronizes the instructor, students, norms, academic content, learning management system, media, tools, instructional strategies, and outcomes within a learning experience. This model is comparable to the well-known Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The SPM draws from CoI research and owes much of its origins to a series of important educational researchers including Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, Liam Rourke, Walter Archer, Karen Swan, Jennifer C. Richardson, Peter Shea, Phil Ice, Wally Boston, Melissa Layne, Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena, Marina McIsaac, and Chih Tu-Hsiung. Studies (Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015) have found the social presence coding scheme (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001; Swan, 2002; Swan & Shih, 2005) to be a great indicator of affect, cohesion, and interaction and an invaluable preliminary research tool to begin to understand social presence. Yet, Whiteside (2007, 2015) posited that social presence goes beyond these concepts, and it is multifaceted and complex (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003). Therefore, the SPM positions social presence as a critical literacy and guiding principle that drives learners, instructors, academic content, norms, behaviors, instructional strategies, activities, and outcomes. That said, changes to the CoI framework over the years have continued to make it a robust and essential model for educational researchers. The SPM offers a very similar approach with two distinct differences. First, as mentioned previously, social presence plays a central role in the educational experience. Second, the SPM addresses that the knowledge and experience (or lack thereof ) that students bring into the learning experience greatly affects the overall level of social presence (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Whiteside et al., 2005). CoI researchers can be resistant to this approach because it does not appear to follow the original definition by Short and colleague (1976). That is understandable. This author contends that these landmark researchers were way ahead of their time and that this approach does, in many ways, capture their true and intended spirit. As Short and colleagues explained, “We conceive of Social Presence not as an objective quality of the medium . . . but as a subjective quality” (p. 66). Moreover, these researchers saw

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 135

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

136

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

something that didn’t fit, and they identified an area they could add to and explore. As social psychology experts back in the 1970s, they could hardly begin to imagine the implications surrounding the emergence of online and blended learning technologyenhanced tools for learning. Thus, this author contends that social presence is a complex, subjective quality that is far less fixated in any individual medium than these or any other early researchers once thought. The SPM consists of five integrated components—affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience— that affect participants’ motivation to take an active role in their own and their peers’ meaning-making processes. To help readers understand this definition, Figure 12.2 illustrates the SPM and its five components (Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015). Figure 12.2. Social Presence Model. Affective association Knowledge and experience

Community cohesion Social presence

Interaction intensity

Instructor involvement

To better explain each component of the SPM, I define each component in the following pages. Affective association. The affective association category addresses the emotional connection in the program. This area, which targets instances of emotion, humor, and selfdisclosure related to personal emotion, is represented though the affective category of the social presence coding scheme (Polhemus, Shih, & Swan, 2001; Rourke et al., 2001; Swan, 2002). It also addresses paralanguage, such as all caps, boldface font style, and emoticons or emojis. As students invest emotionally in their course community, they can become more invested in the academic course content (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004, 2011). In addition to affective association, community cohesion marks another key component of social presence. Community cohesion. Community cohesion relates to the course community. This area includes sharing additional resources and information with the group and seeing the group as a cohesive whole. It also involves being an approachable group member, which includes greetings, salutations, and vocatives (referring to others by name), and sharing information and resources with others. Community cohesion occurs when students provide resources, advice, or assistance, as well as when they greet each other and respond to their classmates by name. Instructor involvement. Another important element for social presence is the true importance of the instructor’s involvement. It is important for instructors to push their

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 136

5/12/2017 11:00:03 PM

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

137

students to engage in critical analysis and higher order thinking in the online environment, and every decision an instructor makes affects the level of social presence. Instructors can help novice students by modeling the behaviors and actions that will engender social presence (Gordon, 2017). Timely and regular feedback also plays an essential role in developing and sustaining social presence. Interaction intensity. Interaction intensity consists of the level of interaction between participants. It includes acknowledgments, which can be a direct quote from another classmate or a paraphrased version of another classmate’s previous statement. Knowledge and experience. Finally, prior knowledge and experiences of students play an essential role in building social presence. The level of knowledge that students bring into the learning experience matters greatly, as does sharing resources and experiences with their classmates. Table 12.1 provides examples for each component of the SPM. TABLE 12.1 Definitions and Examples for the Social Presence Model Components SPM Component

Definition

Examples in Practice

Affective association

Affective association addresses the emotional connection, including instances of emotion, humor, and personal self-disclosure.

• Offer praise,

Community cohesion

Community cohesion relates to the whole course community. It involves greetings, salutations, sharing additional resources, and information with the group, as well as seeing the group as a cohesive whole.

• Refer to online

Instructor involvement

Instructor involvement involves the actions the instructor(s) takes within a learning environment, including establishing relationships and making social connections. Likewise, it is also important for instructors to push their students to engage in critical analysis and higher order thinking in the online environment.

• Provide model

Interaction intensity consists of the level of interaction between participants, which can be a direct quote from another classmate or a paraphrased version of another classmate’s previous statement.

• Include a direct quote

Interaction intensity

Knowledge and experience

Knowledge and experience involves the knowledge and prior experiences a student brings into the learning environment. They play an essential role in relationship building and in the social negotiation process.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 137

recognition, and motivational messages classmates as “their” classmates • Give a “shout-out” to specific students examples

• Encourage multiple modes of communication • Create announcements • Provide early and routine feedback from the forum

• Develop interactive • • • •

games Use wikis Share tips and ideas Model for others Share knowledge and resources

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

138

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

The SPM can serve as a powerful heuristic and framework for instructors and students and be an important tool for current and future research (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2015). This author contends that social presence affects learning only to the extent that instructors and students are willing to integrate the five components of social presence. Thus, understanding each of the five components of the SPM may contribute to a more powerful overall learning experience, which is why social presence can be considered a powerful, critical literacy for learning.

Social Presence as a Critical Literacy To understand what defines a literacy, this author turned to the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), a professional association of educators in English studies, literacy studies, and language arts. This notable professional organization suggested, “The 21st century demands that a literate person possess a wide range of abilities and competencies, many literacies” (NCTE, n.d.). Though many of the competencies they outlined can be solved by existing well-defined literacies, such as technology literacy or rhetorical literacy, others require an eye to social dimensions of teaching and learning. For instance, NCTE (n.d.) posited the need to “build intentional cross-cultural connections and relationships with others” in order “to pose and solve problems collaboratively and strengthen independent thought” and to “design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of purposes.” This author contends that social presence within the SPM addresses these needed competencies and serves as a literacy itself. This author suggests that social presence engenders a new language of teaching and learning. Social presence is a critical literacy because humans innately crave social interaction. As social learning theorist Etienne Wenger (1998) proclaimed, “We are social beings. . . . This fact is a central aspect of learning” (pp. 4–5). Learning is intrinsically bound with interaction (Bornstein & Bruner, 1989; Conrad & Donaldson, 2004, 2011). Thus, as socially literate educators, we would be wise to leverage social presence to maximize learning experiences. Even the smallest interaction can change students’ perceptions and motivation for a course and alter the entire experience for everyone involved. Furthermore, in blended learning environments and programs, social presence plays a critical role because the multimodal shifts in learning environments and technologies create unique challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning with profound consequences for learners and instructors (Selber, 2004). Instructors continue to explore the affordances provided by a blend of face-to-face and online environments and are constantly learning more about how to maximize student learning in multimodal programs and environments (Bender, 2012). Blended learning programs challenge instructors and learners as they toggle among the different media, requiring a great deal of adaptability and increasing the need for social presence.

Chapters Contributing to This Approach This section offers a number of rich contributions spanning graduate-level, undergraduatelevel, and K–12 learning environments. In chapter 13, “Making Learning Relevant and

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 138

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

139

Meaningful: Integrating Social Presence Into Faculty Professional Development Programs,” Aimee L. Whiteside provides research on a unique professional development opportunity for higher education graduate and undergraduate instructors at a private, midsize university in the southern region of the United States. This study involved presenting the SPM as an experience to help graduate and undergraduate instructors preparing to teach blended learning courses. Whiteside indicated positive implications for helping faculty gain an awareness of the importance of social presence yet suggested more research is needed to determine if the knowledge from social presence professional development opportunities transfers into course design and development. She posits that the transfer of social presence learning from a professional development experience and into their courses equates to instructors acquiring social presence literacy over time. In chapter 14, “Blending Face-to-Face and Online Instruction to Disrupt Learning, Inspire Reflection, and Create Space for Innovation,” Amy Garret Dikkers, Aimee L. Whiteside, and Somer Lewis explore social presence and different perspectives of a blended learning initiative at a midwestern, midsize suburban high school. The authors found students appreciated the empowerment regarding the flexibility of their schedule (“flex time”), the unique opportunity to mix traditional and blended learning in both elective and core classes as desired, and the instructors’ facilitation of the program and dedication to their individual learning needs. The authors point to social presence as providing a key element that disrupts learning, inspires reflection, and creates a space for innovation. In chapter 15, “Personalized Learning to Meet the Needs of Diverse Learners,” Somer Lewis, Amy Garret Dikkers, and Aimee L. Whiteside suggest the value of social presence for at-risk and diverse learners. The authors present powerful findings about the need and importance of connectedness and personalization for at-risk students taking courses to recover credits from a course that they may have previously failed. The implications of this chapter suggest that cultivating social presence allows students opportunities to succeed where they failed in the past. Finally, in chapter 16, “Overcoming Isolation Online: Strategies to Enhance Social Presence in Practice,” Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Somer Lewis compile a number of research studies into a valuable set of practice tips and strategies to better support faculty and students in fostering social presence in online and blended learning environments. The authors present several strategies, which include understanding social presence and its critical connection to learning, using a variety of media for connectedness, maximizing the knowledge and experience of students within the course, and providing multiple opportunities for student and instructor voices to be heard. Overall, we hope that this literacy-oriented approach to social presence continues to open the door to a new landscape of research that may lead to future inspiring explorations and advancements within educational discourse.

Chapter Review • This introduction offers the SPM as a framework for the chapters in this section. The five components of the SPM include affective association, community

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 139

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

140

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience. • The SPM draws from the CoI research and recognizes the important steps the CoI has made in understanding how to maximize learning experiences. Yet, the SPM posits that social presence is a comprehensive concept that is larger than any individual part of the process, such as instructor presence, cognitive presence, or teaching presence. Also, in the SPM, students’ prior knowledge and experiences play a key role in the level of social presence in a given learning community. • With the SPM, social presence exists as a critical literacy—similar to any influential literacy, such as technological literacy, rhetorical literacy, and digital literacy—and serves an important role in advancing and sustaining successful, meaningful learning experiences. It is a literacy that requires careful consideration, cultivation, and continued exploration. • All participants in the learning process (e.g., academic leaders, instructional designers, instructors, and students) would be best served to be aware of what social presence is and how it can help maximize the learning experience.

References Bender, T. (2012). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and assessment (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270 Bornstein, M. H., & Bruner, J. S. (1989). On interaction. In M. H. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 197–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Conrad, R., & Donaldson, A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conrad, R., & Donaldson, A. (2011). Continuing to engage the online learner: More activities and resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2008, August). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize online learning. Paper presented at the 24th annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2013, October). Creating social presence in asynchronous online learning. Paper presented at the Global Learning Technology Conference, Wilmington, NC. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2012, September–October). Get present: Build community and connectedness online. Learning and Leading With Technology, 40(2), 22–25. Gordon, J. (2017). Creating social cues through self-disclosures, stories, and paralanguage: The importance of modeling high social presence behaviors in online courses. In A. Whiteside, A. Garrett Dikkers, & K. Swan (Eds.), Social presence in online learning: Multiple perspectives on practice and research (pp. 99–112). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. National Council of Teachers of English. (n.d.). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 140

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

141

Polhemus, L., Shih, L. F., & Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: The representation of social presence in an online discussion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Short, J., William, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Toronto, ON: Wiley. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online course: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication, and Information, 2(1), 23–49. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Whiteside, A. L. (2007). Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L. (2011). Integrating the Social Presence Model to maximize blended and online learning experiences: Effective practices. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http:// olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/integrating-social-presence-modelmaximize-blended-and-online-learning-experienc Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/453/137 Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2008, September). Social presence in online learning. Paper presented at the New Media Research Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2009, April). Strategies for maximizing learning outcomes and student engagement in online and blended learning environments. Workshop presented at the Academy of Distinguished Teachers Teaching and Learning Conference, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2010, October). Strategies to maximize online interactions using the Social Presence Model. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2012). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize interactions in online environments. In K. St. Amant & S. Kelsey (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication across cultures: International interactions in online environments (pp. 395–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2016). Leveraging the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on emotion in online and blended learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. P. McCreery (Eds.), Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 225–241). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014a, May–June). The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/ article/power-social-presence-learning

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 141

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

142

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014b, October). Looking to the future of social presence: Theory, research, and practice. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2015, April). Connectedness, learning, and the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on online and blended learning in higher and K–12 education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Whiteside, A. L., Hughes, J. E., & McLeod, S. (2005). Interconnecting cognition, contact, and comprehension: The influence of social presence in a hybrid-model certificate program. In Proceedings of the New Media Research Conference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 142

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

13 MAKING LEARNING RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL Integrating Social Presence Into Faculty Professional Development Programs Aimee L. Whiteside

I

n “Higher Education and Technology Transfer: The Effects of ‘Techno-Sclerosis’ on Development,” William E. Bertrand (2010) painted a disturbingly accurate and bleak picture that the “modern university . . . has fallen behind the pace of technological change and has become increasingly irrelevant to the reality of life in an interconnected and globalizing world,” for which he coined the term techno-sclerosis (p. 102). Citing the Morrill Act and the mission of the university, Bertrand laid out his rationale, research, and plan to address this concern, while asserting the importance of a liberal arts education. Within this plan, he called for “new models of higher education . . . to provide a continuous resource for knowledge updating and professional development” (p. 114). With rich professional development programs, we can start to help our faculty understand different genres of technology and, more importantly, learn how to make learning experiences relevant and meaningful. To begin to overcome Bertrand’s notion of techno-sclerosis, we must fully understand the challenge our online and blended learning instructors face so that we can strategically serve them through ongoing professional development programs, events, and opportunities.

Ongoing Professional Development for Online Learning Since its origin 40 years ago, the concept of professional development has drastically changed, especially with the advent of distance education (Centra, 1976). Centra is credited with beginning a movement for organized professional development for faculty. In November 1975, he began a large-scale study of the state of faculty development by surveying 756 colleges and universities and asking them to evaluate themselves in four categories: “workshops, seminar, or similar presentations; analysis or assessment procedures; activities that involve media, technology, or course development; institutionwide policies or practices, such as sabbatical leave or annual teaching awards” (p. 16). Certainly, the need for professional development programs has changed greatly over the 143

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 143

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

144

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

years, especially with the emergence of online and blended learning curricula, courses, and programs. Extending from Centra’s call for quality and consistency in more formal programs, I contend that one significant challenge for blended and online learning instructors involves a new, multilayered paradigm shift where they must stay abreast of their particular content area, embody enough technological prowess to advance learners in their field, and understand a multitude of other key factors and considerations (e.g., accessibility, support, technology literacy, and social presence). Online learning instructors must not only master these three separate areas but also seamlessly integrate them into a relevant, meaningful learning experience. This is a monumental challenge that calls for ongoing professional development opportunities. Professors McKee and Tew (2013) backed up this assertion: “Faculty must be prepared to lead their institutions through veritable seismic shifts of the very ground on which their institutions are built. To meet these academic and administrative challenges will require the faculty to engage in ongoing professional development” (pp. 12–13). These authors, joined by other scholars, noted the magnitude of the shifts and suggested, “Professional educators have always been eager to advantage their students by attempting to add the latest advancement to their instructional practices” (McKee, Johnson, Ritchie, & Tew, 2013, p. 19). Many other researchers have asserted the importance of professional development in K–12 and higher education to adjust to the “seismic shifts” and help the faculty better serve their students (Aycock, Garnham, & Kaleta, 2002; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Dziuban, Hartman, Moskal, Sorg, & Truman, 2003; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Hellmig, 2008; Humbert & Vignare, 2005; Kaleta, Skibba, & Joosten, 2007; King, 2002; McKee et al., 2013; McKee & Tew, 2013; Otte, 2005).

Introducing the Social Presence Model to Understand Social Presence as a Literacy Another consideration in professional development programs involves cultivating an awareness of social presence (or connectedness) in an online or blended learning experience and learning how to engender social presence and sustain it through the course or program. To learn about the impact of social presence in professional development programs, I conducted a small-scale study in January 2015 that introduced instructors in a faculty development program to social presence and employed the Social Presence Model (SPM). The SPM was presented to faculty engaged in a professional development program as a heuristic to bring awareness to the social dimensions of blended learning experiences and as a means to generate discussion about what social presence looks like or could look like in a given disciplinary practice. The SPM depicted in Figure 13.1 centers on five integrated elements (affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience) that together determine participants’ motivation to take an active role in their own and their peers’ meaning-making processes (Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015a). The SPM has been explored in a variety of K–12 and higher education environments and has been addressed in several faculty development experiences (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Garrett Dikkers,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 144

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

MAKING LEARNING RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL

145

Figure 13.1. Social Presence Model. Affective association Knowledge and experience

Community cohesion Social presence

Interaction intensity

Instructor involvement

Whiteside, & Lewis, 2012; Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015a, 2015b; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Whiteside, Hughes, & McLeod, 2005). “Late adopter” universities, like the one in this study, now have ample research to make strategic moves toward professional development for their faculty teaching online and blended courses, such as incorporating workshops involving the SPM. These institutions are placing more emphasis on connectedness and social presence in carefully constructed professional development programs for their faculty. Drawing on the precedent of faculty development programs before them, many of these emerging programs recognize that the role of social presence has been underplayed, undervalued, and underserved.

Research Study: Social Presence in a Faculty Professional Development Program This chapter focuses on a one-year case study beginning in January 2015 that involved a new blended learning initiative at a private, midsize university in the southern region of the United States. Previous instruction at this school was nearly all face-to-face. The constraints of its urban location afforded little physical room for expansion. That fact, coupled with a growing desire from incoming faculty and students for varied, multimodal instructional pedagogies and strategies, led to a new blended learning initiative. This new initiative included a faculty development program designed specifically for faculty members who wanted to teach summer blended learning courses. Faculty in this initiative were initially required to complete the Quality Matters® Designing Your Blended Course certification process (MarylandOnline, n.d.). Then, they were asked to attend a set of three New Teaching Institute (NTI) seminars developed in partnership with the School of Graduate and Continuing Studies and the Department of Educational Technology in the first quarter of 2015 to help them develop their summer session blended courses. All participants volunteered to be part of this initiative; their fees for the Quality Matters certificate were reimbursed when they completed the full course. They were offered a $1,000 stipend if they completed all of the following: received the Quality Matters certificate, attended all three NTI seminars, received course approval from the Hybrid Curriculum Review Committee, and taught their first blended course.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 145

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

146

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

This study explores the experience of a group of 10 instructors as they were introduced to social presence. The study participants were from a range of disciplines, including communication, business, journalism, and health sciences. They also varied in their years of teaching experience, with most having 10 or more years of total teaching experience but limited blended learning experience. Table 13.1 summarizes information about the participants. Before the presentation, half of the participants had never heard of the term social presence. One participant defined it as “how present or ‘there’ the instructor is in the online component of the course,” but most failed to create any sort of definition. In addition, before this professional development experience, two-thirds of the participants thought that social presence mattered in a blended learning course. The study is limited by the small number of participants. My role in this study was in the participant– observer role where I provided moderate participation by administering the surveys; conducting follow-up e-mails; and presenting the professional development, which was a one-hour presentation on social presence. Yet, the results provide a small glimpse into a fast-developing and much-needed area of research for the future. The research questions were as follows: To what extent (a) are instructors aware of social presence, (b) do they find the concept of social presence to be important, and (c) do they integrate strategies that they learned into their own courses? The study explored participants’ understanding of, satisfaction with, and use of the concept of social presence and the SPM in the development of these instructors’ blended learning experiences. Participants were given detailed surveys before and after their professional development experience. The professional development experience involved a one-hour discussion involving social presence and introducing the SPM (see the appendix to this chapter for the full schedule). They also received a follow-up e-mail after the experience to help determine whether they transferred any strategies and put content into practice with students in their blended learning courses. TABLE 13.1 About the Participants Total number

10

Gender

6 female, 3 male, 0 transgender, 1 other

Ethnicity

6 Caucasians, 1 Latino/Latina, 2 multiple ethnicities, 1 preferred not to answer

Disciplines

Business, communication, journalism, and health sciences

Degree

7 had a doctorate or the highest degree in their field, 3 had a master’s degree

Teaching experience

Over 10 years (average)

Blended teaching experience

Limited (1–3 years on average)

Exposure to social presence

Half thought they knew what it was

Perceived social presence importance

Two-thirds thought social presence was important

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 146

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

MAKING LEARNING RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL

147

Overall, this chapter explores the extent to which an introduction to social presence and the SPM affected participants’ pedagogical and instructional practices as they grew as instructors in a specific faculty professional development opportunity.

Findings and Implication for Practice The pretest survey found that only half of the 10 participants had even a vague understanding of the concept of social presence. Also, only two-thirds of the participants thought that social presence mattered in a blended learning course. After experiencing a one-hour presentation and discussion of social presence, the faculty offered favorable responses about learning about social presence and integrating the newfound knowledge of the SPM into their future blended courses. Many instructors noted that they had been focused on the details of the course and on the alignment of the objectives, instructional strategies, and assessments, and they had neglected to reflect on the need to also consider the social aspects of the learning experience. All participants surveyed (100%) noted that they agreed or strongly agreed on the importance of each of the five components of the SPM. One participant indicated that he “picked up some cool ideas [he] might try.” Another noted the need to share “more personal items (e.g., pets, hobbies, etc.) to increase ‘social presence,’” relating to the affective association component of the SPM. Another participant shared, “[Being] interactive with reflective discussion boards will help with social presence,” which connects to the interaction intensity component of the SPM. Overall, the participants seemed very favorable about integrating social presence into their blended learning course. Faculty also commented on the faculty development experience as a whole. The participants commented on the program’s help in thinking through essential details, such as “learning outcomes, alignment, and assessment” and linking “learning objectives with methods to measure them.” Several commented on how the seminar helped both their face-to-face and blended courses. One participant noted, “[It helped me get] my classes and learning materials more organized to better fit learner needs. ALL classes could benefit from this training; not just hybrid classes.” Another commented, “[The training] forced me to relook at my course design and structure that will also assist me in preparing for my traditional classes.” Seven of the 10 participants (70%) praised the program for helping them organize their class into manageable units. The most frequent response was that faculty enjoyed the ability and opportunity to connect with and learn from each other. One noted the importance of “meeting new colleagues and sharing ideas.” Another indicated the significance of “networking with and learning from colleagues.” This result suggests the need for ongoing professional development, perhaps keeping these established cohorts together for future events and follow-up activities. Some participants noted constructive criticisms of the program. One urged the need for specific technology, suggesting, “We need synchronous learning tools that provide videoconference ability.” Others noted that they had knowledge beyond what the experience offered, noting, “This whole process with Quality Matters, etc., has been an excruciating waste of time for some of us.” Still other participants felt the time line between sessions and the pressure was too intense with their teaching, research, and

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 147

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

148

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

service responsibilities. One noted needing a “longer lead time for prepping a course. I would love to see NTI offered over an entire semester—maybe ever [sic] other week for a full semester to prepare a summer course.” Adequate support was also a common theme. One participant urged the necessity to “expand the Ed Tech and IT departments with an eye toward both student and faculty needs. Support is still woefully lacking.” This finding also suggests the desire for more frequent and regular ongoing professional development. Figure 13.2 summarizes the implications for practice and future professional development opportunities that emerged from this study. Figure 13.2. Overall implications for practice.

• Allow adequate time between sessions to allow faculty to reflect and be socially present themselves. • Allow more time in the training session for faculty to engage, network, and learn from each other. • Use their face-to-face time wisely. • Help break courses into manageable, organized units and then brainstorm about ways to integrate social presence. • Offer readings as resources, but be cautious not to overwhelm faculty, who are often volunteering their time for professional development. • Provide faculty with an awareness of social presence and show concrete examples. • Provide funding, opportunities, and best practice guidance. • Support your faculty and students well with plenty of human resources and with tools and technology. Many of these findings about faculty development programs concur with other researchers’ results and suggestions (Aycock et al., 2002; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Dziuban et al., 2003; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Hellmig, 2008; Humbert & Vignare, 2005; Kaleta et al., 2007; King, 2002; McKee et al., 2013; McKee & Tew, 2013; Otte, 2005). What remains unanswered is the final research question: After learning about social presence, do instructors integrate strategies they learned into their own courses? Study participants were largely unresponsive to follow-up e-mails about their experience and about whether they integrated social presence in practice. One responsive participant noted, “Thanks for following up with us. Your presentation was inspiring.” The participant went on to explain that the creative portfolio course for the communication major was front-loaded with daily face-to-face activities (seven days) and that, as a result, she did not need to do as much with social presence in the online environment. As they moved online, she did note that she employed “one-on-one sessions using Skype or the students’ platform of choice.” Finally, this reflective instructor concluded, “While the classroom surveys were strong (student satisfaction), I need to make changes next time to facilitate improvement in student performance and engagement during the online time. The regular semester students perform better, so clearly I need to be ready next time for what happens mentally to students when they leave campus.” The data suggest that the participant is now considering social presence not merely at the beginning of the course or as students

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 148

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

MAKING LEARNING RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL

149

move from one modality to another but throughout the entire course experience. In addition, she may have observed a connection between social presence and student learning outcomes when she said the “regular semester students perform better” and that she needs to be prepared for “what happens mentally to students when they leave campus.” Frankly, it is a difficult task for participants to address transferring lessons and tasks from a professional development experience to their own blended courses. What did they retain from the experience? Were they also affected by other professional development events or by their own reading or colleagues? Where does social presence begin and end? What would they have done inherently on their own, and what did they do because they were introduced to this new concept? Thus, it may prove difficult for participants to pinpoint what components of the professional development experience led to discrete decisions and activities to promote social presence in blended courses. Part of the difficulty that the participants experienced answering the question about transfer is that social presence is a literacy rather than a discrete event. Just as we would have difficulty pinpointing how and when we learned to read or write or gained a sense of technological literacy, these participants experienced the same sort of cognitive dissonance. Thus, future researchers should consider ongoing, longitudinal studies with regular meetings that explore participants as they acquire literacy in social presence and extend that literacy to their students.

Concluding Thoughts Professional development has changed extensively in its 40-year history (Centra, 1976). Changing technologies mean added pressures for higher education faculty; yet, with a clear understanding of the challenges and empathy for the novice instructor, teaching in new modalities need not lead to Bertrand’s (2010) notion of techno-sclerosis. Instead, professional development opportunities can paint a landscape of new possibilities by understanding social presence as a literacy that develops over time. The findings in this limited study suggest positive implications for helping faculty understand the importance of social presence. In addition, the question of transfer from a professional development opportunity into continued practice needs more exploration and future research studies. Overall, the data suggest that through professional development experiences that integrate social presence, instructors can learn to integrate pedagogy, technology, instructional strategies, and social presence in ways that elevate the academy and continue to make learning relevant and meaningful.

Chapter Review • This chapter explores a one-year case study of a small group of undergraduate and graduate higher education faculty as they were introduced to social presence in a university’s professional development program designed to help with the challenges of multimodal course design. • The study explored participants’ understanding of, satisfaction with, and integration of the concept of social presence and the SPM in their blended

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 149

5/12/2017 11:00:04 PM

150

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

•

• •

•

learning courses through a pretest–posttest research design conducted before and after their professional development experience. The data suggested that the faculty participants left the professional development experience with favorable responses about social presence and that they planned to integrate their newfound knowledge of the SPM into their blended learning course design process. Several participants noted that they had become focused on the details of the course, including the alignment of objectives, instructional strategies, and assessment tools, when they also should have been considering social presence. Integrating social presence into a course is not a discrete event but rather an ongoing literacy. Thus, future researchers should consider ongoing, longitudinal studies with regular meetings that explore participants in professional development programs as they acquire literacy in social presence and extend that literacy to their students. Professional development opportunities can paint a landscape of new possibilities by helping faculty gain an awareness and background in social presence, which is a critical literacy for blended learning experiences.

References Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002, March). Lessons learned from the hybrid course project. Teaching With Technology Today, 8(6). Bertrand, W. E. (2010). Higher education and technology transfer: The effects of “technosclerosis” on development. Journal of International Affairs, 64(1), 101–119. Centra, J. A. (1976). Faculty development practices in U.S. colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597. Retrieved from http://search .proquest.com.esearch.ut.edu/docview/218525193?accountid=14762 Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2003). Three ALN modalities: An institutional perspective. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (pp. 127–148). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2008, August). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize online learning. Paper presented at the 24th annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2013, October). Creating social presence in asynchronous online learning. Paper presented at the Global Learning Technology Conference, Wilmington, NC. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2012, September–October). Get present: Build community and connectedness online. Learning and Leading With Technology, 40(2), 22–25. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 150

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

MAKING LEARNING RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL

151

Hellmig, L. (2008). Blended learning for teachers’ professional development. In S. Hambach, A. Martens, & B. Urban (Eds.), 1st International E-Learning Baltics Science Conference (pp. 63–73). Stuttgart, Germany: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag. Humbert, J., & Vignare, K. (2005). RIT introduces blended learning—successfully! In J. C. Moore (Ed.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities, wisdom from the Sloan Consortium (Vol. 2 in the Wisdom Series). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Kaleta, R., Skibba, K. A., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. In A. Picciano & C. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. King, K. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 231–246. MarylandOnline. (n.d.). Quality Matters (QM): Designing Your Blended Course (DYBC). Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/professional-development/workshops/higher-ed-dybc McKee, C. W., Johnson, M., Ritchie, W. F., & Tew, W. M. (2013). Professional development of the faculty: Past and present. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(133), 15–20. doi:10.1002/tl.20042 McKee, C. W., & Tew, W. M. (2013). Setting the stage for teaching and learning in American higher education: Making the case for faculty development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(133), 3–14. doi:10.1002/tl.20041 Otte, G. (2005). Using blended learning to drive faculty development (and vice versa). In J. Bourne & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 71–83). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Whiteside, A. L. (2007). Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L. (2011). Integrating the Social Presence Model to maximize blended and online learning experiences: Effective practices. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http:// olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/integrating-social-presence-modelmaximize-blended-and-online-learning-experienc Whiteside, A. L. (2015a). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/ article/view/453/137 Whiteside, A. L. (2015b). New developments in social presence research: Implications for online instructional strategies and course design. University of Nebraska Campus Connections Program, Lincoln, NE. Retrieved from https://connect.unl.edu/p3m39m7h8i2/?launcher=false& fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2008, September). Social presence in online learning. Paper presented at the New Media Research Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2009, April). Strategies for maximizing learning outcomes and student engagement in online and blended learning environments. Workshop presented at the Academy of Distinguished Teachers Teaching and Learning Conference, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2010, October). Strategies to maximize online interactions using the Social Presence Model. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2012). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize interactions in online environments. In K. St. Amant & S. Kelsey (Eds.), Computer-mediated

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 151

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

152

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

communication across cultures: International interactions in online environments (pp. 395–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2016). Leveraging the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on emotion in online and blended learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. P. McCreery (Eds.), Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 225–241). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014a, May–June). The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/ article/power-social-presence-learning Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014b, October). Looking to the future of social presence: Theory, research, and practice. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2015, April). Connectedness, learning, and the social Presence Model: A decade of research on online and blended learning in higher and K–12 education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Whiteside, A. L., Hughes, J. E., & McLeod, S. (2005). Interconnecting cognition, contact, and comprehension: The influence of social presence in a hybrid-model certificate program. In Proceedings of the New Media Research Conference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 152

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

APPENDIX: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR SCHEDULE

Time

Item

Notes

9:00–9:15

Orientation

Opening remarks, goals, etc.

9:15–9:35

Blackboard logistics

Overview of Blackboard • Course start dates • Student enrollment, etc.

9:35–10:20

Blackboard new features

Cover Blackboard features • Social aspects • Course and professor content areas

10:20–10:50

Overview of assessment

Overview of assessment for hybrid learning environments

10:50–11:00

Break

Restroom, snacks, etc.

11:00–12:00

Social presence

Social presence research demo and discussion

12:00–12:15

Lunch setup

Restroom break, get lunch plates

12:15–12:45

Open discussion (lunch)

Possible topics • Vision of hybrid at university • Assessment strategies in hybrid • Engagement

12:45–1:45

Faculty representative

Discuss assessment strategies, materials, alignment

153

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 153

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

14 BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION TO DISRUPT LEARNING, INSPIRE REFLECTION, AND CREATE SPACE FOR INNOVATION Amy Garrett Dikkers, Aimee L. Whiteside, and Somer Lewis

B

lended learning offers the ability to disrupt learning, inspire reflection, and create space for innovation. A major part of that disruption involves social presence, which has emerged as a key concept in research showcasing how to harness blended learning in different contexts and disciplines. Although we and the other authors throughout this book clearly argue for and cite research to support the creation of social presence in fully online classes, the blended learning environment provides a new and multimodal space to purposefully create connections between and among all participants in the class whenever they are meeting face-to-face or learning collaboratively online. This chapter provides an overview of the state of social presence literature in blended learning and introduces our specific case study research on the topic, culminating with a discussion of the design of blended learning environments that incorporate social presence. Purposeful design is necessary to achieve success in the blended environment, and we suggest faculty use the idea of social presence as a critical literacy to organize the structure for their courses and programs in order to blend well or mix modalities carefully for best results.

Blended Learning: Definitions and Increasing Enrollments We start with a definition of blended learning and brief discussion of online enrollments at institutions of higher education in the United States to set the scene for conversations around blended learning. The Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation (2016), a nonprofit think tank devoted to exploring and persuading the transformational power of disruptive innovation, provided the most comprehensive and perhaps best-known definition of blended learning: “Blended learning involves leveraging the Internet to afford each student a more personalized learning experience, including increased student control over the time, place, path, and/or pace of learning.” The Christensen Institute’s definition elaborates on the specific choices blended learning affords students and is useful to keep at the center during the creation of blended learning courses and programs. 154

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 154

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

155

Blended learning initiatives, as well as fully online enrollments, continue to grow at higher rates than traditional enrollments, although the rate of growth overall has slowed in the past two years. The greatest growth of online enrollments has come in public and private nonprofit four-year institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2015). Allen and Seaman’s report tracking online learning at higher education institutions provides perhaps the clearest picture of online learning, as it combines Babson Survey Research Group data from 2,800 colleges and universities with the National Center for Educational Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which covers 4,891 institutions of higher learning. Overall, 70.8% of institutions surveyed report online education as “critical for their institution’s long-term strategy” (p. 15), which is an all-time high. Although the Allen and Seaman (2015) report tracked participation in online learning solely, the survey at the center of the report did ask chief academic officers to rate learning outcomes for online, blended, and traditional face-to-face courses. The research findings revealed the following: While the majority of academic leaders rate the outcomes of online and blended learning as the “same” as face-to-face learning (57.9% for online and 56.6% for blended), far more consider blended learning outcomes to be superior to face-to-face instruction, than consider online instruction superior to it (32.8% for blended versus 16.3% for online). (p. 19)

It may be no surprise that what makes blended learning rich for educational purposes also makes it complex. Considering the fact that the standard definition of blended learning uses a range of online course content from 30% to 79% (Allen & Seaman, 2015), researchers lack a way to truly track the growth and variety of blended learning options in higher education. In fact, institutions, departments, programs, and faculty considering using blended learning in their courses have a wide range of degrees of blended from which to choose. For example, the instructor of one course that meets three times a week for 50 minutes may choose to meet for two class periods and use the additional class time for student work online. Another program may choose to have students meet face-to-face the first three Monday nights of the semester and then have three weeks where they work on various projects through the online environment, returning to the face-to-face classroom to discuss the projects. Regardless, landing on a single definition for blended learning based on time in the face-to-face class and time engaging in materials online is virtually impossible, which adds complexity to the field as we weigh options for blended learning. Overcoming the sheer wide latitude of definitions for blended learning is especially a complication for researchers studying the modality. Although we would hope all studies would include specifics about the extent to which a course or program is blended, often that specificity within a given context is unclear. Research on blended learning is also challenged because many studies continue to explore the differences between online and face-to-face learning, often coming to a popular conclusion that a blend of modalities is the best approach. In response, some, including Cross (2006) and other authors in Bonk and Graham’s (2006) Handbook of Blended Learning, have contested that our fixation on percentage of time spent online versus face-to-face is artificial at best and that we should, instead, focus on multiple dimensions of interaction.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 155

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

156

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

The Challenges and Potential of Social Presence in Blended Learning Research As we monitor the steady enrollments and rich complexity of blended learning, it is important to note the potential of emotion and social presence in blended learning environments. Researchers have found that face-to-face connections and emotion increase positive feelings of connectedness in students who are taking online or blended courses (Akyol & Garrison, 2011; Overbaugh & Nickel, 2011; So & Brush, 2008; Tempelaar, Niculescu, Rienties, Gijselaers, & Giesbers, 2012). However, what remains unknown is whether there is an optimum course duration and exactly what should take place in the face-to-face connections to build community and strengthen social presence. Likewise, social presence researchers are seeking a deeper understanding of what can occur throughout all aspects of a blended course to more deeply solidify a sense of social presence. Course-duration impacts have been studied in a blended learning environment (Akyol, Vaughan, & Garrison, 2011). A comparison of two courses, one that was 13 weeks long and the other 6 weeks long, was conducted using transcript analysis and the Community of Inquiry survey instrument (Arbaugh et al., 2008), with results that suggested interesting differences between short- and long-term courses. Examples include finding that the short-term blended course used more instances of group cohesion in its discussion than the long-term course, whereas the long-term course showed more affective communication (Akyol et al., 2011). Although it can be argued that each course has its own unique dynamic, this study is a step in the right direction for examining the impacts of course duration on social presence in blended learning. Historically, social presence research often focuses on comparisons of face-to-face, hybrid, and online classes rather than examining elements of social presence specifically in the modality of blended learning. For example, Ritter, Polnick, Fink, and Oescher (2010) supported the concept that high levels of community can be developed in online and hybrid, as well as face-to-face, courses. Because the researchers used a survey designed to measure learners’ sense of community, connectedness, and learning, the results of this study showed that face-to-face and hybrid courses had a greater sense of community than online courses. However, there was no statistically significant difference in learners’ perceptions of community in face-to-face versus hybrid classes (in this case, courses that met face-to-face less than 50% of the time). Likewise, Rovai, Wighting, and Liu (2005) found no major difference in perceived learning between online and face-to-face courses; however, results did show a weaker sense of connectedness between students in online courses. In addition, Akyol and Garrison (2011) conducted a comparison of online and blended learning sections of a course, using discussions, a community of inquiry survey, achievement scores, and interviews with the students and instructor. They found blended students had slightly higher perceptions of cognitive presence, learning, and satisfaction. Some students found cognitive presence, instructor presence, and social presence important for their learning; others identified one or two presences that were essential. Zhan and Mei (2013) examined the effects of social presence and academic self-concept on learners’ satisfaction and learning achievement in face-to-face and online environments. A

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 156

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

157

noteworthy result of this study—and one that was contrary to the proposed hypothesis— is that no significant difference was found between the academic self-concept of face-toface students and that of online students. However, results also corresponded to the study by Rovai and colleagues (2005), showing social presence to be higher in face-to-face learning environments than in online ones. Conversely, the effect of social presence on student learning achievement and satisfaction was shown to be stronger in online learning environments than in face-to-face environments. These results support the idea that a stronger sense of social presence is possible in a completely online environment and may actually lead to higher achievement. Although some studies have shown higher social presence in completely face-to-face courses or in blended learning environments, it must be reiterated that this does not negate the need for and validity of online learning. Face-to-face interaction may make social presence easier to establish, but this does not discredit blended and online learning environments as valid learning options. Rather, it shows the necessity for establishing social presence in the face-to-face and online space for all courses, regardless of primary modality, to increase satisfaction and meaningful learning overall. A purposeful blend, with the integration of learning outcomes across modalities and interaction between and among students and instructors across modalities, is key (Biluc, Ellis, Goodyear, & Piggott, 2010). If we think of blended learning as a modality to disrupt learning, inspire reflection, and create space for innovation, social presence can be a key factor in leveraging and harnessing that disruption. Likewise, we find that social presence is a critical literacy that must be purposefully built into courses in any modality, and it is not simply a by-product of having students and teachers in the same room at the same time. It is also not guaranteed that just because students interact in the face-to-face environment that interaction will automatically transfer to interaction in the virtual space without clear intention on the part of the instructor (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008). Therefore, the next few sections introduce the Social Presence Model as a theoretical lens to explore this critical literacy, and they introduce our research on social presence in blended learning, providing implications for the design of blended learning environments.

The Social Presence Model Our framework centers on the Social Presence Model as depicted in Figure 14.1 and discussed in detail in chapter 12 of this book. This framework focuses on social presence as an overarching force for maximizing potential learning in online and blended environments with five elements: affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience. This model was the outcome of a longitudinal study that explored social presence in a blended learning program (Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015). Whiteside (2015) likened social presence in an online learning experience to a “symphony’s master conductor who synchronizes the instructor, students, norms, academic content, learning management system (LMS), media, tools, instructional strategies, and outcomes” (p. 11). The Social Presence Model can serve as a powerful heuristic and framework for instructors and students, as well as an important tool for current and future research

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 157

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

158

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

Figure 14.1. Social Presence Model. Affective association Knowledge and experience

Community cohesion Social presence

Interaction intensity

Instructor involvement

(Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Whiteside, 2007, 2011, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Whiteside, Hughes, & McLeod, 2005). Furthermore, through this lens, social presence becomes a critical literacy in blended learning environments where we can disrupt learning, inspire reflection, and create space for innovation.

About Our Research As a research team, we have explored blended learning as a modality in multiple educational contexts: a large-scale study of a hybrid graduate certificate program at a large midwestern university (Garrett Dikkers, Hughes, & McLeod, 2005; Hughes, McLeod, Garrett Dikkers, Brahier, & Whiteside, 2005; Whiteside, 2007, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2016; Whiteside et al., 2005), the exploration of a blended learning coteaching model used by special education and content area teachers in the North Carolina Virtual Public School (Garrett Dikkers, Lewis, & Whiteside, 2015), and a case study of a K–12 district summer school program that combines a virtual academy lab model with individual, personalized online learning (Garrett Dikkers & Lewis, 2015; Lewis, Whiteside, & Garrett Dikkers, 2014, 2015). All of these studies have uncovered affordances and implications of program design for purposefully building social presence with blended learning as the modality of education. In this chapter, we specifically discuss our recent research with a blended learning initiative at a large, suburban high school in the midwestern region of the United States (Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, & Lewis, 2014) because we believe it has clear implications for the purposeful design of blended learning opportunities at the postsecondary level. In spring 2014, we began researching the high school, which had grown in population to about 2,500 students from about 400 students in the mid-1990s. The initiative started with 3 blended classes in the 2011–2012 school year and increased offerings to 17 classes with 21 teachers and a total of 835 seats in the 2013–2014 school year (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2014). The move to blended learning was a response to rapid growth and the district’s desire to prepare its students for twenty-first-century digital skills and collegiate studies. The

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 158

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

159

district values a strong student–teacher relationship and consensus from a close, interactive group of teachers and administrators. As such, the individual teachers developed their own blended learning content and often taught the same content in a blended class section alongside a traditional class section, which may be similar to the experience of many higher education instructors who teach multiple sections of one course to different populations of students and in different modalities. Courses met face-to-face two or three times a week, and the remainder of student work and collaboration was completed in the Haiku learning management system. Instructors focused on mastery learning with individualized support. Students worked at their own pace with or without the help of teachers during their flexible time (flex time), or time not in the face-to-face classroom. This built-in flex time for students offered a unique aspect where students could meet with their teacher individually for further enrichment, meet with other content area instructors, use online resources, or work collaboratively with peers (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2014). As we explored this research landscape of learning, our primary research question guiding the case study explored the experience of all stakeholders, and our subquestions examined unique perspectives, perceived benefits and challenges, and the extent to which social presence factored into the experience. The last subquestion is the focus of this chapter.

Methods In spring 2014, we surveyed school and district administrators, teachers, students, and parents. We also attended face-to-face class sessions of 10 different blended learning classes and reviewed course sites and district information about their blended learning initiative. In addition, we conducted interviews with key educational leaders in the initiative (n = 9) and focus group sessions (n = 8) with teachers and students based on scheduling constraints and availability. Table 14.1 provides a breakdown of the data collection methods.

TABLE 14.1 Data Collection Methods Surveys Interviews

Focus Groups

Classroom Course Sites and Observations Materials

School and district administrators

n=5

n=6

0

—

Publicity, marketing, and presentation materials from the school and district

Teachers

n = 18

n=1

Two groups (n = 17)

n = 10

Haiku sites for two courses

Students

n = 264

—

Six groups (n = 26)

n = 10

Haiku sites for two courses

Parents

n = 62

n=2

—

—

—

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 159

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

160

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

In this chapter, we provide insight into this initiative from the perspectives of all stakeholders, but we focus on the intersection of blended learning and social presence specifically, using Whiteside’s (2007, 2015) Social Presence Model as the guiding framework.

Findings Our larger research question explored the overall experience in blended learning. Part of that experience centered on the degree to which students and teachers identified elements of social presence as being part of their course work and on understanding the extent to which students and teachers felt aspects of social presence were important to student learning in a blended environment. Participants were introduced to the Social Presence Model and its five interrelated aspects. Table 14.2 illustrates the simplified definitions offered to a younger audience of students to help them gain an understanding of each of the components of the Social Presence Model. Students were given the Social Presence Model with the definitions in Table 14.2. They were then asked about the extent to which they saw each component in their blended courses. Their responses in Table 14.3 have implications for understanding the role of social presence for their learning in the blended modality. Some students saw all aspects of the Social Presence Model in their blended learning classes, but the least visible aspects were affective association, community cohesion, and interaction intensity. They also focused on discussing social presence in their online classroom space rather than social presence across the modalities used for their classrooms. That students identified a lack of affect, or emotion, in their online environment is not surprising, as many Huntley High School courses use the online environment for discussion boards or student collaborative work in a wiki. However, a decreased amount of interaction intensity is noteworthy and matches with the perspectives many students share that learning online in their classes means learning on their own or teaching themselves, not working with their peers to master content. Students did, however, see a large amount of instructor involvement across the board, although focus groups with students TABLE 14.2 Definitions of Social Presence Model Components for Student Participants Social Presence Model Component Simplified Definition Affective association

How students and teachers show emotion online

Community cohesion

Seeing the class as a community; community spirit

Instructor involvement

How your teacher shows his or her involvement in your learning and in the learning of other students in the blended class

Interaction intensity

How students interact in the blended class and how often they interact with other people online

Knowledge and experience

Ways you share what you already know about the online class lessons and any experiences you have working with the content of those lessons

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 160

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

161

TABLE 14.3 Student Survey Responses to the Amount of Social Presence in Blended Course Work Social Presence Model Component

Student Response About Student Survey Comments Social Presence Model Component in Blended Courses

Affective association

N = 222 A lot, 29%, n = 65 Some, 40%, n = 88 A little, 14%, n = 30 Not at all, 18%, n = 39

“Online discussions show emotions from other students. It’s a way for students to say what they wouldn’t say in class.” “I was told that online etiquette for classes was to be professional and not use smiley faces or excessive exclamation points.”

Community cohesion

N = 216 A lot, 28%, n = 60 Some, 38%, n = 82 A little, 22%, n = 47 Not at all, 12%, n = 27

“We do not see each other every day and we barely talk in class.” “We discuss historical topics together and help each other out.” “I feel like the class is more separated because we do not meet every day. I feel like that would change if we had online discussions though.” “Being on your own is a big part of blended classes.”

Interaction intensity

N = 216 A lot, 29%, n = 62 Some, 31%, n = 67 A little, 24%, n = 51 Not at all, 17%, n = 36

“In my opinion we only interact because we have to and it is a grade. The discussions are always just one person commenting.” “We use discussion forums when we are talking about subjects that require many opinions not just one.” “I believe more interaction leads to a greater idea of community.”

Knowledge and experience

N = 211 A lot, 32%, n = 67 Some, 37%, n = 78 A little, 18%, n = 41 Not at all, 12%, n = 25

“We can select topics we already know about.” “Students are allowed to share their prior knowledge with other students who do not understand the subject as well.” “We don’t really share much.”

Instructor involvement

N = 218 A lot, 62%, n = 136 Some, 25%, n = 55 A little, 10%, n = 21 Not at all, 3%, n = 6

“I’ve really struggled with the class and my teacher has really tried to minimize my anxiety and stress.” “He doesn’t baby us and push us to do our homework because he’s trying to teach us self-discipline, but he helps by giving us review sheets.” “She is always offering help and on days where we do not [have] class she always encourages us to come to class just so she can help us out if we are struggling.”

Note. Not all numbers will equal 100 due to rounding.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 161

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

162

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

in different courses illuminated the fact that instructors were involved to varying extents in the online elements of the courses. We also asked students to identify how important they felt each of the aspects of the Social Presence Model was to their learning. Even though they did not see all aspects in their blended courses, they felt that all aspects were important to some degree. Two of the five elements of the Social Presence Model, interaction intensity and instructor involvement, are specifically connected with relationships between and among all members of the learning environment. Unsurprisingly, these aspects were essential elements for student satisfaction with and academic growth within this specific blended learning space. This finding supports the work of So and Brush (2008), which demonstrated a positive relationship between collaborative learning and satisfaction in online learning. This positive relationship was explained by two factors: learners’ engagement and the collaborative aspect of the course, which showed that students with high perceptions of social presence also had high perceptions of collaborative learning. Student responses in Table 14.4 speak to their varied beliefs of the importance of aspects of the Social Presence Model.

Implications for Practice: Considerations for Purposeful Blended Learning Design More students enter higher education having experienced some sort of blended learning in their secondary schools. In higher education, we need to do a better job of aligning our efforts to meet the needs, expectations, and experiences of students coming to us. Often these students expect a high level of instructor involvement in their blended courses and also feel a need to maintain community cohesion. The data from our case study suggest several important considerations for secondary schools considering blended learning initiatives (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2014). We have adapted these considerations for higher education institutions, especially for leaders and instructors embarking on new blended learning opportunities and initiatives: • Transform instruction through purposeful interactions • Build productive relationships • Recognize the potential of a critical, disruptive literacy

Transform Instruction Through Purposeful Interactions Blended learning opens opportunities for teachers to truly transform their instruction and their students’ learning and create purposeful connections. Purposeful interaction around course content through active and collaborative learning activities can build social presence by addressing community cohesion, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience. As discussed previously, the model in this case study allows built-in flex time for students. Blended classes meet face-to-face two or three times a week, and on the days they don’t meet, students have flex time. Rather than this flex time being treated as a break, or an “off ” day, students are expected to use the flex time for their blended

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 162

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 163

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

N = 213 Very important, 23%, n = 48 Important, 38%, n = 80 Somewhat important, 33%, n = 70 Not important, 7%, n = 15

N = 212 Very important, 29%, n = 62 Important, 40%, n = 85 Somewhat important, 24%, n = 51 Not important, 7%, n = 14

N = 211 Very important, 29%, n = 62 Important, 45%, n = 95 Somewhat important, 23%, n = 51 Not important, 2%, n = 5

N = 212 Very important, 36%, n = 76 Important, 40%, n = 85 Somewhat important, 21%, n = 45 Not important, 3%, n = 6

N = 212 Very important, 59%, n = 126 Important, 31%, n = 65 Somewhat important, 9%, n = 19 Not important, 1%, n = 2

Affective association

Community cohesion

Interaction intensity

Knowledge and experience

Instructor involvement

Note. Not all numbers will equal 100 due to rounding.

Student Perception of Importance of Social Presence Model Component

Social Presence Model Component

“[It’s a] two-way street. If you’re gonna teach blended, you have to be involved in it just as the kids are being involved in blended learning. It has to be like 50/50.” “Instructor involvement has to be the most key part of the blended learning process. If the instructor does not communicate well with the students, the students could be misinterpreting the material and going in the opposite direction of learning. They are also needed to keep the students on task and to make sure they really are doing the work out of class.” “The instructor is only somewhat important since we mostly learn independently.”

“Personal experience is great to bring, but classes are for learning so not knowing means that a student can learn more.” “Past knowledge and experience and emotion are not as vital to success in a blended class in my opinion because lack of these parts will not be detrimental to the students learning.”

“This level of work in a blended environment demands groups and interaction to be successful.”

“I didn’t sign up because I wanted to make friends so I’m fine not having the huge spirit of community. We still do group work sometimes, though, so we have that aspect of community.” “I think that getting along with classmates is huge because when you’re not in class, it is easier to go to a classmate than it is to a teacher.”

“Emotion in a class is always important because in order to learn I believe you should be somewhat interested in what you are learning.” “It is important for the teacher/students to convey emotion through online sources because without it, I feel like the class wouldn’t be as exciting. It would just be kind of lifeless.” “Emotion isn’t really needed when learning but it can create a comfortable learning environment.”

Student Survey and Focus Group Comments

TABLE 14.4 Student Survey Responses to the Importance of the Social Presence Model

164

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

learning course work, to get one-on-one time with their blended learning teacher, to set up tutoring sessions, and to engage more deeply in course content for other classes. They can work in the library, work from home, meet in small peer groups to work on projects, or even visit other teachers. Students, parents, teachers, and administrators see this flexibility as a significant benefit. One student talked about purposefully choosing blended classes for his elective course work, so he could use his flex time to get his harder classes done throughout the day, “almost like a study hall,” yet he also chose to take an advanced placement (AP) class through a blended approach (AP U.S. History student focus group). Another student explained how having flex time and becoming more responsible for her own learning was important to her decision to take blended learning classes: “That’s actually why I took this class, ’cause I wanted to prepare myself for the future where I’d be on my own and having to manage my time properly, so I figured if I tried really hard and do well in this class because I’m doing most of it out, not in the class, then it would make me feel a little more confident going into college” (AP Psychology student focus group). This flex time can become even more meaningful on a college campus, where students can engage in a multitude of activities related to the course that need to occur outside of the traditional classroom. For example, both of our institutions (University of North Carolina–Wilmington and University of Tampa) are highly engaged in applied learning and undergraduate inquiry as part of their quality enhancement plans. Applied learning—sometimes referred to as experiential learning, team-based learning, problembased learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, or service-learning— refers to any learning experience in which students apply what they learn to actively solve a problem and/or engage in a particular issue. As described by Barkley, Cross, and Major (2014), “the predominant conclusion from a half-century of research is that teachers cannot simply transfer their knowledge to students. . . . Meaningful and lasting learning occurs through personal, active engagement” (p. ix). The applied learning process not only is important for student learning but also can help develop teamwork and problem-solving skills that increase employability. For example, in an upper-level mass media communication blended class, the instructor could develop a list of applied activities students can engage in on campus during their flex time to practice the skills they are learning in class. Activities for this assignment could include working with a student organization to outline a social media plan, meeting with a service unit on campus (like the Writing Center) to determine its marketing needs and develop a plan, or working with dining services to survey students eating in one of the dining facilities on campus about their perceptions of the facility and their suggestions. Students could complete a certain number of activities, create and develop artifacts to compile in an online workspace (like a LiveBinder), reflect on their learning in a blog, and connect with their peers and instructor throughout—therefore, becoming more connected to their peers, their instructor, and their institution, as well as expanding the course community. Purposeful scheduling of classes could still allow students to come together to work in groups or meet with their instructor during the flex time. For example, if the class was offered Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., one week may be lecture and whole group work on Tuesday, with individual or group applied learning activities

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 164

5/12/2017 11:00:05 PM

BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

165

and the option to meet in the same classroom space on Thursday. In addition, faculty could use the face-to-face classroom space for enrichment activities that build on what the students have worked on individually outside of class, similar to a flipped-learning approach. Purposefully creating opportunities for instructor involvement based on students’ personalized needs is another way to incorporate a greater sense of social presence into blended courses. The focus equates to an individualized, personalized learning approach that helps students synthesize the content and focus on critical thinking while benefiting from a greater social presence.

Build Productive Relationships The stakeholders in this case study assert the power of building productive relationships and working together. After just a few years of piloting the blended learning initiative, teachers and administrators saw an increase of students reaching out for one-on-one support. Teachers expressed feeling a closer and more productive relationship with the students in blended classes because they communicated with them one-on-one more often. This effect is a surprise to some who expect the students to be less connected to their teachers in an online learning environment (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2014). Again, this finding aligns with the student responses to the value of instructor involvement in their learning experiences. A greater sense of connection with their instructors yields greater social presence. Again, purposeful design of blended learning classroom space in higher education institutions can also help students develop more productive relationships with their instructors in which students see instructors as aiding their growth rather than wielding the red pen and putting up walls they have to climb to get to the grade and course credits on the other side. With simple and inexpensive tools and strategies, instructors can introduce new ideas for reflection online that can continue to build connections among students. For example, with webcams and software, instructors can create video explanations of course content or review materials discussed in a face-to-face class, continuing to build community cohesion. Or, they can create space for flexible face-to-face or virtual office hours. As the blended learning coordinator explained, “We’re not just differentiating the time for the teacher. We’re also differentiating the time for the student and we’re differentiating the purpose.” Purposeful integration of social presence helps students see their instructors as valuable partners in their educational journey rather than those who simply deliver content.

Recognize the Potential of Social Presence as a Critical, Disruptive Literacy This case study showcases the importance of blended learning as a critical, disruptive literacy where blended learning opportunities provide students a stronger foundation of soft skills and personal responsibility and accountability. These skills can be strengthened through design decisions such as collaborative projects, applied learning, small group use of flex time, and others that are intended to build social presence throughout all aspects of the blended course. Academic leaders in the blended high school case study emphasized the importance of ensuring that students are ready for college and career when they

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 165

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

166

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

explained that this blended learning initiative prepares students to be future professionals by encouraging critical thinking, independent learning, and project management skills through purposeful collaborations. According to Allen and Seaman (2015), postsecondary academic leaders consistently rated blended courses as having superior student outcomes when compared to courses that were completely online or completely face-to-face. To maximize these outcomes, stakeholders should partner to leverage the potential of this critical literacy, as social presence requires considerable planning and consideration across modalities and content areas. Also, as Garrison and Vaughan (2008) argued, the virtual space needs to be well organized and include interactions among and between students and with their teacher to facilitate deeper learning and build social presence. Postsecondary institutions moving toward various blended and online learning initiatives may wish to consider the benefits of a blended model that pairs online connectedness with face-to-face supports, as showcased through the use of flex time and collaborative teaming, which provide options for student-to-student interaction, studentto-teacher one-on-one meeting times, teacher-to-small-group meetings, and teacher-towhole-group instructional time. With this approach, faculty need support to structure and design their blended learning courses to be more than an approach where students are “in class” a few hours a week and “doing outside work” the rest of the time. This shift to blended learning requires that teachers transition into a facilitator role or “guide on the side role” where students acquire knowledge through less traditional classroom means. Some teachers struggle to let go of these traditional roles. At institutions where blended learning is becoming more of a focus, there must be faculty development in place to create a learning environment and a network of support. Purposeful design of the blended environment with flex time gives students new college-level responsibilities, and it also allows them to work and seek help at their convenience. Academic leaders may consider instructional technology teams to provide opportunities for instructors to explore different models of blended learning, to carefully identify aspects of models that best align with their course content, to identify and meet student learning outcomes, and to account for the variances in their student populations.

Conclusion Overall, our research on multiple blended learning programs demonstrates that emotions and social presence matter greatly (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2005; Garrett Dikkers & Lewis, 2015; Garrett Dikkers et al., 2015; Garrett Dikkers et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2014, 2015; Whiteside, 2007, 2015; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2016; Whiteside et al., 2005). Through our detailed discussion of one case study, we provided insights from key stakeholders in a large blended learning initiative regarding the importance of social presence for student learning. Yet, future studies on both blended and online learning are necessary to understand the unique dynamics of learning in a variety of environments, as well as how to improve learning, satisfaction, and social presence in these environments. These studies on different types of online learning environments (hybrid or blended and fully online) are useful for instructors who wish to identify the ideal learning environment in the design and teaching of their courses. In addition,

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 166

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

167

continued research into the impacts of learning environments on social presence can help instructors achieve the level of social presence necessary for meaningful student learning. Most important, we find purposeful blended learning to have the power to disrupt learning, inspire reflection, and create space for innovation. We believe social presence can be a key factor in leveraging and harnessing that disruption and creating reflective, innovative learning environments.

Chapter Review • Blended learning opens opportunities for teachers to truly transform their instruction and their students’ learning and create purposeful connections. • Teachers expressed feeling a closer and more productive relationship with the students in blended classes because they communicated with them one-on-one more often. • Blended learning is a critical, disruptive literacy where blended learning opportunities provide students a stronger foundation of soft skills and personal responsibility and accountability. • Overall, our research on multiple blended learning programs demonstrates that emotions and social presence matter greatly. • Most important, we find purposeful blended learning to have the power to disrupt learning, inspire reflection, and create space for innovation.

References Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended Community of Inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250. Akyol, Z., Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the development of a Community of Inquiry. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3), 231–246. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online learning in the United States. Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/survey-reports-2014/ Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a Community of Inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Biluc, A., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Piggott, L. (2010). Learning through face-to-face and online discussions: Associations between students’ conceptions, approaches, and academic performance in political science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 512–524. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 167

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

168

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. (2016). Blended learning. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/blended-learning/ Cross, J. (2006). Foreword. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. xvii–xxiii). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Garrett Dikkers, A., Hughes, J., & McLeod, S. (2005). Bridging the no-man’s land between school technology and effective leadership. Technological Horizons in Education (T.H.E.) Journal, 32(11), 20–22, 24. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2015). A district’s move to virtual summer coursework. School Administrator, 72(4), 13–15. Garrett Dikkers, A., Lewis, S., & Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Blended learning for students with disabilities: The North Carolina Virtual Public School’s co-teaching model. In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online: Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 25, pp. 67–93). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited Group. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2008, August). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize online learning. Paper presented at the 24th annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2013, October). Creating social presence in asynchronous online learning. Paper presented at the Global Learning Technology Conference, Wilmington, NC. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2014, December). Do you blend? Huntley High School does. eLearn Magazine, 2014(12). doi:10.1145/2693839.2686759 Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hughes, J. E., McLeod, S., Garrett Dikkers, A., Brahier, B., & Whiteside, A. L. (2005). School technology leadership: Theory to practice [Special issue]. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 51–55. Lewis, S., Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2014). Autonomy and responsibility: Online learning as a solution for at-risk high school students. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 29(2), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/ view/883/1543 Lewis, S., Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2015). Providing chances for students to recover credit: Is online learning a solution? In M. F. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online: Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 25, pp. 143–157). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited Group. Overbaugh, R. C., & Nickel, C. (2011). A comparison of student satisfaction and value of academic community between blended and online sections of a university-level educational foundations course. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 164–174. Ritter, C., Polnick, B., Fink, R., & Oescher, J. (2010). Classroom learning communities in educational leadership: A comparison study of three delivery options. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 96–100. Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Liu, J. (2005). School climate: Sense of classroom and school communities in online and on-campus higher education courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 361–374. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231071 527?accountid=12085 So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers and Education, 51, 318–336.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 168

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

BLENDING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION

169

Tempelaar, D. T., Niculescu, A., Rienties, B., Gijselaers, W. M., & Giesbers, B. (2012). How achievement emotions impact students’ decisions for online learning, and what precedes those emotions. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 161–169. Whiteside, A. L. (2007). Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L. (2011). Integrating the Social Presence Model to maximize blended and online learning experiences: Effective practices. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http:// olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/integrating-social-presence-modelmaximize-blended-and-online-learning-experienc Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/453/137 Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2009, April). Strategies for maximizing learning outcomes and student engagement in online and blended learning environments. Workshop presented at the Academy of Distinguished Teachers Teaching and Learning Conference, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2010, October). Strategies to maximize online interactions using the Social Presence Model. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2012). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize interactions in online environments. In K. St. Amant & S. Kelsey (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication across cultures: International interactions in online environments (pp. 395–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2016). Leveraging the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on emotion in online and blended learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. P. McCreery (Eds.), Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 225–241). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014a, May–June). The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/ article/power-social-presence-learning Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014b, October). Looking to the future of social presence: Theory, research, and practice. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2015, April). Connectedness, learning, and the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on online and blended learning in higher and K–12 education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Whiteside, A. L., Hughes, J. E., & McLeod, S. (2005). Interconnecting cognition, contact, and comprehension: The influence of social presence in a hybrid-model certificate program. In Proceedings of the New Media Research Conference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Zhan, Z., & Mei, H. (2013). Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students. Computers and Education, 69(1), 131–138.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 169

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

15 PERSONALIZED LEARNING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS Somer Lewis, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Aimee L. Whiteside

A

little bit of kindness does go a long way, and for some diverse populations of students, the value of kindness, connectedness, and social presence in an educational setting goes even further. Moreover, the anonymity of online education, which often conceals disabilities and showcases abilities, coupled with social presence strategies can make life-changing differences for hundreds of thousands of at-risk and differently abled students who are currently enrolled in our higher education institutions. In 2009, according to the Institute of Education Sciences’s (IES) “Students With Disabilities at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions” report, over 700,000 students identified one or more of the following disabilities: difficulty hearing, difficulty seeing, difficulty speaking or language impairments, mobility limitations, orthopedic impairments, traumatic brain injuries, specific learning disabilities (attention-deficit disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder), autism spectrum disorders, cognitive difficulties, intellectual disabilities, or health impairments or conditions (chronic conditions, such as mental illness and psychological or psychiatric conditions) (Raue & Lewis, 2011). Trends indicate that this number is on the rise (Raue & Lewis, 2011; Wolanin & Steele, 2004). The IES defined students with disabilities as “those who reported that they had one or more of the following conditions: a specific learning disability, a visual handicap, hard of hearing, deafness, a speech disability, an orthopedic handicap, or a health impairment” and noted that they compose 11% of the undergraduate population (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). In Higher Education Opportunities for Students With Disabilities: A Primer for Policymakers, Wolanin and Steele (2004) concluded, “In higher education, the student is protected against discrimination and provided an equal opportunity, but there is no process aimed at achieving success” (p. viii). We see social presence in online learning as a restorative equalizer that can play a pivotal role in helping all types of students achieve success. Researchers believe online learning is well positioned to meet the needs of a diverse population of students in both K–12 (Barbour, 2009; Cavanaugh, Barbour, & Clark, 2009; Lewis, Garrett Dikkers, & Whiteside, 2015) and postsecondary learning environments (Bischel, 2013; Rose & Blomeyer, 2007; Vasquez & Serianni, 2012). Similar to K–12 virtual and blended schools, the degree to which online learning holds value in 170

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 170

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

PERSONALIZED LEARNING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

171

postsecondary institutions has steadily increased, with 70.8% of institutions citing the expansion of online learning as a critical factor in their long-term strategic growth (Allen & Seaman, 2015). In addition, chief academic officers have cited online learning as critical to providing access to students (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Bischel, 2013). Similar to their K–12 counterparts, researchers believe postsecondary students with disabilities continue to be overlooked or left behind (Barnard-Brak & Sulak, 2010). According to Johnson, Zascavage, and Gerber (2008), the number of students with disabilities enrolling in postsecondary institutions has dramatically increased, with almost all public two-year and four-year institutions enrolling at least one student with a disability (Raue & Lewis, 2011). This increase has given rise to the number of supports and services available to students, yet it carries additional implications for online learning. Roberts, Crittenden, and Crittenden (2011) found students with an identified disability perceived their disability as negatively affecting their capacity to succeed in online course work, even when their request for accommodation was met. Although students with disabilities attend postsecondary institutions at rates comparable to those of their peers without disabilities, only 34% attain a four-year degree (National Council on Disability, 2015). Burgstahler (2015) cited the potential of online learning to provide access to all learners, including students with disabilities, but only when they possess the skills and technology to participate in the online environment. To better meet the needs of this diverse population of students, postsecondary institutions may stand to learn from their K–12 counterparts. By making purposeful changes to online instruction, including the implementation of social presence as a critical literacy, K–12 virtual schools have seen success with student populations who may not have otherwise been successful. As these students transition from high school to postsecondary education, higher education faculty are challenged to create an online environment that simultaneously fosters a sense of belonging and supports students’ unique needs.

Learning From Online K–12 Students Over the past four years, our research has examined the benefits and challenges of online learning and the impact of social presence for high school students identified as being atrisk of dropping out of school. Our findings have major implications for postsecondary faculty as these students transition to two-year and four-year institutions. The high school students in our research face a number of challenges, including low achievement, challenging family circumstances, and learning disabilities. Their risk of dropping out increases when multiple issues are combined (Archambault et al., 2010; Hammond, Linton, Smink, & Drew, 2007; Lewis, Whiteside, & Garrett Dikkers, 2014; Planty et al., 2009; Rapp, Eckes, & Plurker, 2006; Tompkins & Deloney, 1994; Watson & Gemin, 2008). The case studies examined here are part of a longer, fouryear mixed-methods study analyzing student, teacher, and administrator perspectives of online learning. Students in these case study populations were taking online course work through the North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS). Each study examined the following subgroups of the larger NCVPS population (see Table 15.1 for respondent details of the subgroups):

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 171

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

172

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

• Credit recovery (CR) students had previously failed a class in their traditional brick-and-mortar school and accessed online course work to recover credit. • Students in performance learning centers (PLC) had not been successful in a traditional high school setting, perhaps because of low achievement, family variables, or a learning disability. • Students in the occupational course of study (OCS) have an identified cognitive delay or physical impairment and are taking NCVPS courses through a blended, cotaught model supported by an online content instructor and a face-to-face special education teacher.

TABLE 15.1 At-Risk Student Population Research Overview Case Study

Population

Respondents (N)

PLC

PLC students

63

NCVPS district-based summer school

CR students

26

NCVPS OCS and CR

CR and OCS students

833

Note. PLC = performance learning centers, CR = credit recovery, OCS = occupational course of study, NCVPS = North Carolina Virtual Public School.

Our longitudinal study explored the benefits and challenges of online learning, including whether and how the online environment helped or hindered student experiences. In addition, we examined student perspectives of the Social Presence Model (SPM) and discovered a number of implications for online learning. Our research questions included the following: • What are the experiences of at-risk adolescent students in an online learning environment? • What support and other systems need to be in place for students to be successful? • To what extent does social presence affect learning in an online environment?

Benefits and Challenges of Online Learning Findings across multiple surveys of students yielded the same results. Students across all case studies consistently identified pacing and the ability to work ahead as significant benefits and responsibility and time management as significant challenges of online learning (see Table 15.2). One NCVPS CR student commented on the challenges of online learning: Not only time management, balancing school, a job, and an online class, while taking care of my father is a lot on my shoulders. And all of the work. School work, online work, and job work, while cooking and helping my dad out is tough.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 172

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

PERSONALIZED LEARNING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

173

TABLE 15.2 The Benefits and Challenges of Online Learning for At-Risk Populations of Students Benefits of Online Learning

Challenges of Online Learning

Pacing

Ability to Work Responsibility Ahead

Time Management

PLC

95.5%, n = 62

96.8%, n = 62

73.0%, n = 62

65.0%, n = 62

NCVPS districtbased summer schoola

92.0%, n = 23

80.0%, n = 23

68.2%, n = 22

59.1%, n = 22

NCVPS OCS and CRb

61.9%, n = 695

47.3%, n = 695

50.0%, n = 646

40.0%, n = 646

Note. PLC = performance learning centers, CR = credit recovery, OCS = occupational course of study, NCVPS = North Carolina Virtual Public School. Every participant did not respond to each question; therefore, n equals the number of respondents to each question. a. A total of 80% of students in the NCVPS district-based summer school survey also identified the opportunity to retake a course they previously failed as a significant benefit. b. A total of 55.68% of students in the NCVPS OCS and CR survey also identified the opportunity to graduate as a significant benefit.

As students face more and more and more responsibility, managing their time online is a struggle. This struggle is further complicated in postsecondary institutions, as students are facing even greater autonomy and more responsibility and must advocate for themselves, often without the support of the family members and teachers who may have supported them through high school. Our research revealed that students struggled with the dichotomy of autonomy and responsibility, as well as the hard skills needed to be successful online. Almost half (42.6%) of CR and OCS students and a startling 80% of PLC students stated that no one had taught them strategies or skills to learn online before they started their virtual class. Many also commented that “toughing it out” was their personal strategy for persevering in the online environment. Research has told us that developing both hard and soft skills is essential to student success in the online environment (Fichten et al., 2009; Lewis et al., 2014). For students who have already struggled with low achievement and who are facing a learning disability, lack of preparation and development of these skills may make online course work seem like an insurmountable task. To address these needs and the benefits and challenges students face, postsecondary institutions can examine social presence as a critical literacy in helping to design and organize course work so that it is accessible, multimodal, and organized in a way that allows students to connect with content, their instructor, and each other as learners.

Implications of Social Presence Similar to students’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of online learning were their perceptions of the SPM and the degree to which they felt social presence was important to their learning. Whiteside’s (2007, 2015) SPM integrates five key elements (affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience) that when taken together determine students’ motivation and

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 173

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

174

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

Figure 15.1. Social Presence Model. Affective association Knowledge and experience

Community cohesion Social presence

Interaction intensity

Instructor involvement

readiness to make sense of their peers’ meaning-making processes. The SPM depicted in Figure 15.1 illustrates the five key elements of the SPM and serves as a guiding framework. In each case study, the impact of social presence is clear. A strong majority of students felt each aspect of the SPM was important or very important to their online learning experience (see Table 15.3). In addition, PLC and CR district-based summer school students identified instructor involvement and knowledge and experience as the most significant aspects of their online learning experience. CR and OCS traditional calendar students also included interaction intensity as an important component of building social presence online. One CR student shared her perspective regarding the importance of building social presence: Community cohesion is important because I need to interact with people in my coaching sessions so I get that “classroom environment.” My online teacher is very involved, which is great, because I know I can go to him/her if I have any questions, problems, or concerns. It’s especially nice when I have a technical issue and I can tell my online teacher what the problem is so they don’t count the problem against me. There is a lot of interaction intensity, and I think it’s great because I need to have different people to interact with other than just my online teacher. TABLE 15.3 Percentage of Students Identifying Components of the Social Presence Model as Important or Very Important PLC

NCVPS DistrictBased Summer School

NCVPS, OCS, and CR

Affective association

62.5%, n = 56

52.0%, n = 25

68.5%, n = 605

Community cohesion

67.3%, n = 56

43.5%, n = 25

66.6%, n = 605

Instructor involvement

89.3%, n = 56

81.9%, n = 25

72.1%, n = 605

Interaction intensity

64.3%, n = 56

60.9%, n = 25

72.1%, n = 605

Knowledge and experience

81.3%, n = 56

79.2%, n = 25

78.3%, n = 605

Note. PLC = performance learning centers, CR = credit recovery, OCS = occupational course of study, NCVPS = North Carolina Virtual Public School. Every participant did not respond to each question; therefore, n equals the number of respondents to each question.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 174

5/12/2017 11:00:06 PM

PERSONALIZED LEARNING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

175

Students also shared their perspective of the online environment when social presence was lacking. A PLC student commented, “I don’t really talk to classmates much. I think it’s kinda weird because none of us know each other and none of them are really much help if I have questions.” If an instructor fails to build social presence in his or her online classroom, students often feel disconnected from their peers, which can contribute to their lack of success in the online environment, especially for students who are already at risk (Lewis et al., 2015).

Discussion of Findings and Implications for Higher Education The results of our study have major implications for faculty in postsecondary institutions. As at-risk students and students with disabilities matriculate to two-year and fouryear colleges, they often require the supports provided at the high school level, but they fail to request accommodations. The National Council on Disability (2015) reported only 19% of students with disabilities request accommodations at the postsecondary level compared to 87% in K–12 schools. Our findings identify a need to continue these supports for online students, so they not only have the necessary skills and tools to be successful in a growing online environment but also feel connected to a community of peers who will support and challenge their growth as unique learners.

Implement Educational Technology and Intentional Course Design As students transition to postsecondary education, they often lack the ability to advocate for themselves and the supports needed to be successful in a more autonomous college setting. The lack of this skill is amplified in the online environment, as there is often a disconnect between students’ perceived needs and the technology and support postsecondary institutions provide (Bischel, 2013). This duality is supported in our K–12 research, as students appreciated the independence of online learning but struggled with the discipline needed to be successful in a self-paced environment. According to Allen and Seaman (2015), 68.3% of academic leaders agree that completing online course work requires more discipline than course work in a face-to-face classroom. As more at-risk students and students with disabilities transition from high school to institutions of higher education, faculty are challenged to implement educational technology and effective pedagogy that provides flexible access but simultaneously supports student learning and connectedness in virtual classrooms. To tackle this need for support, faculty may consider the benefits of educational technologies that provide flexible access, improve mastery of content, improve student attitudes, and allow faculty to individualize instruction (Lewis et al., 2014; Smink & Schargel, 2004). Adaptive technologies, such screen readers and note-taking software, not only provide access for students but also enhance the level of social presence in online course work. Students are provided the opportunity to interact with content based on prior knowledge and experience, and they are supported by their instructor as they make their way through new or difficult course content. Instructors are purposeful in their organization of content and overall course design so that students are able to move intuitively through lessons or units of instruction. For example, when video transcriptions or

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 175

5/12/2017 11:00:07 PM

176

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

captions are available, students may download and print materials. Instructors can also provide short tutorials for students who may be less familiar with course tools, such as discussion boards, blogs, and personal journals. Tandy and Meacham (2009) suggested, “The concept of adaptability is crucial to an understanding of accessibility” (p. 318). Content may be easily accessible online but lacks adaptability for students with disabilities. Their research reminds us that rather than retrofitting course work to meet the needs of these unique learners, courses should be developed from the start with the universal design for learning (UDL) concept in mind. UDL principles consider the what, how, and why of learning by providing for multiple means of representation, action, expression, and engagement with course content (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2016). This model aligns with the components of social presence, as both instructors and students find opportunities to, for example, build community cohesion to more meaningfully engage in content and with each other as learners. We suggest that instructors design spaces in their online courses that allow for more informal connections early on and throughout the course. These spaces allow students to make connections to peers and to their instructor, which may enhance learning later. Students may be more willing to ask questions, contact their instructor regarding individual needs, and communicate misunderstandings rather than try to “tough it out” and persevere in isolation.

Develop Skills and Create Connections For high school students who have traditionally struggled in a face-to-face setting, the benefits of online learning may outweigh the challenges. PLC students, for example, who had not experienced success in a traditional face-to-face classroom, appreciated the opportunity to learn online but were never taught how. Similar to their peers, they also struggled with the dichotomy of independence and time management. For these students to experience success in postsecondary institutions, where learning is often more autonomous in nature, faculty must continue to support the skills needed to be successful in online learning and design opportunities for students to feel connected. More specifically, faculty may focus on building community cohesion and increase the level of interaction intensity within their online courses. As shared in our research, more than half of the high school students surveyed were never taught to learn online. These deficits follow them into their college course work. Fichten and colleagues (2009) examined problems and solutions in online learning as reported by students with disabilities, campus disability service providers, professors, and online learning professionals from Canadian colleges and universities. Participants identified problems related to technical difficulties (downloading and opening files); accessibility of websites; accessibility of time-restricted activities, course materials, and learning management systems; and their own lack of experience in online learning. Teaching students with disabilities the hard skills needed to engage in online course work is one solution for them, as these skills will ultimately contribute to better time management and ease of access. What is also needed, however, is practice with and scaffolding of soft skills, such as time management, communication, and collaboration. Just as students are provided tutorials and links to resources that support the technical aspects of online

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 176

5/12/2017 11:00:07 PM

PERSONALIZED LEARNING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

177

learning, they must also be provided with opportunities to explore their ability to collaborate and communicate in the online classroom. Simultaneously developing students’ skills and providing opportunities for students to connect with their instructor and their peers through opportunities that develop interaction intensity and community cohesion guarantees that students are not further isolated in their virtual environment. Gerrard (2007) discussed the importance of presence for students with disabilities, highlighting their need for structure and uniformity to promote ease of access and promoting collaborative learning through discussion boards and online group work to build community. For some instructors, this may involve increased availability through various means, such as online office hours through web chat or videoconferencing, assignments designed to allow for early and continuous feedback, or purposefully constructed online spaces where students can meet and connect with each other for peer support.

Conclusion Researchers agree that the number of college students with disabilities will continue to rise (National Council on Disability, 2015). As long as online learning is viewed as a significant factor in the strategic growth of postsecondary institutions, students with disabilities and those viewed as “at risk” in K–12 settings will continue to enroll in postsecondary online course work. As faculty consider innovative ways to make online learning accessible and make students feel connected in the online environment, the benefits of educational technology, the continued support of soft skills for online learning, and the development of social presence as a critical literacy for connectedness will provide a pathway toward student success.

Chapter Review • As at-risk students and students with disabilities matriculate to two-year and fouryear colleges, they often require the supports provided at the high school level, but they fail to request accommodations. • Faculty need to consider the benefits of educational technologies that provide flexible access, improve mastery of content, improve student attitudes, and allow them to individualize instruction (Lewis et al., 2014; Smink & Schargel, 2004). • Simultaneously developing students’ skills and providing opportunities for students to connect with their instructor and their peers through opportunities that develop interaction intensity and community cohesion guarantees that students are not further isolated in their virtual environment.

References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 177

5/12/2017 11:00:07 PM

178

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

Archambault, L., Diamond, D., Coffey, M., Foures-Aalbu, D., Richardson, J., Zygouris-Coe, V., Brown, R., & Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Research committee issues brief: An exploration of at-risk learners and online education. Vienna, VA: International Association for K–12 Online Learning. Barbour, M. K. (2009). Today’s student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise. Journal of Distance Learning, 13(1), 5–25. Barnard-Brak, L., & Sulak, T. (2010). Online versus face-to-face accommodations among college students with disabilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 81. Bischel, J. (2013). The state of e-learning in higher education: An eye towards growth and increased access. Louisville, CO: Educause. Burgstahler, S. (2015). Opening doors or slamming them shut? Online learning practices and students with disabilities. Social Inclusion, 3(6), 69–79. doi:10.17645/si.v3i6.420 Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K–12 online learning: A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/607/1182 Fichten, C. S., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J. V., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N., & Wolforth, J. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 241–256. Retrieved from http://search.proquest .com.liblink.uncw.edu/docview/1287039126?accountid=14606 Gerrard, C. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Enhancing the learning experience for students with disabilities. Campus-wide Information Systems, 24(3), 199–206. doi:10.1108/10650740710762239 Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout risk factors and exemplary programs. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities in Schools, Inc. Johnson, G., Zascavage, V., & Gerber, S. (2008). Junior college experience and students with learning disabilities: Implications for success at the four-year university. College Student Journal, 42(4), 1162. Lewis, S., Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2015). Providing chances for students to recover credit: Is online learning a solution? In M. Rice (Ed.), Exploring pedagogies for diverse learners online advances in research on teaching (pp. 139–154). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Lewis, S., Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2014). Autonomy and responsibility: Online learning as a solution for at-risk high school students. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 29(2), 1–11. Retrieved from http://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/ view/883/1543 National Center on Universal Design of Learning. (2016). What is universal design of learning? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl National Council on Disability. (2015). Briefing paper: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA): The implications for increasing the employment of people with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.ncd.gov/publications/2015/05192015/#Endnote5 Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., Kewal Ramani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K., & Dinkes, R. (2009). The condition of education 2009 (NCES 2009–081). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009081.pdf Rapp, K. E., Eckes, S. E., & Plurker, J. A. (2006). Cyber charter schools in Indiana: Policy implications of the current statutory language. Education Policy Brief, 4(3). Retrieved from http:// ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N3_Winter_2006_CyberCharter.pdf Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: First look. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011018.pdf

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 178

5/12/2017 11:00:07 PM

PERSONALIZED LEARNING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

179

Roberts, J., Crittenden, L., & Crittenden, J. (2011). Students with disabilities and online learning: A cross-institutional study of perceived satisfaction with accessibility compliance and services. Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 242–250. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.004 Rose, R., & Blomeyer, R. (2007). Access and equity in online classes and virtual schools. Vienna, VA: International Association for K–12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/ research/docs/NACOL_EquityAccess.pdf Smink, J., & Schargel, F. P. (Eds.). (2004). Helping students graduate: A strategic approach to dropout prevention. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center/Network. Tandy, C., & Meacham, M. (2009). Removing the barriers for students with disabilities: Accessible online and web-enhanced courses. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29(3), 313–328. doi:10.1080/08841230903022118 Tompkins, R., & Deloney, P. (1994). Rural students at risk in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/rural/atrisk/ U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Fast facts. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/ display.asp?id=60 Vasquez, E., & Serianni, B. A. (2012). Research and practice in distance education for K–12 students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(4), 33–42. Watson, J., & Gemin, B. (2008). Promising practices in online learning: Using online learning for at-risk students and credit recovery. Vienna, VA: International Association of K–12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/research/promisingpractices/NACOL_CreditRecovery_ PromisingPractices.pdf Whiteside, A. L. (2007). Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/453/137 Wolanin, T. R., & Steele, P. E. (2004). Higher education opportunities for students with disabilities: A primer for policymakers. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 179

5/12/2017 11:00:07 PM

16 OVERCOMING ISOLATION ONLINE Strategies to Enhance Social Presence in Practice Aimee L. Whiteside, Amy Garrett Dikkers, and Somer Lewis

M

ost higher education leaders see online learning as a critical factor in their longterm planning. Allen and Seaman (2015) indicated that the percentage of chief academic leaders reporting online learning as critical to their strategy reached a new high of nearly 71%. Despite this fact, these Babson Research Survey Group directors also suggest that online course work remains challenged by retention rates and other barriers that hinder the forward progression of online learning. As an example of barriers faced, some students reported struggling with issues of isolation and disconnectedness in their online learning environments (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). Likewise, a simple yet constant theme in the exploration of online and blended learning experiences is importance of the human connection for learning (Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, & Lewis, 2013; Whiteside, 2015; Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014a). Instructors play a fundamental guiding role in cultivating these human connections, especially in the beginning of the term. Instructors’ abilities to create connections, successfully facilitate discussion, and initiate key introductory icebreaker activities serve as the leading factors for students’ motivation within the course (Conrad & Donaldson, 2004, 2011; Wenger, 1998; Wu & Hiltz, 2004). This sense of connection is key to the development of social presence in online learning environments, and heightened social presence can lead to greater student satisfaction and higher levels of retention (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2013).

Social Presence as a Solution Cultivating supportive online learning environments is an art that begins with nurturing connectedness and community through social presence. The Social Presence Model depicted in Figure 16.1 serves as the guiding framework. It centers on five integrated elements (affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience) that together determine participants’ motivation to take an active role in their own and their peers’ meaning-making processes (Whiteside, 2007, 2015). 180

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 180

5/12/2017 11:00:07 PM

OVERCOMING ISOLATION ONLINE

181

Figure 16.1. Social Presence Model. Affective association Knowledge and experience

Community cohesion Social presence

Interaction intensity

Instructor involvement

Throughout the past decade, we have researched, studied, and explored social presence in online and blended learning experiences across different modalities, contexts, and audiences (see Table 16.1). In each study, the power of social presence was clear. The study results revealed the impact of the elements of the Social Presence Model and the way that each component mattered to the participants’ learning experience (Garrett Dikkers & Whiteside, 2008, 2013; Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, & Lewis, 2012, 2013; Whiteside, 2007; Whiteside & Garrett Dikkers, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2016; Whiteside, Garrett Dikkers, & Lewis, 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Whiteside, Hughes, & McLeod, 2005). TABLE 16.1 Social Presence Research Overview (U.S. Schools) Case Study

Level

Format

Years

School technology leadership program

Graduate

Blended

2003–2007

Human rights education

Undergraduate

Online

2008–2010

Large southeastern virtual school system

High school

Online

2011–present

Suburban midwestern high school

High school

Blended

2014–present

Practical Strategies to Enhance Connectedness Our long-term research with instructors and students suggests the following key strategies that faculty can employ to enhance connectedness in online and blended learning environments. • • • • • •

Design an intuitive, organized learning environment Cultivate connections to build community Connect content to applied and authentic learning experiences Understand a variety of tools and media Harness reflection and prior experiences Provide early and continuous feedback

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 181

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

182

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

• Design with assessment in mind • Encourage change in small steps

Design an Intuitive, Organized Learning Environment Before you can integrate social presence into a learning environment, the space must feel planned, organized, and intuitive. Whether you use the Quality Matters® (2015) recommendation for a “Start Here” beginning location or a similarly intuitive starting point, students and instructors must feel confident that the online learning space is functional and interactive in a way that is similar to what they would expect in a face-to-face classroom. All components within a course should be meaningful and interrelated, with instructors using a systems perspective to create a well-designed course structure (Dick & Carey, 1996; Lee, Dickerson, & Winslow, 2012). As online learning becomes the norm, faculty should be intentional regarding the structure of the course. Modules, lessons, or folders should follow a predictable pathway toward completion. Unclear navigation tools and lack of purposeful direction can cause frustration and confusion early on, making it more difficult for students to complete the course. Lee and colleagues (2012) cited 10 foundational components derived from research on distance education as a starting point for online instructors looking to standardize course structure: announcements, course information, instructor information, course modules, discussions, submissions, assessments, grades, e-mail, and course support. As learning management systems continue to become more intuitive, faculty may seek to achieve a more individualized approach by considering authoring tools that respond to individual student needs and preferences in regard to course presentation, navigation, and content.

Cultivate Connections to Build Community To help diminish feelings of disconnectedness and isolation among online participants, faculty should integrate social activities to establish connections and relationships before adding academic content into the course and create social areas in online spaces to encourage community building within the course or program. Conrad and Donaldson (2004, 2011) called this starting phase of engagement “social negotiating” or connecting, and they discussed the importance of creating “a nurturing and safe environment for the student where her or his input is encouraged and valued” (2011, p. 17). The goal of this initial phase of teaching online is to connect with students and give them opportunities to connect with each other and with the instructor. The process can include a series of icebreakers, such as assigning and modeling an extended introductory profile with three to five rich paragraphs about the individual to help establish connections within the course community. As an innovative twist, faculty might assign students to design or color a coat of arms divided into four quadrants and ask them to discuss in a two- to four-minute video how that coat of arms describes them. Faculty can also shape the online learning environment with informal discussion areas, social and informational lounges, or virtual cafés for students. Showing creativity and personality in these names and adding a touch of alliteration can create an inviting

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 182

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

OVERCOMING ISOLATION ONLINE

183

community for learners, for example, Caribou Café (colder climates) or Ocean Oasis (warmer climates). A play on the professor’s name can be fun as well. Many faculty members integrate web conferencing spaces for conversations and advising purposes. Lowenthal (see Swan et al., 2015) employed a “Happy Hour” for his virtual office hours as a creative alternative to the tired, archaic, building-oriented concept of “office hours.” Innovative practices that increase availability for students show them that faculty are invested in their learning and in them individually. Students in our research discussed how a sense of community reduces stress and loneliness and allows them to help each other be successful in class (Garrett Dikkers et al., 2013).

Connect Content to Applied and Authentic Learning Experiences With the emergence of new technology, the opportunity for students to learn by doing is a possibility now more than ever before. Creating authentic learning opportunities that allow students to engage with content versus simply learning about content promotes learning as both a cognitive act and a social act (Lombardi, 2007). These acts relate to the knowledge and experience element of the Social Presence Model. Learners’ prior knowledge and their collective experiences factor into the level of social presence in a given learning experience because they increase the opportunities for shared connections and continued interactions with each other. Incorporating applied learning techniques into the online environment adds another dimension to the learning experience. As Ash and Clayton (2009) described, “Learning is maximized when it is active, engaged and collaborative. [Use of ] applied learning pedagogy provides students with opportunities to connect theory and practice, to learn in unfamiliar contexts, to interact with others unlike themselves, and to practice using knowledge and skills” (p. 25). Adding a twist to traditional instructional techniques, technology and creativity allow for a variety of applied learning possibilities. For example, students studying World War II may work collaboratively to access and reflect on an online archive of photographs, letters, art, and other related resources to support critical thinking and discuss the implications of war. Students also can work with outside clients to solve a problem; use technology tools to compile work from a period of time to create a virtual portfolio; or engage in case analyses in which they identify, research, analyze, and discuss critical issues raised by course content. To support authentic learning experiences, faculty should create opportunities for learning by providing access to asynchronous and synchronous communication tools within their course structure. These tools support collaboration, knowledge sharing, and seamless interaction between the students and the course instructor.

Understand a Variety of Tools and Media Today, we are showered with a wide array of media to help us enrich our course content; as we determine course tools, it is also important to identify various media and resources aimed at connectedness. Examples include collaboration tools, shared calendars, blogs, wikis, online discussions, annotation software, and polling tools, as well as various content-specific applications. Collaboration tools and annotation software can serve as powerful tools for online peer review of written reports and essays.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 183

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

184

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

As always, when introducing new tools, we should consider students’ aptitude with technology, their level of interest, their learning needs, the extent and constraints of the content, and the overall context of the learning experience. Instructors might also offer students a choice of tools to empower them to explore their options within a genre of tools and to support their individual learning styles.

Harness Reflection and Prior Experiences Critical reflection is a powerful tool that can generate and deepen learning, as well as record the level of learning that has taken place (Ash & Clayton, 2009). Critical reflection lends itself well to online courses because it puts the instructor in a facilitating or coaching role and puts more of the responsibility for learning in the hands of the student (Brooks, Harris, & Clayton, 2010). Reflection and prior experience relate to the knowledge and experience element of the Social Presence Model. Learners’ prior knowledge and their reflections on their experiences factor into the level of social presence because they increase the opportunities for connections and potential interactions with each other. However, this concept is often new to students and faculty members, and effectively incorporating critical reflection into a course takes careful consideration. Reflection lends itself as a powerful formative assessment tool, encouraging learners to actively reflect on course readings and assignments in relation to their prior experiences, interests, and career plans. In this metacognitive approach, learners take ownership of their learning and autonomously acquire additional knowledge as needed. Learners determine their current knowledge level and what they hope to learn by the end of the course. Metacognitive opportunities help learners tap into prior knowledge and experiences and transfer their knowledge to other situations, which can increase their satisfaction. Also, when instructors purposefully integrate authentic or experiential learning practices—that, when possible, refer to practitioners’ actual materials and situations— students obtain critical application skills that will assist their transition into the workplace. As a teacher noted, “A learning community should reflect the way humans live out their lives. The Social Presence Model appears to me to be a model of real-life interactions” (Whiteside et al., 2014a, 2014b).

Provide Early and Continuous Feedback A common barrier to successful online learning is students’ concern that they are missing something important in the online space or not completing initial assignments correctly. Recognizing students’ need for early and continuous feedback on their academic performance contributes to social presence and can positively affect student performance and retention. It affects social presence because feedback serves as a primary and important communication channel between instructors and students. Instructors may choose to begin with a diagnostic assessment in the first week that builds on students’ prior experiences and provides them with early successes. Early, formative feedback helps students quickly understand their progress. In fact, our research suggests that the earlier the feedback is provided, the more successful the learning experience will be for everyone involved (Whiteside et al., 2014a, 2014b).

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 184

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

OVERCOMING ISOLATION ONLINE

185

We also suggest partnering with instructional technology departments to design automated mechanisms that maximize personalization for learners without absorbing too much of the instructors’ time. For example, you might write a single letter to students with key points of feedback, and your instructional technology department then could help you personalize it by populating the student’s name and allowing you to add specific comments as needed.

Design With Assessment in Mind Along with building opportunities for reflection and authentic learning, instructors can include multiple simple formative assessments in course content to help guide student learning and help students connect with the content through multiple methods. We must be driven by pedagogy, but we must also be mindful of mapping our learning outcomes and instructional activities to formative and summative assessments. It is perfectly acceptable for some activities to be completed as individual opportunities for students to measure their own learning independently of the learning of others. If social connectedness is a goal in the learning experience, however, that goal must be connected with course outcomes, activities, and assessments.

Encourage Change in Small Steps Even the most adept, advanced instructor should try not to do too much at one time. Multiple, simultaneous new features and interventions can consume instructors’ time and begin to chip away at their sanity. Just as we suggest small-scale implementation for our students, we should also allow ourselves to implement just one new feature at a time. If we implement multiple new strategies and activities at once, in the end, it may not be clear which features yielded significant learning for our students and which caused frustration and discontent. Thus, we strongly encourage incremental, planned change.

Concluding Thoughts Many who are new to online learning as instructors or students are concerned that they will miss the opportunity to create connections that enhance learning. Because student satisfaction and motivation play a key role in retention rates and because increased social presence often leads to an enriched learning experience, it is advantageous to mindfully integrate social presence into learning environments. With the strategies identified in this chapter, we hope instructors and students can overcome the isolation inherent in learning in front of a computer screen to maximize connectedness and pave the way for significant learning experiences.

Chapter Review • Cultivating supportive online learning environments is an art that begins with nurturing connectedness and community through social presence.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 185

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

186

UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PRESENCE AS A CRITICAL LITERACY

• Our long-term research with instructors and students suggests key strategies that faculty can employ to enhance connectedness in online and blended learning environments. • Because student satisfaction and motivation play a key role in retention rates and because increased social presence often leads to an enriched learning experience, it is advantageous to mindfully integrate social presence into learning environments.

References Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1, 25–48. Retrieved from https://www.missouriwestern.edu/appliedlearning/journal/ Brooks, E., Harris, C. R., & Clayton, P. H. (2010). Deepening applied learning: An enhanced case study approach using critical reflection. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 2, 55–76. Retrieved from https://www.missouriwestern.edu/appliedlearning/journal/ Conrad, R., & Donaldson, A. (2004). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conrad, R., & Donaldson, A. (2011). Continuing to engage the online learner: More activities and resources for creative instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systemic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2008, August). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize online learning. Paper presented at the 24th annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Garrett Dikkers, A., & Whiteside, A. L. (2013, October). Creating social presence in asynchronous online learning. Paper presented at the Global Learning Technology Conference, Wilmington, NC. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2012, September–October). Get present: Build community and connectedness online. Learning and Leading With Technology, 40(2), 22–25. Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2013). Virtual high school teacher and student reactions to the Social Presence Model. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(3), 156–170. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/12.3.4.pdf Lee, C., Dickerson, J., & Winslow, J. (2012, March). An analysis of organization approaches to online course structures. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1). Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview [ELI White Papers]. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology and Society, 7(3), 73–81. Quality Matters. (2015). QM rubrics and standards. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters .org/qa-resources/rubric-standards Swan, K., Garrett Dikkers, A., Whiteside, A. L., Ice, P., Richardson, J., Lowenthal, P., & Boston, W. (2015, October). Social presence online: Three research lenses. Paper presented at Online Learning Consortium International Conference, Orlando, FL.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 186

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

OVERCOMING ISOLATION ONLINE

187

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Whiteside, A. L. (2007). Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/453/137 Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2008, September). Social presence in online learning. Paper presented at the New Media Research Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2009, April). Strategies for maximizing learning outcomes and student engagement in online and blended learning environments. Workshop presented at the Academy of Distinguished Teachers Teaching and Learning Conference, Minneapolis, MN. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2010, October). Strategies to maximize online interactions using the Social Presence Model. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2012). Using the Social Presence Model to maximize interactions in online environments. In K. St. Amant & S. Kelsey (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication across cultures: International interactions in online environments (pp. 395–413). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Whiteside, A. L., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (2016). Leveraging the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on emotion in online and blended learning. In S. Y. Tettegah & M. P. McCreery (Eds.), Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 225–241). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014a, May–June). The power of social presence for learning. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/ article/power-social-presence-learning Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2014b, October). Looking to the future of social presence: Theory, research, and practice. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. Whiteside, A. L., Garrett Dikkers, A., & Lewis, S. (2015, April). Connectedness, learning, and the Social Presence Model: A decade of research on online and blended learning in higher and K–12 education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Whiteside, A. L., Hughes, J. E., & McLeod, S. (2005). Interconnecting cognition, contact, and comprehension: The influence of social presence in a hybrid-model certificate program. In Proceedings of the New Media Research Conference. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8. Retrieved from http://www.adesignmedia.com/ onlineresearch/Sloan-C%C2%A0-%C2%A0Publications%C2%A0-%C2%A0Journal%20 JALN%C2%A0-%C2%A0Vol82.htm

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 187

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 188

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

PART FIVE Concluding Thoughts

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 189

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 190

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

17 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE Shared Metacognition, Emerging Technologies, and the New Educational Ecosystem Jason C. Vickers and Peter Shea The community creates the social fabric of learning. A strong community fosters interactions and relationships based on mutual respect and trust. It encourages a willingness to share ideas, expose one’s ignorance, ask difficult questions, and listen carefully. —Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, p. 28)

T

wo major challenges in online courses are establishing a social community and fostering interpersonal interactions among students, their peers, and the instructor (Aragon, 2003). One plausible explanation for these challenges is the “lean” nature of computer-mediated communication (Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Walther, 1992) in that there can be a lack of immediate feedback, lack of nonverbal cues, and lack of personalization and language variety. Walther went on to say that these digital venues work rather well when there is simple information being transferred. However, “more equivocal information, information that is ambiguous, emphatic, or emotional” (Walther, 1992, p. 57) requires a richer medium. In academic courses, one goal is to have an abundance of shared, sometimes equivocal, information for academic purposes. In a lean medium with little social presence, students can feel isolated, which can lead to a marked decline in the amount of information shared with others (Aragon, 2003; McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). One task, then, is to create atmospheres where social presence can thrive, a richer medium of communication can be established, and more effective and interactive communication can take place (Cui, Lockee, & Meng, 2013), for, as Kear (2010) asserted, learning is social and relies on open communication and interaction. Although Walther (1992) contended that personalized communication and message exchanges for interpersonal relational development take longer in computer-mediated communication, Akyol and Garrison (2008) advised that social presence should be established as early as possible. To this order, there are many suggestions for building social presence in online environments.

191

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 191

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

192

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This chapter discusses new technology-mediated ways to develop and support social presence—ways in which innovative forms of technology have been used to encourage social presence—and how social presence fits into emerging work on active inquiry, collaboration, self-regulation and coregulation, and knowledge construction. Finally, this chapter concludes with an example of how the first author sets the stage for an ecology of social presence within his online courses.

A Brief Review of Social Perspectives Many of the previous chapters in this book covered the various definitions of social presence. For the most comprehensive discussion on the different definitions of social presence, the history of social presence, and the methods to measure social presence, refer to chapter 2 of this text, authored by Garrett Dikkers, Whiteside, and Tap. As such, we briefly review the three social perspectives in this section. The three perspectives covered in detail in earlier portions of this text are social presence as technology mediated, social presence as learners’ perceptions, and social presence as a critical literacy. Social presence as technology facilitated (chapters 3–5) looks at ways in which technology creates and mediates social presence within the online and blended classroom. For instance, Lowenthal and Mulder (chapter 4) do an excellent job in discussing how technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, synchronous and asynchronous video, and simpler technologies such as adding images or audio can create and sustain social presence in the online classroom. Social presence as learners’ perceptions (chapters 6–11) examines salient issues, including instructor social presence (chapter 9) and strategies for increasing social presence through modeling (chapter 10), mostly through paralanguage and emoticons usage. Last, social presence as a critical literacy is presented (chapters 12–16). The Social Presence Model, a robust model consisting of affective association, community cohesion, instructor involvement, interaction intensity, and knowledge and experience, was detailed in chapter 12. This model argues that social presence transcends an operationalized definition and, in fact, consists of the five aforementioned elements. Whichever framework we use, it is crucial to create social presence connection opportunities within online learning communities for learning to occur (Aragon, 2003), as it has been found that student-to-student interaction and perception of social presence is correlated with satisfaction and learning (Russo & Benson, 2005). For our purposes, we draw on both social presence as technologically mediated and social presence as learners’ perceptions, as, in our view, they go hand in hand in a computer-mediated environment.

The Community of Inquiry Framework: A Brief Overview For the purpose of this chapter, we adopt Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) definition of social presence as it connects to their larger concept of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The CoI framework posits that students and instructors are key players in the inquiry process, with the framework being made up of three interconnected elements or presences: teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 192

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

193

Teaching Presence Teaching presence (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001) is responsible for designing the educational experience, creating and facilitating a social environment, and scaffolding learning experiences by providing direct instruction. There are three original categories of teaching presence: instructional design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. Shea, Hayes, and Vickers (2009) revisited teaching presence and added an assessment category, arguing that this was separate from the other three categories in form and function.

Social Presence As defined earlier, social presence is the ability of people to “project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to other participants as ‘real people’” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). In recent developments, that definition changed to “the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” (Garrison, 2009, p. 352). One key concept that constitutes this version of social presence is immediacy, or behaviors that bring people closer socially and reduce the psychological distance between participants, including nonverbal behaviors (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999). Rourke and colleagues (1999) included the following categories in social presence: affective responses, interactive responses, and cohesive responses. Affective responses include using emoticons, humor, and self-disclosure. Interactive responses include replying to or continuing a discussion post, quoting others’ posts, and referring to others’ content in posts. Cohesive responses include using responses that use phatic communication and salutations and addressing participants by name (vocatives) and the group as we, our, or us. Over the years, more indicators have been added to the categories (see Swan, 2002), and the category titles have changed, with affective remaining the same, interactive changing to open communication, and cohesive changing to group cohesion (see Garrison, 2009, p. 353).

Cognitive Presence Cognitive presence is the third element in the CoI framework and essentially equates with critical thinking and practical inquiry (Garrison & Archer, 2000). This element consists of four categories: a triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution (Garrison et al., 2000). This is a cyclic, not linear, event where a trigger is an initial question or unknown thing. Students explore the event; integrate knowledge as they become better informed and skilled with the idea; resolve the idea; and, often, trigger a new event.

Learning Presence and Other Metacognitive Constructs More recently, Shea and Bidjerano (2010) and Shea and colleagues (2012) introduced the possibility of a fourth presence: learning presence. This presence is characterized by forethought and planning, monitoring, and using strategy. Within forethought and planning are goal setting, planning, and coordinating and assigning tasks to self and others. Monitoring includes checking for understanding; identifying problems or issues;

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 193

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

194

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

noting completion of tasks; evaluating the quality of an end product, its content, or its constituent parts; appraising the level of interest and engagement; and noting one’s own or group’s learning behavior. Last, strategy use includes seeking, offering, and providing help, information, or clarification and advocating effort. Akyol and Garrison (2011) and Garrison and Akyol (2015) began looking at adding a metacognition construct to the CoI framework. Their construct includes knowledge of cognition; monitoring of cognition; regulation of cognition; and, most recently, attempts to add self-regulation and coregulation strategies, which fall between teaching presence and cognitive presence, and social presence and cognitive presence. Although their research revealed “no clear separation of the monitoring and managing functions hypothesized as sub-elements of the self- and co-regulation factors” (Garrison & Akyol, 2015, p. 69), this could have been because of the ill-suited nature of quantitative methods to measure something that is arguably very latent and transparent in nature.

Shared Metacognition Predating work on learning presence and Akyol and Garrison’s metacognition construct, Goos, Galbraith, and Renshaw (2002) discussed metacognition as a social collaborative process: Peer collaboration can be defined as mutuality—a reciprocal process of exploring each other’s reasoning and viewpoints in order to construct a shared understanding of the task. Producing mutually acceptable solution methods and interpretations thus entails reciprocal interaction, which would require students to propose and defend their own ideas, and to ask their peers to clarify and justify any ideas they do not understand. Because this kind of reasoned dialogue involves comparing one’s own ideas with those of another person, collaborative interaction need not be based purely upon agreement and cooperation, but may also include disagreement and conflict. (pp. 196–197)

This vision of shared metacognition may be seen to overlap with social presence in several ways. For example, one operational definition of shared metacognition is self-disclosure, which Goos and colleagues (2002) defined as “statements and responses that clarify, elaborate, evaluate, and justify one’s own thinking” (p. 199). Elements of Goos and colleagues’ self-disclosure mirror the CoI’s self-disclosure element of expressing vulnerability (Swan & Shih, 2005). The feedback request put forth by Goos and colleagues (2002) resembles Swan and Shih’s indicator invitation in the interactivity category where one person essentially asks another person his or her opinion of an idea and opens one’s self up for critique. Last, other-monitoring (Goos et al., 2002), which is questions and responses that attempt to understand a partner’s thinking, might be seen as interactivity in that it can involve agreement, disagreement, or approval. This also overlaps with the CoI framework’s cognitive presence category of exploration as suggestions for consideration and brainstorming (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). It is social presence that “creates the frame of references for metacognition” (Akyol, 2013, p. 34), especially when it is shared metacognition or, as Goos and colleagues also referred to it, a shared zone of proximal development. At the intersections of teaching, cognitive presence, and social presence, “students openly communicate to support each other’s engagement in

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 194

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

195

and progression through the inquiry” (Akyol, 2013, p. 37). Akyol (2013) also contended that as soon as a student engages in a CoI, it is collective metacognition and, thus, shared metacognition.

Inquiry “Critical thinking is synonymous with inquiry. However, what we mean by critical thinking is not self-evident. . . . Critical thinking is viewed . . . as an inclusive process of higher-order reflection and discourse” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 56). CoI experts see critical thinking in terms of practical inquiry and cognitive presence (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Garrison & Archer, 2000). As seen in Figure 17.1, inquiry can be interpreted as a cyclical phenomenon beginning with a triggering event. This will typically be reflected as an initial instructor question in an educational environment, but as inquiry occurs and continues, the possibility exists that new triggering events will occur. Exploration, although indicated as occurring in the private world, can certainly occur in a shared, collaborative world. This is where participants search for pertinent information and relevant facts to answer the triggering event. Garrison and Anderson (2003) stated that it is “here [that] students will experience iteration between the reflective and shared worlds as ideas are explored collaboratively and individuals try to make sense of what may seem to be complexity and confusion. This, however, is the essence of a true community of inquiry” (p. 59). Integration is the phase of constructed meaning. This reflective phase is more difficult to achieve, as it is easy to become focused on the exploration phase, but the integration phase is where “decisions are made about integration Figure 17.1. Practical Inquiry Model. Private world

Deliberation (Applicability)

Exploration

Perception (Awareness)

Reflection

Integration

Conception (Ideas)

Experience

Triggering event

Shared world

Resolution

Action (Practice)

Discourse

Note. Excerpted from E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice (p. 59), by D. R. Garrison and T. Anderson, 2003, New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Reproduced with permission.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 195

5/12/2017 11:00:08 PM

196

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

of ideas and how order can be created parsimoniously . . . [and where] students are intimately engaged in critical discourse that will shape understanding” (p. 60). The last phase, resolution, has traditionally been the least seen in research. This phase is marked by the resolution, or near resolution, of the triggering event. Resolution frequently raises new questions or issues, thus the cyclic nature of the model. Our primary concern in this chapter is how social presence and technologies that enable social presence can assist in facilitating the inquiry process, shared metacognition, and new learning ecologies. Therefore, the next section of this chapter looks at select technology, how it has been used, how it assists in fostering social presence, and how it can be used in creating a social atmosphere for inquiry and shared metacognition.

Technology-Facilitated Perspective to Assist With Social Presence and Inquiry As Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) argued, immediacy enhances social presence. They defined immediacy as the psychological distance between participants. Therefore, finding ways to reduce psychological distance and thereby increasing immediacy is important in creating high levels of social presence in online venues. With the advances in technology, there are many programs that increase the potential for more immediacy, which have been researched over the years.

Social Media Introduction With the advent of social media sites and Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis, videoand audio-sharing sites, and other interactive sites, the potential to connect individuals and create social presence has grown exponentially from when initial studies done on telecommunications and social presence were conducted. Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon (2003) discussed “social presence technologies,” which “offer the user the opportunity to interact with others in a variety of ways to access the social and task information provided by others” (p. 458). General use of social presence technologies in both face-to-face and online education has been shown to increase student perceptions of knowledge sharing, interaction and collaboration, learner-centered activities, and classroom connectedness. It also has assisted in developing online communication skills, providing early intervention, and building community spirit among students (Hung & Yuen, 2010; Schroeder, Minocha, & Schneider, 2010). Asynchronous audio and podcasting. Audio has been used asynchronously to provide feedback to students on assignments in order to increase instructor social presence. In researching audio feedback with both undergraduate and graduate students, OomenEarly, Bold, Wiginton, Gallien, and Anderson (2008) found that students believed feedback of this nature to be helpful and easy to use. A majority of the population also indicated that asynchronous audio feedback was beneficial, as it helped them understand content better, kept them engaged in the course, and led to a perceived improvement in their relationship with the instructor. Much of their findings confirm earlier work by Ice, Curtis, Phillips, and Wells (2007), who found that asynchronous audio feedback led to “feelings of being more involved in ‘a real part’ of the class” (p. 14) and that audio

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 196

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

197

feedback was more effective than strictly text-based feedback, assisted with retention of content, and reflected the perception that professors cared more about students. In a later study, Ice, Swan, Diaz, Kupczynski, and Swan-Dagen (2010) combined audio with written feedback and found that the combination of both is superior to one or the other alone. This potentially increases social presence within the classroom as multiple mediums are used. Podcasts, using RSS (Really Simple Syndication) technology that pushes new audio to subscribers’ software and stores it on users’ devices, have also been explored in terms of increasing social presence within the online classroom. Brown and colleagues (2009) used podcasting and found that it was positively correlated with instructor social presence, with students citing that one of the reasons was that they could hear the instructor’s voice. In a study that used nine podcasts that were three to five minutes in length, Lee and Chan (2007) found that podcasts helped students understand course content and decreased overall feelings of isolation. Bolliger, Supanakorn, and Boggs (2010) also found that the use of podcasts reduced the feeling of isolation in their students because “the ability to hear their professor’s voice made them feel more connected to him or her” (p. 721) and humanized the instructor. Asynchronous video. Video in online courses can be instructor-created videos of lectures, narrated PowerPoint presentations converted to video, instructional screencasts, and other various forms of video and can add the humanistic element to courses (Borup, Graham, & Velasquez, 2011). Students who view instructional videos in online environments have been shown to feel more engaged in the educational experience and, therefore, experience higher levels of social presence (Homer, Plass, & Blake, 2008). Adding video to online courses increases student perception of social presence, which, in turn, increases perceived learning, discussion participation, and positive evaluation of the course (Draus, Curran, & Trempus, 2014; Lyons, Reysen, & Pierce, 2012). Using the CoI framework’s version of social presence, the study performed by Borup, West, and Graham (2012) revealed that videos of instructors assist with open communication, thus improving students’ learning experiences. Video can also assist with showing instructors’ emotional expressions, something that increases the students’ sense that the instructors are real people. Last, cohesion with the instructor appeared to increase. In terms of student social presence, Borup and colleagues (2012) indicated that open communication benefited by “letting them [students] see their peers as real people” (p. 200), but ironically most participants did not think their peers were watching student-created responses when responses were present. As an aside, this could have been because the instructors used either VoiceThread (see later in this chapter) or YouTube to create the video, neither of which allows for threaded responses. Students also found that communicating through video felt more natural than communicating through text. Emotional expressions among students and peers varied, with the majority, however, indicating that it provided a better sense of who the person was affectively. Last, group cohesion among students appeared to increase. Asynchronous video holds promise in the creation and preservation of social presence. Asynchronous video, for the most part, increases social presence and has the ability to increase individual facets of social presence, including open communication, emotional expression, and group cohesion, especially where the instructor is concerned.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 197

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

198

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

In the case of Draus and colleagues (2014), there was a clear increase in discussion participation and depth of participation. Results such as these hold promise for increased inquiry as a result of increased social presence. Sometimes users must be skilled at using advanced tools. Fortunately, programs such as Tech Smith’s Camtasia and its free program Jing allow for videos to be created. Similarly, the export-to-video option in Microsoft PowerPoint makes it relatively simple to create a PowerPoint video. VoiceThread. Similar to Microsoft PowerPoint but with an asynchronous Web 2.0 application, VoiceThread allows users to upload slides, photographs, videos, and other media and to annotate the slides with text, voice, or video. Other users can in turn respond to select slides using text, voice, or video. In effect, this allows for discussions to occur around specific slides. Instructors can create annotated lectures when applicable, and students can respond to certain elements in the lecture. Orlando and Orlando (2010) indicated that interactive lectures of this nature can increase social presence, as students can hear and, if video is used, see the instructor of the course. They went on to discuss how students can become part of an ongoing conversation. This in turn can potentially increase levels of collaborative, interactive inquiry within the online classroom (Ching & Hsu, 2013). Kidd’s (2013) research indicated that the use of VoiceThread increased the sense of community within the graduate population on which she conducted a study. However, in research by Kidd and Beaudry (2013), this finding of increased community was unsupported when looking at two graduate courses. This potential contradiction notwithstanding, one of the potentially greatest benefits to using VoiceThread is users’ ability to ask questions of specific slides or of specific individuals and potentially increasing opportunities for inquiry to occur within the class. Synchronous communication applications. Synchronous communication can be text, audio, or video based. The programs used can be chat rooms inside of the learning management system; free software that allows for all three communication types such as Skype, FaceTime, or web-based Google Hangouts; or more industrial applications such as Lync and Scopia, which allow for professional presentations, include whiteboards, and permit screen sharing. All of these programs authorize participants to communicate in real time. Because of time constraints, though, everyone may not have the opportunity to participate during the learning sessions. Although video is the richest in terms of communication channels, allowing for nonverbal information to be shared, it also requires users to have large bandwidths to function properly. Another limitation to synchronous communication in an asynchronous course is scheduling. An educator may be able to mitigate some of these problems by breaking the class into smaller, more manageable groups based on each individual’s availability (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). For example, Tu and McIsaac (2002) recommended keeping synchronous group chat size down to two or three participants for it to be successful. Perhaps one of the biggest limitations to synchronous communication is the reduction in time to reflect on topics and conversations (Borup et al., 2012). However, strategically placed synchronous meetings throughout the semester may decrease isolation and increase individuals’ sense of social presence. Microblogging (i.e., Twitter). Web 2.0 text-based microblogging programs are applications that limit live-stream communication, such as 140 characters in the case of Twitter, and to which individuals can subscribe. In a position paper, Dunlap and

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 198

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

199

Lowenthal (2009) detailed many uses for Twitter in the online classroom, including addressing students’ issues in a timely manner, writing concisely, writing for an audience, connecting with a professional community of practice, supporting informal learning, and maintaining ongoing relationships. Research on a graduate management course by Ebner, Lienhardt, Rohs, and Meyer (2010) revealed that using microblogging tools led to a larger number of social communication exchanges between participants than did pure information exchange. In total, their research revealed the following student benefits of using microblogging: • • • • • •

Informal learning through informal communication Support of collaboration Feedback on thoughts Suggestions to reflect one’s own thoughts Collaboration independent of time and place Direct examination of thoughts and causes of learning (p. 99)

For instructors, benefits include contributing immediate, direct feedback; gleaning an understanding of the learning environment; and providing just-in-time interventions to correct misconceptions. These findings suggest that microblogging tools can be used to build and support sustained social presence in the online classroom and to foster inquiry. Applications such as Twitter allow for just-in-time inquiry that is not always possible in an asynchronous environment. Instructors can provide concise answers, share links, or even just acknowledge that an answer is forthcoming. Instructors can share just-in-time information or broadcast announcements to the course using Twitter. Likewise, students can post to other students. These types of behaviors increase the immediacy of information exchange and potentially increase classroom community ties and social presence. Wikis. Kear, Woodthorpe, Robertson, and Hutchinson (2010) defined a wiki as “a browser-based software tool which enables users to collaboratively write, edit and link HTML-based documents” (p. 219). They contained a history of changes that enable users to track alterations made by the community. Perhaps the most widely known wiki is Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com), but there are numerous educational wikis, such as Wikispaces (www.wikispaces.com). A benefit of wikis is that they are creative tools for collaborating on projects and organizing and presenting data (Kear et al., 2010). One strength of wikis is that those who contribute to them can be easily ascertained and tracked. In a way, this holds users accountable for contributing to projects. Wikis also provide a “setting for collaborative knowledge building and group metacognitive development” (Gunawardena et al., 2009, p. 13).

Sociocultural Implications for Social Presence Distance education has traditionally been viewed through the lens of technology needed to mediate learning and instruction (Anderson & Dron, 2011) with less focus on pedagogy. In this section, we look at current sociocultural implications for social presence in

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 199

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

200

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

distance education. According to Anderson and Dron (2011), common to sociocultural (constructivism in this case) theory are the following: • • • • •

New knowledge as building on the foundation of previous learning Context in shaping learners’ knowledge development Learning as an active process rather than a passive process Language and other social tools in constructing knowledge Metacognition and evaluation as a means to develop learners’ capacity to assess their own learning • Learning environment as learner centered and stressing the importance of multiple perspectives • Knowledge needing to be subject to social discussion, validation, and application in real work contexts (p. 85)

Knowledge is something that is constructed and coconstructed both within the individual and with others, often through dialogic exchanges. This means students need opportunities to socially connect through discussion, small-group projects, and other group-based activities. Social presence, specifically the cohesive and affective elements, is essential for students to feel that they are part of the group and can project themselves emotionally, to a certain extent, within the group without trepidation.

Group Size Smaller group size contributes to higher levels of social presence (Akyol, Garrison, & Ozden, 2009; Lowenthal, 2009, 2012). This is perhaps unsurprising, as smaller group sizes allow participants to become more comfortable working with one another. It is, quite simply, easier to know the members better in a small group than it is to know an entire class. Smaller group size also affords more opportunities to communicate consistently and get to know someone. An alternative explanation for higher levels of social presence in smaller groups is that instructor interaction may be reduced, and this could lead to students more freely responding to one another (An, Shin, & Lim, 2009) and having further opportunities to increase social presence and group cohesion.

Group Cohesion’s Potential Impact on Task Completion Yoo and Alavi (2001) found an interesting relationship between group cohesion and social presence in that they highly correlate. They speculated that low levels of group cohesion could lead to lower levels of overall social presence, and this might negatively affect task completion. This finding suggests that creating small groups and keeping the groups consistent might assist in building group cohesion and, ultimately, fostering a sense of group inquiry. In a sense, Rogers and Lea (2005) reinforced this notion that social presence is “enabled through the emphasis on shared social identity at the level of the collaborating group rather than the creation of interpersonal bonds between group members” (p. 156). In other words, how well a group coheres in collaborative endeavors seems to be more significant than individual perceptions of social presence and, in

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 200

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

201

turn, enables collaboration in inquiry-based environments. Furthermore, Rogers and Lea (2005) found that this type of group social presence can be achieved in less sophisticated text-based environments. Other forms of technology, therefore, may serve to increase group cohesion; however, in essence, advanced forms of technology may not be as essential as thought (see Lowenthal and Mulder, chapter 4 of this text).

Establishing an Ecology of Social Presence: A Practical Approach To establish an ecology of social presence, we contend that participants in the community need to be informed about what they are establishing. This means students in online courses need to be aware of social presence and ways to increase different elements of social presence. To such an end, the first author of this chapter does just that. At the beginning of each course, he presents students with a social presence video that describes what social presence is and different behaviors to assist in achieving social presence. He discusses that social presence does not automatically create itself; rather, participants must be active creators through behaviors such as referring to each other by name; including greetings and signatures; using inclusive pronouns such as we, our, and us; uploading a personal photo for the Blackboard avatar; and using emoticons to mitigate or soften potentially critical statements. The first author also uses smaller discussion groups to achieve higher levels of social presence. In addition to presenting students with this video, the first author also has students create biographies as an icebreaker. The biography is less academic and more personal; asks students to list things such as their favorite fact, movie, food, and book; and asks about the students’ favorite hobbies or pastimes, to name a few of the pieces of information solicited. This is done to allow the students to project themselves as “real people” in the virtual environment. In addition, the first author asks that students post a picture of themselves and create a supplemental audio entry. These last two techniques are tips Lowenthal and Mulder recommend in chapter 4 as being beneficial. In many courses, students have reported that the opportunity to revisit the peers’ and instructors’ personal biographies allowed them to tailor their responses toward each individual. They have also reported feeling a closer connection with individual members and the entire group through understanding social presence and how to mitigate isolation, as well as through having access to personal biographies. The first author believes that when he provides these two elements, greater group cohesion is ultimately fostered, and this cohesion leads to more critical discourse, thereby assisting in increased cognitive presence.

Concluding Thoughts In the face of an unclear, inconsistent definition of social presence, we argue that for researchers to create a more cohesive body of literature and to be able to more reliably research social presence, there needs to be a single, unifying definition. Biocca and colleagues (2003) indicated many theories “may be stated too broadly and too vaguely to provide adequate guidance on the measurement of social presence . . . [and that] lack of explication, especially the failure to specify the dimensions of the construct, does not

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 201

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

202

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

provide enough guidance to prepare and delimit the scope of the concept for successful operationalization and measurement” (p. 468). In addition to a common definition, common social presence indicators are necessary to allow researchers to measure social presence in online environments and replicate research of others where social presence has been measured through techniques such as quantitative content analysis. We believe that this will enable researchers to focus on elements critical in courses, such as the formation of social presence and how social presence assists in creating and promoting a sense of inquiry within online courses. How to balance casual conversation with academic, task-oriented discussion is something that should be looked at in the future of social presence. Perhaps it is not the change of conversation style from formal to casual; rather, it may be that there is a type of social presence that belongs to a certain discourse community and that students need to be acclimatized to this new form of community with new social scripts. With this acclimatization, perhaps social presence will take on a new meaning in terms of what it means to be “social” in an academic environment and thereby change how and what is measured when investigating social presence. In addition, reports have indicated that social presence either declines or becomes more transparent as the course progresses (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Bibeau, 2001; Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Shea et al., 2010). Is it a reduction in social presence or transparency in social presence? There is a marked difference between the two, and research needs to better understand which occurs to be able to move forward with meaningful social presence research. How do you measure and understand something that becomes transparent? New research needs to devise methods for monitoring and understanding this “transparent” social presence to move forward and understand the relationships of social presence with other elements of the course, including elements in the CoI. This calls for a reanalysis of social presence indicators in the CoI framework, which, as Lowenthal (2012) and Lowenthal and Dunlap (2014) noted, have largely remain unchanged since their inception. The indicators used in early research may not apply today, and what we could measure in the past might be less applicable with today’s technological affordances. Future research needs to look beyond threaded discussions and initial establishment of social presence to fully understand the phenomenon. We say to look beyond threaded discussion because there are other activities such as small group projects where social presence may be found and manifest differently. Specifically, how social presence assists in the development of shared metacognition is one area of interest. What does this all mean? This is both a simple question and a complex one. A rather simplified answer is that creating group social presence and metacognition can assist in a CoI and with that inquiry. One of the most efficacious ways to ensure that the group is functioning and engaging in the type of inquiry we want is to create and sustain group social identities and group social presence. Through this, shared metacognition can follow, and inquiry can theoretically flourish. This is one direction toward which research can turn its attention. Research has pointed toward group cohesion as one of the salient categories of social presence in group work, so better understood ways to promote group cohesion are suggested. However, things are rarely that simple. There are many questions to be answered through research. The first order of business is possibly to create a universally accepted

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 202

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

203

definition and operationalization of social presence. Next, how does an instructor create an optimal group with optimal shared social presence and metacognition? Which tools should one choose, and under what circumstances should those tools be employed in an online classroom? In addition, Gunawardena (2004) argued that social presence should be measured from a group perspective, yet a majority of research measures social presence from the individual perspective using techniques such as quantitative or qualitative content analysis and social presence indicators, individual surveys to ascertain a participant’s perception of social presence, or a mixture of both. Further research should aspire to devise ways to look at group social presence and how group social presence affects the inquiry process and shared metacognition.

Chapter Review • Two major challenges in online courses are establishing a social community and fostering interpersonal interactions among students, their peers, and the instructor. • Cohesive and affective elements are essential for students to feel that they are part of the group and project themselves emotionally. • It is helpful to ask students to post a picture of themselves and create a supplemental audio entry. • One of the most efficacious ways to ensure that the group is functioning and engaging is to create and sustain group social identities and group social presence.

References Akyol, Z. (2013). Metacognitive development within a Community of Inquiry. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research, and practice (pp. 30–44). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a Community of Inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4). Retrieved from http:// olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/jaln/article/view/72 Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online Community of Inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.005 Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765 An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers and Education, 53(3), 749–760. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015 Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, R. D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68. doi:10.1002/ace.119

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 203

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

204

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Bibeau, S. (2001). Social presence, isolation, and connectedness in online teaching and learning: From the literature to real life. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 15(3), 35–39. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12(5), 456–480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270 Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S., & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Computers and Education, 55(2), 714–722. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.004 Borup, J., Graham, C. R., & Velasquez, A. (2011). The use of asynchronous video communication to improve instructor immediacy and social presence in a blended learning environment. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation (pp. 38–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001 Brown, A., Brown, C., Fine, B., Luterbach, K., Sugar, W., & Vinciguerra, D. C. (2009). Instructional uses of podcasting in online learning environments: A cooperative inquiry study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(4), 351–371. doi:10.2190/ET.37.4.b Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2013). Collaborative learning using VoiceThread in an online graduate course. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 5(3), 298–314. Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2013). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1 Draus, P. J., Curran, M. J., & Trempus, M. S. (2014). The influence of instructor-generated video content on student satisfaction with and engagement in asynchronous online classes. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 240–254. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–135. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education: A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers and Education, 55(1), 92–100. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006 Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015, January). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66–71. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.001 Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult higher education. New York, NY: Elsevier Science. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223. doi:10.1023/A:1016209010120

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 204

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR SOCIAL PRESENCE

205

Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Designing the social environment for online learning: The role of social presence. In D. Murphy, R. Carr, J. Taylor, & T. Wong (Eds.), Distance education and technology: Issues and practice (pp. 255–270). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press. Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3–16. doi:10.1080/09523980802588626 Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. doi:10.1023/A:1003764722829 Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 786–797. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.009 Hung, H.-T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 703–714. doi:10.1080/13562517.2010.507307 Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11, 3–25. Ice, P., Swan, K., Diaz, S., Kupczynski, L., & Swan-Dagen, A. (2010). An analysis of students’ perceptions of the value and efficacy of instructors’ auditory and text-based feedback modalities across multiple conceptual levels. Technology-Mediated Feedback: New Opportunities for Addressing a Long-Standing Need, 43(1), 113–134. doi:10.2190/EC.43.1.g Kear, K. (2010, May). Social presence in online learning communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010, Aalborg, Denmark. Kear, K., Woodthorpe, J., Robertson, S., & Hutchison, M. (2010). From forums to wikis: Perspectives on tools for collaboration. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 218–225. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.05.004 Kidd, J. (2013, March). Evaluating VoiceThread for online content delivery and student interaction: Effects on classroom community. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2013, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http:// www.editlib.org/p/48425 Kidd, J., & Beaudry, J. (2013, March). Understanding students’ online communication preferences and the affordances of VoiceThread for formative assessment in online teaching. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2013, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/48426 Lee, M. J. W., & Chan, A. (2007). Reducing the effects of isolation and promoting inclusivity for distance learners through podcasting. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 85–104. Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 113–128). Hersey, PA: IGI Global. Lowenthal, P. R. (2012). Social presence: What is it? How do we measure it? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Denver, CO. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2014). Problems measuring social presence in a Community of Inquiry. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 19–30.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 205

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

206

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Lyons, A., Reysen, S., & Pierce, L. (2012). Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and social presence in online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 181–186. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.025 McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology and Society, 7(3), 73–81. Oomen-Early, J., Bold, M., Wiginton, K. L., Gallien, T. L., & Anderson, N. (2008). Using asynchronous audio communication (AAC) in the online classroom: A comparative study. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 267–276. Orlando, J., & Orlando, L. (2010). Using VoiceThread to improve educational outcomes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(2), 151–158. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62. Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 159–174. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017 Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., Gozza-Cohen, M., Wilde, J., & Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89–95. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.002 Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2009). A re-examination of the Community of Inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., . . . Rangan, P. (2010). A re-examination of the Community of Inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 10–21. Swan, K. (2002). Immediacy, social presence in asynchronous discussion. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education (Vol. 3). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. doi:10.1207/ S15389286AJDE1603_2 Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003 Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 371–390. doi:10.2307/3250922

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 206

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

18 THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL PRESENCE Advancing Research, Uniting the Perspectives, and Allowing for Innovation in Practice Aimee L. Whiteside, Karen Swan, and Amy Garrett Dikkers

A

s we reflect on this book, we are struck by all the technological changes and advances in the past several years. We’ve watched, with great intrigue, as higher education and K–12 educational institutions have continued the foray into online and blended learning. They have experienced unprecedented growth in the past 10 years and expect slowed yet steady growth in the future. Large-scale research has found that higher education institutions are increasingly noting that online education is critical to their long-term strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2015). Unfortunately, many of these public four-year institutions and private nonprofit four-year institutions who represent the largest growth in online learning also overwhelmingly state concerns about the lack of adequate staffing and technological knowledge of faculty to develop high-quality online learning (Bichsel, 2013). We expect that more schools, more educational leaders, more instructors, and more students will be starting or continuing their online learning journey. Support will always be an issue, yet we believe that social presence is an aid and an essential element of a satisfying teaching and learning experience. We hope this book serves as a companion for them and for you.

Continuing to Advance Social Presence Research There is still quite a lot of social presence research and practice that is ripe for exploration, and we continually feel challenged and motivated by so many of the following unanswered questions: What exactly defines social presence? What is meant by a high level of social presence, and how do I get it in my virtual classroom? Are there cultural considerations and considerations for diverse learners in our awareness of social presence? Is there such a thing as too much social presence? What technologies or genres of technologies can help? Is engendering social presence different in a blended learning situation versus an entirely online course? How should we measure social presence? How can we assert the importance of social presence to our academic leaders? 207

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 207

5/12/2017 11:00:09 PM

208

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Although we begin to provide some answers in this volume, this book is meant to bring an awareness of social presence that leads to continued exploration and new, innovative findings that advance future learning experiences. In this book, we explored three perspectives on social presence. We saw how the original construct was developed by social psychology researchers who viewed social presence as a quality of differing media and how that construct was repurposed by educators experimenting with online discussions who were finding social presence to be more a function of learners’ perceptions. Finally, we were introduced to Whiteside’s (2015) Social Presence Model, which views social presence as a critical literacy as the unifying component that synchronizes interactions among the instructor, students, academic content, media, tools, instructional strategies, and outcomes within an online learning experience. And we saw how contemporary scholars are using all three perspectives to guide their research on online learning. It is important to realize that the three perspectives are really quite different. The social presence as technologically facilitated perspective, for example, is particularly concerned with new and emerging technologies and can, as the authors of chapter 4 aptly pointed out, slip into technological determinism. Nevertheless, it would be a great mistake to think that all online learning is the same and to ignore the affordances specific technologies lend to particular pedagogies. From this perspective we can learn to explore differing technologies, including, as is underscored in chapter 4, low-tech strategies, to meet differing pedagogical needs. The social presence as learners’ perceptions perspective is probably the most pervasive in today’s literature, linked as it is to the Community of Inquiry framework (see chapter 7), which is widely used to inform online learning research and practice worldwide. However, it is important to realize that not all scholars adopting this perspective are also community of inquiry scholars (see chapter 11). The learners’ perspectives approach can be differentiated from the technologically facilitated perspective in that it views social presence as developing in learners’ perceptions. In practice, on one hand, the many social presence measures developed by researchers entertaining this perspective investigate just that. On the other hand, this perspective can be distinguished from the critical literacy perspective in that it views social presence as just one of many factors influencing satisfaction, learning, and success in online environments. Indeed, the social presence as a critical literacy perspective views social presence as central to successful online learning. Importantly, this perspective sees social presence as dependent neither on technology nor on learner perceptions and as “a solution” (see chapter 16) and something that can and should be taught to both learners and instructors. The Social Presence Model (see chapter 12), in which this perspective is grounded, emerged from research in online and blended learning. Overall, important research in social presence is going on concurrently to this publication in different disciplines and at different levels, from virtual high schools to postgraduate education. New perspectives on social presence surely will emerge from this work. The perspectives explored in this volume need not and should not keep us from casting a wider net to begin to answer the many research questions that remain for social presence. However, we hope this book has shown that it is important to be clear about our own concepts of social presence, to understand the perspectives being taken by

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 208

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL PRESENCE

209

others, and not to assume social presence is a unitary concept that is seen from the same perspective by everyone.

Uniting the Perspectives At the beginning of this project, we were quick to defend our perspectives on social presence. We have come to learn a lot from each other and come to see how all the perspectives work masterfully together. Online technologies have clearly evolved, and a wide variety of options for online learning has emerged, each option having differing affordances and constraints (Gibson, 1977) relative to the development of social presence. For example, there is a great deal of difference between synchronous video conversation between instructors and learners in relatively small, online courses and videotaped lectures in even relatively small massive open online courses (MOOCs). Chapter 4 does an excellent job of exploring these affordances and constraints and their implications for practice. Chapter 5 lays out the connection between emerging social media and understanding social presence as a critical literacy. In some sense all the research reported in this volume places learners at the center of its measurement of social presence, yet the learners’ perceptions lens of social presence is undeniably vital. The most common measures of social presence across perspectives are survey instruments that ask learners to rate their perceptions of social presence, and these are followed by interviews, focus groups, and coding online learners’ behaviors. All such measures implicitly or explicitly are concerned with learners’ perspectives. The implication for practice is clear: Designers and instructors in particular should seek to understand learners’ perceptions and be ready to change their course designs or teaching strategies accordingly. In addition, the social presence as a critical literacy perspective has a lot to offer both the technology facilitated perspective and the learners’ perceptions perspective. This perspective reminds us that in addition to being mindful of the way that technology influences the learning environment and how important our audience of student learners is, we must also have a big picture view of the entire situation and know that just one course can influence a student’s overall educational experience. The fact that we seek social interaction with others in our daily and educational lives is of vital importance and one that we, as instructors, should leverage. Thus, the social presence as a critical literacy perspective reminds us to carefully think about the connection between social presence and the overall learning experience, as it could have a lifelong impact on a given student. In chapters 13 through 15, we see the impact of this perspective of social presence for undergraduate and graduate professional development programs, high school blended learning initiatives, and virtual school diverse youth.

Lessons Learned: Social Presence and Online Learning We discovered that it is not important how a learner or instructor comes to understand and know social presence—whether it is through computer-mediated communication, instructional design, or a multidisciplinary approach. What is important is stressing the fundamental role that social presence plays in shaping online educational experiences.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 209

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

210

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

We see the ebb and flow of technology’s allure, yet we feel armed with the knowledge and expertise that reminds us to remember our student audience and the pedagogically oriented mind-set that brought us to cultivate a love of teaching and learning. We pause to see the inherent features of online learning that offer us new pathways for teaching and learning. We see the changing literacies involved in online learning and consider the role of social presence in the process, looking forward to the advancements, innovation, and progress that it brings to online and blended learning experiences. Never stop learning because life never stops teaching.

Chapter Review • This chapter concludes the book with a retrospective look by the book editors on their discoveries and reflections about social presence. • Each of the perspectives addressed in the book—technologically facilitated, learners’ perceptions, and critical literacy—helps us gain a more comprehensive understanding of social presence. • The way a researcher, instructor, or learner discovers social presence is not as important as continuing to stress the fundamental role that social presence plays in shaping online educational experiences. • There are still many areas within social presence that are ripe for research and exploration, and the book editors offer a few of these unanswered questions for future researchers. • The book editors acknowledge the challenges of multimodal teaching and learning and strongly urge all stakeholders see social presence as a solution. • Finally, the editors look forward to the future advancements, innovative strategies, and continued progress from social presence researchers and practitioners in the years to come.

References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Bichsel, J. (2013, June). The state of e-learning in higher education: An eye toward growth and increased access. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the Social Presence Model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning, 19(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium .org/index.php/jaln/article/view/453/137

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 210

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Editors Aimee L. Whiteside is an associate professor at the University of Tampa where she previously served as interim codirector for her university’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Her research interests include social presence, blended and online learning, technology-enhanced learning, experiential learning, academic–community partnerships, and academic and professional writing. Her work has been featured in several peerreviewed journals, including the Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Online Learning Journal, International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, EDUCAUSE Review, and the Online Learning Consortium’s Effective Practices. In addition, she has written chapters in several books, such as Emotions, Technology, and Learning (Academic Press, 2015) and Computer-Mediated Communication Across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments (IGI Global, 2011), as well as for special volumes in the Advances in Research on Teaching series and the New Directions in Teaching and Learning series. Amy Garrett Dikkers is an associate professor in educational leadership at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. She studies online and blended learning across the spectrum of PK–20 educational organizations. To date she has more than 20 publications that examine the value of online education for diverse populations of students and the teachers who work with them. Karen Swan is the Stukel Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Illinois Springfield. For the past 20 years, she has been teaching online and researching online learning. She received the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) award for outstanding individual achievement and the Burks Oakley II distinguished online teaching award for her work in this area. She is an OLC fellow and a member of the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame.

Series Editor Michael Grahame Moore is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Education at The Pennsylvania State University. He is known in academic circles for pioneering the scholarly study of distance education, nowadays commonly referred to as e-learning and online learning. Retiring from teaching in 2013, Moore now consults internationally and focuses on his editorial work, especially The American Journal of Distance Education and the Stylus Publishing series Online Learning and Distance Education. 211

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 211

6/8/2017 12:25:24 PM

212

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Contributors Wally Boston served as president of American Public University System (APUS) from June 2004 through June 2016. He guided APUS through its successful initial accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association in 2006 and 10-year reaccreditation in 2011. During his tenure, APUS received the Online Learning Consortium’s Gomery Award for excellence in online education, as well as four Effective Practice Awards from the OLC. He currently serves as CEO of American Public Education, Inc., the parent company of APUS. He has authored and coauthored numerous papers on the topic of online postsecondary student retention. Boston earned an AB degree from Duke University, an MBA from Tulane University, and an EdD in higher education management from the University of Pennsylvania. Jessica Gordon is an assistant professor in the Department of Focused Inquiry at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), where she has been teaching writing for the past 17 years. Gordon has a BA in English and an MA in English literature, both from VCU, and she is currently completing a PhD at VCU in an interdisciplinary program called Media, Art, and Text. Gordon’s research focuses on the intersection among social presence, composition theory, and multimodal writing. She teaches face-to-face, online, and hybrid writing classes, and she was one of six instructors to teach the university’s first massive open online course (MOOC) in 2014. Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena is the distinguished professor of distance education and instructional technology in the Organization, Information, and Learning Sciences program in the College of University Libraries and Learning Sciences at the University of New Mexico. She has published and presented on distance education for more than 25 years and has more than 100 publications to her credit. She currently researches the sociocultural context of digital learning environments and social presence theory and employs interaction analysis to examine the social construction of knowledge in online learning communities. She has directed evaluations for the U.S. Department of Education and the Native American Research Centers for Health funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Indian Health Service. She conducted research as a Fulbright regional scholar in Morocco and her native country Sri Lanka and consulted for the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, U.S. corporations, and international higher education institutions. She has won several awards, including the Charles A. Wedemeyer Award for Excellence in the field of distance education. Phil Ice is the chief learning officer for Mirum Learning and a visiting professor at American Public University System. He has more than 20 years of experience in e-learning, spearheading numerous large-scale initiatives in the public and private sectors, as well as foundation-funded initiatives. His background spans learning analytics, instructional technology, curriculum theory, and learning architecture. His work has been recognized nationally and internationally by organizations such as the Online Learning Consortium, Distance Learning Association, United States Distance Learning Association, National University Technology Network, Adobe Education Leaders Group, IBM, and

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 212

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

213

the New Media Consortium. He actively holds advisory council positions with numerous educational services companies and international professional organizations devoted to improving the future of digital learning. Melissa Layne serves as the director of research methodology and editor-in-chief for the Internet Learning Journal at American Public University System. Layne’s work in higher education has focused on digital literacies, virtual environments, self-paced learning, personalized learning, and e-learning theory. She has extensive experience, at the executive level, developing and deploying solutions across a variety of platforms for both course applications and academic publications. Her work has been recognized by the Online Learning Consortium, National University Technology Network, Distance Learning Association, and Adobe Education Leaders Group and as a participant on the Horizon Report advisory board. Notably, she is responsible for pioneering work in the field of interactive digital scholarship and brings her passion in that area to serving her clients. Somer Lewis is the professional development system director in the Watson College of Education (WCE) at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. In her role, Lewis oversees a nationally recognized School-University Partnership, which consists of 12 partnership districts, including one Department of Defense District and two public charter schools. In addition, she is responsible for providing support and ongoing professional development for partnership teachers who mentor WCE interns and field experience students. Her research interests include online learning for K–12 students and beginning teacher preparation and retention. Patrick Lowenthal is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Technology, where he teaches master’s- and doctoral-level students in a fully online graduate program. Before moving to Idaho, Lowenthal worked as an academic technology coordinator at the University of Colorado–Denver and as an assistant professor at Regis University, where he began teaching online in 2003. Lowenthal is interested in problems of practice with teaching and learning online. He researches how faculty and students communicate using emerging technologies and specifically focuses on issues of presence, identity, and community online. Dave Mulder is an assistant professor of education at Dordt College, where he teaches courses in educational foundations, middle school curriculum and instruction, science pedagogy, and educational technology. He also supports his colleagues as a learning technologies coach, providing workshops in educational technology, instructional design, and distance learning pedagogy to prepare faculty for teaching web-enhanced face-toface, blended format, or fully online courses. Mulder is a doctoral candidate in educational technology at Boise State University, where his research interests include social presence, social media in online teaching and learning, and the preparation of future teachers to integrate technology into their own teaching practices.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 213

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

214

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Jennifer C. Richardson is a professor in the Learning Design and Technology program at Purdue University. She has been teaching and conducting research in distance education for the past 20 years, and her research focus includes best practices in design for online learning and teaching and the community of inquiry as a framework, especially as it relates to social presence. She was recently named an Online Learning Consortium fellow (2016) and has received several awards for her work, including the Effective Practices in Online Education Award. Along with Patrick Lowenthal and Cindy York, she was an editor for Online Learning: Common Misconceptions, Benefits, and Challenges (Nova Science Publishers, 2014), which received a 2014 Association for Educational Communications and Technology Division of Distance Learning Distance Education Book Award. Peter Shea is the associate provost for online learning at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and provides leadership and strategy for online teaching and learning across the university. Shea is also an associate professor in the Department of Educational Theory and Practice, with a joint appointment with the Department of Informatics in the College of Engineering and Applied Science. Bethany Tap received her MFA (2016) in creative writing from the University of North Carolina Wilmington. She currently resides in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where she works as an estate planning paralegal. Chih-Hsiung Tu is a professor at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona. His research interests are distance education, sociocognitive learning, sociocultural learning, online learning communities, learning organizations, social media, personal learning environments, and network learning environments. He has authored many articles and book chapters, edited a book, and authored two books, as well as received multiple honors as a keynote speaker. Tu has global experience with international scholars from Turkey, Portugal, Brazil, Hong Kong, Singapore, Venezuela, Taiwan, China, Japan, Niger, and Cyprus. Jason C. Vickers currently works at the University at Albany, State University of New York as a full-time, online lecturer. His research interests include the Community of Inquiry model and repeated student self-assessment and how it affects the academic rigor of discussion posts. His other interests include designing games for learning.

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 214

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

INDEX

academic writing, 106 additional media, 122 affective association, 136, 163 affective behaviors, 66 affective learning, 79 Akyol, Z, 194 Al-Harthi, A. S., 116 Allen, I. E., 155 Amaghlobeli, N., 106 American Military University (AMU), 77–78 American Public University System (APUS) growth of, 78 online learning environments and, 77 survey instruments at, 78 Anderson, Terry, 61, 100, 102 Annand, D., 14 announcements, 82 anonymity, 121 applied learning, 164 APUS. See American Public University System Archer, Walter, 61, 100, 102 Ash, S. L., 183 assessment, 185 asynchronous video/audio, 78 informal chat and, 118 online course and, 197–98 self-disclosure in, 104 social media with, 196 technology and, 35 VoiceThread and, 35–36 at-risk students, 172 benefits and challenges of, 173 students with disabilities relate to, 177 audio feedback, 73 Babson Survey Research Group, 155, 180 basic education, 52 Beaudry, J., 198 Bertrand, William E., 143 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 77 blended learning, 11

Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation and, 154–55 connectedness with, 156 with critical literacy, 150 definitions and enrollments of, 154–55 emotions matter for, 166 flex time of, 164 FTF and, 155, 157 initiative for, 145, 155, 162 for postsecondary institutions, 166 purposeful design for, 162–66 social presence research of, 156–57 SPM and, 139 students relationships with, 165 student survey of, 161 traditional learning with, 139 blended learning environment course-duration and, 156 studies of, 181 Bonk, C. J., 155 Borup, J., 35, 197 Boston, Wally, 6 Brush, T. A., 162 Caudle, L. A., 14 causality examination of, 80–81 feedback examples for, 80–81 LMS and, 80 Centra, J. A., 143 Champion, E. M., 117 chat, 122–23 chatters additional media and, 122 conflict resolution and, 121 emoticons used by, 122 Chetwynd, F., 117 Chinese students culture and, 116 self-presentation of, 124 Christie, B., 3, 11, 29, 32

215

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 215

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

216

INDEX

Clayton, P. H., 183 Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, 154–55 CMC. See computer-mediated communication Cobb, S. C., 113 cognitive presence categories of, 64 CoI and, 193 development of, 70–71 literacy and, 149 cohesive behaviors, 66 CoI. See Community of Inquiry communication media, 3–4 evolution of, 32 immediacy and intimacy through, 33 social presence and, 5, 29 communication protocols, 126 Communications Studies Group, 32 community connections for, 182–83 social identity of, 20 community cohesion, 136, 163, 165 Community of Inquiry (CoI) affective behaviors in, 66 CMC in, 13 cognitive presence and, 193 cohesive behaviors in, 66 constructs of, 86 contextualizing research within, 70–72 development of, 64 dual approach of, 65, 73 emotional presence in, 14 framework of, 13–15, 21 Instructional Design and Organization component for, 82 instructor social presence role with, 62, 93, 94 interactive behaviors in, 66 learning presence through, 14 models and frameworks of, 13 online learning support through, 63 origination of, 61 overview of, 192–95 participant perception links to, 208 presence types of, 100 social learning theory in, 100 social presence items in, 70

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 216

social presence research through, 72–73 SPM comparable to, 135, 140 student retention and, 62, 78–81 studies of, 15 survey indicators with, 78–80 survey instruments and, 19, 69–70, 73–74, 77 survey items and, 72 computer conference environment, 18 computer-mediated communication (CMC), 29, 100 antisocial nature of, 33 CoI framework in, 13 emoticons in, 107 “hyperpersonal” use of, 33 lean medium nature of, 191 learner satisfaction with, 12, 101 ONLEs different from, 50 paralanguage and, 105 social presence in, 11–12 Computer-Mediated Communication Questionnaire, 18 computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), 12 conclusions and implications for practice, 73–74 conflict resolution, 121, 122 connectedness blended learning for, 156 enhancement strategies for, 181–85 for faculty, 181 in online learning environments, 181–82 online learning with, 185 social activities for, 182 social presence and, 180 Conrad, R., 182 content, 183 Couros, A. V., 51 course design assessment in, 185 critical literacy in, 157 culture guidelines for, 123–27 implementation of, 175–76 instructor social presence for, 92–93, 94 learner’s perceptions and, 209 for online course, 92 structure of, 182

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

INDEX

teaching presence with, 102 course-duration, 156 course satisfaction, 100–101 credit recovery students, K-12, of, 172 study of, 174 critical literacy, 210 blended learning with, 150 course design with, 157 social presence as, 138, 165–66, 208 SPM with, 140 critical thinking, 195 CSCL. See computer-supported collaborative learning Cuelessness Model, 33 cues-filtered-out theories, 33 culture Chinese students and, 116 course design guidelines for, 123–27 definition of, 115–16 informal chat study for, 118–23 language traits in, 127 literature review on, 116–18 Muslim students and, 116 online learning and, 117 social presence effect on, 114 study results of, 123 data collection methods, 159 deficit theories, 33 Delfino, M., 21 digital humanities, 52 digital learners, 49 digital lifelong learning, 51–52. See also lifelong learning practice networked learning literacy and, 53 ONLEs and, 52 PLEs and, 52 for self-actualization, 54 for social presence, 53 digital storytelling figurative language and, 20–21 social presence elevated with, 36–37 Dikkers, Amy Garrett, 5, 7, 8 discussion boards, forums and Wikis Facebook as, 83 “Help Wanted, Help Given” on, 125 LMS with, 82–83

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 217

217

paralanguage on, 108 Donaldson, A., 182 educational technology, 175–76 emerging strategies, 21 emoticons. See also paralanguage chatters use of, 122 in CMC, 107 emotional presence, 14 emotion and connectedness, 12. See also connectedness evaluation. See measurement and evaluation experience. See knowledge and experience experiential learning factors for, 54 meaning-making in, 46 networking for, 46 social presence for, 45–46 Facebook discussion boards, forums and Wikis as, 83 instructors and, 38 social networks with, 37–38 face-to-face (FTF) blended learning and, 155, 157 community cohesion with, 165 for faculty, 148 paralanguage and, 107 for self-disclosure, 104 social cues of, 99 social presence with, 100 student engagement with, 99 teacher immediacy behavior and, 102 facilitator, 126 faculty. See also instructors connectedness for, 181 FTF for, 148 networked learning literacy and, 147 paradigm shift for, 144 professional development research study of, 145–47, 149 social presence for, 7 SPM and, 147, 150 students relationships with, 86 students with disabilities and, 177 support for, 148 Fadde, P. J., 34 feedback

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

218

INDEX

causality examples of, 80–81 continuous use of, 184–85 feedback request, 194 figurative language, 20–21 Fishtree, 81 flex time, 164 Flickr, 39 flipped-learning, 165 forums. See discussion boards, forums and Wikis frameworks learner satisfaction with, 21 of social connectedness design, 16 FTF. See face-to-face Fulbright Regional Research Scholarship, 127 Garrison, D. Randy, 61, 66, 100, 101, 102, 194 GlobalEd, 113. See also Indicators Survey and GlobalEd Questionnaire Google Hangout, 105 Gordon, Jessica, 6 Graham, C. R., 155, 197 group cohesion, 66, 200–201 group size, 200–201 Gunawardena, Charlotte, 4, 6, 13, 61 Handbook of Blended Learning (Bonk and Graham), 155 hchouma, 121 “Help Wanted, Help Given,” 125 higher education, 175 “Higher Education and Technology Transfer: The effects of ‘Techno-Sclerosis’ on Development” (Bertrand), 143 Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disabilities: A Primer for Policymakers (Wolanin and Steele), 170 Hoot.me, 83 “Humanizing Online Classroom” (Weiss), 108 Hutchison, M., 199 “hyperpersonal” CMC use for, 33 online discourse for, 61 Ice, Phil, 6 identity. See also social identity importance of, 30

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 218

social media and, 54 IES. See Institute of Education Sciences immediacy behavior. See also teacher immediacy behavior; verbal immediacy behavior self-disclosure as, 103 technology with, 196 Immediacy Behavior Scale, 103 immediacy principle, 102 “The Impact of Text-Based CMC on Online Social Presence” (Tu), 106 indicators, social presence and, 18, 193 Indicators Survey and GlobalEd Questionnaire, 17–18 informal chat asynchronous video/audio and, 118 culture study of, 118–23 Internet Café and, 118 for self-disclosure, 120 social presence in, 119 informal social spaces, 125 inner speech social development theory, 133–34 speech for oneself of, 134 speech for others of, 134 inquiry. See also Practical Inquiry Model critical thinking as, 195 metacognition and, 196 technology-facilitated perspective for, 196–99 Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 170 instruction, 162–65 instructional categories, 64–65 Instructional Design and Organization, 82 instructional strategies, 20 instructor involvement, 136–37, 163 instructor persona, 92–94 instructors Facebook and, 38 importance of, 72 paralanguage and, 108, 109 pedagogy and, 22 role, personalization, and feedback of, 20 small steps for, 185 social presence awareness by, 146 instructor social presence CoI role with, 62, 93, 94 course design for, 92–93, 94

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

INDEX

practice for, 91–92 research trends for, 89–91 strategies for, 93 interaction formats for, 126 instruction transform through, 162–65 interaction intensity, 137, 163 interactive behaviors, 66 Internet Café, 118 introductions, 123–24 Isernhagen, J. C., 89 Jefferis, H., 117 Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 84 Kear, K., 117, 199 Kelly, M. A., 89 Kidd, J., 198 King, J. W., 89 knowledge and experience, 137, 163 Kuh, G. D., 45 LaCost, B. A., 89 Layne, Melissa, 6 lean medium nature, 191 Lear, J. L., 89 learners perceptions of, 63, 209, 210 social networks and, 38 learner satisfaction with CMC, 12, 101 with frameworks, 21 learning. See blended learning learning community, 124 learning environments, 17. See also online learning environments; personal learning environments intuitive design for, 182 mobile learning environments enhancement of, 84 rich media in, 83 student satisfaction relationship with, 84 learning experiences, 183 learning management system (LMS), 14–15 announcements and, 82 causality and, 80 development of, 81

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 219

219

discussion boards, forums, and Wikis with, 82–83 of Fishtree, 81 shortcomings of, 38 social presence development with, 62 learning presence through CoI, 14 metacognition and, 193–94 Lewis, Somer, 7, 16 lifelong learning practice, 50–51 linguistic, 117 literacy, 149. See also critical literacy as social presence, 144–45 LMS. See learning management system Lorentz, R. A., 106 Lowenthal, Patrick, 3, 5, 6 low-tech strategies, 38 Manca, S., 21 many-to-many video. See synchronous video massive open online courses (MOOCs), 3 McCracken, F. E., 35 McCroskey, J. C., 103 McDermott, R., 191 McIsaac, M. S., 4, 79 McKee, C. W., 144 Meacham, M., 176 measurement and evaluation, 17–21 media and tools, 183–84 media richness theory, 33 Mehrabian, A., 102 messaging, 39–40 metacognition construct of, 194–95 feedback request and, 194 inquiry and, 196 learning presence and, 193–94 other-monitoring and, 194 reflection and, 184 self-disclosure and, 194 methods, 159–60 microblogging, 198–99 mobile learning environments enhancement of, 81–82 learning environments enhanced with, 84 PLEs as, 49 web analytics for, 82 mobile social presence, 49, 55

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

220

INDEX

models and frameworks, 13–17 MOOCs. See massive open online courses Morrill Act, 143 Mulder, Dave, 5 Muslim students, 116 mutuality, 194 National Center for Educational Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 155 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 138 National Council on Disability, 175 NCTE. See National Council of Teachers of English NCVPS. See North Carolina Virtual Public School networked learning literacy, 52 digital lifelong learning and, 53 faculty and, 147 self-actualization with, 54 networked social presence, 48, 55 networking, 46. See also social networks New Teaching Institute, 145 nonverbal cues, 99 North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS), 171–72 North Central Association, 78 occupational course of study (OCS), 172 OER. See open educational resources Olson, J. S., 35 ONLEs. See open and networked learning environments online communication, 93 online community, 124 online courses asynchronous video/audio and, 197–98 course design for, 92 pictures and, 39 rules for, 40–41 social instructor presence and, 88–89 social interaction and, 88 social presence development in, 4 social presence enhancing, 7 stories, sharing and encouraging in, 104 student retention and, 88 teaching presence for, 87

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 220

Twitter with, 37 online designers, 73, 74 online discourse, 61 online discussion messaging for, 39–40 participant research in, 65 online educators practice for, 40–41 strategies for, 93 online instructors audio feedback and, 73 instructor persona for, 92 online communication for, 93 survey instruments and, 74 online learning benefits and challenges of, 172–73 challenges for, 3, 180 CoI support of, 63 with connectedness, 185 culture and, 117 development of, 81 growth of, 207 management systems for, 182 paradigm shift for, 144 postsecondary institutions for, 166 professional development for, 143–44 social presence and, 209–10 students, K-12 and, 170–71 for students with disabilities, 171 with visual cues, 36 online learning environments APUS and, 77 connectedness in, 181–82 reenvisionment of, 84 student satisfaction and, 22 Online Social Presence Questionnaire, 19 online students communication protocols for, 126 feelings of, 87 online teaching, 30 online video, 34 open and networked learning environments (ONLEs), 47–48 CMC different from, 50 digital lifelong learning and, 52 integration of, 50 pedagogy and, 55 open communication, 66

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

INDEX

221

open education lifelong learning practice of, 50–51 meaning of, 51 social media and, 51 open educational resources (OER), 45, 49 other-monitoring, 194

postsecondary institutions, 166 Practical Inquiry Model, 195 practice, 147–49 Predictive Analytic Reporting Framework, 77 professional development seminar schedule, 153

Pacansky-Brock, M., 35 paralanguage academic writing and, 106 CMC and, 105 on discussion boards, forums, and Wikis, 108 elements of, 109 emoticons and, 106 FTF and, 107 instructors and, 108, 109 nonlexical components of, 105 scholarship link to, 105 with social cues encouraging, 105–8 students and, 108 participant perception CoI links to, 208 perceived learning and, 68 research on, 68–73 social presence and, 29, 87, 114 survey instruments for, 68 pedagogy, 45 instructors and, 22 ONLEs and, 55 PLEs and, 55 peer collaboration, 194 perceived learning, 12, 68 performance learning centers (PLC), 172, 174 persona. See instructor persona personal learning environments (PLEs), 47 digital learners and, 49 digital lifelong learning and, 52 mobile learning environments as, 49 pedagogy and, 55 self-actualization in, 48–50 in sociocultural learning theory, 48 tools for, 48 Picciano, A. G., 4 platform development, 81–83 PLC. See performance learning centers PLEs. See personal learning environments podcasting, 196–97

Qiu, L., 107 Quality Matters®, 145, 182

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 221

reflection, 184 relationship building, 165 research team, 158–59, 160–62 Richardson, Jennifer, 6, 101 rich media, 83 Richmond, V. P., 103 Robertson, S., 199 Roblyer, M. D., 89 role designers, 72 Rourke, L., 102 Rubric for Assessing Interactive Qualities In Distance Course (Roblyer and Wiencke), 89 Sadiqi, F., 119 salience for social presence, 99 in social presence, 11, 32 scholarship, 99, 105 Seaman, J., 155 self-actualization digital lifelong learning for, 54 importance of, 30 with networked learning literacy, 54 in PLEs, 48–50 self-disclosure anonymity and, 121 in asynchronous video/audio, 104 FTF for, 104 Google Hangout for, 105 as immediacy behavior, 103 informal chat for, 120 introductions and, 123–24 metacognition and, 194 Skype for, 105 with social networks, 104–5 social presence with, 103 teacher presence in, 119

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

222

INDEX

self-presentation Chinese students and, 124 online community and, 124 for social identity, 47 SEM. See Structural Equation Modeling Shea, Peter, 8 Sheridan, K., 89 Short, J., 3, 5, 11, 29, 32 Skype, 105. See also synchronous video Snyder, W. M., 191 So, H. J., 162 Sociability Scale, 12 social ability structural model, 17 social activities, 182 social connectedness design, 16 social cues of FTF, 99 paralanguage encouraged with, 105–8 social development theory, 7 inner speech, 133–34 ZPD of, 133, 134 social identity, 46, 48 of community, 20 multiple identities with, 47 self-presentation for, 47 social identity theory, 47 social instructor presence, 88–89. See also instructor social presence social interaction online course and, 88 social presence and, 113 social learning theory, 100 social media with asynchronous video/audio, 196 identity and, 54 introduction to, 196–99 open education and, 51 voice thread with, 198 social medium, 113 social networks. See also Google Hangout Facebook and, 37–38 learners and, 38 self-disclosure with, 104–5 social presence and, 37 social perspectives, 192 social presence blended learning research of, 156–57 category comparison of, 67

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 222

in CMC, 11–12 CoI and, 70 common definition for, 201 communication media and, 29 communication media quality for, 5 comparison of use of, 69 as construct, 14 continuing research of, 207–8 for course satisfaction, 100–101 course satisfaction predictor of, 101 critical literacy as, 138, 165–66, 208 culture affect of, 114–15 definition of, 11–12, 61 digital lifelong learning for, 53 digital storytelling elevation of, 36–37 Dikkers on, 16 ecology of, 201 emergence of, 135–38 for experiential learning, 45–46 for faculty, 7 with FTF, 100 higher education discussion of, 175 high levels of, 69, 207 implications of, 173–75 indicators and, 193 informal chat for, 119 in informal social spaces, 125 instructors awareness of, 146 Lewis on, 16 linguistic influence on, 117 literacy as, 144–45 LMS for, 62 low levels of, 69 low-tech strategies and, 38 measuring and evaluating impact of, 17–21 models and frameworks for, 13–17 online courses development for, 4, 7 online learning and, 209–10 online video and, 34 participant perception and, 29, 87, 114 parts for, 4 perspectives of, 5 research of, 6, 87–88, 181 review of, 193 review perception of, 116–18 salience for, 99 salience in, 11, 32 with self-disclosure, 103

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

INDEX

as social instructor presence, 88 social interaction and, 113 social networks and, 37 sociocultural learning theory implications for, 199–200 solution as, 180–81 students and, 11 student satisfaction with, 79 student study of, 174 student survey of, 163 subconstructs of, 16–17 synchronous video and, 34–35 teaching presence relationship of, 71–72 technology and, 5, 8 technology facilitated for, 208 trust building linked with, 120 uniting perspectives of, 209 virtual classrooms increasing for, 101–8 Williams definition of, 11 Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire, 18 social presence and technology, 33–40 Social Presence Model (SPM), 15, 149, 174, 181 blended learning and, 139 CoI comparable to, 135, 140 components of, 136, 139 critical literacy with, 140 definition and examples for, 137 elements of, 15–16, 157–58 faculty and, 147, 150 importance of, 138 students and, 160 study of, 144 social presence relationship, 133–35 Social Presence Scale, 12, 18–19, 101 social presence theory, 32 Social Space Scale, 12 sociocultural learning theory OER and, 49 PLEs in, 48 social presence implications of, 199–200 traits of, 200 socioemotional, 114 speech for oneself, 134 speech for others, 134 SPM. See Social Presence Model Steele, P. E., 170 stories, sharing and encouraging, 103–5

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 223

223

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), 71 student perception. See participant perception student readiness, 18–19 student retention CoI and, 62 online course and, 88 with student satisfaction, 186 students. See also at-risk students; Chinese students; Muslim students blended learning relationships with, 165 blended learning survey with, 161 curated work by, 109 faculty relationships with, 86 paralanguage and, 108 reflection for, 184 social presence and, 11 Social Presence Survey by, 163 SPM and, 160 students, K-12 of credit recovery, 172 learning from, 171–75 online learning for, 170–71 student satisfaction learning environment relationship with, 84 online learning environment and, 22 social presence important for, 79 student retention with, 186 students with disabilities accessibility for, 176 at-risk students relate to, 177 faculty and, 177 IES and, 170 online learning for, 171 rise of, 177 “Students With Disabilities at DegreeGranting Postsecondary Institutions,” 170 “A Study of the Characteristics and Qualities of Text-Based Computer Conferencing for Educational Purposes,” 61 survey indicators analysis of, 79 binary dependent variables of, 78 CoI with, 78–80 independent variables of, 78 studies of, 80 survey instruments APUS and, 78

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

224

INDEX

CoI and, 19, 77 CoI of, 69–70 development of, 68 frameworks and, 22 online designers and, 74 online instructors and, 74 Online Social Presence Questionnaire and, 19 participant perception through, 68 survey items, 72 Swan, Karen, 5, 6, 8, 101 synchronous communication applications, 198 synchronous video, 34–35 Tandy, C., 176 Tap, Bethany, 5 teacher immediacy behavior, 103 FTF and, 102 teacher presence, 119 teaching presence, 14 affective learning with, 79 with course design, 102 definition of, 102 instructional categories of, 64–65 maximization of, 101–2 online course with, 87 review of, 193 social presence relationship of, 71–72 technological groundings, 81–83 technology. See also social presence and technology asynchronous video/audio and, 35 enhancement of, 30 with immediacy behavior, 196 importance of, 207 literacy and, 149 social presence and, 5 social presence facilitated by, 208 techno-sclerosis, 143 Tew, W. M., 144 Thomas, R., 35 Ting-Toomey, S., 121

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 224

traditional learning, 139 trust building, 120–21 Tryon, Slagter van, 16 Tu, C. H., 4, 79, 116 Twitter, 37 Universal Design for Learning (UDL), 176 Velasquez, A., 197 verbal immediacy behavior, 12, 103 Verbal Immediacy Behavior Scale, 103 Vickers, Jason, 8 virtual classrooms, 101–8 visual cues, 36 voice thread, 198 VoiceThread, 35–36. See also asynchronous video/audio Vu, P., 34 Vygotsky, L. S., 133 Walther, Joe, 33, 61 Wang, W., 107 web analytics, 82 webinar. See synchronous video Weiss, R. E., 108 Wenger, E., 191 West, R. E., 35 Whipp, J. L., 106 Whiteside, Aimee, 7, 8 Wiencke, W. R., 89 Wikis, 199. See also discussion boards, forums and Wikis Williams, E., 3, 11, 29, 32 Wolanin, T. R., 170 Woodthorpe, J., 199 Yen, C., 116 Yildiz, S., 117 Zhao, Y., 107 Zhu, Y., 107 Zone Of Proximal Development (ZPD), 134, 135

5/12/2017 11:00:10 PM

Teaching Unprepared Students Strategies for Promoting Success and Retention in Higher Education Kathleen F. Gabriel Foreword by Sandra M. Flake “This book offers a practical and excellent resource for college and university faculty on how to enhance retention for students, particularly those who might need assistance transitioning from high school to college.”—Christine A. Stanley, Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, Texas A&M University

22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, VA 20166-2102

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 225

Subscribe to our e-mail alerts: www.Styluspub.com

5/12/2017 11:00:11 PM

Also available from Stylus Teaching Science Online Practical Guidance for Effective Instruction and Lab Work Edited by Dietmar K. Kennepohl “Dietmar Kennepohl has drawn upon an international network of innovative educators in various science disciplines in college and university settings. Each are bringing in their unique experiences and a review of research literature for developing and delivering “hands-on” activities in an online environment, which is equivalent to that we would see in conventional face to face classroom settings. Laying out a foundational base of knowledge in four general science areas, this collection also branches into firsthand descriptions from educators, including the use of online tools to provide experiences not possible in traditional face to face classroom settings and unique ways in which online tools open doors for those with different abilities (disabilities). This book is a nice resource for anyone new to online science education, as well as for someone looking for a compiled summary of latest research findings in this area or just wanting some new ideas to try in their own online science courses.”—Deana Namuth-Covert, Professor, Director of Online Education and Outreach at The Ohio State University College of Food Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

Blended Course Design Workbook Practical Guidance for Effective Instruction and Lab Work Kathryn E. Linder The Blended Course Design Workbook brings together the best practices in online learning and residential teaching in a single concise volume and provides a wealth of resources, checklists, and step-by-step instructions essential for the development and teaching of cutting-edge college courses.”—Joshua Kim, Director of Digital Learning Initiatives, Dartmouth Center for the Advancement of Learning (DCAL)

(Continues on previous page)

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 226

5/12/2017 11:00:12 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 227

5/12/2017 11:00:13 PM

9781620365083_Whiteside_Social Presence in Online Learning.indb 228

5/12/2017 11:00:13 PM