1. No category

How to be PRESENT in the
Virtual Classroom:
Increasing Social Presence in
Online Courses
Jessica Gordon
Curriculum Coordinator in the Department of Focused Inquiry
Overview of Presentation
I: History of research into Social Presence
II: Social presence is correlated with student
learning and course satisfaction
III: Synthesis of published and non-published
recommendations for increasing social presence
in small to midsize online classes—and my
opinions  (emoticon intended, and you will see why)
IV: Discussion
Two Shifts in Beliefs about Social Presence
Fields and Disciplines
o FROM field of telecommunications
o TO applications in education
Understanding of User Agency
o FROM believing that social presence was defined
and limited by the technology
o TO believing that users possess the ability to
increase social presence in the technology
Theory of Social Presence (1976)
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommuncations.
Definition: “degree of salience of the other person in a mediated
communication and the consequent salience of their interpersonal
interactions”. How “real” a person seems when communicating in a
given medium.
o Depends on verbal and nonverbal cues
o Forms of media vary in their potential for social presence
o Some forms of media had a higher potential for social presence
(video) than others (written word).
Note: Short, Williams and Christie believed social presence was a
quality of the medium itself.
Theories that Support Social Presence
as a Quality of Medium Itself
Media Richness: Developed by Ronald Rice (1984, 1986): “Media richness represents the
extent to which media are able to bridge different frames of reference, make issues less
ambiguous, or provide opportunities for learning in a given time interval, based on the
medium’s capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and sense involved,
personalization and language variety.
Redefining Media Richness: Trevino, Lengo and Daft (1987): Expanded Rice’s theory
and defined “media richness” as “the potential information sharing capacity of data or
simply as the capacity of information to provide substantial new understanding” (p. 178).
Like the Theory of Social Presence, these definitions of “media
richness” support the belief that social presence is a quality
of the medium itself and is not defined by the user.
The Community of Inquiry Framework:
A Radical Shift in Perception
• Signifies a shift toward believing in one’s own
ability to influence presence—social, teaching
and cognitive
• First well-known application to education
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
Cognitive Presence: “extent to
which participants in any
particular configuration of a
community of inquiry are able to
construct meaning through
sustained communication”
Teaching Presence: “the design,
facilitation, and direction of
cognitive and social processes for
the purpose of realizing
personally meaningful and
educationally worthwhile
learning outcomes”
Social Presence: “the ability of
participants in the Community of
Inquiry to project their personal
characteristics into the
community, thereby presenting
themselves to the other
participants as ‘real people’”
1. What elements are crucial prerequisites for a successful
higher education experience?
2. How can we maintain these crucial components when higher
education is moved online?
Garrison, Anderson and Archer analyzed transcripts of computer conferences
in the field of Education and identified indicators of the three types of
presence. Indicators included keywords, sensations, connections, applications,
forms of expression, etc.
Community of Inquiry Framework
--cited over 1725 times-Garrison, Anderson, and Archer
o Believe that faculty can create a community
of inquiry in face-to-face and online
classrooms through maintaining high levels
of presence—cognitive presence, teaching
presence, and social presence.
o Some of what we know about presence in
face-to-face classes can be applied to the
online classroom.
Five Studies that Indicate that Student Perception of Social
Presence IS Correlated with Student Course Satisfaction
Gunawardena and Zittle (1997):
Social Presence as a Predictor of Satisfaction within a ComputerMediated Conferencing Environment
Richardson and Swan (2003):
Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to
Student’s Perceived Learning and Satisfaction
M.F. Beaudoin (2002):
Learning or Lurking? Tracking the ‘Invisible’ Online Student”
Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich (2007):
The Importance of Participant Interaction in Online Environments
Saiye Tugba Bulu (2012):
Place Presence, Social Presence, Co-presence, and Satisfaction in
Virtual Worlds
Findings of the Five Studies
All of the studies found significant correlations
between one or more of the following:
o social presence and student learning
o social presence and course grades
o social presence and student course satisfaction
o perceived social presence and perceived learning
These studies also illuminated other interesting
results which we will discuss in more depth now…
Five Ways to Increase Student and Instructor
Social Presence in Online Classes:
A Synthesis of the Published Literature plus
my Own Examples and Opinions
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Maximizing Student Presence through Instructor
Modeling of Social Presence Behaviors
Teacher Immediacy: Sharing and Encouraging Stories
Creating Social Cues: Encouraging Emoticons and Casual
Language
Optimizing the Learning Platform for Social Presence
Virtual Worlds (Second Life) and Social Presence
Faculty Must Model Social Presence Behaviors
Research indicates:
Faculty who teach online college courses must
support learners by understanding that their
own social presence and social cues are
arguably the most important predictors of
social presence in the virtual classroom, and
faculty must model those social behaviors to
their online students.
(Jung, Choi, Lim & Leem, 2002; Richardson and Swan, 2003; Shea, Pickett, Pelz,
2002; Swan and Shih, 2005).
But HOW Should Faculty Model Social
Presence?
First, We Should Exhibit Teacher Immediacy Behaviors
Teacher immediacy is instructor behavior that enhances “closeness
and interaction” and is the “major mechanism mediating teacher
effectiveness” (Anderson, 1978).
How Do We Create Immediacy in the Classroom?
o Consider the Immediacy Behavior Scale
o Share Stories and anecdotes (academic and social)
How Should Faculty Model Social Presence?
The Immediacy Behavior Scale
Immediacy Behavior Scale (Verbal & Non-verbal Behaviors)
o McCroskey, Richmond, Gorham (1987, 1988)
o Scale describes verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors
in face-to-face classes
o Created for face-to-face classroom but verbal behaviors
can easily be applied to online environment
o Faculty Prize these behaviors in the face-to-face
classroom but the struggle to communicate and teach in
the online environment can often cause us to overlook
the basics.
Sample Verbal Questions on Teacher
Immediacy Behavior
1. Uses personal examples or talks about experience
she/he has had outside of class.
3. Gets into discussions based on something a student
brings up even when this doesn’t seem to be part
of his/her lecture plan.
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
A Second Way That Faculty Can Model Social Presence?
Share and Encourage Stories
Garrison, Anderson and Archer suggest that “self
disclosure is another example of emotional
expression contributing to the development of
social presence”
How natural it is to share stories in the face-to-face
classroom, before, after and sometimes during
class—and how easy it is to forget to do so when
teaching and learning online.
When? Where? How?
Twitter--Facebook--Google Hangout for Office Hours
A Third Way to Increase Social Presence:
Creating Social Cues by Encouraging Emoticons,
Paralanguage and Casual Speech
Although our instinct is to ask students to write in formal,
academic language or at the very least, to proofread for typos
and use punctuation according to standard usage guidelines,
the research suggests that this may actually decrease social
presence in online classes.
Research suggests that the use of emoticons and paralanguage
are positively correlated with social presence
(Gunawardena and Zittle (1997); Garrison, Anderson & Archer
(2000); Whip and Lorentz (2009); Wei, Chen and Kinshuck (2012);
Using Paralanguage and Emoticons
Whip and Lorentz (2009) found that teachers with high social presence
in online classrooms “exaggerated punctuation or spelling”.
Whheeeww! Or Here gooeess…
These teachers emphasized words with capital letters and projected
emotions by literally spelling them out.
I’m excited or Sorry if I sound angry here.
They also projected empathy by naming their responses to student
feelings:
I hear your frustration or That feeling of panic
can be productive
Remember: In the Community of Inquiry framework, the first
category of social presence indicators in the expression of emotion.
Using Social Cues to Increase Social
Presence
Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) found:
“students who experienced higher levels of social
presence were also more inclined to use
emoticons (eg.,  and ) and paralanguage in
written form (eg., ‘Hmm,’ ‘Yuk’) to make up for
the lack of social and nonverbal cues that help
create social presence and immediacy in
traditional face-to-face communication”
Using Social Cues to Increase Social Presence
Wei, Chen and Kinshuk (2012) echo all these
findings and claim that “Verbal and non-verbal
cues are very important resources for
perceived social presence in online learning
environments (p. 539).
They explain that “When learners perceive a
high degree of social cues from other people,
they will get a better perception of social
presence” (p. 540).
As a writing teacher myself, I was at
first resistant…
If we encourage the use of emoticons, do we also
allow students to use text-based language
such as that which they commonly use for
texting on the phone? Where do we draw the
line?
What’s the difference between allowing students
to use informal language during discussion in
face-to-face classes versus using informal
language such as emotions and paralanguage in
a discussion board posting?
A Fourth Way To Increase Social Presence:
Optimizing the Learning Management System
What’s wrong with Blackboard?
Blackboard is a content management system,
not a learning management system.
Blackboard was made for the web 1.0 world
– Web 1.0 = top down medium for communication
– Web 2.0 = bottom up medium for communication
AND PARTICIPATION in which users can create and
contribute content
Can a Content or Learning Management System
like Blackboard Impact Social Presence?
Wei, Chen and Kinshuk (2012), studied whether
user interface and social cues affect learner’s
perceived social presence.
They found that user interface is an important
factor in online learning since social interaction is
facilitated through it. They also found that “user
interface and social cues have significant
influences on social presence. User interface also
has significant effects on social cues” (p. 540).
Why Does Blackboard
Lack Social Presence?
In my opinion, one of the biggest
problems with Bb is that
participants lack identity. How
can there be social presence
if no one has an identity?
Even dictionary entries allow
participants to interact and
each participant is identified
by a photo (if s/he chooses).
Meriam Webster definition for “Agency”
Everyone Uses Blackboard?
Or Do They?
Early 2000s: Blackboard used by 70-85% of
education institutions
In 2011: Blackboard used by over 3700 education
institutions in more than 60 countries
According to Michael Feldstein (2013), Blackboardowned systems are currently the learning
systems of choice at no more than 60% of
American institutions.
Why the Shift?
There are multiple reasons to account for this
shift in use in content/learning management
systems, but one main reason is competition.
– Open Source Learning Platforms: Moodle & Sakai
– Free Applications: Blogs, Wikis and Google Sites
– Free User-created Social Networking Sites: Ning,
Grouply and Social Go
Virtual Worlds: Second Life
One of the primary reasons that educators are so interested in Second
Life is because it appears to substantially increase student and
teacher presence in online classes.
According to Bowers, Regas and Neely (2009), “Web 2.0 tools,
particularly virtual worlds, can help improve traditional distance
learning, which if often rich in content, but low in interaction
among instructor and learners” (p. 327).
In fact, The Horizon Report (2007) concluded that “virtual worlds offer
an opportunity for people to interact in a way that conveys a sense
of presence lacking in other media. These spaces…combine many
of the elements that make Web 2.0 really exciting: social
networking, the ability to share rich media seamlessly, the ability to
connect with friends, a feeling of presence, and a connection to
the community” (p. 18)—many of the same factors that we have
previously cited as lacking in Blackboard and central to increasing
student and teacher presence.
My Six Major Conclusions
1. No matter how stressful or demanding the online course, we
must remember to increase teacher immediacy behaviors—
say hello, share stories, reveal curiosity about our student’s
lives, etc. We must be deliberate in acts of presence, even
friendliness, and not come off like we are content/skill
machines.
1. We must not forget that social presence is correlated with
student learning & course satisfaction. Thus, social presence
matters and we must try to increase and maintain it.
2. We frequently assume that students know how to behave
online, and while they may have mastered the customs of
Facebook, they do not believe, or they do not know, that
these customs are often transferable to and desirable in an
academic course.
My Six Major Conclusions
4. Students simply don’t know how to behave in an online classroom
Because they have never (or almost never) been in one before.
5. Merely telling our students that they must participate in our online class is
not a clear articulation of how to engage in an online course; rather, we must
teach students how to be engaged online and how to show signs of
presence in online courses, just the same as we explain actions that pertain
to social presence in face-to-face classes--to raise their hands when they
have
a question or to try to be quiet when entering the classroom after class
begins.
6. After we accept that our students are novice online learners and don’t
necessarily know how to be socially present, we must create opportunities
for them to learn how to manifest their presence in online courses.
References
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer
conferencing context. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2). Retrieved from
http://communitiesofinquiry.com
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
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/the-internet-and-highereducation/
Bowers, K.W., Ragas, M.W., Neely, J.C. (2009). Assessing the value of virtual worlds for post-secondary
instructors: A survey of innovators, early adopters and the early majority in second life.
International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 4(5), 327-337. Retrieved from
http://www.waset.org/journals/ijhss/v4/v4-5-45.pdf
Bulu, S.T. (2011). 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
Daft, R. Lengel. R. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and
organization design, Research in Organization Behavior, 6, 191- 233.
Daft, R. Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural
design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.
Dewey. J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal, 54 (3), 77-80. Retrieved from
http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: N.Y. The Macmillan Company.
Diamandis, P. (2013, March 7). Second Life: How a virtual world became a reality. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-diamandis/second-life-how-avirtual_b_2831270.html
Feldstein, M. (2010, Dec 21). The Evolving LMS Market, Part I. Retrieved
fromhttp://mfeldstein.com/the-evolving-lms-market-part-i/
Garrison, D., Anderson, T., Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a environment: Computer conferencing
in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning.
Communication Education, 37 (1), 40-53.
Gunawarden, C., Zittle, F. (2009). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer‐mediated conferencing environment, 11(3).
DOI: 10.1080/08923649709526970
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
Ketcham, G., Landa, K., Brown, K., Charuk, K., DeFranco. T., Heise, M., McCabe, R., Youngs-Maher, P.
(2011). Learning management systems review. Doodle LMS Report. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/459487/Learning_Management_Systems_Review
Matthews, S., Andrew, L., & Luck, E. (2012). Developing a Second Life virtual field trip for university
students: an action research approach, Educational Research, 54:1, 17-38. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00131881.2012.658197
Meggs, S.M., Greer, A.G., Collins, S. (2011). Integrating Second Life as a pedagogical
tool for interactive instruction. Merlot Journal of Online Teaching and Learning.
7(3), 380-392
Oaks, S. (2011). Real learning in a virtual world: Incorporating second life in a professional
communications course. The International HETL Review, 1(3), 14-23.
Richardson, J., Swan, K., (2003). Examining social presence in online courses relation to students’
perceived learning and satisfaction. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (1).
Retrieved from
http://actxelearning.pbworks.com/f/10.1.1.119.9339.pdf
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
fromhttp://www.suny.edu/sunytrainingcenter/files/TeachingPresence.pdf
Smart, J.C. (2005). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York,
N.Y.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Swan, K., Shih, L.F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course
discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Retrieved from
http://anitacrawley.net/Articles/Swan%20and%20Shih2005.pdf
Rapanotti, L., Minocha, S., Barroca, L., Boulos, M., Morse, D. (2012). 3-D virtual worlds in higher
education. In A.D. Oloffson, J.O. Lindberg (Eds.), Informed Design of Educational Technologies in
Higher Education (pp. 212-225). U.S.A.: Information Science Reference
Rice, Ronald. (1993). Media Appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare
traditional and new organizational media. Human Communications Research, 19
(4), 451-484.
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of
Telecommuncations. New York, N.Y.: Wiley.
Swanson, K., Hornsby, K. The Community of Inquiry: A Survey of Traditional Classroom
and Webcourse Application. Analytic Teaching, 21 (2), 87-103.
Thacker, C. (2012). Moving beyond Blackboard: Using a social network as a learning
management system. Metropolitan Universities, 23(2), 11-31.
The New Media Consortium & EduCause Learning Initiative. (2007). The Horizon
Report. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007HorizonReport.pdf
Trevino, L.K., Lengel, R.H. & Daft, R.L. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness and
media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective.
Communication Research, 14, 533-575.
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
Whipp, J.L., Lorentz, R.A. (2008). Cognitive and social help giving in online teaching: an
exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2),
doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9104-7.