Social Presence and Online Learning: A Review of Research

Murat Oztok and Clare Brett

VOL. 25, No. 3

Abstract

This article traces the evolution of the construct of social presence,

focusing on its definition and conceptualization within online learning. The

review here categorizes the research into three “eras” through which the

history and evaluation of social presence can be summarized. The review

reveals three fundamental concepts that are consistently emphasized in the

research on social presence. The idea of social presence has long informed

what is currently considered good practice in online learning. Yet, questions

exist regarding how it can best be measured or conceptualized, and its

relationship with learning outcomes remains unclear.

Résumé

Cet article analyse les parallèles et les sujets de dissension existant

dans la littérature portant sur la présence sociale en identifiant comment la

présence sociale est définie et opérationnalisée dans la littérature

scientifique traitant de l’apprentissage en ligne. La revue de la littérature

divise la recherche en trois « époques » à travers lesquelles il est possible

de résumer l’histoire et l’évaluation de la théorie de la présence sociale. De

plus, la revue de littérature identifie quatre notions fondamentales qui sont

constamment mises en relief dans la recherche traitant de la présence

sociale. Toutefois, on continue à se poser des questions sur comment

conceptualiser et mesurer celle-ci, de même que sur comment la présence

sociale est liée à l’apprentissage.

Introduction

This article investigates a single question: What exactly is social

presence in online learning? The concept of social presence has long-

contributed to our understanding of social behavior in mediated

environments; nevertheless, the definition lacks clarity. Unfortunately, while

usable but limited in scope, the current conceptualizations of social presence

do not adequately support the broad exploration and explanation of

technologically-mediated perceptions, behaviors, and interactions. There is

a need for a well-explicated conceptualization of social presence both to

provide a more holistic understanding of individuals in mediated

environments and to systematically investigate social presence as a

complex, multi-layered, and multi-faceted construct. Indeed, developing “a

systematic theory will in turn enable development of appropriate measures

of social presence…” (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003, p. 457). As a

consequence, we intend to start a discussion about how to incorporate these

different understandings into a more productive conceptualization for online

learning research and practice. This article does not aim to create yet

another account of social presence; rather, it aims to discover the

similarities and contradictions within the existing literature. To do this, we

reviewed, analyzed, and classified the definitions, theoretical foundations,

measurements, and applications of social presence in computer-mediated

communication (CMC) and online learning research. While our main focus

was Education, we included the fields of Psychology, Information Science,

and Communication Science and carried out an extensive review to locate

peer reviewed journal articles, books, and conference proceedings about

social presence.

The argument begins with elaborating why social presence is an

important concept for online learning pedagogies. Then, we summarize the

history and the evolution of the concept. By analyzing the various ways in

which researchers have defined and investigated social presence, we discuss

how social presence has different meanings for different researchers from

different disciplines. We conclude by indicating possible areas for future

research.

1. Social Presence and Online Learning

Researchers have long tried to explain individuals' social practices in

online environments, and social presence is one of the key explanatory

constructs in these efforts. Social presence is thought to play a supporting

role in the formation of relationships and the exchange of information within

a mediated environment. That social presence is prerequisite to interaction

and learning can be appreciated by an appeal to constructivist principles.

We therefore begin with a brief review of constructivism, insofar as it helps

us understand the nature of social presence as an important mediator of

interaction.

From a social constructivist point of view, learning is shaped by

context (Bakhtin, 1986; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), since an

individual’s mind is formed through, and always continues to reflect, social

processes (Bandura, 1994). Swan (2005) summarizes why social

constructivism is important for online learning practices: “[s]ocial

constructivism reminds us that learning is essentially a social activity, that

meaning is constructed through communication, collaborative activity, and

interactions with others. It highlights the role of social interactions in

meaning making … [and] knowledge construction” (p. 5). When social

constructivism is employed as a theoretical framework, social presence

becomes critical as it connects individuals in an online learning environment

and motivates them to take an active role in the knowledge construction

and meaning-making processes (Fung, 2004; Henning, 2004; Stacey,

1999). For instance, Hill, Song, and West (2009) suggest that online

environments should support learning practices through which individuals

“interact and observe the results of their interactions while responding to

and engaging with others” (p. 89). To summarize, literature suggests that

social presence not only supports and facilitates the communicative actions

of individuals, but also potentially enables learning in online environments.

2. Three Eras of Conceptualizing Social Presence

This section describes three time eras in order to characterize how the

concept has evolved over the years and what has been studied regarding

social presence. While we draw the trajectory of social presence through

these three eras, we do not argue that these eras are distinct or separate

from each other. Rather, we suggest that each era builds upon those

before. In this sense, we think of eras as reflecting “the spirit of the time”;

each era acts to constrain and shape the time-appropriate

conceptualizations offered and used by researchers. Through these three

eras, we show how our current understanding of social presence has

evolved and has become an increasingly complex and multi-faceted

construct.

The first era begins with the earliest presence studies, which date to

the late 1960s. In this era, researchers focused on the capacity of the

medium to convey social information. The argument was one of media

richness: a medium capable of conveying social cues should promote

communication that is similarly rich with social presence. Mehrabian (1969 )

conducted what is arguably the first social presence study, although he did

not use “social presence” to define the richness of the medium. Following up

Mehrabian’s work, Short, Williams & Christie (1976) coined the term social

presence and examined people’s attitudes toward different communication

media (e.g., face-to-face, audio, and video). They measured social presence

using pairs of bipolar items, such as unsociable-sociable, insensitive-

sensitive, cold-warm, and impersonal-personal and argued that “[m]edia

having a high degree of social presence were judged as being warm,

personal, sensitive, and sociable” (p. 66). Short et al. (1976) suggest that

social presence is a critical attribute of a communication medium that can

determine the way people interact in a mediated environment:

We believe, however, that the degree of salience of the other person

in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal

relationships is an important hypothetical construct that can usefully be

applied more generally. We shall term this quality ‘social presence’. … We

regard social presence as being a quality of the communications medium.

Although we would expect it to affect the way individuals perceive their

discussions, and their relationships to the persons with whom they are

communicating, it is important to emphasize that we are defining social

presence as a quality of the medium itself. (p. 65)

To summarize, Short et al. (1976), conceptualized social presence as

the quality of a medium through which individuals can interact in a

mediated environment. While current understanding of social presence

remains true to this conceptualization, scholars today suggest that the

relationship between technical quality and social presence is far less

deterministic. Rather, many factors interact to yield social presence,

including communicative affordances of differing media, communicative

patterns of individuals, and attributes of the communities within which the

individuals are situated.

Continuing with the first era, other prominent definitions include: the

feeling that the people with whom one is collaborating are in the same

mediated environment (Mason, 1994), the degree of tangibility and

proximity of other people that one perceives in a communication situation

(McLeod, Baron, Marti, & Yoon, 1997), the extent to which other beings in

the mediated world appear to exist and react to the user (Heeter, 1992),

and the degree to which participants are able to project themselves

affectively within the medium (Garrison, 1997).

At the close of the first era, researchers remained concentrated on

technical affordances and technology richness (e.g., Kiesler, 1986; Rice,

1994). Different communication media transmit varying degrees of social

presence based on the capacity to send out nonverbal and verbal

information.

We situate the second era in the 1990s. Researchers in this era

became attuned to the possibility that the individual, in addition to the

technology, could determine perceived levels of social presence. Individual

differences in communication style and preferences, for example, could

affect the interpretation of social information (Garrison, 1997;

Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). In part, this nuanced

conceptualization was fostered by technological advances that promoted

differentiated online experiences. This led to a focus on the contributions of

each student to the online experience, and the ways that individual students

responded to and learned from their subsequent interactions. It was also a

period where constructivism, particularly in North America, began to have

more sway in research, and the emphasis on "the individual'' permeated

social presence work as well. Researchers examined the effects of a medium

on interactions and communications in terms of individuals’ perceptions and

showed that individuals could overcome the limitations of communications

media. An individual’s perception of presence became as important as the

medium’s capabilities of transmitting that presence, and social presence

came to include a perceptual component (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer,

2000; McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996; Rourke, Anderson, Archer, &

Garrison, 1999). Definitions of social presence in this era include: the

degree to which people are perceived as real in a CMC environment

(Gunawardena, 1995), the degree to which a person feels socially present in

a mediated situation (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996), the ability of

students to project themselves socially and emotionally, as real people

(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000), and the ability to make one’s self

known in a mediated environment (Savicki & Kelley, 2000). Focusing on

the individualistic perspectives, second era studies defined and explained

social presence as the nature of individuals’ perceptions. Building upon the

first era research, the second era contributed to our current understanding

of social presence by extending the research to capture insights of

individuals.

We begin the third era at the turn of the century, where echoes of this

research remain important in new conceptualizations of online learning as

situated communities of learners (e.g., Picciano, 2002; Swan & Shih, 2005;

Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Today's mediated environments are moving away

from the text-based platforms of the past, offering new ways to interact and

socialize. As a consequence, scholars in this era address online learning

communities as an important new dimension of social presence. For

instance, Garrison (2009) studies social presence by examining whether

individuals can communicate purposefully in a trusting environment and

develop inter-personal relationships within their communities. Other studies

with a similar focus, concentrate on how individuals perceive their peers in

online courses (Swan & Shih, 2005) and how they project themselves both

socially and emotionally in a learning community (Rourke et al., 1999).

Kehrwald’s (2008) study is important to note since it is relatively unique in

its qualitative measurement of social presence. Similarly, Kehrwald

underscores the effects of community on social presence:

[students] experience relationships characterized by social–relational

constructs, such as trust, respect, rapport, and empathy. They experience

feelings … in the online environment and comfort with the nature of a

social–relational activity that promotes a willingness … [of] participation in

interpersonal exchanges – exchanges which require self-disclosure … (p. 98)

While individuals are still the center of attention, the third era research

expands the focus toward the relationship between individuals and their

community (Kehrwald, 2008; Rogers & Lea, 2005; Tu, 2002). Building upon

the second era, considerable research probes how social presence is

manifested in individuals’ interactions with their online peers. Arguably,

third era research represents the current understanding of social presence

in online learning.

In summary, social presence has evolved through several stages,

responding to new educational practices and conceptualizations. This

evolution occurred in three phases over time: 1) a research era that

conceptualized social presence as a property of a medium, where the focus

was on the capacity of media to convey nonverbal information; 2) a

research era that conceptualized social presence as the perceptions of

individuals, where the focus was less on the media and more on people; and

3) a research era that conceptualizes social presence as a facilitating

element, where the focus is on the interactive learning activities and the

development of online learning communities. This summarization

demonstrates that our current understanding of social presence, the third

era, is built upon and is still informed by the first and the second era

studies.

3. Studying Social Presence

Along with analyzing the historical trajectory, the concept of social

presence can be understood through an examination of the ways in which

the theory has been instantiated. The literature suggests that three

research themes are consistently present: 1) the relationship between social

presence and sense of community, 2) the relationship between social

presence and interactions and behaviors, and 3) the relationship between

social presence and success and satisfaction. However, it is important to

acknowledge that these three research themes are not in any time order nor

are they clearly distinct from each other. Indeed, we will see how these

themes overlap as we cite the same studies under different research

themes. Below, we shall articulate these three concepts.

3.1 Social Presence and Sense of Community

Many researchers have focused on the relationship between social

presence and sense of community. The theoretical underpinning of these

studies is that individuals are not isolated entities in a community;

consequently, how people interact in different group settings should be

examined. Therefore, these researchers have intensified their attention on

how individuals interact in online communities as they engage with their

peers in collaborative learning processes (e.g., Rourke et al., 1999; Tu,

2005). For instance, Hiltz, Coppola, Rotter, Toroff, and Benbunan-Fich

(2000) employ social presence theory to investigate the ways in which

individuals interact socially, question each other, share knowledge, and

engage in activities in a technologically-mediated environment.

Early studies that investigated social interactions suggested that

technologically-mediated environments are insufficient for the formation of

communities. Early researchers compared CMC environments with

traditional face-to-face environments and showed that CMC environments

pose challenges for developing social presence due to the loss of face-to-

face interaction and other visual cues. Therefore, these scholars argued that

while mediated environments can facilitate the exchange of ideas, they are

weak in their capacity to convey social cues that enable affective

communication to occur (e.g., Connolly & Valacich, 1990; Hiltz, 1986). For

instance, Moore (1980) suggested that the physical separation of students

in a CMC environment has a tendency to reduce the sense of community

among learners, resulting in feelings of disconnection, isolation, distraction,

and lack of personal attention. Nevertheless, as technology has provided

better communication channels, later research showed that individuals could

still develop a functional sense of community in an online environment and

perceive the environment as a sociable place (e.g., Baym, 1995;

Gunawardena, 1995; Walther, 1992). Current studies are in line with this

idea and suggest that current communication media are sufficiently rich to

support functioning communities (e.g., Aragon, 2003; Rourke et al., 1999;

Rovai, 2002).

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) is likely the most influential

theoretical framework to date for studying social presence in online learning

communities. Though the CoI can be traced back to studies of Ramsden

(1988), Lipman (1991), and Resnick (1991), online learning researchers

refer to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) model because of its close

application to online learning. The CoI is conceived of as a group of

individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful discourse to construct

personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding through the

development of three interdependent "presence" elements: social, cognitive,

and teaching presence. Garrison et al. (2000) define social presence as “the

ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves

socially and emotionally … through the medium of communication being

used” (p. 94) and argue that it creates the “difference between a

collaborative community of inquiry and a simple process of downloading

information” (p. 96). The CoI is particularly important since it provides a

model to systematically investigate social presence and its relation to other

elements in online learning (Rourke & Kanuka, 2009). While earlier research

had provided rigorous information about the subcategories of social

presence, they tended to study social presence in isolation. The CoI model,

however, evolved from the social constructivist paradigm, and attempts to

empirically test the concept in relation to other dynamics in online learning

(e.g., Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, Shea, &

Swan, 2008; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; Swan & Shih, 2005). Many online

learning researchers, particularly those studying higher education contexts,

find the CoI model particularly relevant and useful because it provides “the

methodological guidelines for measuring each of the presences that

constituted a community of inquiry” (Arbaugh et al. 2008 p. 134). For

instance, employing the CoI to study social presence, Rourke and Anderson

(2002) explored the influence of social communication and context on

students' perceptions; Archibald (2010) analyzed the effects of social

presences on the development of cognitive presence; Delfino and Manca

(2007) investigated the relationship between figurative language and social

construction of knowledge; and Annand (2011) analyzed subcategories of

social and teaching presences to support group-based learning activities.

To conclude, social presence can be an important construct affecting

the development of a sense of community among learners (Aragon, 2003;

Rovai, 2001). In addition, it can be argued that studying online communities

through the concept of social presence could provide a fundamental

understanding of how individuals connect, communicate, interact, and form

relationships as they work collaboratively in an online environment.

3.2 Social Presence and Interactions and Behaviors

Another important research focus in the literature is on the

relationship between social presence and students’ online behaviors.

Researchers argue that it is possible for individuals to interact and

collaborate in an online environment while not necessarily feeling that they

are members of a group. Accordingly, researchers in this category do not

focus on the sense of community or socialization processes but are

interested in how individuals behave and interact with each other in an

online environment.

The literature shows that social presence is a key construct for

understanding individuals’ experience in this context (Gunawardena & Zittle,

1997; Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002; Rourke et al. 1999; Tu & Mclsaac,

2002; Walther, 1993). For instance, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997)

suggest that when students participate in activities, they project their own

identities into cyberspace, “feel the presence of others online”, and create

“conventions and norms that bind them together in exploring issues of

common interest” (p. 11). Other studies (e.g., Rourke et al., 1999; Tu &

Mclsaac, 2002) demonstrate similar results and further suggest that social

presence could make individuals’ interactions more appealing, engaging,

and rewarding. Yet another example can be found in Moore and Kearsley’s

(2005) work in which they posit that social presence stimulates peer-to-

peer interactions, and thus fosters sociability in online environments. They

further argue that students need social presence to interact with their peers

and to be perceived as being there and as being real.

To summarize, the literature suggests that social presence is an

important construct that is closely related to individuals’ behaviors in online

learning environments (Jung et al., 2002; Kearsley, 2000; Tu & Mclsaac,

2002). Students with a higher degree of social presence participate more

actively, and thus interact with others more frequently. Therefore, one could

argue that there is a positive relationship between social presence and

individuals’ behaviors and interactions in online environments.

3.3 Social Presence and Success and Satisfaction

A review of the literature shows that many researchers have tried to

understand the outcomes of social presence and have focused on how social

presence is related to students’ success. Therefore, researchers in this

category have examined the relationship between social presence and

students’ perceived learning or students’ satisfaction.

It is important to remember that these studies are looking at an

indirect measure of learning; specifically, in studies on the relationship

between social presence and students’ success “learning was

operationalized as perceived learning [and was] measured through self-

reports with survey items” (Rourke & Kanuka, 2009 p. 26). The relationship

between social presence and performance in an online graduate course was

investigated by Picciano (2002) and the results reveal that positive social

presence is significantly correlated with students’ positive perception of their

learning. To more closely examine the relationship between social presence

and students’ performance (in relation to student interactions), Picciano

further compares students’ interactions with each other and with their

participation in discussions. The results show that the students in the high

social presence group performed significantly better than the medium and

low social presence groups. Similar results can be found in Jung et al.'s

(2002) study in which they assess the importance of social interactivity and

conclude that students with a higher degree of social presence

outperformed those with a lower degree. These studies confirm the results

of Swan, Polhemus, Shih, and Rogers’s (2001) study in which the authors

argued that students who were perceived to have high degrees of social

presence tended to contribute more to discussions. Similarly, Shea, Li, and

Pickett (2006) and Akyol and Garrison (2008) surveyed students and

explored their perceived learning by directly asking students whether they

learned in the online course. Both studies report a significant positive

correlation between increased social presence and perceived learning.

Along with perceived learning, some scholars have examined students’

satisfaction with the online course in relation to the degree of social

presence. These scholars are interested in whether social presence predicts

students’ satisfaction by investigating the relationship between social

presence and retention rates. The literature shows that social presence is

related to students’ satisfaction (e.g., Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997;

Richardson & Swan, 2003; Tu, 2000) and to retention rates (e.g., Boston,

Diaz, Gibson, Ice, Richardson, & Swan, 2009; Leh, 2001; Liu, Gomez, &

Yen, 2009; Tu & McIsaac, 2002). For instance, Leh's (2001) study suggests

that if social presence is not perceived sufficiently, individuals judge the

online environment as impersonal; consequently, they participate less and

decrease the amount of information they share with their peers. Therefore,

many scholars suggest that social presence is a significant predictor of

students’ overall satisfaction and course retention. Such arguments are built

on the premise that since students with higher level of social presence feel

more like insiders of a community, they feel more satisfied with the course

and thus remain in the course.

To summarize, the literature suggests that social presence has a

positive influence on students’ perception of their learning and satisfaction

in an online environment. However, it is important to note that as Rourke

and Kanuka (2009) remind us, such studies have typically focused on

perceived learning. Indeed, the ways in which researchers define learning or

social presence affects the ways in which they examine the relationship

between them. Nevertheless, regardless of variety in definitions and

investigations, one could argue that social presence is an important

construct for understanding students’ online behaviors that can be used to

explain why some individuals interact more and in return obtain more

knowledge while some others simply do not participate and do not share

within the same environment.

4. Gaps in the Literature

Social presence research has a history of more than thirty years and

numerous studies have been conducted; however, the literature shows

some clear areas for further research. For instance, while researchers agree

that social presence is a critical concept, the definition of social presence

still lacks clarity. Indeed, notions of presence are as diverse as the fields

within which it has been studied. Psychology, communications, education,

cognitive science, computer science, engineering, philosophy, and the arts

all offer discipline-specific conceptualizations and definitions of social

presence (Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Tu, 2002). Lowenthal (2010)

underscores this range of conceptualizations of presence by arguing that “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” (p.125). Along with the variety of definitions, the

literature indicates that there are significant issues yet to be solved,

including the methods of measuring social presence, the factors affecting

social presence, and the relationship between social presence and learning

(Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003; Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Russo &

Benson, 2005).

We also find that while social presence has been productively applied

to understand the social practices of individuals, it has not been applied to

understand the educational communities at large. If we accept the premise

that social presence reflects the ability to connect with members of a

community of learners by providing the foundation for social interactions

(Garrison, 2006), understanding how communities, whether online or not,

are situated in context becomes critical. However, the current

understanding could not productively explain how intellectual engagements

in a collaborative work are bounded by social presence. Garrison (2006)

raises similar concerns and suggests that social and cognitive presence are

“inseparable elements in a collaborative-constructive approach” (p. 29).

Therefore, more work needs to be done to understand how social and

cultural discourses could affect individuals and their social practices. This is

an important limitation of current conceptualizations since communities are

discursive entities that exist in a particular time and space, in which the

temporality and historicity of the discursive dynamics would affect

individuals’ social presence. Therefore, it might be productive to conceive of

social presence as a unique and complex social construct for each

individual; one that may even fluctuate over time for the same individual in

an online environment.

Yet another gap we identify is the lack of a qualitative understanding

of social presence. The review indicates that while social presence has been

extensively studied quantitatively, qualitative exploration of social presence

is lacking. It seems prudent to focus on thick qualitative descriptions

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Geertz, 1973) of how social presence may be

related to various social or cultural phenomena. Results from such studies

could help us to better understand the nature of social presence by

exploring how social presence occurs or functions for individuals within their

particular context.

5. Conclusion

This paper reviews the historical and theoretical development of the

concept of social presence. When the historical trajectory of social presence

is considered, the review suggests that technological developments could

affect the ways scholars conceptualized social presence. The capacity of the

communication medium was considered the foundation of social presence

theory for a long period of time and subsequent research was built on this

foundational assumption. Later, communication tools used in CMC

environments became increasingly sophisticated and individuals began to

experience richer and deeper interactions. As a consequence, the

researchers’ focus moved in the direction of conceptualizing social presence

through understanding participants' behaviors. These researchers continued

to respect the capacity of the medium used but technological affordances

were no longer the focus. Currently, social presence studies build on the

premise that it is the individual who makes an online environment a

productive space in which collaboration and social learning practices occurs.

Therefore, the contemporary social presence research focuses on individuals

within online learning communities.

Examining the theoretical development, the review suggests that new

practices required new conceptualizations of social presence. Since

technological advancements allowed sophisticated interaction and better

collaboration among individuals, scholars searched for theoretical

frameworks to deploy these new practices in a meaningful way. While

researchers have considered social presence as a theoretical framework,

they have conceptualized it in various ways to address these new emerging

practices. Interestingly, although there is no consensus on the definition of

social presence, the literature review suggests that much research

employed social presence to study a wide range of aspects of the online

learning experience, including perceived learning, satisfaction, performance,

and interactions (Danchak, Walther, & Swan, 2001; Gunawardena & Zittle,

1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Russo & Benson, 2005; Walther, 1992).

Despite the work that has been done, we underscored the continuing need

for a well-defined conceptualization of social presence to support systematic

investigations. Particularly, we argue that such systematic investigation

could provide more holistic means to understand social presence in relation

to knowledge, learning, and cultural practices. Indeed, Garrison (2006) has

already argued that social presence should not be studied in isolation;

rather, researchers should consider the dynamics of a collaborative-

constructive learning process. While we acknowledged the importance of the

CoI as one attempt at a systematic investigation, the review suggests that

much research employing the CoI model typically investigates social

presence through issues that are peripheral to learning (Rourke & Kanuka,

2009).

Considering the historical evolution of the concept and drawing on the

multitude of ways social presence is conceptualized, the review indicates

further research could productively focus on how social presence is

manifested within community at large. Grounded in social practice, the

conceptualization of social presence should include how social and cultural

dynamics manifest themselves in individuals’ practices and affect

perceptions of presence. Such perspectives may provide more holistic ways

to understand individuals in a mediated environment and better support

collaborative learning practices in online educational contexts.

References

1. 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), 3-23.

2. Annand, D. (2011). Social Presence within the Community of Inquiry Framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(5), 40-56.

3. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., Shea, P., & 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(3-4), 133-136.

4. Archibald, D. (2010). Fostering the Development of Cognitive Presence: Initial Findings Using the Community of Inquiry Survey Instrument. Internet & Higher Education, 13(1-2), 73-74.

5. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online

environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57-68.

6. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays.

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 7. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. New York, NY: Academic

Press. 8. Baym, K. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-

mediated communication. In G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community. (pp. 138-163). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

9. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Criteria for a theory and measure of social presence. Presence, 12(5), 456–480.

10. Boston, W., Diaz, 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.

11. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition

and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

12. Connolly, T., & Valacich. (1990). Effect of anonymity and

evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6), 97-120.

13. Danchak, M., Walther, J. B., & Swan, K. (2001). Presence in

mediated instructions: bandwidth, behavior, and expectancy violations. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Sloan Center International Conference on Online Learning, Orlando, FL.

14. 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.

15. Denzin N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of

qualitative research. In Denzin N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

16. Fung, Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: interaction

patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 54-72. 17. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-

industrial age of distance education. Open Learning, 12(2), 3-11. 18. Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online Collaboration Principles. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25−34.

19. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 352-355). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

20. 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.

21. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretations of cultures. New York, NY:

Basic Books. 22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of

presence. Presence, 1(2), 262-271. 25. Henning, W. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated learning.

In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

26. Hill, J. R., Song, L., & West, R.E. (2009). Social Learning Theory

and Web-Based Learning Environments: A Review of Research and Discussion of Implications. The American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 88–103.

27. Hiltz, R. (1986). The virtual classroom: Using computer-

mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.

28. Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Toroff, M., & Benbunan-Fich,

R. (2000). ALN Research: What we know and what we need to

know about contextual influences. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (pp. 109-124). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

29. 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.

30. Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in

cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 31. Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-

based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89-116.

32. Kiesler, S. (1986). The hidden message in computer networks.

Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 46-58. 33. Leh, A. S. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and social

presence in a distance learning environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(2), 109-128.

34. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Univ. Press. 35. 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.

36. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. B. (1997). At the heart of it all: The

concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [Online], 3(2), Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html

37. 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.

38. Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London, UK: Kogan Page.

39. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance

education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the association for educational communications and technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

40. McLeod, P. L., Baron, R. S., Marti, M. W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The

eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 706-718.

41. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of

nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1(6), 205–207.

42. Moore, M. G. (1980). Independent study. In R. D. Boyd & J. W.

Apps (Eds.), Redefining the discipline of adult education, (pp. 16-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

43. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A

systems view (2nd ed.). New York: Wadsworth. 44. Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of

interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21- 40.

45. Ramsden, P. (1988). Improving learning: New perspectives.

London, UK: Kogan Page. 46. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared Cognition: Thinking as Social

Practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

47. Rice, R. (1994). Network analysis and computer-mediated

communication systems. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis (pp. 167-203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48. 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), 66-88.

49. Rogers, P. & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group

environments: the role of social identity. Behavior & Information Technology, 24(2), 151-158.

50. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Exploring social interaction in

computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 257-273.

51. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Archer, W., & Garrison, R. (1999).

Assessing social presence in asynchronous computer conferencing transcripts. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.

52. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of

inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48.

53. Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a

distance: a case study. Educational Technology Research and Development Journal, 49(4), 33–48.

54. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16.

55. Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others:

Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 54-62.

56. Savicki, V., & Kelley, M. (2000). Computer mediated

communication: Gender and Group Composition. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(5), 817–826.

57. 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.

58. Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching

presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.

59. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social

psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons. 60. Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online

environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33.

61. Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 13-30). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

62. Swan, K., Polhemus, L., Shih, L.F., & Rogers, D. (2001). Building

knowledge building communities through asynchronous online course discussion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

63. 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.

64. Tu, C.-H. (2000). Strategies to increase interaction in online

social learning environments. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, CA.

65. Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an

online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.

66. Tu, C.-H. (2005). From presentation to interaction: New goals

for online learning technologies. Educational Media International, 42(3), 189-206.

67. 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.

68. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-

mediated communication: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.

69. Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-

mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57(4), 381-398.

Murat Oztok is a Ph.D. student at OISE, University of Toronto. E-mail:

murat.oztok@gmail.com

Clare Brett is a Professor at OISE, University of Toronto. E-mail:

clare.brett@utoronto.ca