1. social presence

2. TEACHING PRESENCE SOCIAL PRESENCE COGNITIVE PRESENCE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE community of inquiry model (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001)

3. social presence the degree to which participants in computer mediated communication feel socially and emotionally connected the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into an online community of inquiry

4. research to date social presence can be (strongly) felt by participants in computer-mediated communication (Walther, 1994; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Tu & McIsaac, 2002) and projected into text-based asynchronous discussion using verbal immediacy indicators alone (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001; Swan, 2002; 2003)

5. research to date perceptions of social presence are linked to student satisfaction in online courses (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson,1997; Tu, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003) and to (perceived) learning from them (Walther, 1994; Gunawardena, 1995; Picciano, 2002)

6. research to date use of immediacy (social presence) indicators changes over time changes over time (Swan, 2002, 2003; Vaughn & Garrison, in press) and social presence perceived may differ among participants from differing cultures (Teng & Swan, 2006)

7. Karen Swan, Kent State University LiFang Shih, Excelsior College (JALN, 2005) On the Nature and Development of Social Presence in Online Course Discussions

8. research questions What factors influence perceptions of social presence? What is the relationship between student perceptions of social presence (instructors and peers) and their perceived learning, instructor satisfaction & interaction in online discussion? How do students perceiving differing levels of social presence project themselves into online discussion? How do students perceiving differing levels of social presence conceptualize online discussion?

9. subjects & setting 54 (/94) graduate education students enrolled in 4 classes complete online survey (2/3 female; 2/3 with online experience; ages 21-50) MMCE Instructor A Instructor B

10. online survey demographic & experiential information respondents asked to rate agreement with statements (1-5 Likert scale) concerning: perceived presence of peers (8) perceived presence of instructor (5) satisfaction with instructor (1) perceived learning (4) perceived interaction (1)

11. quantitative analyses analysis of variance to explore differences related to demographic & experiential variables correlational & regression analysis of relationships between variables partial correlations to tease apart influence of social presence of peers from that of instructors

12. results analysis of variance reveals significant differences between courses (but not classes or instructors) only differences between groupings by student characteristics related to age (and not gender, online experience, time spent in course)

13. results all variables highly correlated SPPSPIPLPI social pres. of peers (SPP) social pres. of inst. (SPI).70* perceived learning (PL).70*.74* perceived interaction (PI).62*.50*.55* satisfaction w/ inst. (SI).56*.81*.74*.41* * p<.005

14. results partial correlations show differing contributions of instructors & peers *p<.005; **p<.05 partial correlations with perceived learning partial correlations with perceived interaction partial correlations with instructor satisfaction perceived presence of peers.36**.44*-.03 perceived presence of instructors.49*.10.71*

15. qualitative analyses content analysis of selected subjects’ use of social presence indicators in discussion postings using Swan’s (2002, 2003) coding protocols & Rourke, et al.’s (2001) social presence density indexcoding protocols structured interviews of selected subjects via email and phone analyzed using thematic cross- case analysis structured interviews

16. subjects & setting 5 subjects with the highest combined social presence ratings & 5 with the lowest combined social presence ratings were identified for qualitative analyses

17. results affectiveinteractivecohesivetotal low SP group 17.56.74.428.6 high SP group 26.310.06.042.3 quantitative content analysis reveals meaningful differences in social presence densities between subjects perceiving the most & least presence

18. results quantitative comparison reveals meaningful differences in perceptions between subjects perceiving the most & least presence perc. learning perc. interaction perc. SP of insts instructor satisf low SP group 3.23.03.74.0 high SP group 4.85.04.95.0

19. results thematic content analyses all students reported changing communication styles to adjust to asynchronous format, but while high social presence subjects adopted a more conversational style, low social presence subjects adopted a more formal style

20. results thematic content analyses all students reported learning from discussions, but while high presence group believed they learned from others’ postings, low presence group thought they learned solely by articulating their own ideas

21. “When I first read and responded to a discussion question I felt that I had written all that I could on the subject. After reading other people’s comments on the same question, I was able to take in different viewpoints and see if it was something that I agreed with or totally disagreed with. Without class discussions I would have never thought twice about the question that I had just answered.” student perceiving high social presence

22. “Some of the responses I read led me to believe that some of the students in the class were either ignorant about the subject matter, or too stubborn in their way of thinking to take the class content seriously.” student perceiving low social presence

23. results thematic content analyses all students appreciated being asked to relate course concepts to personal experience, but only high presence group reported learning from others’ experiences

24. “You can learn a lot from people who offer to tell of their personal experiences and often you can get a person that may have had that experience themselves and offer to share their version. Since you are not seeing the people you are interacting with, there has to be a way to make the online experience personable and enjoyable.” student perceiving high social presence

25. “In class, you know, people come to class so that you could see who is there and who is not, whereas online it was not the case because you couldn't see their faces. I couldn't put any names with any of them, and sometimes, you know, there were two people who had the same names and it was difficult to tell who was who.” student perceiving low social presence

26. conclusions course design can affect development of social presence age might also be a factor

27. conclusions social presence may be more important to student perceptions (learning, satisfaction) of satisfaction than interactivity social presence of students and social presence of instructors are different constructs which differentially influence student perceptions social presence of instructors may be more important to learning than social presence of peers

28. conclusions perceptions of presence are linked to its presentation students with differing perceptions of social presence have different conceptions of online discussion

29. Research Center for Educational Technology kswan@kent.edu

30. 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., Lowe, C. A. & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conference. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17 (4), 397-431. 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. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1). references

31. 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. 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). Swan, K. (2002). Building communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23-49. Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed), Learning and Teaching with Technology: Principles and Practices. London: Kogan Page, 147-164. Swan, K. & Shih, L-F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9 (3), 115-136. references

32. Teng, Y. & Swan, K. (2006). Comparisons of students’ perception of social presence in online discussion between majority and minority groups. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37. 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. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (in press). How blended learning can support a faculty development community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Walther, J. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21, (4), 460-487. references

33. SOCIAL PRESENCE OF PEERS 1. Online or web-based education is an excellent medium for social interaction. 2. I felt comfortable conversing through this medium. 3. The “Meet Your Classmates” section enabled me to form a sense of online community. 4. I felt comfortable participating in course discussions. 5. I felt comfortable interacting with other participants in the course. 6. I felt that other participants in the course acknowledged my point of view. 7. I was able to form distinct individual impressions of some course participants. 8. Online discussions enabled me to form a sense of community.

34. SOCIAL PRESENCE OF INSTRUCTORS 9. The instructor created a feeling of online community. 10. The instructor facilitated discussions in the course. 11. I was able to form distinct individual impressions of the instructor in this course. 12. I felt comfortable conversing with the instructor through this medium. 13. My point of view was acknowledged by the instructor. INSTRUCTOR SATISFACTION 14. The instructor in this course met my expectations.

35. PERCEIVED LEARNING 15. I was able to learn from the online discussions. 16. I was stimulated to do additional reading or research on topics discussed in the online discussions. 17. Participating in the online discussions was a useful experience. 18. Participating in the online discussions enabled me to form multiple perspectives. PERCEIVED INTERACTIVITY 19. I thought there was a great deal of interaction in the online discussions.

36. paralanguage (PL) features of text outside formal syntax used to convey emotion (eg. emoticons, punctuation) Someday.....; How awful for you :-( ; Mathcad is definitely NOT stand alone software; Absolutely!!!!!! Asteroff, 1985; Poole, 2000; Rourke, 2001 emotion (EM) use of descriptive words that indicate feelings (ie., love, hate, sad, silly, etc.) When I make a spelling mistake, I look and feel stupid; I get chills when I think of... emergent value (VL) expressing personal values beliefs, & attitudes I think that commercialization is a necessary evil; I feel our children have the same rights emergent humor (H) use of humor – teasing, cajoling, irony, sarcasm God forbid leaving your house to go to the library; Now it is like brushing my teeth (which I assure you I do quite well) Gorham, 1988; Poole, 2000 self- disclosure (SD) sharing personal information, expressing vulnerability I sound like an old lady; I am a closet writer; We had a similar problem... Gorham, 1988; Rourke, 1999 AFFECTIVE INDICATORS

37. greetings & salutations (GS) greetings, closures Hi Mary; That’s it for now, Tom Poole, 2000; Rourke, 2001 vocatives (V) addressing classmates by name You know, Tamara... ; I totally agree with you Katherine Christenson & Menzel, 1988; Poole, 2000 group reference (GR) refering to the group as we, us, our We need to be educated; Our use of the Internet may not be free Gorham, 1988; Rourke, 2001 social sharing (SS) sharing information unrelated to the course Happy Birthday!!to both of you!!! Bussman, 1998; Rourke, 2001 course reflection (RF) reflection on the course itself A good example was the CD-ROM we read about emergent COHESIVE INDICATORS

38. acknowledge- ment (AK) refering directly to the contents of others’ messages; quoting Those old machines sure were something!; I agree that it is the quickest way Rourke, 2001 agreement/ disagreement (AG) expressing agreement or disagreement with others’ messages I’m with you on that; I agree; I think what you are saying is absolutely right Poole, 2000; Rourke, 2001 approval (AP) expressing approval, offering praise, encouragement You make a good point; Good luck as you continue to learn; Right on! Rourke, 2001 invitation (I) asking questions or otherwise inviting response Any suggestions?; How old are your students?; Would you describe that for me Gorham, 1988; Rourke, 2001 personal advice (PA) offering specific advice to classmates Also the CEC website might have some references; I would be happy to forward them emergent INTERACTIVE INDICATORS

39. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What did you think about when you were preparing to post a message to the course discussion? Did you think about how you would sound to others? Did you think about how what you say would influence how others think of you? Did you use any strategies to put “personal” touches in your messages? If so, why did you want to make yourself sound more personal in online discussions? How did the ways other students wrote their messages influence your impressions of them? Did others’ language use influence that of yours? If so, how? What did you think about when you were responding to others’ messages?

40. Did you chose certain people to respond to? Have you built a sense of bonding with those students? Do you think a sense of bonding is important to learning in asynchronous learning environments? Why or why not? What were the criteria you used while choosing which messages to respond to? What are your impressions of your instructor? How were these impressions formed? From my observation of the online class discussions, I noticed that your instructor encouraged you to refer to your personal experiences while answering most of the questions? What do you think about this? Do you think this made the discussions more personal? Did your instructor's style of writing influence the way you constructed your messages in the class? If so, how?

41. Did you notice that your instructor did not often participate in the class discussions? What do you think about this? Do you think they none- the-less facilitated the class discussions? If so, how? Would you prefer your instructor to participate in discussions publicly instead of giving private personal feedback to your postings? Why or why not? Do you think it is important that you have regular and personal interaction with your instructor? Why or why not? As the tone of your voice is not available in the online environment, did you find it as a big constraint when communicating with your peers? If so, what did you do to overcome the constraints?

42. RESP AFF INTR COH