Vol. 33 No. 2 (2018)
Research Articles

The Effective Affect: A Scoping Review of Social Presence

PDF HTML ePub
  • David Mykota
David Mykota
University of Saskatchewan
Bio

Published 2018-12-27

Keywords

  • evidence synthesis,
  • higher education,
  • literature review,
  • online learning,
  • scoping review,
  • social presence.
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Mykota, D. (2018). The Effective Affect: A Scoping Review of Social Presence. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 33(2). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1080
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This paper reports the findings of a scoping review of the construct social presence. The methodology follows the design for scoping reviews as advocated by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). A scoping study is desirable because by synthesizing the research literature the opportunity to identify practical guidelines for the development of social presence is facilitated. A two-stage screening process resulted in 105 studies identified for inclusion with data extracted using a standardized form. A descriptive numerical analysis and qualitative content analysis for those studies included was undertaken. Results from the manuscripts screened for inclusion and synthesized from the data extracted in the scoping review, provide strategies for the structuring of social presence; the potential benefits of effective affective communication in an online environ; and an overview of the evolution of the construct social presence. Future research that aggregates research findings on social presence is desirable so as to ascertain how the development, design, and instruction of online learning moderates the effects of social presence on student outcomes. As well, future comparative research that considers course enrollment, length of course, course level and discipline is also recommended so as to determine what social presence practices are situation specific and what social presence practices can be generalized to all online learning environments.

Résumé

Cet article fait état des résultats d’une étude de la portée de la présence sociale construite. La méthodologie suit la démarche des études de la portée (scoping reviews) préconisée par Arksey et O’Malley (2005). Une étude de la portée est souhaitable dans la mesure où la synthèse de la littérature favorise l’identification de directives pratiques permettant le développement de la présence sociale. Un processus de sélection en deux étapes a permis d’identifier 105 études à prendre en compte, dont les données ont été relevées dans une grille standardisée. Une analyse descriptive numérique ainsi qu’une analyse qualitative de contenu de ces études ont été entreprises. Les résultats émergeant des analyses des manuscrits sélectionnés et des données relevées dans l’étude de la portée fournissent des stratégies de structuration de la présence sociale, mettent en relief les bénéfices potentiels d’une communication affective efficace dans un environnement en ligne et une vue d’ensemble de l’évolution de la présence sociale construite. A l’avenir, une recherche agrégeant les résultats de recherche sur la présence sociale serait souhaitable pour s’assurer de la manière dont le développement, la conception et l’administration de l’apprentissage en ligne influencent les effets de la présence sociale sur les résultats des étudiants. De même, une recherche comparative prenant en compte l’engagement dans le cours, la durée du cours, le niveau et la discipline du cours serait également à recommander pour déterminer quelles pratiques de présence sociale sont propres à des situations particulières et quelles pratiques de présence sociale sont davantage généralisables à tous les environnements en ligne.

Mots clés : synthèse de preuves, enseignement supérieur, revue de littérature, apprentissage en ligne, étude de la portée, présence sociale.

PDF HTML ePub

References

  1. Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(3), 1-17.
  2. Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 40-56.
  3. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57-68.
  4. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
  5. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289-304.
  6. Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34-61.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Borup, J., West, R. E., Thomas, R., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Examining the impact of video feedback on instructor social presence in blended courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(3), 232-256.
  10. Chapman, D. D., Storberg-Walker, J., & Stone, S. J. (2008). Hitting reply: A qualitative study to understand student decisions to respond to online discussion postings. Elearning, 5(1), 29-39.
  11. Chen, X., Fang, Y., & Lockee, B. (2015). Integrative review of social presence in distance education: Issues and challenges. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(13), 1796-1806.
  12. 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.
  13. Clark, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video vs. text based discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning, 19(3), 48-69.
  14. Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 269-292.
  15. Colominia, R., & Remesal, A. (2015). Social presence and virtual collaborative learning processes in higher education/Presencia social y procesos de aprendizaje colaborativo virtual en educación superior. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 38(3), 647-680.
  16. Colquhoun, H. L., Jesus, T. S., O’Brien, K. K., Tricco, A. C., Chui, A., Zarin, W., ... & Straus, S. (2017). Study protocol for a scoping review on rehabilitation scoping reviews. Clinical Rehabilitation, 1, 1-8.
  17. Costley, J. (2016). The effects of instructor control on critical thinking and social presence: Variations within three online asynchronous learning environments. Journal of Educators Online, 13(1), 109-171.
  18. Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2012). 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.
  19. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier.
  20. Dow, M. J. (2008). Implications of social presence for online learning: A case study of MLS students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 49(4), 231-242.
  21. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In Rogers, P. L. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of distance learning, (2nd ed., pp. 352-355). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  22. 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.
  23. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive, and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 31-36.
  24. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D. T., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). Why increased social presence through web videoconferencing does not automatically lead to improved learning. E Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 31-45.
  25. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
  26. Grieve, R., Padgett, C. R., & Moffitt, R. L. (2016). Assignments 2.0: The role of social presence and computer attitudes in student preferences for online versus offline marking. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 8-16.
  27. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecomunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
  28. 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.
  29. Gutierrez-Santiuste, E., Rodreguez-Sabiote, C., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J. (2015). Cognitive presence through social and teaching presence in communities of inquiry: A correlational-predictive study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 349-362.
  30. Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Wilmington, NC: Intellect Books.
  31. Hiltz S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via the computer. Reading, MA: Addison, Wesley.
  32. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via the computer. (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  33. 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.
  34. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2013). Community matters: Social presence and learning outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 77-86.
  35. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
  36. Huang, Y. M. (2016). Exploring students’ acceptance of team messaging services: The roles of social presence and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 1047–1061.
  37. 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.
  38. Hurst, B., Wallace, R., & Nixon, S. B. (2013). The impact of social interaction on student learning. Reading Horizons, 52(4), 375-398.
  39. 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.
  40. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers and Education, 55(2), 808-820.
  41. 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.
  42. Kehrwald, B. (2010). Being online: Social presence as subjectivity in online learning. London Review of Education, 8(1), 39-50.
  43. Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Chow, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512-1520.
  44. Kim, J., Song, H., & Luo, W. (2016). Broadening the understanding of social presence: Implications and contributions to the mediated communication and online education. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 672-679.
  45. 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.
  46. Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Community of inquiry: Social presence revisited. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 5-18.
  47. Leafman, J. S., Mathieson, K. M., & Ewing, H. (2013). Student perceptions of social presence and attitudes toward social media: Results of a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(1), 67-77.
  48. Leong, P. (2011). Role of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning environments. Distance Education, 32(1), 5-28.
  49. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 1-9.
  50. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2000). Enhancing interactivity in web-based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(3), 41-45.
  51. Lim, J., & Richardson, J. C. (2016). Exploring the effects of students' social networking experience on social presence and perceptions of using SNSs for educational purposes. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 31-39.
  52. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). 1-11.
  53. Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In Kidd, T. (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 124-139), Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  54. Lowenthal, P. R. (2015). A mixed methods examination of instructor social presence in accelerated online courses. In Kyei-Blankson, L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on strategic management of interaction, presence, and participation in online courses, (pp. 147-60). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  55. 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.
  56. Mathieson, K., & Leafman, J. S. (2014). Comparison of student and instructor perceptions of social presence. Journal of Educators Online, 11(2). 1-27.
  57. Mayne, L. A., & Wu, Q. (2011). Creating and measuring social presence in online graduate nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 110-114.
  58. Olson, J. S., & McCracken, F. E. (2014). Is it worth the effort? The impact of incorporating synchronous lectures into an online course. Online Learning, 19(2). 1-12.
  59. Östlund, B. (2008). Prerequisites for interactive learning in distance education: Perspectives from Swedish students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1). 42-56
  60. Palmer, M. (1995). Interpersonal communication and virtual reality: Mediating interpersonal relationships. In F. Biocca & M. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 277–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  61. Peters M. D., Godfrey C. M, Khalil H., McInerney P., Parker D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3): 141–146.
  62. Plante, K., & Asselin, M. E. (2014). Best practices for creating social presence and caring behaviors online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(4), 219-223.
  63. Rettie, R. (2003). Connectedness, awareness, and social presence. Paper presented at the 6th International Presence Workshop, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
  64. 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, 68-88.
  65. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2005). Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity. Behavior and Information Technology, 24(2), 151-158.
  66. Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 3(2000), 285‐297.
  67. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77-88.
  68. 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.
  69. Scarborough, J. E. (2015). Synchronous videoconferencing in distance education for pre-licensure nursing. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 68-72.
  70. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 199-217.
  71. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
  72. 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.
  73. Sorden, S. D., & Munene, I. I. (2013). Constructs related to community college student satisfaction in blended learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 12, 251-270.
  74. Strong, R., Irby, T. L., Wynn, J. T., & McClure, M. M. (2012). Investigating students' satisfaction with eLearning courses: The effect of learning environment and social presence. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(3), 98-110.
  75. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738-1747.
  76. Tu, C. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45-60.
  77. Tu, C. H. (2002). The relationship between social presence and online privacy. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 293-318.
  78. Tu, C. H. (2005). Computer-mediated communication questionnaire. Flagstaff, AZ: Author.
  79. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 131-150.
  80. Tu, C. H., & Yen, C. J. (2006). A study of multidimensional online social presence. In L. W. Cooke (Ed.), Frontiers in higher education (pp. 77-104). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
  81. Tucker, S. Y. (2012). Promoting socialization in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 174-182.
  82. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  83. Wanstreet, C. E., & Stein, D. S. (2011). Presence over time in synchronous communities of inquiry. American Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 162-177.
  84. Wei, C., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 60(3), 529-545.
  85. Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning, 19(2), 1-20.
  86. Whiteside, A. L. (2017). Understanding social presence as critical literacy. In Whiteside, A. L., Dikkers, A. G., & Swan, K. (Eds.). Social presence in online learning: Multiple perspectives on practice and research, (pp. 133-142). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  87. Whiteside, A. L., Dikkers, A. G., & Swan, K. (Eds.). (2017). Social presence in online learning: Multiple perspectives on practice and research. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  88. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  89. Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37-65.
  90. Yen, C. J., & Tu, C. H. (2008). A study of score validity of the Computer-Mediated Communication Questionnaire. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 297-310.
  91. Zhan, Z., & Mei, H. (2013). Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students' learning achievement and satisfaction across environments. Computers & Education, 69, 131-138.
  92. Zhao, S. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 445-455.