Vol. 32 No. 1 (2017)
Research Brief

Study Protocol for a Scoping Review on Social Presence

PDF HTML ePub
  • David Mykota,
  • Deighan Remoundos
David Mykota
University of Saskatchewan
Bio
Deighan Remoundos
University of Saskatchewan
Bio

Published 2017-06-28

Keywords

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

How to Cite

Mykota, D., & Remoundos, D. (2017). Study Protocol for a Scoping Review on Social Presence. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 32(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1021
Copyright Notice

Abstract

In the field of e-learning and distance education, there has been a significant amount of research activity surrounding the construct social presence. However, a scoping review on social presence has yet to be conducted. Therefore, the purpose of this brief review is to provide an overview of the research protocol developed for a scoping review of social presence. The methodology developed by Arksey and O’Malley for the conducting of scoping reviews will guide the study. It will include a search of six electronic databases followed by a two-stage screening process. Of those studies identified for inclusion, data will be extracted using a standardized form. For data pertaining to study characteristics a descriptive numerical analysis will occur. A qualitative content analysis will be undertaken for the qualitative data extracted. Results will be charted and mapped enabling the development of a conceptual framework and best practices in the development and application of social presence. Results of the scoping review once completed, will be discussed within the context of current literature along with the identification of research gaps, limitations, and recommendations for future research.

 

Résumé

Le champ du e-learning et de la formation à distance est le lieu de nombreuses activités de recherches portant sur la notion de la présence sociale. Cependant, aucun examen de la portée sur la présence sociale n’a encore été mené. Par conséquent, l’objectif de cette brève revue de littérature est d’offrir une vue d’ensemble du protocole de recherche développé dans le cadre d’un examen de la portée sur la présence sociale. La méthodologie développée par Arksey et O’Malley pour la conduite des examens de la portée guidera cette étude. Elle va comprendre une recherche portant sur six bases de données électroniques suivit par un processus de sélection en deux étapes. Les données des études retenues seront extraites en utilisant un formulaire standardisé. Les données relatives aux caractéristiques de l’étude feront quant à elles l’objet d’une analyse numérique descriptive. Une analyse qualitative de contenu sera mise en œuvre pour analyser les données qualitatives extraites. Les résultats seront cartographiés et présentés sous forme de graphiques favorisant le développement d’un cadre conceptuel et l’identification de bonnes pratiques dans le développement et l’application de la présence sociale. Une fois l’examen de la portée arrivé à terme, ses résultats seront discutés dans le contexte de la littérature actuelle allant de pair avec le pointage des lacunes et limites des recherches menées jusqu’à présent accompagné de recommandations pour celles à venir.

PDF HTML ePub

References

  1. Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73–85.
  2. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
  3. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289-304.
  4. 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.
  5. Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students' perceptions of teaching and social presence: A comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 10(1), 27-44.
  6. 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.
  7. 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. doi:0269215516688514
  8. Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., ... & Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-1294.
  9. Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2013). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 661-685.
  10. Danchak, M. M., Walther, J. B., & Swan, K. P. (2001). Presence in mediated instruction: Bandwidth, behaviour, and expectancy violations. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting on Asynchronous Learning Networks, Orlando, FL.
  11. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129-135.
  12. 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.
  13. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133-148.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
  18. Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers and Education, 57, 1512-1520.
  19. 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.
  20. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229-242.
  21. 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.
  22. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 1-9.
  23. Lobry de Bruyn, L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67-81.
  24. 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.
  25. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distant education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research on educational communications and technology (pp. 403- 437). New York, NY: Scholastic Press.
  26. Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy, and satisfaction in collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 3(3), 55.
  27. 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.
  28. Rettie, R. (2003). Connectedness, awareness, and social presence. Paper presented at the 6th International Presence Workshop, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
  29. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
  30. Robb, C. A., & Sutton, J. (2014). The importance of social presence and motivation in distance learning. Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, 31(1-3), 1-10.
  31. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R. D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 4(21), 50-71.
  32. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, England: John Wiley & Sons.
  33. 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.
  34. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1738-1747.
  35. 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.
  36. Tu, C. H. (2005). Computer-mediated communication questionnaire. Flagstaff, AZ: Author.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. Wei, C., Chen, N., & Kinshuk. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 60(3), 529-545.
  40. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  41. Yen, C. J., & Tu, C. H. (2004). Revisit the measurement of online social presence. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
  42. Yen, C. J., & Tu, C. H. (2008). Online social presence. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 297.