THE RELATION OF SOCIAL PRESENCE TO ONLINE STUDENTS

PERCEIVED LEARNING AND SATISFACTION

WITH THEIR INSTRUCTOR
By
Tess R. Olson-Wenneker
BEHROOZ SABET, EdD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
ELIZABETH BRUCH, PhD, Committee Member
LEONE SNYDER, PhD, Committee Member
Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University
March 2012

UMI Number: 3512968

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3512968
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI Number: 3512968

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3512968
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

 Tess R. Olson-Wenneker, 2012

Abstract
This study investigated whether online social presence, understood as individuals
perceptions of the genuine presence or other people within a communication medium, is
related to online students evaluations of the quality of their courses and their satisfaction
with their class facilitators. Undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in online
courses at a single private Midwestern university completed an online survey measuring
three variables: their perceptions of online social presence, their perceptions of the
quality of their learning, and their satisfaction with their class facilitator. Factor and
reliability analyses of responses to the 10 perception of social presence items on the
survey indicated that a single construct was measured by the items, which also had good
internal reliability. Results showed that the students perceived a high degree of social
presence in their online classes and evaluated both their learning and their course
facilitators as being satisfactory. Linear regressions showed that perceptions of online
social presence were highly positively correlated both with students perceived learning
and with their facilitator satisfaction. Results were compared to those from a similar
study done about a decade ago that also found positive correlations between perceived
online social presence and perceived learning and facilitator satisfaction. In the older
study, perceived social presence, perceived learning, and facilitator satisfaction were all
rated considerably lower than was done in the present study. This suggests that
substantial improvements have been made over the past decade in designing and
implementing online courses so that students do not feel isolated from others in those
courses but perceive the real social presence of other students to a high degree. The
findings that the surveyed students degree of perceived learning and their facilitator

satisfaction were also considerably higher than what was found in the previous study
suggest that substantial improvements have also been made in online education in these
areas over the past decade.

Dedication
I dedicate this to Nate, my loving husband and my two beautiful children, Jacob
and Drew.

iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments

List of Tables

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Rationale for the Study

Research Questions

Nature of the Study

Significance of the Study

Definition of Terms

Assumptions and Limitations

10

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

12

Introduction

12

Interpersonal Communication and Online Learning

12

Transactional Distance and Instructional Immediacy

16

Online Learning Communities

19

The Nature of Social Presence

21

Summary of the Chapter

27

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

28

Introduction

28
v

Theoretical Framework

28

Research Design

29

Sample

30

Instrumentation

31

Data Collection

34

Data Analysis

35

Limitations

36

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

38

Introduction

38

Collection of Data

39

Factor and Reliability Analyses

41

Responses to Survey Items

43

Comparing Students Perceptions of Online Social Presence with

Class and Instructor Evaluations

48

Research Questions

54

Summary of Findings

55

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

59

Introduction

59

Summary and Discussion of Results

60

Conclusions

72

Recommendations

80

Chapter Summary

82

REFERENCES

84
vi

APPENDIX A. ONLINE EDUCATION SURVEY

vii

90

List of Tables
Table 1. Results of Principal Components Analysis

42

Table 2. Results for 10 Items Measuring Perception of Social Presence in an

Online Course

46

Table 3. Results for Two Items Measuring Students Ratings of Online Course
and Instructor

47

Table 4. Comparing Each Students Perception of Online Social Presence to

Satisfaction with the Course and Instructor

49

Table 5. Results of Linear Regressions Comparing Students Perceptions of

Online Social Presence to Their Evaluations of How Well the Course
Met Their Learning Expectations

51

Table 6. Results of Linear Regressions Comparing Students Perceptions of

Online Social Presence to Their Evaluations of Their Online Instructor

53

viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Increasingly, colleges and universities are providing students with an important
new option for their education. This option comes in the form of online learning, which
consists of educational courses and classes that provide all or part of their content and/or
communication via the Internet (Richardson & Swan, 2003). According to Berge and
Collins (1995), online education is more cost efficient than traditional face-to-face
education. Perhaps more important, online education gives learners greater accessibility
and flexibility than traditional educational environments since learners are able to
participate regardless of their location or the time of day (LaBay & Comm, 2003). This
convenience factor rests partly on the fact that communications between students and
instructors may occur at different times (asynchronously); however, many online classes
also provide same-time (synchronous) communication among students and instructors.
Despite the advantages of online learning, an issue that has been of some concern
to educators involves the social milieu in which this relatively new form of education
typically takes place. This issue arises largely because many of the social cues and
references that are commonly present in traditional learning are absent in the case of
online learning. In addition, written text may be the only form of communication in
online classes, and communications between student and instructor or facilitator often
involve some time lapse (Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003). Due to these unique
1

characteristics, an important issue arises in regard to the social aspects of this new
learning environment. In particular, students participating in online education may
experience a sense of isolation (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004), which may act as a barrier
to their learning (Russo & Benson, 2004).
Research and discussions bearing on the social aspects of online learning often
focus on the concept of social presence. This concept was introduced by Short, Williams
and Christie (1976), communications researchers who defined social presence as the
degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of
the interpersonal relationships (p. 65). According to this definition, social presence
would appear to be a subjective matter that consists of an individuals evaluations of the
salience, or importance, of another individual in an interaction, and his or her resulting
evaluation of the importance of the relationship. Short et al. (1976) held that the degree of
social presence in a communication rests on the social and emotional cues that are
present. Furthermore, the quality of the medium through which communication occurs
depends on its capabilities to convey social and emotional cues, with different media
having different capabilities.
Others in the field of communication have argued that the definition of social
presence presented by Short et al. (1976) was somewhat unclear, and subsequent attempts
to clarify the concept have been made by several other researchers. Blocher (1997)
described social presence as the degree to which the delivery medium can provide a
conduit for interactive communication that supports feelings of being present for
reciprocal social interactions (p. 33). Walker and Hackman (1991) maintained that
social presence includes the ability of the media and the participants to approximate the
2

characteristics of face-to-face interactions. In both of these definitions, social presence

appears to be defined as an objective feature of a communication medium itself. A third
definition, by Garrison and Anderson (2003), also defined social presence objectively but
as an ability: the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves
socially and emotionally as a real person (i.e., their full personality), through the
medium of communication being used (p. 49).
However, other definitions appear to agree with Short et al. (1976) that social
presence is a subjective concept. For example, Collins and Murphy (1997) defined the
term social presence as the degree to which individuals perceive a sense of others
through their mediated interactions. Gunawardena (1995) stated, Social presence is the
degree of person-to-person awareness that occurs in the computer environment (p. 38).
Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) interpreted Short et al.s (1976) definition as meaning
that social presence is the degree to which a person is perceived as a real person in
mediated communication (p. 9). Finally, McLeod (1997) interpreted social presence as
the degree of tangibility and proximity of other people within a communication situation,
which also appears to concern peoples perceptions. These last four definitions refer to
four very similar kinds of perception: (a) person-to-person awareness, (b) a sense of
others, (c) perceptions of others as being real persons, and (d) the tangibility and
proximity of others. Based on these definitions, this study considered social presence to
refer to individuals perceptions of the genuine presence or other people within some
particular communication medium.
Researchers such as Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) and Lombard and Ditton
(1997) have agreed with Short et al. (1976) that the qualities of a medium may have an
3

effect on peoples perceptions of social presence within it. Face-to-face communication

interchanges are the richest in providing social and emotional cues to communicators
since they typically include visual, auditory, tactual, and olfactory cues. Online
environments are generally less rich because they provide fewer social and emotional
cues. One result of this has been the development of emoticons, which are symbols such
as smiling faces that can be sent within e-mail and other Internet messages, as a stand-in
for an actual smiling face. Still, it is argued that text-based computer communication,
being relatively deficient in nonverbal cues, provides a lower sense of social presence
than face-to-face communication (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997).
The results of research studies have suggested that there are relationships between
social presence and several other variables. Tu (2000) found that student-to-student
interaction is related to social presence, while Tu and McIsaac (2002) found that social
presence influences online interaction. In relation to learning, Picciano (2002) found that
students perceptions of the quality and quantity of their learning were related to their
perceptions of interaction with others. Richardson and Swan (2003) learned that online
students perceptions of social presence were positively correlated with their perceived
learning. Richardson and Swan (2003) also found that perceptions of social presence
predicted instructor satisfaction.
Statement of the Problem
By offering many fewer nonverbal cues than traditional face-to-face education,
the online learning environment is often relatively devoid of social presence
(Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). This is a serious matter since the findings of several
4

research studies have suggested that online students perception of social presence is
related to important characteristics of online education, including student-to-student
interaction and perceived learning (Tu, 2000; Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003).
However, these studies were done about a decade ago. The online learning environment
has since expanded and may have changed considerably. Thus, it is not clear that the
prior findings still apply to todays online classes.
In particular, Richardson and Swans (2003) study found that online students
evaluation of social presence was associated both with their perceived learning and with
their instructor satisfaction. However, their study was done using year 2000 data, and the
rapidly expanding landscape of online learning over the past 10 years may have resulted
in a number of changes, including possible changes in students perceptions of the online
environment. It is therefore important to determine, a decade later, whether social
presence is still positively associated with online students perceptions of their learning
and their satisfaction with their facilitator.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate a sample of online students to
determine whether their perceptions of social presence in their classes were associated
with their perceived learning and/or their satisfaction with their instructor. Online
students from a single institution of higher education made up the sample.
The online students were administered a questionnaire that determined three
variables: perceptions of online presence, perceptions of the quality of their learning, and
satisfaction with their instructor. Statistical methods were used to analyze the results of
5

the questionnaire in order to determine whether there were any correlations between the
variables.
Rationale for the Study
A previous study by Richardson and Swan (2003) found that online students
perceptions of social presence were positively associated with their perceived learning
and instructor satisfaction. However, the study was done using year 2000 data, and since
then online education has evolved rapidly as an increasing number of institutions have
begun offering courses online, and increasing numbers of students are enrolling in these
online courses. As students have become more familiar with the online environment, their
perceptions related to social presence in online classes may have altered. In particular,
how their perceptions of social presence are related to their perceptions of learning and
their instructor satisfaction may have changed since Richardson and Swan (2003)
reported their results.
By examining variables similar to those examined by Richardson and Swan
(2003) a decade ago, the study provided much needed knowledge today, 10 years later,
about an important aspect of online educationsocial presence. It was deemed valuable
to learn whether, after a decade, online students perceptions of social presence remain
positively correlated with their perceived learning and instructor satisfaction.
Research Questions
The studys results were used to answer the following three research questions:
1. What are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment?
6

2. How are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning

environment related to their perceived learning in that environment?
3. How are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment related to their satisfaction with their class facilitator?
Nature of the Study
To answer the research questions, a quantitative correlation design was used. This
design was appropriate since the research questions were focused on determining whether
there were any associations between online students perceptions of social presence on
the one hand and, on the other, their perceived learning or satisfaction with the class
facilitator.
Undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in online classes at a single
university were administered a questionnaire to determine their perceptions of social
presence, their perceptions of learning, and their satisfaction with their class facilitator.
The 12 items on the questionnaire consisted of statements to which students were asked
to agree or disagree on a six-point Likert scale. The social presence segment of the
questionnaire used Richardson and Swans (2003) social presence scale. Collected data
were statistically analyzed by linear regression to determine any associations between
perceptions of social presence and perceived learning or satisfaction with the facilitator.
Significance of the Study
One of the great advantages of online education is that students can be isolated
geographically while they enter into the same virtual learning environment. However,
geographical isolation from other students and class facilitators may result in less
satisfaction with classes and facilitators and may affect students perceived learning in
7

online courses. Education itself is a social process (Swan & Shea, 2005), and this
includes student-student and student-instructor interactions in online courses. It is
important that online educators learn as much as possible about that process and how it is
related to student learning and satisfaction in online education.
The study provides knowledge about an important feature of the social process of
online education, social presence. The findings of previous research have suggested that
online students perceptions of social presence are positively associated with perceived
learning and facilitator satisfaction (Richardson & Swan, 2003). However, that research
was based on year 2000 data, and a decade has since passed with substantial changes in
the online learning landscape and possible changes in online students perceptions and
attitudes about the social environment of online learning. It is important to learn if the
same relationships found by Richardson and Swan (2003) still exist for students
perceptions of online presence.
The results of the study may be of value for institutions of higher education that
are offering online courses and for course designers and facilitators of those courses.
Learning how online students perceptions of social presence are associated with their
perceived learning and facilitator satisfaction may help educators determine how
important it is to develop effective strategies to increase students perceptions of social
presence in their courses.
Definition of Terms
A number of specialized terms referring to various aspects of online learning
environments were used in the study. Definitions of these terms are presented below.
8

Asynchronous communication. This is communication that occurs at different

times, such as e-mail and bulletin board (BB) interaction.
Bulletin Board (BB). Participants post their messages on a bulletin board, and the
messages are stored on the server in a hierarchical directory. Other participants can read
and respond to the messages.
Community. This term historically referred to geographically localized groups but
now also refers to groups with something in common, such as some interest or purpose,
even if they are geographically dispersed.
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). This refers to the use of computer
technology to store, edit, and transfer information. Communication applications include
e-mail, instant messaging, computer conferencing, and Internet forums and other
applications (Wolz et al., 1997).
Immediacy. This is a measure of the psychological distance between
communicators (Lowenthal, 2009).
Social Presence. This term refers to individuals perceptions of the genuine
presence or other people within some particular communication medium.
Synchronous interaction. This is communication that occurs at the same time,
such as web-based chats, ICQ, and MSN instant messages, as opposed to asynchronous
interaction.
Virtual Community. People in virtual communities do just about everything
people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind (Rheingold, 1993, para. 15).

Web CT Bulletin Board. This is an e-learning system that comprises an

asynchronous online forum or online Bulletin Board (BB). On the BB, participants
engage in online discussions by posting and responding to each others messages.
Assumptions and Limitations
An assumption made in the study was that students would reply truthfully and
accurately to the items on the questionnaire. To help ensure this, the students were
assured of confidentiality in their replies and that their responses would have no bearing
whatsoever on their evaluations.
A second assumption made was that there would be no differences in online
students perceptions depending on how many online courses they had taken, the
students age, or the students grade level. The determination of whether such variables
are related to students perceptions must remain a subject for future research.
There were several limitations of the study. One of these concerns was
generalizability. The study included students attending only one institution, so care must
be taken in generalizing results to students attending other universities.
Another limitation affecting the generalizability of the study was that it was
unknown how many different facilitators the students had in their online classes, and
which facilitators these were. The degree of social presence that students perceived in
classes with a particular facilitator may have differed considerably from what would be
found students in classes with other facilitators. For example, if a facilitator of a class
were especially knowledgeable in the subject matter, this might result in students rating
the facilitator more highly than if he or she were less knowledgeable.
10

A third limitation of the study is that the studys design did not allow for any
causal connections to be determined among the variables even when correlations were
found. Richardson and Swan (2003) have pointed out that in educational settings,
research typically involves subjects who belong to an administratively defined group that
does not allow the kind of randomization and control that are typical of experimental
designs. For causal connections to be established would require such an experimental
design.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the study is organized into four chapters. The first of these
reviews literature that is relevant to the topic of social presence in online education. The
next chapter explains the methodology that was employed for the study.
Of the final two chapters, the first reports the findings of the study and how these
results serve to answer the research questions. In the final chapter, the results are
discussed, conclusions are drawn, and recommendations are made.

11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
This chapter reviews literature relevant to social presence in online learning. The
chapter is divided into three main sections following this introduction. The first section
provides a basis for the discussion of social presence, presenting an overview of
interpersonal communication in relation to online learning. Several models of
interpersonal communication are discussed, and the concepts of transactional distance,
instructional immediacy, and learning community are introduced as they apply to online
teaching and learning.
The second main section discusses the history, nature, and importance of the
concept of social presence. It also reviews several studies that have been done on the
relation of social presence to online learning and learner satisfaction. The final section
presents a summary of the chapter.
Interpersonal Communication and Online Learning
Interpersonal communication processes can involve either face-to-face or
mediated interactions (Suresh, 2003). In the case of online learning, the medium in which
learners communicate with one another and with their instructor or facilitator consists of
a computer connected to the Internet. Because these person-to-person interactions are at
the core of online education (Woods & Baker, 2004), it is paramount to understand the
nature of interpersonal communication in the online learning environment.
12

A number of increasingly sophisticated models of interpersonal communication

have been put forward in the last 60 years. Early ideas of interpersonal communication
were influenced by Shannon and Weaver (1949), who viewed communication as a oneway process that involved the sending of information from a transmitter, through some
channel, to a receiver. This transmission theory of communication was useful for
understanding and designing communication systems such as the telegraph and
telephone; however, it was inadequate for describing interpersonal communication
dynamics since it did not take into account social, situational, and other factors that
pertain to communication between people (Chandler, 1994).
The transmission theory also did not take into account another important aspect of
interpersonal communicationfeedback. Schramms (1971) interactive model of
communication acknowledged the idea that interpersonal communication is not typically
a one-way process but rather a two-way interchange in which participants respond to one
another. When an individuals message affects another person and produces a counter
message through feedback, this process can result in patterns of communication (Health
& Bryant, 1992; Tardy, 1988). For instance, such a communication pattern exists in many
online classes in regard to learners posing questions about the class and the facilitator
providing answers.
A third influential model of communication has been Barnlunds (1970)
transactional theory, which goes beyond Schramms (1954) two-way interactive model
by holding that in communicating, humans are typically giving and receiving messages at
the same time. On this model, interpersonal communication is conceived as a continuous
dynamic process in which communicators adjust their messages according to the ways in
13

which they perceive one another (Asuncion-Lande, 1988). Communicators do not simply
send meanings back and forth to each other; instead, they build shared meanings through
their interchanges (West & Turner, 2008). This dynamic model of interpersonal
communication appears to be a better fit for online learning than the other two models
discussed. On the transactional model, learners communicating in an online class can be
seen as mutually constructing their understandings of the subject matter as they
communicate with one another and with their facilitator.
Although the transactional model is meant to apply to both face-to-face and online
communication, it is important to recognize that communication online is different from
face-to-face communication in important ways and that this affects the nature of online
learning. Chandler (1996) argued that when humans use some medium for a purpose, the
medium cannot help but affect the purpose. For example, a decision to communicate with
someone by e-mail rather than telephone will have an effect on the communication.
Likewise, if a students purpose is to learn about a particular academic subject, taking an
online rather than a traditional course on that subject will affect the students learning.
A basic way in which interpersonal communication in online classes differs from
communication that typically occurs in traditional learning is that fewer sensory channels
are used (van Tryon & Bishop, 2009). This circumstance affects online communication
since all interpersonal communication patterns are organized using the sensory modalities
of touch, sight, hearing, smell, speech, gestures, writing, and reading (Logan, 1995).
Some of these modalities, such as touch and smell, are unavailable in the online medium,
while others may be limited. For instance, the modality of sight is often limited in online

14

classes to viewing still images and reading text, since online education is primarily text
based.
Due to these limitations, the social references and social cues that are typical in
the traditional classroom are often missing (Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003). This, in turn,
places certain limits on the possibilities of interaction for online students. Moore (1989)
described three kinds of interaction that can occur in distance education: learner-content,
learner-instructor, and learner-learner interactions. Though Moores classification was
published before the Internet became widely available, it applies to todays online
learning. Learner-content interaction describes the learners attempts to accommodate
new knowledge into his or her prior cognitive structures (Moore & Kearsley, 1994).
Learner-instructor interaction includes the instruction, advising, and informal dialogue
that takes place between the class instructor or facilitator and the student. Learner-learner
interaction consists of interactions between two or more students in a class.
In addition, Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) introduced a fourth type of
interaction, termed learner-interface interaction, adding to the three types proposed by
Moore (1989). Learner-interface interaction occurs between the learner and the
technology required for interacting with the teacher, students, and content. Gunawardena
and associates pointed out that for a learner who is technically challenged, this interface
can be an important factor with which he or she must contend. A fifth kind of interaction,
that of learner-environment, was set forward by Burnham and Walden (1997). This
consists of the learners surrounding environment, which may either hinder or help the
individual in pursuing his or her educational goals.

15

The second two kinds of interaction posited by Moore (1994)learner-instructor

and learner-learnerare critical for the success of the first kind of interaction, learnercontent. This is because learning takes place in a social environment that requires
communicative interactions in the form of class discussions (De Verneil and Berge,
2000). These interactions are crucial because collaboration among learners allow them to
become aware of different perspectives and new ways to understand the content of
lessons (Harasim, 1989). Even outside of school, learning occurs as a result of the social
interactions that take place as people collaborate, with this collaboration resulting in the
social construction of knowledge (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Based on these
considerations, the idea that learning in the online environment is simply the transmission
of information from an instructor to a student must be rejected. A more accurate model
for online learning is the constructivist view in which meaning and knowledge are
constructed by learners in collaboration with one another (Woods & Baker, 2004)
Transactional Distance and Instructional Immediacy
Moores (1991, 1997) theory of transactional distance helps in understanding
what is unique about the communicative interactions that define online learning.
According to Moore, distance education, online or otherwise, involves more than
geographical distance. It also includes significant transactional distance, which is the
psychological and communications separation that exists between instructors and
learners. Transactional distance also occurs in traditional education (Rumble, 1986); but
in distance education, including the online environment, its significance results in new

16

patterns of behaviors by both instructors and learners and thereby affects teaching and
learning.
Moore (1997) held that there are three classes of variables that determine the
transactional distance for distance learners: dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy.
The term dialogue consists of interactions or series of interactions between teachers and
learners that are purposeful, positive, and constructive. Structure refers to the way in
which an educational program is structured. Learner autonomy refers to the extent to
which in the teaching/learning relationship it is the learner rather than the teacher who
determines the goals, the learning experiences, and the evaluation decisions of the
learning programme (Moore, 1997, p. 31).
The unique environments presented by online and other distance education
programs, in which transactional distance is more pronounced than in most traditional
education, requires special teaching and learning strategies and techniques (Moore,
1997). In the case of online learning, the elements of the course must be designed to
accord with the media being used. Due to the lack of face-to-face interactions and the
relative deficiency of sensory modalities, special attention must be paid to creating
interactions that are positive and constructive. Moore and Kearsley (1996) suggested that
distance educators ensure maximum effectiveness of each type of interaction, and ensure
they provide the type of interaction that is most suitable for the various teaching tasks
(p. 132).
A concept that is related to transactional distance and is very relevant to
understanding the nature of online learning environments is that of instructional
immediacy. This concept pertains to instructional practices, including verbal interactions,
17

that promote psychological closeness between teachers and learners (Gorham, 1988). As
such, instructional immediacy can be viewed as decreasing the transactional distance
discussed by Moore (1991, 1997).
In the case of online learning, nonverbal behaviors such as hand gestures are
generally impossible except in cases such as video conferencing; thus, the promotion of
instructional immediacy online is typically restricted to verbal practices. Examples of
verbal behaviors that tend to increase psychological closeness in the online environment
are the use of humor and of personal examples, posing questions, addressing fellow
participants by their name, encouraging discussion, and follow up on comments made by
students (Hutchins, 2003; Woods & Baker, 2004).
The concept of instructional immediacy relates not only to the particular
behaviors of online instructors but to the design of online courses (Hutchins, 2003).
According to Parker (1999, p. 16), To those experienced in the art of distance delivery,
it is evident that the addition of a few more handouts is not the solution for interactive
course design. Instead, to promote immediacy, there are various strategies that can be
utilized in online classes. An example would be to employ a chat room in which, at
appointed times, the instructor or facilitator is available to converse with students about
assignments, content, and other course matters. Another strategy to enhance instructional
immediacy would be for the instructor/facilitator to purposely provide some appropriate
personal details of his or her life in discussions with students.
Utilizing the framework of social cognitive theory, LaRose and Whitten (2000)
extended the concept of immediacy to three kinds of interaction that occur in online
classes. These include interactions that learners have with instructors that create teacher
18

immediacy, a concept which appears to be similar to the idea of instructional immediacy.

Furthermore, interactions learners have with one another may foster student-student
immediacy, and interactions with their computer may promote computer immediacy. In
each case, immediacy can be understood as a sense of psychological closeness.
Online Learning Communities
There is a danger that online learners may feel psychologically isolated due to
their not taking their classes in a traditional classroom with the instructor and other
students being physically present. A sense of isolation resulting from an inability to freely
interact with fellow students may affect not only those students who are geographically
separated but even those who are located on the same physical campus as others who are
enrolled in an online class (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). Other negative emotions, such
as anxiety and frustration, may also result from not being able to interact face-to-face
with other class participants. For instance, in a study of distance learners enrolled in an
Australian university, it was found that one cause of frustration was learners inability to
orally explore ideas with fellow learners (ORegan, 2003).
Difficulties in interacting with other participants can cause student dissatisfaction
(Arbaugh, 2000). Poor academic performance and possible disenrollment may also result
(Curry, 2000). For these reasons, it is crucial for instructors to carefully take into account
relational considerations in designing online classes and to use strategies to promote
interaction and cooperation (Palloff & Pratt, 1999); Kearsley, 2000).
Fortunately, it has been increasingly realized that online education offers
opportunities for creating strongly interactive environments. In fact, while sensory
19

modalities may be limited for online learners, a number of commentators have suggested
that online education has distinct advantages over traditional face-to-face education in
regard to interactivity. Brindley, Walti, and Blaschke (2009) pointed out that Online
courses offer the opportunity to create a highly social learning environment, characterized
by participation and interactivity for both students and instructors (p. 1). Furthermore,
online classes may provide a more amenable setting than traditional classes for
collaboration among learners (Wilson, 1998). This may be partly because electronic
forums are often more effective than face-to-face classes in encouraging learners to
interact (Bonk & King, 1995).
Brindley et al. (2009) made the following point in regard to online education: In
a collaborative learning environment, knowledge is shared or transmitted among learners
as they work towards common learning goals, for example, a shared understanding of the
subject at hand or a solution to a problem (p. 3). This description could easily apply to
the idea of an online learning community. According to Paloff and Pratt (2005), the
distinguishing marks of an online learning community are participants engagement in
collaborative learning and the reflective practice involved in transformative learning
(para. 3). According to McInnerney and Roberts (2004), the entrance of a learner into an
online community requires the development of an online sense of self.
Retallick, Cocklin, and Coombe (1999) who have studied classroom
environments, described a learning community as a community whose culture is
characterized by commitment and professionalism (p. 28). Wenger (1998) cautioned that
forming a community should not be confused with forming groups or teams. He posited
that the term community is not synonymous with group or team; rather, community
20

building is based on the concept that teacher and students share the same ideas.
Moreover, within a classroom community, teachers and students have common goals and
share values and meanings that bond them together, and, as a result a sense of belonging
is created. Retallick (1999) emphasized the importance of allowing each participant to
contribute to planning tasks, setting of norms for interactions, and making decisions to
foster a safe and trustworthy environment. She warned that if one member is left out of
this process then the community becomes compromised.
In elucidating their concept of a community of inquiry, Garrison, Anderson, and
Archer (2000) posited a framework consisting of three kinds of online presence:
cognitive, teaching, and social. The first, cognitive presence, consists of learners
construction of meaning and knowledge in a community of inquiry. This concept is
similar to Moores (1994) learner-content distinction. Teaching presence occurs through
effective contact and interaction with the instructor or facilitator. This concept is similar
the concept of instructional immediacy discussed by Gorham (1988) and others. Social
presence refers to the learners sense of others presence in the online medium. Garrison,
Anderson, and Archer (2004) held that the creation of cognitive presence in an online
learning environment depends on creating appropriate teaching and social presence. The
next sections of this review turn to this important concept of social presence.
The Nature of Social Presence
Definitions of Social Presence
The concept of social presence was introduced by Short, Williams, and Christie
(1976) in order to help explain how the use of various media can affect communication.
21

They defined the concept in terms of the degree of salience (p. 65) that an individual
considers another individual to possess when their communication occurs within a
particular medium. While this definition of the concept of social presence is in terms of
peoples subjective evaluations of salience, the evaluations are objectively dependent on
the characteristics of the various media in which the communication occurs. According to
Short et al. (1976), this is because of variations in the social and emotional cues present
in different media.
Later, other researchers attempted to clarify the notion of social presence. These
included Garrison and Anderson (2003), who defined the concept not in terms of
someones perception but rather in terms of someones ability to project himself or
herself as being real within a communications medium. However, most other definitions
that have been offered appear to focus on the original idea of a subjective quality. These
have included Gunawardena, (1995), Collins and Murphy (1997), Gunawardena and
Zittle (1997), McLeod (1997), Tu and McIsaac (2002), and Picciano (2002). All of these
definitions revolve around the idea that social presence is the perception, evaluation, or
feeling that someone who is being communicated with in some medium is a person who
is genuinely real and present.
Given this understanding, the concept of social presence is clearly related to that
of immediacy previously explained. In particular, LaRose and Whittens (2000)
explanation of student-teacher and student-student immediacy seems similar to the idea
of social presence. The concept is also related to Moores (1991, 1997) concept of
transactional distance. In the case of each of these conceptssocial presence, immediacy,

22

and transactional distancethe idea seems to be at least partly about the psychological
closeness a distance learner does or does not feel in relation to another participant.
Social Information Processing and Social Cognition
It has been argued that since online communication is text based and is lower in
nonverbal cues than face-to-face communication, it provides a lower sense of social
presence than face-to-face communication (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). In addition,
some commentators (e.g., Dede, 1991) have held that communication channels that only
have the capability of transferring lower amounts of data per second, such as online
communication, have limited possibilities for learning. However, Walthers (1992) social
information processing model of computer mediated communication calls into question
both of these claims.
Walthers (1992) social Information processing model holds that regardless of the
lack of nonverbal cues in the online environment, communicators still devise ways to
communicate and interpret one anothers messages so as to construct individuating
perceptions of each other, which enables the communicators to have an increasing degree
of social interaction. This view implies that social presence online, understood as the
perception that another person is genuinely real and fully present, is not necessarily less
substantial than the social presence one may find in face-to-face communications. It
further implies that online classrooms may be designed so they are not deficient in social
presence when compared to traditional classrooms. This conclusion is important, because
the results of several studies have indicated that social presence is a key factor affecting

23

online students perceptions of how much they are learning and their satisfaction with
their online experience.
Social information processing theory has been put to use by van Tryon and
Bishop (2009) to help understand how social processes online develop. According to the
researchers, social information processing is the way in which online learners sharpen
their social cognition of other online participants and identify their own place within a
particular online learning community. Social cognition, for van Tryon and Bishop, is
simply the way in which people interpret their social environment. In attempting to make
sense of their social surroundings in an online class, learners use social information
processes and schemas very similar to those they would use in a traditional learning
environment. However, due to the lack of cues that are typically present in face-to-face
classes, social information processing must rely on the communication modalities that are
available. Recognizing this, course designers can assist online learners by designing
courses that support learners social information processing. Doing so can help
participants to individuate other online learners, situate themselves socially within the
group, and create social presence, all of which can help enable the kind of unified social
structure required for productive interactions.
Studies on Social Presence, Learning, and Student Satisfaction
A number of studies have been conducted whose results indicate that learners
perceptions of social presence are related to their perceptions of how much they are
learning and their satisfaction. In an early study of social presence in a text-based
computer conferencing environment, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) found social
24

presence to be a strong predictor of participants satisfaction. They concluded that the

social aspects of computer-mediated communication importantly contribute to the degree
of satisfaction in such conferences.
Using a number of independent measures of interaction and social presence and
several measures of performance of students in an online course, Picciano (2002) found
that online students perceptions of social presence and interaction were positively
correlated with their perceptions of how much they were learning. The researcher
concluded that online interaction affects learners perceptions of learning. Picciano
cautioned, however, that online students learning perceptions cannot be identified with
their actual learning.
A research study conducted by Richardson and Swan (2003) examined social
presence in online courses in relation to students perceived learning and satisfaction. A
total of 97 undergraduates enrolled in an online course at a single college were surveyed,
most in the age range of 36 to 45, with 63% being female. The researchers used a social
presence scale that had been modified somewhat from Gunawardena and Zittle (1997).
The instrument measured students satisfaction with their instructor, their perceived
learning, and their perceived social presence. Analysis of results revealed a correlation
between the learners perceived social presence and perceived learning, and between
perceived social presence and instructor satisfaction. In addition, the students
perceptions of social presence overall contributed significantly to the predictor equation
for their perceived learning. The researchers found that approximately 58% of the
variance in student satisfaction with the computer-mediated communication environment

25

was contributed by social presence, suggesting that social presence is a strong predictor
of satisfaction in an asynchronous Web-based degree program.
In a study using both quantitative and qualitative methods, Swan and Shih (2005)
surveyed students who were taking four graduate courses online. The quantitative results
showed that perceived social presence was significantly correlated with students
satisfaction with discussions online. The results suggested that student satisfaction may
be determined more by perceived presence of instructors than perceived presence of other
students. Furthermore, the qualitative findings suggested that those students who
perceived the greatest social presence took greater part in online discussions than others.
These findings indicate that establishing an environment in which social presence
is judged to be high should be a major aim for online instructors and facilitators. Jzgou
(2010) noted that it is crucial for instructors to promote the socio-affective atmosphere of
the learning group. Wenger (1999) agreed that before focusing on the transfer of
information and concepts, the online instructor must first pay attention to the social
aspects of online learning by designing environments in which students can freely
interact and collaborate. It is by the creation of such environments that online learning
communities develop (Palloff & Pratt, 2005). In such environments, social presence is
high, with participants perceiving one another as fully present and real. Indeed, Garrison
et al. (2000) have identified social presence with the ability of the community of inquiry
participants to project themselves socially and emotionally, in all aspects of their
personality, through the communication media that they use (p. 94).
While the evidence is considerable that social presence is a key factor in student
satisfaction and learning, it is also true that the technology of online education has
26

developed considerably over the past decade. Furthermore, the number of online learners
has greatly grown during that time and familiarity with online education has also grown.
These developments raise the possibility that the perceptions and attitudes of online
learners may be changing. One of the most important studies on the effects social
presence, that of Richardson and Swan (2003), used data from the year 2000, when
online education was still in relative infancy. It is therefore important to determine
whether students perceptions and attitudes about social presence have changed since
then, which was a primary motivation for the study.
Summary of the Chapter
This chapter reviewed literature relative to online communication, online
learning, and social presence. After an overview of several main theories of interpersonal
communication, the concepts of transactional distance, immediacy, and learning
community were discussed.
The second main part of the chapter focused on the concept of social presence
itself. First, definitions of social presence were discussed and it was argued that the
concept of social presence is related to those of transactional distance and immediacy.
Following this, it was explained how Walthers (1992) Social Information Processing
model implies that social presence may be as great in online classes as in traditional
classrooms. Several studies about the effects of social presence in online education were
then reviewed. Finally, it was argued that creating online environments where social
presence is high may be necessary for optimum learning and the development of online
learning communities.
27

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter consists of seven main sections following this introduction. The first
section identifies and discusses the theoretical framework that guided the study.
Following this, the studys research design and the sample are explained. The fourth
section focuses on the instrumentation used to gather data. This section includes
explanations of the instrument itself, the variables measured, and the steps taken to help
ensure validity and reliability.
The fifth and sixth sections explain how the data was collected and analyzed. The
data collection discussion outlines the procedures used to collect data. It also explains the
ethical considerations that guided the collection. The discussion of data analysis explains
the statistical procedures used to analyze the data and to answer the three research
questions. Finally, the seventh main section of the chapter identifies several limitations of
the study.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for the study was social cognitive theory, especially as
it relates to social information processing. Social cognitive theory was developed by
Bandura (1986). The theory holds that human behavior is not simply shaped by
environmental influences or internal dispositions. Instead, the situation is more
complex, with behavior, cognition, and personal factors acting together with
28

environmental determinants and reciprocally affecting one another (Bandura

1989). As people deal with their social environment, they use social cognition to
make sense of that environment. Social information processing is the mechanism
that allows people to comprehend their social environment (van Tryon & Bishop,
2009).
This theoretical framework was appropriate for the study because the study
focused on the concept of social presence, which is an important way in which
online students make sense of their learning environment. They interpret and
evaluate the environment by using social information processing. They do this by
processing the various kind of information they receive in their class to come to a
conscious or unconscious decision about the social presence of their facilitator and
other students in the class. If the social and emotional cues are meager in the online
class, a student processing this information may feel that the other participants are
not as real as they would seem if the social cues were more numerous or varied.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether online students evaluations of
the social presence of other participants in a class have any relationship to their
perceived learning or their evaluations of the facilitator.
Research Design
This study used a correlational research design. A correlational design was
appropriate for the study because the research questions were concerned with
determining what, if any, correlations exist between students perceptions of social

29

presence in an online class and two other variables: (a) the students satisfaction with the
class facilitator and (b) the students perceived learning in the class.
The correlational design was implemented in two major steps. First, students
enrolled in online classes were surveyed with a questionnaire to determine their
perceptions of social presence in the online class, their satisfaction with their class
facilitator, and their perceived learning in the class. The data collected were then
statistically analyzed by linear regression to determine whether perceptions of social
presence were correlated with either of the other two variables and if so, the nature and
degree of correlation.
Sample
The sample consisted of students enrolled online courses at a single private
Midwestern university. All of the courses were 12 weeks in length and offered fully
online through the Blackboard learning platform. Online courses at the university
generally contain between 12 and 30 students, but this may vary depending on the time of
year and other factors. The sample was made up of respondents from a list of 100
randomly selected online students provided by the universitys Office of Assessment and
Institutional Research.
The questionnaire was submitted to the students in the latter part of the semester
in which they were enrolled in online classes. This timing helped ensure that the students
had sufficient time and experience in online coursework to develop their perceptions of
the degree of social presence in the class, how much they are learning in the class, and
their facilitator.
30

Instrumentation
The Instrument
The instrument used for this study consisted of a 12-item questionnaire to
measure three variables: (a) students perceptions of social presence in their online class,
(b) students perceptions of how much they are learning in the class, and (c) students
satisfaction with the class's facilitator (see Appendix A). The latter two variables were
each measured by a single item on the questionnaire consisting of a statement. Students
were asked to respond to these survey items on a six-point Likert scale, with the six
points corresponding to strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat
agree, agree, and strongly agree.
The social presence portion of the instrument consisted of 10 items taken from
Richardson and Swans (2003) social presence scale. This scale was based on the social
presence scale developed by Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) to measure perceptions of
social presence in a computer conferencing environment. The scale was modified by
Richardson and Swan for use in measuring perceptions of social presence in a higher
education online learning environment. Each of the 10 items was a statement to which
students were asked to respond on the six-point Likert scale ranging from totally disagree
to totally agree.
Reliability and Validity
The participants responses to the 10 social presence items were used to construct
a composite variable to measure the degree of social presence that they perceived in their
online classes. To help ensure that the 10 items concerning social presence were
31

complementary and measured a single construct, a factor analysis was conducted on the
responses to the 10 social presence statements. In addition, a reliability analysis was
conducted on the responses to the 10 items in order to determine a Cronbachs alpha
score measuring the internal consistency of the group of items. Though Richardson and
Swan (2003) did not report reliability data for their study, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997)
provided reliability data for the social presence instrument on which Richardson and
Swans measure was based, reporting a Cronbachs alpha score of .88. On the basis of
this prior finding, the alpha score for the social presence section of the instrument was
expected to be .70 or greater.
Several types of validity related to the instrument were addressed in the study.
The first type is convergent validity, which concerns how well several items that are
meant to measure the same construct are internally correlated. When they are shown to
have sufficient correlation, this provides evidence that the various items all measure the
same construct. In regard to the 10 social presence items, the results of both the factor
analysis and the reliability analysis conducted on students responses provided evidence
for the instruments convergent validity in regard to perceptions of social presence.
A second type of validity is discriminant validity. This concerns how well the
instruments items measure only what they are intended to measure and do not measure
constructs that they are not intended to measure. In a study with more than one variable,
such as this one, it is especially important to ensure that each item measures no more than
one of the studys variables. If some of the items measure more than one variable, this
can confound the statistical analysis of the data. To help ensure discriminant validity was
a main reason why a 12-item social presence scale for online learning that was developed
32

by Lin (2004) was rejected for the study. Lins scale seemed to go beyond social
presence. It included not only items measuring students perceptions of social presence,
such as their comfort in expressing their feelings online but also items that appeared to
measure the students perceptions of learning, such as to what degree they perceived that
working in a group helped them to learn more efficiently. Since in the present study it
was important to separate perceived social presence from perceived learning, Lins social
presence scale could not be used because it appears to violate discriminant validity as a
measure of social presence.
A third form of validity is content validity. This pertains to whether a measure
provides a representative sample of the construct that is to be measured (Anastasi &
Urbina, 1997 p. 114). To ensure content validity in the case of measuring social presence,
it was important to measure various aspects of the construct. The 10 questions to be used
to measure perceptions of social presence in the study did in fact measure several
separate aspects of social presence. These included students perceptions of the online
presence of both the facilitator and the other students in the class, as well as their feelings
of comfort in relating to others in the class. In particular, the questionnaire asked about
students sense of an online community, their sense of the facilitator creating an online
community, their participation in online discussions, their interactions with others, their
perceptions of being acknowledged by others, and their development of distinct
impressions of fellow online students. This range of different items that students has to
address helped provide content validity to the section of the questionnaire that was
intended to measure students perception of social presence in their online class.

33

Data Collection
Procedures
A contact person affiliated with the universitys Office of Assessment and
Institutional Research agreed to assist with the study and provided a randomly selected
list of 100 currently enrolled online students at the university, including their e-mail
addresses. The survey was then posted online through the organization
Surveymonkey.com, the researcher sent e-mails to the students on the list, explaining the
nature of the research, asking for their participation, and providing a link to the survey.
Over several weeks, three follow-up e-mails were sent to students on the list to help
ensure maximum participation. All data from the completed surveys were transferred to
the researcher and checked for accuracy.
Ethical Considerations
The online survey was preceded by an explanation of anonymity and
confidentiality, with risks and benefits of participation being explained. Prospective
participants were informed that there would be no personally identifying information on
the completed forms and that their responses would be aggregated along with other
students responses solely for the purpose of statistical analysis. They were also informed
that they could choose not to complete the survey with no adverse consequences. The
researchers phone number was provided for students with any questions about the
survey. The students were informed that by continuing, they were providing their
permission for the survey results to be used.

34

After receiving data in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, the data were checked
for accuracy and completeness. The researcher then transferred the responses to SPSS
statistical software for analysis, after which the data were again checked for accuracy and
completeness. Data were kept in a password-protected file on the researchers computer.
This file will be deleted within one year of the completion of the study.
Data Analysis
Students responses to the questionnaire were examined carefully to determine
any unclarities. Data were then compiled and transferred to a single file. For each of the
12 items on the questionnaire, the number of students replying to that item were
calculated, along with the mean score and standard deviation for all respondents based on
the six-point Likert scale. The results of these calculations are reported in the next
chapter.
After responses to all items had been compiled, a factor analysis of the responses
to the 10 social presence items was conducted to determine whether the 10 items
corresponded to a single factor. A reliability analysis was also conducted to determine the
Cronbachs alpha score for the responses to the 10 social presence items. The results of
these analyses are reported in the next chapter.
A composite variable reflecting perception of social presence was calculated as
the grand mean of the mean scores for responses to the 10 social presence items.
Variables for students perception of learning and students satisfaction with their
facilitator were also calculated based on their responses to the two items measuring these
variables. Simple linear regressions were then performed to compare perceptions of
35

social presence first with perceptions of online learning and second with satisfaction with
the facilitator.
Based on these analyses, the studys three research questions were answered:
1. What are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment?
2. How are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment related to their perceived learning in that environment?
3. How are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment related to their satisfaction with their class facilitator?
Limitations
One limitation of the study was that it involved students at only one university.
There may be differences among institutions of higher education and their departments in
regard to philosophies, policies, and strategies for online learning and these may affect
the degree to which students experience or perceive social presence. Thus, the particular
university and department chosen for the study may not reflect the situation at other
universities. For this reason any generalization of the findings of this study must be done
with care.
A second limitation of the study also affects generalizability. This limitation is the
fact that the number of students surveyed was limited, and thus the number of classes
they had taken online was limited. This limitation was especially pertinent to answering
Research Question 1, which asked about online students perceptions of social presence.
It is likely that in the online environment in general, some classes may have a degree of
perceived social presence higher than others. This may depend on the nature of the
course, the style of the facilitator, and the attitudes of the students. The limited number of
36

students surveyed means a limitation of the classes they reported on, and this may not
constitute a fully representative sample in regard to degree of social presence in online
environments.
A third limitation of the study is that any correlation found between students
perceptions of social presence and either of the other variables cannot establish a causal
connection between the two. For example, a third unknown factor might account for the
correlation. Despite this limitation, the results of the study are believed to provide insight
into the relation of online students perception of social presence and their perceived
learning and satisfaction with their class facilitator. This information is likely to be
valuable to course designers and facilitators. In particular, it may help them in
determining to what degree they wish to focus on establishing an online environment that
is high in social presence.

37

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the collection and analysis of the data. It is
divided into five main parts following this introduction. The first part describes the data
collection procedures and the size and nature of the studys final sample. The second part
details the results of the factor analysis of the 10 survey items that were intended to
measure a single factor, the students perception of online social presence. It also presents
the results of the reliability analysis of the 10 social presence items in terms of the
Cronbachs alpha measure. The third part of the chapter presents the results for each of
the 12 survey items, including the range, mean, and standard deviation for responses to
each item on the survey.
The fourth section of the chapter is divided into two subsections. The first
subsection reports the mean response of each individual participant to the 10 survey items
measuring perceptions of online social presence. The second subsection presents the
results of linear regressions that were conducted comparing participants perceptions of
online social presence with their evaluations of two outcomes of the class. These two
outcomes were (a) their perceived learning in the online class and (b) their satisfaction
with the classs instructor. The fifth section of the chapter then applies the various results
of the study to answer the three research questions. Finally, the last section of the chapter
provides a summary of the findings.
38

Collection of Data
Data for the study were gathered during a two-month period from early August
through early October 2011 from students enrolled in online classes at a private Midwest
university. A contact person from the universitys Office of Assessment and Institutional
Research forwarded a list of e-mail addresses of 100 randomly selected students who
were taking at least one online course at the university. The list contained the e-mail
addresses of 19 undergraduate students and 81 graduate students. There were various
major fields of study for the 100 students, with the highest number (19) studying
Education. Sixteen students were majoring in business or business administration.
Fourteen were seeking degrees in Psychology, with another 14 majoring in some form of
counseling, including school counseling, mental health counseling, and marriage and
family therapy. Ten of the 100 students were majoring in information technology, and
nine majored in human studies. Other major fields of study represented on the list
included public health, public safety, human resource management, organization and
management, and public administration.
An initial e-mail was sent to all students on the list explaining the nature of the
research, asking for their participation in completing the online survey, and providing a
link to the survey. During the next several weeks, three follow-up e-mails were sent to all
students on the list of 100 to help ensure maximum participation in the study.

The

survey was posted by Surveymonkey.com on that organizations website. The survey was
preceded by an explanation of anonymity, confidentiality, and both the risks and benefits
of participation. The researchers phone number was provided in the event any of the
students had any questions about the survey. The students were informed that by
39

continuing, they were providing their permission for the survey results to be used. As the
surveys were completed and submitted, the data collected initially went to the
Surveymonkey.com website. All data were then transferred to the researcher in the form
of Microsoft Excel files, at which point they were checked for accuracy. At the end of the
data collection period, a total of 47 online students had completed and submitted the
survey, for a 47% survey completion rate.
After 12 students had completed the survey, the researcher discovered that for two
of the survey items, the full range of potential replies had not been listed for the students
to address. The two items were I felt comfortable introducing myself in this course, and
The introductions enabled me to form a sense of online community. Each item was
followed by the instruction, Choose one of the following answers. These two items
were immediately corrected by inserting the full range of potential responses into the
listings for both, and this complete survey was responded to by 35 students (Appendix
A). However, since the initial 12 students did not have the full range of potential
responses for the two items, their actual responses to those items were not included when
compiling participants responses to the 12 survey items. Thus, for most of the survey
items, there were 47 participants, while for two of the items, only 35 participants
responses were counted. In addition, only 46 students completed item 8.
Results were transferred to Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
files, again checked for accuracy, and analyzed. During analysis, it was discovered that
the survey had inadvertently been posted with Likert scale directions opposite those of
the original Richardson and Swan (2003) scale; that is, instead of 1 = strongly agree, the
scales began with 1 = strongly disagree. To better enable comparisons of the studys
40

findings with those of Richardson and Swans similar study, all responses were reverse
scored. This caused no difference in statistical analyses except for reported means,
modes, and ranges. All other analyses were repeated with original scoring and showed no
differences in factor and reliability analyses, or in R2 or significance for the regressions.1
Analyses consisted of (a) factor analysis of responses to the 10 survey items
intended to measure perception of online social presence, (b) determination of reliability
of responses to these 10 items by calculating a Cronbachs alpha score, (c) determination
of range, mean, and standard deviation for responses to each survey item, (d) calculating
each respondents mean score for responses to the online social presence items and their
mean for both the item measuring their perception of learning in the online class and the
item measuring their satisfaction with the classs instructor, and (e) conducting two linear
regressions to compare students perception of online social presence with their perceived
learning in an online class and their satisfaction with the classs instructor.
Factor and Reliability Analyses
A principal component factor analysis was conducted on the responses to the 10
items measuring perceptions of social presence. Results showed that the 10 items
comprised one factor with eigenvalue greater than 1. This factor had eigenvalue of 6.848
with total variance of 68.484 percent. The highest secondary factor had eigenvalue of
0.837 (see Table 1). From these results, it was concluded that the survey items intended
to measure perception of online social presence did in fact measure only this one factor.

The only differences between calculations using original scoring and reverse scoring were very minor
differences in F and t for two regressions using the composite perceptions of social presence variable.

41

A reliability analysis in terms of the Cronbachs alpha measure was conducted on

responses to the 10 social presence items. Only a total of 34 cases were used to calculate
the reliability measure because the responses of the 12 students who did not have the full
range of potential responses available for two of the survey items were not included, and
in addition, one of the other 35 participants failed to respond to one of the 10 social
presence items. Cronbachs alpha score for these 34 participants was .9429, which was a
reasonably high score for reliability. This result added further evidence that the perceived
social presence scale did measure what it was intended to measure.
Table 1
Results of Principal Components Analysis
________________________________________________________________________
Component
Initial Eigenvalue
Percent Variance
________________________________________________________________________
1
6.848
69.848
2

.837

8.367

.608

6.078

.530

5.300

.332

3.320

.264

2.643

.227

2.272

.174

1.736

.125

1.255

10
5.450E-02
.545
________________________________________________________________________
42

Responses to Survey Items

Responses to Ten Survey Items Measuring Perception of Online
Social Presence
The following provides the range, mode, mean, and standard deviation for
responses to each of the 10 survey items that measured students perceptions of online
social presence. Responses to each item were reverse scored so that scales were evaluated
as having the following six points: 1strongly agree, 2agree, 3somewhat agree,
4somewhat disagree, 5disagree, and 6strongly disagree. Reported lower means
therefore indicate a greater degree of agreement with the item.
The first item measuring students perceptions of online social presence was,
Online or web-based education is an excellent medium for social interaction. A total of
47 students responded to this item. Responses ranged from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The most common responses were agree and somewhat agree. Only four of the
47 students disagreed with the statement. The mean for the item was 2.28, with a standard
deviation of 1.02. Responses to this item had the highest mean, and thus the weakest
overall agreement, of any of the 10 items measuring perceptions of social presence.
The second item measuring this construct was, I felt comfortable conversing
through this medium. Forty-seven students responded to this survey item. Responses
ranged from strongly agree to somewhat agree. The prevalent response was agree. None
of the 47 respondents disagreed to any extent with the statement. The mean score for
responses to this item was 1.81, with the standard deviation being .71.
The third item measuring the construct was, I felt comfortable introducing
myself in this course. A total of 35 students responded to this item. Responses ranged
43

from strongly agree to somewhat agree. The prevalent response was agree. None of the
35 students responding disagreed to any extent with the statement. The mean score for
responses to this item was 1.74, with the standard deviation being .70.
The fourth item was, The introductions enabled me to form a sense of online
community, with 35 students responding. Responses ranged from strongly agree to
disagree. The most common responses were strongly agree and agree (13 each). Two of
the 35 students responding disagreed to some extent with this statement. The mean score
for responses to this item was 2.00, with the standard deviation being 1.06.
The fifth item was, The instructor created a feeling of an online community.
Forty-seven students responded to this item. Responses ranged from strongly agree to
somewhat agree. The most common response was agree, with none of the 47 students
indicating any degree of disagreement with this statement. The mean score for responses
to this item was 1.91, with the standard deviation being .78.
The sixth item was, I felt comfortable participating in course discussion. Fortyseven students responded to this item. Responses ranged from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The most common response was strongly agree, with three of the students
indicating some degree of disagreement with the statement. The mean score for responses
to this item was 1.74 , with the standard deviation being 1.03.
The seventh item was, The instructor facilitated discussions in the course.
Forty-seven students responded to this item. Responses ranged from strongly agree to
disagree. The most common responses were strongly agree and agree (18 for each), with
three students showing some form of disagreement with the statement. The mean score
for responses to this item was 1.94, with the standard deviation being .96.
44

The eighth item was, I felt comfortable interacting with other participants in the
course. Forty-six students responded to this item. Responses ranged from strongly agree
to somewhat disagree. The prevalent response was strongly agree, with only one student
indicating some degree of disagreement with the statement. The mean score for responses
to this item was 1.74, with the standard deviation being .77.
The ninth item was, I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other
participants in the course. Forty-seven students responded to this item. Responses
ranged from strongly agree to somewhat disagree. The most common response was
strongly agree, with only two of the 47 students indicating any degree of disagreement
with the statement. The mean score for this item was 1.79, with standard deviation of 83.
Finally, the tenth item measuring the construct was, I was able to form distinct
individual impressions of some course participants. Forty-seven students responded to
this item. Responses ranged from strongly agree to somewhat disagree. The prevalent
response was agree. Only two students disagreed with the statement. The mean score for
responses to this item was 2.00, with the standard deviation being .86.
Overall, the means for the 10 items measuring students perceptions of the degree
of social presence in their online classrooms hovered in near 2 for each item, with the
lowest score, indicating the strongest perception of a social presence indicator, being
1.74. This mean occurred for two items: I felt comfortable introducing myself in this
course and I felt comfortable interacting with other participants in the course. The
highest overall mean was 2.28, for Online or web-based education is an excellent
medium for social interaction. Table 2 summarizes the responses to each of the 10 items.

45

Table 2
Results for 10 Items Measuring Perception of Social Presence in an Online Course
________________________________________________________________________
Item
Range
Mode
Mean
SD
________________________________________________________________________
1. Online or web-based education
is an excellent medium for social
interaction.

1-6

2.28

1.02

2. I felt comfortable conversing

through this medium.

1-3

1.81

.71

3. I felt comfortable introducing

myself in this course.

1-3

1.74

.70

4. The introductions enabled me to

form a sense of online community.

1-5

1, 2

2.00

1.06

5. The instructor created a feeling

of an online community.

1-3

1.91

.78

6. I felt comfortable participating

in course discussion.

1-6

1.74

1.03

7. The instructor facilitated

discussions in the course.

1-5

1, 2

1.94

.96

8. I felt comfortable interacting with

other participants in the course.

1-4

1.74

.77

9. I felt that my point of view was

acknowledged by other participants
in the course.

1-4

1.79

.83

10. I was able to form distinct individual impressions of some course

participants.
1-4
2
2.00
.86
________________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 47 for all items except 3 and 4, for which 35 responded, and item 8, for which 46 responded.
Items are reverse scored.

46

Responses to Two Survey Items Measuring Ratings of Online Class

and Instructor
Two items on the survey asked the students to report the effectiveness of their
online class and their satisfaction with their online instructor. Students responded to these
items using the same six-point Likert scale as for the social presence items. The class
evaluation item was, Overall, this course met my learning expectations. Responses to
this item ranged from strongly agree to somewhat agree. The prevalent response was
agree. The mean for the item was 1.72, and the standard deviation .65.
The instructor evaluation item was, Overall, the instructor for this course met my
expectations. Responses to this item ranged from strongly agree to disagree. The
prevalent response was agree. Only one respondent disagreed in any degree with the
statement. The mean for this item was 1.79, while the standard deviation was .78.
Table 3 summarizes the results for these two survey items.
Table 3
Results for Two Items Measuring Students Ratings of Online Course and Instructor*
________________________________________________________________________
Item
Range
Mode
Mean
SD
________________________________________________________________________
1. Overall, this course met
my learning expectations.

1-3

1.72

.65

2. Overall, the instructor for this

course met my expectations.
1-5
2
1.79
.78
________________________________________________________________________
*n = 47 for both items. Items are reverse scored.

47

Comparing Students Perceptions of Online Social Presence

with Class and Instructor Evaluations
Individual Mean Perceptions of Social Presence
Each students responses to the survey items measuring perceptions of online
social presence were averaged to give a student mean score for those items. In addition,
each students evaluations of the online class and of the instructor were also determined
for comparison. Table 4 summarizes these results.
Though the highest overall mean for the 10 perception of social presence items
was only 2.28, as shown in Table 2, it is clear from Table 4 that some of the means for
individual students responses to the items were considerably higher. Five (10.6%) of the
respondents had overall means of 3.00 or above for those items. The figures indicate that
while many of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with most of the statements
measuring perception of online social presence, several agreed only somewhat with the
statements. However, whether these individual variations in students perceptions of the
degree of online social presence were related to their evaluations of their learning in the
online course or to their satisfaction with their instructor required conducting linear
regressions on the data to test for the presence and strength of such relationships.
Perceived Online Social Presence Related to Satisfaction with
Course and Instructor
To determine if students perceptions of the degree of online social presence were
related to their evaluations of their online learning or their satisfaction with their class
instructor, two sets of linear regressions were conducted. This section describes these
regressions and reports their results.
48

Table 4
Comparing Each Students Perception of Online Social Presence to Satisfaction with the
Course and Instructor*
________________________________________________________________________
Student

Perception of Social
Evaluation
Evaluation
Presence Mean
of Course
of Instructor
________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

2.10
2.40
2.10
1.30
3.00
3.20
1.00
2.10
1.90
3.40
1.00
3.10
1.00
2.30
1.10
2.20
2.30
1.50
1.60
1.00
3.20
2.30
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.90
2.20
1.30
2.00
2.00
1.10
2.00
1.20

1
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2

1
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
(continued)

49

Table 4 (continued)
Comparing Each Students Perception of Online Social Presence to Satisfaction with the
Course and Instructor*
________________________________________________________________________
Student

Perception of Social Evaluation

Evaluation
Presence Mean
of Course
of Instructor
________________________________________________________________________
34
1.00
1
1
35
1.00
1
1
36
1.88
2
2
37
2.00
3
2
38
1.00
1
1
39
1.75
2
1
40
1.88
1
2
41
1.50
1
1
42
1.25
1
1
43
2.13
2
2
44
1.75
1
2
45
2.25
2
2
46
1.25
1
1
47
1.75
2
2
________________________________________________________________________
*Respondents 1-35, except for respondent 25, were evaluated on their responses to 10 social presence
items, respondent 25 was evaluated on nine responses, and respondents 36-47 were evaluated on eight
responses. Items are reverse scored.

In the first set of regressions, the dependent variable was participants responses
to the survey item, Overall, this course met my learning expectations. An overall mean
value for each students responses to the 10 perception of social presence items was
calculated by adding up all of the students responses and dividing by the number of
items that the student responded to. This value, considered the independent variable, was
regressed against the dependent variable, which consisted of students responses to the
course evaluation item. In addition, to determine how each facet of the students
perceptions of social presence was related to the dependent variable, responses to each of
50

the 10 social presence items considered individually were regressed against the
dependent variable. The results of all of these linear regressions are presented in Table 5,
where the R2, F, and t values are given along with the statistical significance for the
results of each regression.
Table 5
Results of Linear Regressions Comparing Students Perceptions of Online Social
Presence to Their Evaluations of How Well the Course Met Their Learning Expectations
________________________________________________________________________
Students Perceptions of
R2
F
t
Significance
Online Social Presence
________________________________________________________________________
Mean for all 10 Items

.464

38.916

6.238

.000

Item 1

.122

6.256

2.501

.016

Item 2

.347

23.863

4.885

.000

Item 3

.338

16.865

4.107

.000

Item 4

.364

18.884

4.346

.000

Item 5

.182

10.038

3.168

.003

Item 6

.259

15.724

3.965

.000

Item 7

.209

11.877

3.446

.001

Item 8

.469

38.889

6.236

.000

Item 9

.375

27.029

5.199

.000

Item 10
.341
23.290
4.826
.000
________________________________________________________________________

51

As can be seen from Table 5, the regression of the overall mean for students
perceptions of online social presence against their reports of how well the online course
met their learning expectations showed a strong positive association between the two sets
of responses. Furthermore, not only was the overall mean associated with the students
course evaluations but responses to each individual item measuring students perceptions
of online social presence also had a significantly positive relationship to course
evaluations at the .05 level of significance.
In the second set of regressions, the dependent variable was participants
responses to the survey item, Overall, the instructor for this course met my
expectations. The previously calculated overall mean values of each students responses
to the 10 perception of social presence items were again considered to be the independent
variable. These values were regressed against the dependent variable, which consisted of
students responses to the instructor evaluation item. Again, to determine how each facet
of students perceptions of social presence was related to the dependent variable,
responses to each of the 10 social presence items considered individually were regressed
against the dependent variable measuring students evaluation of their online instructor.
All of these results are presented in Table 6.
As can be seen from Table 6, the regression of the overall mean for students
perceptions of online social presence against their reports of how well the instructor met
their expectations showed an even stronger positive association between the two sets of
responses than was found in the first set of regressions. This strong statistical association
between perceptions of online social presence and the students evaluation of their

52

Table 6
Results of Linear Regressions Comparing Students Perceptions of Online Social
Presence to Their Evaluations of Their Online Instructor
________________________________________________________________________
Students Perceptions of
R2
F
t
Significance
Online Social Presence
________________________________________________________________________
Mean for all 10 Items

.600

67.588

8.221

.000

Item 1

.267

16.352

4.044

.000

Item 2

.399

29.850

5.464

.000

Item 3

.464

28.583

5.346

.000

Item 4

.351

17.854

4.225

.000

Item 5

.388

23.004

4.796

.000

Item 6

.403

30.384

5.512

.000

Item 7

.382

27.868

5.279

.000

Item 8

.452

36.349

6.029

.000

Item 9

.320

21.221

4.607

.000

Item 10
.305
19.745
4.443
.000
________________________________________________________________________

instructor also continued when responses to each individual item measuring students
perceptions of online social presence were regressed against their evaluations of their
online instructor. In each case, the statistical significance was strong, as indicated by the
results shown in Table 6.

53

Research Questions
Research Question 1 was, What are students perceptions of social presence in
an online learning environment? This research question is answered by the analysis of
the responses to the 10 survey items that focused on students perceptions of online social
presence. This analysis showed that in general, the students responding to the survey
perceived a considerable amount of online social presence. For nine of the 10 social
presence items, the students agreed with the item at a rate of 2.00 or lower. For the tenth
item, the average of all participants responses was 2.28, which is a score that falls
between agree and somewhat agree.
Only five (10.6%) of the 47 respondents had a mean score of 3.00 or above for the
10 social presence items. The highest of these scores was 3.20, which was the average of
two students. Although the mean scores for these respondents in comparison to the other
students indicated that they had milder overall agreement that the online environment
exhibited social presence, it was still agreement. For three of the 10 social presence
items, there was no disagreement whatsoever with the statement among the respondents,
and for the other seven statements, only at most three (6.4%) of the 47 students disagreed
with the statement. On the other hand, a total of 16 (34.0%) of the students had a mean
score of 1.50 or less for the 10 social presence items, indicating that over one-third of the
students perceived a high degree of online social presence.
Research Question 2 was, How are students perceptions of social presence in an
online learning environment related to their perceived learning in that environment?
This question is answered by the results of the first set of linear regressions that were
conducted. These results indicated a strong correlation between degree of students
54

perceptions of overall social presence in their online course and their perceived learning
in the course. The correlation was statistically significant at the .05 level not only for
perceptions of overall online social presence but for students responses to each of the 10
social presence items.
Research Question 3 was, How are students perceptions of social presence in an
online learning environment related to their satisfaction with their class facilitator? This
question is answered by the results of the second set of linear regressions that were
conducted. These results indicated an even stronger correlation between degree of
students perceptions of overall social presence in their online course and their
satisfaction with their instructor than was the case for the correlation of perceived overall
online social presence and perceived learning in the course. Here again, the correlation
was statistically significant at the .05 level not only for perceptions of overall online
social presence but for the students responses to each of the 10 social presence items.
Summary of Findings
This chapter presented the findings from the research. Following the Introduction,
the first main section described the data collection procedures and the final sample, which
consisted of 47 undergraduate and graduate students who were taking online college
courses in a wide variety of fields. The second main section reported the results of the
factor analysis of the 10 items that were intended to measure the students perceptions of
online social presence as well as the reliability analysis of those same items using the
Cronbachs alpha measure. The factor analysis showed that the students responses to the
10 items that were intended to measure one main factor, perceptions of social presence,
55

did in fact consolidate into one factor. Furthermore, the Cronbachs alpha results of
.94`29 indicated a high degree of internal reliability for the students responses to the 10
social presence items.
The third main section of the chapter presented the results for each of the 12
survey items by reporting the range, mean, and standard deviations for participants
responses to all items on the survey. The results indicated that the respondents mostly
agreed that there was considerable social presence in their online courses. This agreement
was reflected not only by students overall scores on the 10 social presence items but by
their mean scores for each of the items individually. In regard to the two items asking
about students perceived learning in their online course and their satisfaction with their
instructor, here too there was widespread agreement. None of the students disagreed with
the item stating that the course met their learning expectations, for which the mean
response was 1.72. Only one student disagreed with the item stating that the instructor of
the online course met his or her expectations. Here the mean response was 1.79.
The fourth section of the chapter was divided into two subsections. First, the
reported perceptions of online social presence for each individual student were averaged
to give a student mean score for those items. These calculations showed that although the
overall means for the 10 perception of social presence items ranged from 1.74 to 2.28,
with overall means for nine of the items being 2.00 or less, there was considerable
variation among the individual students in their responses to the perceived online social
presence items, with some of the respondents having overall means of 3.00 or above for
the 10 items.

56

Next, the fourth section of the chapter presented the results of the linear
regressions that compared the participants perceptions of online social presence with
their satisfaction with (a) their perceived learning in the online class and (b) their
satisfaction with the classs instructor. In each case, the regressions showed that there
was a strong positive statistical correlation between the students perceived outcomes and
their perceptions of the degree of online social presence in their course. These positive
correlations were present not only for overall perceived online social presence but for the
students responses to each of the 10 online social presence items.
The fifth section of the chapter used the results reported in the previous sections
to answer the studys three research questions. For Research Question 1, What are
students perceptions of social presence in an online learning environment? the answer
was that most of the students responding to the survey perceived a considerable amount
of online social presence. For Research Question 2, How are students perceptions of
social presence in an online learning environment related to their perceived learning in
that environment? the regressions showed that there was a strong statistical association
correlation between the students perceptions of overall online social presence in their
course and their perceived learning both overall and for each of the perceived social
presence items. Finally, for Research Question 3, How are students perceptions of
social presence in an online learning environment related to their satisfaction with their
class facilitator? the regressions showed an even stronger correlation between students
perceptions of overall social presence and satisfaction with their instructor, with the
association being statistically significant both overall and for each of the 10 social
presence items.
57

In the next chapter, the studys results are discussed. The chapter includes
implications of the findings along with conclusions and recommendations for both
practice and future research.

58

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
This chapter is divided into three main sections, as well as several subsections,
following this introduction. The first section provides a summary of the research along
with a discussion of the studys results. The discussion details how the results address the
studys research questions and bring greater clarity to issues concerning social presence
in online education. Weaknesses and strengths of the study are also explained in this
section.
The second main section of this chapter presents the studys conclusions based
upon its findings. Various ways in which the results are related to the literature reviewed
in Chapter 2 are discussed, along with implications of the conclusions that are relevant to
the topic of social presence in online higher education. In addition, the theoretical
foundation of the study in social cognitive theory is discussed and how they illuminate
the studys findings.
The third main section of the chapter provides several recommendations that are
based on the findings of this research. These include two basic kinds of recommendation.
The first kind consists of recommendations that are based directly on the findings and
that are intended for institutions of higher education and educators involved in online
education. The second kind consists of recommendations for further research concerning
issues of social presence in online classes.
59

Summary and Discussion of Results

Summary
This study began with the recognition that institutions of higher education are
offering an increasing number of classes in all sorts of fields and at all levels using the
Internet as a medium of communication (Richardson & Swan, 2003). While there are a
number of advantages to such education (Berge & Collins, 1995; LaBay & Comm, 2003),
there have also been concerns about the lack of social cues and references in the case of
online learning, the lack of direct communication between student and instructor except
for written text, and the possible sense of isolation experienced by the online learner, all
conditions that may serve as barriers to learning (Russo & Benson, 2004). In particular, a
lack of social presence, which is individuals perceptions of the genuine presence of other
people within some particular communication medium, has been considered to possibly
be a feature of online learning environments (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Lombard &
Ditton, 1997; Short et al., 1976). Absence of social presence in online education may in
turn affect students perceptions of the quality of their online learning and/or their
satisfaction with their instructor as suggested by the results of studies by Picciano (2002),
Richardson and Swan (2003), and Tu (2000). However, these studies were done about a
decade ago, and it is not clear whether students perceptions of online presence may have
changed during that time.
Based on these considerations and concerns, the problem for this study was to
determine if, for a sample of currently enrolled online students, their perception of social
presence is positively associated with their perceptions of their learning and their
60

satisfaction with their facilitator. For the purpose of making this evaluation, a sample of
online students from a single university was administered a questionnaire to determine
their perceptions of online social presence, their perceptions of the quality of their
learning, and their satisfaction with their instructor. To that end, three research questions
were devised for this study:
1. What are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment?
2. How are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment related to their perceived learning in that environment?
3. How are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment related to their satisfaction with their class facilitator?
To answer these research questions, a quantitative correlational design was used.
A sample of 100 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in online classes at a
single university was administered a questionnaire to determine their perceptions of the
social presence in an online class, their learning in the class, and their satisfaction
with their class facilitator. Collected data were analyzed by linear regression to determine
any associations between the sampled students perceptions of social presence in their
online class and their (a) perceived learning in the class, and (b) satisfaction with their
class facilitator.
It was deemed that the studys results could be of value for institutions of higher
education offering online courses, as well as for course designers and facilitators of
online courses. Knowing to what degree online students perceive social presence in their
classes, and whether their perceptions of online social presence are associated with their
perceived learning and their satisfaction with their facilitator might help educators
61

determine how effective are current strategies for developing a sense of social presence in
their courses.
The results of the study provided answers to the three research questions. For the
first question, What are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment? it was found that most of the students responding to the survey perceived
a considerable amount of online social presence. For the second research question, How
are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning environment related to
their perceived learning in that environment? a strong statistical correlation was found
between the students perceived learning and their perceptions of online social presence
in their course both overall and for each of the social presence items. For the third
research question, How are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning
environment related to their satisfaction with their class facilitator? there was also a
strong association between students satisfaction with their instructor and their
perceptions of online social presence both overall and for each social presence item.
Discussion of Results
Factor and reliability analyses. The results of the principal components analysis
that was done on the 10 items intended to measure the participants perception of online
social presence demonstrated that those 10 items did measure only one factor. The
eigenvalue of this one factor was 6.848, while the eigenvalues of all other potential
factors were below 1, the highest being 0.837. This result was important because it
ensured that statistical analysis could employ a single independent variable that was
constructed of students responses to those 10 survey items.
62

Further confirmation of the appropriateness of the 10 survey items that were

intended to measure students perceptions of online social presence was achieved by a
reliability analysis in terms of a Cronbachs alpha score. The high Cronbachs alpha
measure of .9429 indicated that responses to those 10 items were highly consistent with
one another, confirming substantial internal reliability for this part of the survey.
The results of both the factor analysis and the reliability analysis indicated that the
10 items on the perceived social presence scale did measure a single construct. This
helped ensure that a single variable measuring respondents perceptions of online social
presence could be statistically compared with the two dependent variables consisting of
the students evaluations of the degree of learning they achieved in their online class and
their satisfaction with their class facilitator.
Participants perceptions of online social presence. A notable result of this
study was that the mean scores for the 10 perception of online social presence items
individually and overall were much higher than the scores reported by Richardson and
Swan (2003) in their study of online social presence approximately a decade ago. The
scores for the 10 social presence items in the present study ranged from 1.74 to 2.28, with
the overall mean for responses to the 10 items being 1.895. Given the six-point Likert
scale that students used to report their perceptions, with 1 indicating strong agreement
and 6 indicating strong disagreement with the item statement, these scores confirmed that
the surveyed students perceived a high degree of social presence in their online classes.
This is in strong contrast with the results obtained by Richardson and Swan
(2003), who employed the same six-point Likert scale used for the present study and
63

reported students overall perceptions of social presence in their online classes as 4.39
overall. This score indicated that the surveyed students did not perceive a high degree of
social presence in their online classes. In fact, with Richardson and Swan making clear in
their article that the directionality of their scale was the same as for the present study, the
mean score of 4.39 for the perceived online social presence items indicates that their
surveyed students mostly disagreed with the items measuring their perceptions of social
presence in their online classes.
The contrast between the results for the Richardson and Swan (2003) study and
those of the present study suggests that during the last decade, significant progress has
been made in structuring online classes so that students can more easily feel a sense of
the online presence of other students taking the class. Todays designers and
implementers of online courses in higher education have had the advantage of years of
learning how to use the medium to best advantage as online education has grown and
evolved. It is therefore not unexpected that the sample of students in the present study
perceived a considerably higher degree of online social presence than those in the
Richardson and Swan (2003) study, though the size of the difference in the perceptions of
the two samples was somewhat surprising. It should be noted, however, that the
participants in the two studies were students from two different U.S. institutions of higher
education, and it may be the case that these two institutions differ substantially in how
well their online classes and facilitators are able to foster a sense of social presence.
The 10 perceptions of online social presence items that the sample of students
responded to in the present study focused on various aspects of their online experience.
Overall, the students had positive perceptions of their online class environment, as well
64

as for each of the 10 social presence items. However, the lowest mean scores were for
three items that asked the participants to report their perceptions of being comfortable
with various aspects of their online class. These low average scores translated into high
ratings for experienced comfort level for these aspects. In particular, a mean score of 1.74
was calculated for the students responses to each of three separate items inquiring about
their degree of comfort in (a) introducing themselves in the course, (b) participating in
course discussion, and (c) interacting with other participants in the course. The only item
that was meant to measure participants perceptions of degree of comfort that had a
higher mean score than these three was one that asked about the students comfort in
conversing through the online medium, for which the mean score was slightly higher at
1.81. These results strongly suggest that the sampled students experienced a considerable
degree of comfort with various aspects of the online educational environment.
Students replies to two survey items that were related to their having a sense of
online community in their class were also especially noteworthy. One of these was their
replies to the item stating that the instructor created a feeling of online community, for
which the mean of the students responses was 1.91 and for which no participant
disagreed. The other was the item stating that the introductions enabled the student to
develop a sense of online community, for which the mean of responses was 2.00 and for
which 13 of the students strongly agreed and only two disagreed. These results suggest
that for the most part, students in the sample developed a strong a sense of community
with others and with the facilitator in their online classes.
The results also provide support for the claim by various commentators that there
are some advantages to online education in comparison with traditional education in
65

regard to the opportunities for interactivity that are available to students. Brindley, Walti,
and Blaschke (2009), for example, held that there is an opportunity in online education to
create an environment that is high in social learning and that has a high degree of
interactivity and participation by the students. It has been increasingly realized that online
education offers opportunities for creating strongly interactive environments. In fact,
while sensory modalities may be limited for online learners, a number of commentators,
for example Wilson (1998), have suggested that online classes can furnish more
opportunities for learner collaboration than traditional classes. The fact that the students
surveyed responded favorably to the two items specifically inquiring about their having a
sense of online community suggests that facilitators in their online classes were
succeeding in instilling a sense of collaborative learning and of a learning community or
community of inquirers.
Another interesting result among the surveyed students responses to the 10 items
measuring perception of online social presence was their response to the first item,
Online or web-based education is an excellent medium for social interaction, for which
the mean score was 2.28, the highest for all of the 10 items. This result is interesting
because, unlike the other nine social presence survey items, this one was not about the
students perceptions of their particular online class but rather about their attitude toward
online education in general. Not only did the mean score for this item indicate less
acceptance of this item than any other of the 10 social presence items, but more students
(four) disagreed to some degree with this item than with any of the other nine.
One reason for this difference might be that some of the students had a somewhat
negative view about the value of online education in general, and this was not modified
66

by their more positive experience in a particular class. Another possibility is that some of
the students interpreted the statement as being about whether the online medium is
excellent for socializing and the obvious limitations of the online medium for that
purpose came to mind. On that interpretation, the responses do not necessarily imply that
the students believed there is insufficient social presence in online education for the sake
of learning.
Participants ratings of their online learning and their facilitator. The results
for the survey item asking the students to respond to the statement, Overall, this course
met my learning expectations showed that overall the students evaluated the course
highly in regard to learning. Every student agreed with this statement, for an overall mean
of 1.72 on the six-point Likert scale. These scores indicate that for each student, the
fundamental purpose of the online course they reported on was fulfilled in his or her
judgment. That main purpose was to educate.
Again, these results are in contrast to those reported by Richardson and Swan
(2003) for their study. Those researchers also asked students about their perceived
learning in online classes and received a mean response of 4.70 on the six-point Likert
scale. This result indicated substantial disagreement with the same statement about the
course meeting their learning expectations. Like the difference between the results of the
two studies in respect to perceptions of online social presence, this difference in results
also strongly suggests a substantial improvement in online education over the past decade
in its ability to satisfy students learning expectations.

67

The instructor evaluation item that students in the present study responded to was,
Overall, the instructor for this course met my expectations. Responses to this item
ranged from strongly agree to disagree. The prevalent response was agree. Only one
respondent disagreed in any degree with the statement. The mean for this item was 1.79,
while the standard deviation was .78.
These results were again in contrast to those received by Richardson and Swan
(2003). Responding to the same item, students in their study had an overall mean of 4.39,
which indicated widespread dissatisfaction with their course instructor. The difference of
2.6 between the two samples may be partly due to an improvement of online instructors
ability to satisfy their students expectations over the past decade, and/or it may be partly
due to personal differences in teaching ability between the students instructors in the two
studies. However, this seems unlikely given that as a whole, students in the present study
apparently took a wide range of online courses with different instructors.
It is worth noting that the sample of 47 was composed mostly of graduate
students. This follows from the fact that the list of 100 furnished by the university
consisted of 81 graduates and 19 undergraduates, so at most 19 undergraduates were
among the respondents, leaving at least 28 graduate students, and likely more. It is
probable that some of these graduate students had taken prior online courses and were
familiar with the online mediums strengths and weaknesses. As a result, the samples
high overall ratings for social presence, meeting learning expectations, and facilitator
satisfaction are even more notable.
The results of the present study, in contrast to those of Richardson and Swan
(2003), suggest that improvements may have been made in online education over the past
68

decade in regard to students perception of social presence, meeting the students learning
expectations, and/or students satisfaction with their facilitator. However, such
generalizations cannot be made with confidence since the study concerned online
students at only one university.
Regression results. The first set of linear regressions that were performed
showed a strong correlation between students perceptions of overall social presence and
their evaluations of whether online learning met their learning expectations. This
correlation existed overall and was highly statistically significant at the .000 significance
level. Similar correlations also existed for each of the 10 items measuring students
perceptions of online social presence, with most of these also being at the .000
significance level.
These results agree with those of several other studies concerned with online
social presence. These include the study of Richardson and Swan (2003), who also found
a positive correlation between students perceptions of online social presence and their
evaluations of how well their online course met their learning expectations. The results of
their study were similar, although the correlation appears not as strong as in the present
study. The R2 value for this correlation in the present study was .463 and was significant
at the .000 level, and the R2 value for the same correlation in the Richardson and Swan
study was similar, at .46 but was reported by them as being significant only at the .05
level.
In the present study, a highly significant positive correlation was also found
between students perceptions of online social presence and their satisfaction with their
69

online instructor. This correlation existed overall (R2 = .602, P = .000) and also for
students responses to each of the 10 perceptions of online social presence items, in each
case being highly statistically significant at the .000 significance level. Again, these
results agree with those of Richardson and Swan (2003), who found that students
perceptions of online social presence were associated with their satisfaction with their
online facilitator at the .05 significance level (R2= .036).
Strengths and limitations of the study. This study had several strengths. One of
these was that the sample included students with a wide variety of majors. The students
reported on a range of online classes that they were enrolled in, though information about
what specific classes they were enrolled in was not available from the university contact
that provided the student names. If the students were in fact enrolled in a variety of online
classes, this increases the significance of the studys findings because it shows that the
favorable results were not simply a reaction to one especially effective online class and
facilitator but were rather widespread within the university online classes in different
subject areas.
Another strength of the study was the fact that 47 out of 100 (47%) of the students
contacted chose to take part in the study by completing the survey form. This fact is
noteworthy, as often the percent of individuals responding to an online survey is
considerably lower.
A additional strength of the study is that the survey that was used has been used
before in other research concerned with students perceptions of online social presence
and its correlates. The analysis of the structure and reliability of the instrument that was
70

done in the present study confirms that the perception of social presence items on the
instrument are internally reliable and measure only one construct. Furthermore, the use of
the same survey enabled a direct comparison of the results of the present study with those
of any previous studies using the same instrument. Several such comparisons were made
above in reference to findings of the study by Richardson and Swan (2003) about a
decade ago.
A limitation of the study was its generalizability. This arises largely because
students at only one university were sampled. It is possible that various findings of the
study were attributable to the educational environment at this one university and that the
educational environments at other institutions of higher education are substantially
different in regard to issues surrounding social presence. Also limiting generalizability
was the size of the sample. However, the university office that provided assistance for the
study by furnishing the names and e-mail addresses of students who were taking at least
one on-line course at the university chose to furnish a list of only 100 students, so this
was the base from which it was necessary for the sample to be constructed.
A second limitation of the study is that it was impossible to determine whether
students satisfaction with facilitators was a function of which facilitator was being
considered, and whether evaluation of the effectiveness of learning was dependent on the
particular course. However, this information was unavailable from the results of the
survey. Furthermore, even if the information had been available, it seems likely that the
size of the sample would not have allowed an analysis that was able to make such
distinctions. It should be noted that this kind of information and analysis was also
missing from the study by Richardson and Swan (2003).
71

Conclusions
There are several conclusions that can be drawn on the basis of the results of this
study. First of all are the results used to answer the first research question, which asked
What are students perceptions of social presence in an online learning environment?
The findings of this study indicate that the sampled students perceived considerable
social presence in their online classes. As explained in the previous section, these results
are in contrast with those of Richardson and Swan (2003), who found perceptions of
online social presence to be considerably less about a decade ago. The present finding is
significant because the interpersonal communication that occurs in online classes
normally uses fewer sensory channels than face-to-face traditional education (van Tryon
& Bishop, 2009). This puts a serious limitation on the sensory modalities that are
normally available for communication, which include sight, hearing, touch, smell,
speech, writing, reading, and gestures (Logan, 1995). As a result, many social cues that
are available in the traditional classroom are missing (Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003),
which limits the possibilities for social interaction among online students and their
instructors. For some students, this may result in a sense of distance from others in the
online class. The fact that the students in this study perceived greater online social
presence than was found in the Richardson and Swan (2003 study suggests that the
designers and facilitators of online classes that students in the present study attended
were successful in reducing the liabilities that are intrinsic to online education, and in
creating conditions enabling students to more easily perceive the real presence of other
students in their online classes.

72

It can also be concluded that the students in this study experienced a considerable
degree of comfort with various aspects of the online educational environment. The lack
of some sensory modalities, as explained above, may be a cause for students feeling some
discomfort in the online environment. However, the fact that the students surveyed
reported a high overall sense of comfort with various aspects of their online courses
suggests that their course designers took care to construct courses so as to minimize the
potential negative effects of having only limited sensory channels available for
communication online.
These results also suggest that the learner-interface interaction that has been
mentioned by Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) was not a major drawback for
the students in the sample. The learner-interface interaction occurs between the learner
and the technology required for interacting with others and for learning. For learners who
are technically challenged, the interface with technology can be difficult to deal with. It is
also probable that this interface can prove a barrier to learning if equipment and
programming provide difficulties for online students. However, from the responses of the
surveyed students to the survey items regarding their degree of comfort with various class
aspects, as well as to the other social presence items, it seems likely that this interface did
not cause serious problems for the students in regard to their accessibility to online
learning. This may be largely due to the increasing sophistication of students in being
able to deal proficiently with computers and online services, as well as increasing
efficiency among online education providers in being able to furnish a smooth and
unproblematic interface to students.

73

The results indicating that the sampled students perceived a high degree of
comfort in various aspects of their online class further suggest that the transactional
distance that was described by Moore (1991, 1997) was not perceived by the students as
being a problem. Moore held that distance education involves a psychological and
communications separation between learners and instructors that requires innovative
teachinglearning techniques and strategies, and requires that considerable attention be
paid to the creation of opportunities for positive, constructive interactions (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996). The results for the items asking students to report their comfort in
interacting with others and participating in course discussions, as well as in conversing
through the medium, suggest that the students did not perceive substantial transactional
distance online.
The results also suggest that instructional immediacy was high for the students
online classes. Instructional immediacy concerns the reduction of transactional distance
through engaging in instructional practices that foster the creation of psychological
closeness between teachers and learners (Gorham, 1988). Currently in the online
environment, these are mostly verbal practices that facilitators can use to create this
closeness. They include valuable techniques such as using personal examples, addressing
participants by their names, and encouraging discussion among participants (Hutchins,
2003; Woods & Baker, 2004). In addition, online courses can be designed to encourage
interaction and increase instructional immediacy (Hutchins, 2003; Parker, 1999). It
cannot be determined from the results of the study what particular strategies or
techniques may have been applied to reduce transactional distance and increase

74

instructional immediacy in the courses the students reported on, but the results strongly
suggest that any strategies and techniques that were used were mostly successful.
A third conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the studys results is that it is
likely that the students surveyed perceived that they were part of an online learning
community. For students to be engaged in collaborative learning and to form an online
learning community is more than their just forming a group or a team (Wenger, 1998).
For Brindley et al. (2009), collaborative learning is about learners sharing knowledge as
they work to achieve similar goals, for example to solve a particular problem. This
includes the facilitator of the class, as the facilitator shares common goals with the
students. This mutual sharing serves to bond the class together and produce a sense of
belonging in the student (Wenger, 1998).
To enter into such a learning community, however, requires the student to develop
a sense of or his or her online self, according to McInnerney and Roberts (2004). This
would seem to further require that the student be able to define himself or herself against
others in the class, which is to say that the student must be able to develop a sense of the
presence of others in the online class as was suggested by Garrison, Anderson, and
Archer (2000). In addition, Palloff and Pratt (2005) and Kearsley (2000) emphasized the
importance of developing an interactive and collaborative online environment as a
condition for creating a viable online learning community, and it would seem that this
also requires the development of a sense of online social presence. From the results of the
present study, it is clear that the students surveyed did perceive the online social presence
of others to a high degree and so were able to meet the conditions for developing a sense
of an online self and of entering into a learning community.
75

A fourth conclusion that can be drawn from the studys findings is that the
sampled students were satisfied with the learning that they had accomplished online, as
well as with their class facilitator. Again, this was in contrast to the findings of
Richardson and Swan (2003), who found that students in their sample were mostly
dissatisfied with their learning and their facilitator.
A fifth conclusion from the findings of this study is in response to the other two
research questions, which asked how students perceptions of social presence in an online
learning environment were related to (a) their perceived learning in that environment, and
(b) their satisfaction with their class facilitator. In response to these two research
questions, this study found that there was a highly positive correlation between the
students perceptions of online social presence and their evaluations of their learning and
their satisfaction with their facilitator. As discussed in previous sections, students
perceptions of online social presence are likely to help them feel less isolated and create
the necessary conditions to foster interaction, cooperation, and collaboration. According
to social cognitive theorys view that learning is mostly a social process, this greater
interaction among students online promotes their learning.
Other studies whose results indicated that respondents perceptions of online
social presence are related to their evaluations of their online learning include
Gunawardena and Zittles (1997) study of perceptions of social presence in a computer
conferencing environment. The researchers found that social presence was a predictor of
participants satisfaction with the conference. In addition, Picciano (2002) found that
students perceptions of online social presence and social interaction were positively
associated with their learning evaluations.
76

Yet another study whose results are in agreement with those of the present study
is that of Swan and Shih (2005) who surveyed students enrolled in online graduate
courses. The researchers found a significant correlation between students perceptions of
online social presence and their satisfaction with online discussions. Qualitative results of
the Swan and Shih study also indicated that those individuals who perceived the highest
degree of online social presence engaged in online discussions to a greater degree than
other students.
The findings of the present study are in agreement with those mentioned above
and also suggest that online students perceptions of social presence are an important
factor in their satisfaction both with their facilitator and their learning. Other researchers,
including Jzgou (2010) and Wenger (1999) have come to similar conclusions. Palloff
and Pratt (2005) and Kearsley (2000) emphasized the importance of developing an
interactive and collaborative online environment as a condition for creating a viable
online learning community. It would seem that this, in turn, requires the development of a
sense of online social presence.
The present studys findings of correlations between perceived online social
presence and students evaluations of their learning and their facilitator were not
unexpected. There are a number of factors that point toward such a correlation. One of
these factors is the freedom of students to interact in online classes. Tu and McIsaac
(2002) found that student-to-student interaction is positively related to social presence.
This is not surprising because it seems likely that the more that students perceive the
reality of other online students who are taking the same course, the more they will be
open to interacting with those students. This, in turn, is likely to create a more conducive
77

environment for online learning and increase not only students perceptions of online
social presence but their satisfaction with their learning and their instructor, who is the
person who facilitates this greater sense of online presence.
Another probable reason students perceptions of online social presence are
positively associated with their evaluations of their learning and their instructor is that by
sensing the substantiality of other students online, they are less likely to feel isolated in
their learning. According to McInnerny and Roberts (2004), a sense of isolation can
result for students taking online courses, not only those geographically separated but
those who are geographically near to one another. This sense of isolation may then
impact negatively on their learning. If students feel they have difficulty interacting with
other students, this can lead to dissatisfaction (Arbaugh, 2000), deficient academic
performance, or even disenrollment (Curry, 2000). Designing and developing online
courses that take into account the necessity of helping students perceive a high degree of
social presence can help create an environment in which students do not feel isolated but
feel free to interact, cooperate, and collaborate with other students.
The Results in the Light of Social Cognitive Theory
The theoretical framework for this study was social cognitive theory, which holds
that human behavior is not entirely driven by inner forces, nor is that behavior
automatically determined by the environment. Instead, people contribute to their own
behavior and development through a network of influences that interact reciprocally
(Bandura, 1986, 1989). Social factors play an important role in the cognitive
development of people, with the most valuable knowledge being imparted to people
78

socially. Values and standards develop due to an ever-changing social reality. This
creates social learning, which is an ongoing process that elaborates and modifies
standards already in place and creates new standards (Bandura, 1989).
In the case of formal education, the environment has effects on students, but the
cognitive responses of learners to that environment and their behaviors combine to create
actual learning. In particular, environmental events are given meaning by students
through cognitive factors that determine their emotional effect and their power to
motivate. Through verbal and other symbolic means, the students develop cognitive
reality models that function as guides, and the information students receive is also
manipulated symbolically.
What this viewpoint suggests in reference to online learning and online social
presence is that the learning that is done by online students is determined not just by the
texts they must read, whether those are books, articles, or e-mails, but also by the social
environment they perceive to be there. A cognitive model of that social environment is
developed by each student, and this cognitive model helps determine the meaning that the
online environment has for the student. In the case of the present study, the online models
developed by the surveyed students appear to mostly include the idea that the teacher and
other students have considerable online presence. In what specific ways this aspect of
their cognitive model might affect other aspects of the model is beyond the scope of this
study. However, if the social cognitive theory is correct, and learning is largely acquired
socially, then the surveyed students perceiving a high degree of social presence in their
online classes is a very important factor helping to determine the quality and quantity of
their learning. The findings of this study support the importance of this factor, because
79

they indicate that there is a strong positive correlation between students perceptions of
online social presence and their evaluations of how well the online course fulfilled their
learning expectations.
Recommendations
There are a number of recommendations that can be made on the basis of the
results of this study. These recommendations fall under two categories: recommendations
derived from that data and recommendations for further study.
Recommendations from the Data
Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that institutions of higher
education that offer online classes continue to find ways to increase students sense of
other students social presence in online classes. The studys findings suggest that
considerable improvement has been made in this area over the past decade. That this
improvement has been valuable and should be continued is indicated by the finding that
students perceptions of the degree of online social presence is highly positively
correlated with their evaluations of their online learning and their satisfaction with their
online facilitator.
It is also recommended that online educators at both the institutional and
instructional level take steps to determine which of the strategies they are currently using
to increase students perceptions of the online social presence of other students are the
most effective. Institutions could do this, for example, by developing an exit survey for
students taking online courses that examined how students reacted to various strategies.
Those strategies that are shown to be most effective in increasing perceptions of online
80

social presence could then be shared with all online course designers and facilitators at
the institution. Again, the findings of this study indicate that this could be valuable
because they show that students perceptions of online social presence are highly
positively correlated with their perceptions of how much they are learning, which may be
further correlated with how much they are actually learning in their online classes.
Recommendations for Further Research
Several recommendations can be made for further research that are particularly
relevant to the issue of online social presence. First, it is recommended that this study be
repeated but with a larger sample of online students and with online students enrolled in
several institutes of higher education. Surveying students from a variety of institutions
would help to determine whether the correlation that was found in this study between
students perceptions of online social presence and their evaluations of their online
learning and their facilitator was associated with the particular institution that the students
in the sample were attending, or if it is a more widespread phenomenon that is true of
online education more generally.
Second, it is recommended that future studies be conducted to determine which
aspects of online classes are most effective for increasing students perceptions of online
social presence. These aspects could be weighted from most to least effective. At the
same time, research could be conducted to evaluate these aspects in several other ways,
such as determining which of the aspects are also most valuable for increasing students
evaluations of their learning and their satisfaction with their online facilitator and the
relative cost and difficulty of implementing each aspect.
81

Third, research should be conducted to determine whether there are any

differences between various categories of online students in their perceptions of online
social presence, and in the correlation of these perceptions with their evaluations of their
online learning and their facilitator. For example, research could be conducted to
determine whether there differences in these respects between undergraduate and
graduate students, males and females, students with different kinds of majors, or oncampus versus distance students.
Finally, research should be conducted specifically to determine the degree to
which various visual initiatives in online education would affect students perceptions of
online social presence. This could be a valuable way to increase students sense of social
presence since it one major way that humans normally learn the presence of other people
is through seeing them. For example, it would be interesting and valuable to learn
whether including photos and/or videos of each online student and the facilitator on a
community web page would increase students perceptions of the online social presence
of the other students in the class and the facilitator.
Chapter Summary
The first main section of this chapter following the Introduction summarized the
research and discussed the studys results. How the results help to answer the studys
research questions was discussed, including the important findings that the sampled
students reported perceiving a high degree of social presence, that for the most part they
were satisfied with their online learning and their online facilitator, and that there was a
high positive correlation between the students perceptions of social presence and their
82

evaluations of their learning and their facilitator. In addition, the strengths and
weaknesses of the study were reported in this section.
The second main section of this chapter presented the studys conclusions based
on its findings. Various ways these results related to the reviewed literature were
discussed. Conclusions related to each of the research questions were presented, as well
as implications of those conclusions for social presence in online higher education.
The third main section of the chapter provided recommendations based on the studys
findings. These included both practical recommendations meant for educators at both the
institutional and instructor levels, and recommendations for conducting further research
on social presence in online classes.

83

REFERENCES
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall International.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with
Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54.
Asuncion-Lande, N. C. (1988, April). Developing a unit of intercultural communication
for a bilingual education program. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the National Association for Asian and Pacific American Education, Denver, CO.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child
development. Vol.6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A transactional model of communication. In K. K. Sereno & C.
D. Mortenson (Eds.), Foundations of communication theory (pp. 83-103). New
York: Harper & Row.
Blocher, J. M. (1997). Self-regulation of strategies and motivation to enhance interaction
and social presence in computer-mediated communication (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (1998). Computer conferencing and collaborative writing
tools: Starting a dialogue about student dialogue. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King
(Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy,
apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative
learning groups in an online environment. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/
index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1313
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Burnham, B. R., & Walden, B. (1997, May). Interactions in distance education: A report
from the other side. Paper presented at the 1997 Adult Education Research
Conference, Stillwater, OK.
84

Chandler, D. (1996). Shaping and being shaped: Engaging with media. Computermediated Communication Magazine, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk
/media/Documents/short/determ.html
Chandler, D. (1994). The transmission model of communication. Retrieved from
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html
Collins, M. P., & Murphy, K. L. (1997). Development of communication conventions in
instructional electronic chats. Journal of Distance Education, 12(1-2), 177-200.
Curry, D. B. (2001). Collaborative, connected, and experiential learning: Reflections of
an online learner. Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology
Conference. Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/2.html
De Verneil, M., & Berge, Z. L. (2000). Going online: Guidelines for faculty in higher
education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 227-242.
Dede, C. J. (1991). Emerging technologies: Impacts on distance learning. Annals of the
American Academy for Political and Social Science, 514(1), 146-158.
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), 119.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for
research and practice. New York, Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2004). Critical thinking, cognitive
presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Retrieved from
http://communitiesofinquiry.com/files/CogPres_Final.pdf
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and
student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
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.
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.
Harasim, L. M. (1989). On-line education: A new domain. In R. Mason & A. Kaye
(Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 5062). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
85

Health, D. W., & Bryant, J. (1992). Human communication theory and research:
Concepts and challenges. In J. Bryant (Ed.), General communication theory and
methodology (pp. ix, 337). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction
in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for
practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for
facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/
hutchins63.html
Jzgou, A. (2010). Community of inquiry in e-learning: Concerning the Garrison and
Anderson model. The Journal of Distance Education, 24(3). Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/707/1141
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online Education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
LaBay, D. G., & Comm, C. L. (2003). A case study using gap analysis to assess distance
learning versus traditional course delivery. The International Journal of
Educational Management, 17(7), 312-317.
LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2000). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for Web courses:
A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 320-338.
Lin, G-Y. (2004, October). Social presence questionnaire of online collaborative
learning: Development and validity. Paper presented at the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology 27th Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED484999.pdf
Logan, R. (1995). The fifth language: Learning a living in the computer age. Toronto,
Canada: Stoddart.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.
presence-research.org/jcm/vol3isssue2/lombard.html
Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Social presence. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard,
L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd
ed., pp. 1900-1906). Hershey, PA: IGA Global.

86

McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the
creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 7381.
McLeod, P. L., Baron, R. S., & Marti, M. W. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority
influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 16.
Moore, M. G. (1991). Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol5_3.htm
Moore, M. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical
principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge. Retrieved
from http://www.aged.tamu.edu/research/readings/Distance/1997
MooreTransDistance.pdf
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Nicol, D. J., Minty, I., & Sinclair, C. (2003). The social dimensions of online learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 270-280.
ORegan, K. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 7(3), 78-92. Retrieved from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v7n3/
emotion-and-e-learning
Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005, August). Online learning communities revisited. Paper
presented at the 21st Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/resource_library/
proceedings/05_1801.pdf
Parker, A. (1999), Interactivity in distance education: The critical conversation. The
Journal of Educational Telecommunications 8, 15-30.
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.
Retallick, J., Cocklin, B., & Coombe, K. (1999). Learning communities in education:
Issues, strategies and contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.

87

Rheingold, H. (1993). The heart of the well. Retrieved from http://www.rheingold.com/

vc/book/intro.html
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. S. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in
relation to students perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Rumble , G. (1986) The planning and management of distance education. New York,
NY: St. Martins Press.
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.
Schramm, W. (1971). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949): A mathematical model of communication. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Suresh, K. (2003). Journalism and mass communication. Reading, PA: Professional
Education Organization International. Retrieved from http://www.peoi.org/
Courses/Coursesen/mass/fram3.html
Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In S. R.
Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Asynchronous learning networks (pp. 239-260). New
York: Hampton.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in
online course discussions. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3).
Retrieved from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v9n3/nature-anddevelopment-social-presence-online-course-discussions
Tardy, C. H. (1988). A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and
instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
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.

88

van Tryon, P., & Bishop, M. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social
connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291315.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2008). Understanding interpersonal communication: Making
choices in changing times. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wilson, M. E. (1998). Interaction, adult education and the World Wide Web
(Unpublished masters thesis). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Wolz, U., Palme, J., Anderson, P., Chen, Z., Dunne, J., Karlsson, G., Walker, H.
(1997). Computer-mediated communication in collaborative educational settings:
Report of the ITiCSE '97 working group on CMC in collaborative educational
settings. New York, NY: ACM. doi: acm.org/10.1145/274382.274385.
Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/186/268

89

APPENDIX A. ONLINE EDUCATION SURVEY

Use with the permission of Dr. Richardson, Jennifer and adapted from the Social
Presence Scale in 2003
For each of the following 12 statements, please click on the number that indicates the extent to
which you agree or disagree with the statement.
1. Online or web-based education is an excellent medium for social interaction.
strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree

agree

strongly
agree

2. I felt comfortable conversing through this medium.

strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree

agree

strongly
agree

3. I felt comfortable introducing myself in this course.

strongly
disagree

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree

agree

strongly
agree

4. The introductions enabled me to form a sense of online community.

strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree
2

somewhat
agree

disagree
3

agree

strongly
agree

5. The instructor created a feeling of an online community.

strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree
2

disagree

somewhat
agree

agree
5

strongly
agree
6

6. I felt comfortable participating in course discussions.

strongly

somewhat

somewhat

90

strongly

disagree
1

disagree

disagree

agree

agree

agree

agree

strongly
agree

7. The instructor facilitated discussions in the course.

strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree
4

8. I felt comfortable interacting with other participants in the course.

strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree

agree
5

strongly
agree
6

9. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other participants in the course.
strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree
4

agree
5

strongly
agree
6

10. I was able to form distinct individual impressions of some course participants.
strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree

agree

strongly
agree
6

11. Overall, this course met my learning expectations.

strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree

agree

strongly
agree
6

12. Overall, the instructor for this course met my expectations.

strongly
disagree
1

somewhat
disagree

disagree

somewhat
agree
4

agree
5

strongly
agree
6

_____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance is greatly appreciated
and will contribute to the body of research regarding online education.

91