Social Presence to Overcome the Digital Divide is a presentation based on original research from my dissertation. I collected data from online college instructors in LinkedIn groups regarding social presence, computer-mediated communication, and classroom factors. I used regression analysis to produce a formula to predict social presence.
Predicting Social Presence to Overcome the Digital Divide
Presenter: Jocelyn Hevel, Doctoral Student at The University of Phoenix Online
Contact Information: 662-386-8736, jhevel@outlook.com, jhevel@email.phoenix.edu
Short summary: Social Presence to Overcome the Digital Divide is a presentation based on original research from my dissertation. I collected data from online college instructors in LinkedIn groups regarding social presence, computer-mediated communication, and classroom factors. I used regression analysis to produce a formula to predict social presence.
Session Type: Research Highlights & Trends in Innovation
Track: Challenging Barriers to Online Education (The Digital Divide)
Theoretical Framework: The CoI, established by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), is a framework for online higher education in which the educational experiences of an online classroom is depicted through three equal but overlapping domains of social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence. The theoretical framework for the CoI is constructivist in nature because the model focuses on student learning and the ability of learners to create meaning through the classroom process (Akyol, Garrison, & Ozden, 2009).
Operational Definition for Social Presence: Social presence is “the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop interpersonal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” (Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, & Swan, 2008, p. 134).
Slide 1: Background: The quality of online education has been questioned due to the difficulty in maintaining clear communication and social presence in computer-mediated classrooms (Anderson & Dron, 2011; Lobry de Bruyn, 2004).
Slide 2: Problem: The problem is that it is challenging for instructors to establish social presence in online classrooms (Esani, 2010). Instructors must -
- Make a social connection in an electronic environment that separates participants with physical distance (Aragon, 2003; Arah, 2012)
- Take on the majority of responsibility for social presence due to the critical duties that must be undertaken to establish social presence (Anderson & Dron, 2011; Aragon, 2003; Maurino, 2007)
- Actively establish a direct presence to students early in the course to improve student connectedness and learning (Akyol et al., 2009)
Slide 3: Research Question: RQ: What combination of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and classroom variables predict online instructor social presence?
Slide 4: Methodology: Methodology: Quantitative Design: Correlational
- Survey research
- Descriptive statistics
- Pearson product-moment correlation
- Stepwise regression analysis
Slide 5: Instrument: 43-Question Survey
- Social Presence – GlobalEd Survey (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997)
- Immediacy – CMII (Kelly et al., 1997) and the Immediacy Scale (Gorham, 1998)
- Intimacy – RIR (Laurencea et al., 1998; Reis & Wheeler, 1991)
- CMC Privacy and Competence – CMCQ (Tu & Yen, 2006)
Additional directly measured variables (Frequency of CMC use, class size, class duration, class subject)
Survey posted to LinkedIn groups
Slide 6: Results: Correlations
Moderate to strong, significant, positive correlations were found between social presence and each of the variables immediacy, intimacy, CMC competence, and CMC privacy.
- Strong positive relationship between social presence and immediacy
- r(115)=.82, p <.001
- Strong positive relationship between social presence and intimacy
- r(115)=.80, p <.001
- Moderate positive relationship between social presence and CMC privacy
- r(115)=.54, p <.001
- Moderate positive relationships between social presence and CMC competence
- r(115)=.53, p <.001.
Slide 7: Results: Intercorrelations Table
(Table Here)
Slide 8: Results: Multiple Regression
- Stepwise regression
- Enter method used to test different models
- (F(6, 110)=65.42 p < .001, R2 = .88, R2 Adjusted=.77)
Y= -2.451 + (.47) X1+ (.53) X2 + (.69)X3+ (.08)X4 + (.31)X5 + (.07)X6.
X1: Immediacy
X2: Intimacy
X3: Computer-Mediated Communication Privacy
X4: Computer-Mediated Communication Competence
X5: Frequency of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication Use
X6: Frequency of Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication Use
Slide 9: Implications – Immediacy and Intimacy Correlations
Faculty Development
- “I ask questions or encourage students to talk” (Immediacy)
- “I use humor in class” (Immediacy)
- “I disclosed my emotions” (Intimacy)
- “I disclosed my thoughts” (Intimacy)
Instructor Requirements
- “I promptly respond to student messages” (Immediacy)
- “I sign my name to messages I write” (Immediacy)
Curriculum Specialists
- “I ask questions that solicit viewpoints or opinions” (Immediacy)
- “I provide feedback on student individual work through comments on papers, oral discussions, etc.” (Immediacy)
- “I disclosed my facts” (Intimacy)
Slide 10: Implications – Computer-Mediated Communication Correlations
Computer-Mediated Communication Technology (CMC)
CMC Frequency of Use – Which technology or combinations of technology to use
CMC Privacy – Choosing secure CMC and informing faculty and students about security
CMC Competence – Training and information needed to improve CMC skills
Slide 11: Implications - Additional Findings
- Moderate, negative, significant correlation between social presence and instructors in the formal sciences:
- r(115)= -.38, p <.001
- Slight, positive, significant correlation between social presence and instructors in humanities
- r(115)= .24, p <.001
- Slight, positive, significant correlation between course duration and social presence
- r(115)= .33, p <.001
Slide 12: Implications – Regression Model
Y= -2.451 + (.47) X1+ (.53) X2 + (.69)X3+ (.08)X4 + (.31)X5 + (.07)X6.
- All correlations positive
- Regression constant of -2.451
- Begins at a negative when all predictors are 0
- Reinforces that online learning faces challenges in overcoming obstacles to social interaction (Arah, 2012), and that instructors must make efforts to establish productive conversations (Xin, 2012).
- Improving social presence in the classroom
- Future research for additional predictors
References
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D., & Ozden, M. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 10(6). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ869425.pdf
Anderson, T, & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ920744.pdf
Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions For Adult & Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57-68. doi:10.1002/ace.119
Arah, B. O. (2012). The competencies, preparations, and challenging (new) roles of online instructors. Online Submission, US-China Education Review, A(10), 841-856. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537997.pdf
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a Community of Inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133-136. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Esani, M. (2010). Moving from face-to-face to online teaching. Clinical Laboratory Science, 23(3),187-90. Retrieved from https://ascls.westminsterpublishers.com/
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), 87-105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53. 10.1080/03634528809378702
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. doi. 10.1080/08923649709526970
Kelly, S., Kotowski, M., & Fall, L.T. (2010). An examination of computer-mediated instructional immediacy: Scale development and validation. National Communication Association, 2010 Annual Meeting.
Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238-1251. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Lobry de Bruyn, L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67-81. doi:10.1080/0158791042000212468
Maurino, P. (2007). Looking for critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 241-260. doi:10.2190/P4W3-8117-K32G-R34M
Reis, H. T, & Wheeler, L. (1991). Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction Record. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, pp. 269-318). doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60332-9
Tu, C.H., & Yen, C. J. (2006). A study of multi-dimensional online social presence. In L. W. Cooke (Ed.), Frontiers in Higher Education (pp. 77-104). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Xin, C. (2012). A critique of the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Distance Education, 26(1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/755/1333