Facilitating active social presence and meaningfulinteractions in online learning
Jared Keengwe & Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng &
Watsatree Diteeyont
Published online: 18 April 2012# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Online learning has minimized many barriers and constraints that arecommon in traditional learning environments. However, due to the absence of face-to-face contacts, students and instructors are usually faced with the lack of activesocial presence and meaningful interactions in online learning. This article explores areview of the literature on social presence and various types of interactions in onlinelearning environments in the context of a class project. The findings suggest need foronline instructors to explore effective ways to design and facilitate active socialpresence and meaningful interactions in online learning.
Keywords Interactions . Online learning . Students . Instructors . Technology . Socialpresence
1 Introduction
Online education has opened the frontiers of college education, making it possible fornontraditional students, who are occupied with work and family responsibilities, andpeople who live far away from college campuses to have access to higher education(Mayne and Wu 2011). In addition, the flexible options afforded by online courses—that allow learners to access classes anytime and anywhere—is a perfect match to the
Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607DOI 10.1007/s10639-012-9197-9
J. Keengwe (*) : E. Adjei-BoatengUniversity of North Dakota, Teaching and Learning Stop #7189, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USAe-mail: [email protected]
E. Adjei-Boatenge-mail: [email protected]
W. DiteeyontDepartment of Education Technology, University of North Colorado, McKee 518, BOX 124, Greeley,CO 80639, USA
W. Diteeyonte-mail: [email protected]
needs of 21st century learners who have busy lifestyles (Leonard and Guha 2001).The online “platforms are frequently used as an alternative environment for individ-uals to meet and engage in a variety of activities, like attending courses online”(Lyons et al. 2012, p. 181).
Over the past decade, online courses and programs have seen steady growth andincreased popularity (Mayne and Wu 2011). This growth could be attributed toaffordability and accessibility of computers and Internet technologies for manylearners (Dobbs et al. 2009). However, Huang et al. (2010) warn that “although theinternet technology has made it possible for people to collaborate effectively withoutstaying physically together, they have led to the unintended consequence of increas-ing isolation among people with respect to their academic peers” (p.79).
A primary issue that confronts both students and faculty in online learningenvironments is the lack of social presence and interaction due to the absence offace-to-face contacts that is readily available in traditional classroom environments(Mayne and Wu 2011). Wang and Woo (2007) found interactivity and communica-tion to be among five main differences between online and face-to-face classroomdiscussion. While they found discussion in face-to-face classroom to be more inter-active and multidirectional, it was seen to be restricted and one-way among the onlinegroup. The authors concluded that it was difficult to have two-way interactions in anonline environment, especially when participants have limited time.
The role of online instructors is not direct teaching of course materials to students,but rather to facilitate learning and enable peer interaction to flourish (Thompson andKu 2006). Additionally, educators should have the ability to facilitate interactions inonline learning environments. For instance, Makri and Kynigos (2007) applied Weblog in mathematics course to ensure reflection, discourse and social presence. Huanget al. (2010) suggest the application of blogs in learning as well as sharing ofknowledge through blogs. Therefore, the instructors’ ability to maintain the socialpresence, facilitate and maintain meaningful interactions, and ensure active engage-ment of students becomes crucial in online learning environments (Mayne and Wu2011).
Technology-based interactions could support and enhance teaching and learningonline. Simonson (2000) noted, “The more interaction there is in distance class, thebetter” (p. 278). Interactions and collaboration are important elements in onlinelearning environments. A critical component of online learning is the interactionof the individual and learning activities between divergent perspectives andshared knowledge building (Puntambekar 2006). Communicative interaction isalso a central concern to quality teaching and learning in web-based distance educa-tion (Bing and Ai-Ping 2008). However, social network tools, such as wikis, face-book, and blogs are now used to create and cement online social connections (Huanget al. 2010). Further, many studies suggest Web 2.0 trends for new learning modelframeworks and devices that can facilitate successful interactive and collaborativeonline learning.
Wang and Woo (2007) reported the use of Blackboard and Weblog as asynchro-nous online discussion and interactive tool. The Web log for instance supportsstudents’ discussion in asynchronous leaning environment because it allows studentsto create their self-reported journal, and permits them to add comments to othersreport. Asynchronous online discussions affords students have ample time to make
598 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607
reference to other supporting resources, which helps both in their lesson process andenhances their learning community (Wang and Woo 2007). Interactions and collab-oration in online environment also enable students to have access to relevant knowl-edge from broader scope of resources (Yang and Chen 2008). Mobile bloggingsystem provides an authentic learning atmosphere and is able to solve the coordina-tion issue in a collaborative learning environment (Huang et al. 2009). Finally,besides facilitating student’s active engagement in a lesson, collaboration amongonline students enhances their academic performance (Kelly et al. 2010).
2 Theoretical framework
Three theoretical constructs are defined to provide a theoretical construct of the classproject examines in this article. The three significant theoretical constructs areinteractivity, social context, and technology (Tu and Corry 2003). Interactivity withinonline learning setting refers to interactions of learners and instructors. It asserts anincorporation and engagement of learners inside active collaboration activities. Asocial context refers to a conception of a learner-centered collaboration activities andsocial learning community. Therefore, a successful online collaborative learningcommunity is one in which members connect and engage intellectually, mentally,socioculturally, and interactively in order to achieve their common learning goals viaelectronic communication technologies (Tu and Corry 2003).
There is evidence to suggest the potential of educational technology to support andenhance knowledge development and knowledge management within online collab-orative learning environments. For instance, technology tools help learners to elab-orate on what they are thinking and to engage in meaningful learning (Jonassen2000). Specifically, learners can use technology as intellectual partners to: articulatewhat they know; reflect on what they have learned; support the internal negotiation ofmeaning making; construct personal representations of meaning; and support inten-tional, mindful thinking (Jonassen 2000).
Interactivity provides a way to motivate and stimulate online learners. There arethree distinctive interactions that exist in online learning environments: Student-to-content, student-to-interface, and student-to-instructor interactions (Thompson andKu 2006). Additionally, the quality of interactions will depend on the choice andapplication of technology tools. Students can work together, achieve and share theirunderstanding, and also co-create knowledge within web-mediated environments.Technology provides a shared working space that is easy for instructors to exchangeinformation with students (Ciges 2001). However, the quality of communication iscritical to enhance meaningful interactions between instructors and students in onlinelearning (Woods 2002). Technologies that support learners’ engagement with contentand learner-teacher interactions are more likely to provide a successful online learn-ing experience.
Two-way Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) that is central to onlineinteractive learning refers to communication tools such as electronic mails, bulletinboards, and real-time discussion boards. These tools are essential for establishinginteractions, communications, and relationships between students and teachers. Evenso, Tu (2005) argues that CMC has the potential to enhance and inhibit online
Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 599
interaction. Rhode (2009) reiterates that “no matter how one defines interaction,based on recent research it is clear that when the level of interaction is inadequateor nonexistent, learners often feel isolated and an overall degradation of the learningexperience can take place” (p. 2).
3 Method
3.1 Research questions
The study was guided by four research questions:
1. What interactions exist between students and instructors in online learningenvironments?
2. What challenges do students and instructors face in online learningenvironments?
3. How do online communicational tools influence interactions between studentsand instructors in online learning environments?
4. What attitudes do students and instructors harbor toward online learningactivities?
3.2 Participants
The participants of the study were students and instructors of an undergraduate onlinecourse at a public Midwestern University. The course had multiple sections and wasfacilitated by three instructors. All the instructors were familiar with the onlinefeatures and instructional functions of the online course. Majority of the studentswere also familiar with basic functions of the Blackboard Learning site such asuploading/downloading files, sending electronic mail (Email), or posting messagesthrough a discussion board.
3.3 Class project
A group project was a major assignment in this course. The group project goal was toenhance students to learn, research, and practice how to integrate new technologicalsystems such as Blogs, Wiki, Google, or smart boards into their future K-12 class-rooms successfully. The group project also provided students with opportunities torecognize how to work with their peers in online learning environments. The primarycourse objective was to encourage students to learn how to integrate various instruc-tional delivery systems, applications of computing, hypermedia and multimedia, ortelecommunications technologies in their teaching effectively.
3.4 Student surveys
The student survey was created and posted in the website, www.surveymonkey.com.The survey contained 10 short-ended questions that emphasized the significanttheoretical constructs: Online interactivity, social context, and technology. The
600 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607
surveys explored student background information, their course interests and level oftechnological skills. The survey results were used to establish appropriate topics thatcorresponded with the needs and skills of students.
3.5 Procedure
The instructors identified and posted on the discussion board information of groupmembers and group projects. Each group was comprised of 2–3 students and requiredto complete and submit their projects within 4 weeks. Students were asked tocomplete surveys through the link that was posted on the announcement page ofthe online course. The invitation contained the link with directions, consent informa-tion, and rationale for completing the survey. The survey would take approximately10–15 min to complete. Participation was voluntary and students were not required toprovide any personal information such as their names or contact information in thesurveys. The survey results were recorded and stored in safe place.
3.6 Instructor interviews
The instructor interviews were set up separately with the professor and teachingassistants after the deadline of the student group assignments. The instructors wereprovided with questions to review before the researchers interviewed them. Theinterviews explored the attitudes of instructors and interactions between studentsand instructors within the online course. The interviews were recorded by digitalrecorders and kept in protected digital storage devices.
3.7 Observations
The researchers observed discussion boards and electronic mails from students andinstructors in the course to find out the interactions between students and instructors.For the discussion boards, the researchers asked permission from the instructors toaccess the online and make observations, and collect student and instructor commentsand feedbacks from the discussion boards every week. The collected data wasconverted into digital formats and stored in protected digital storage devices. Forthe electronic mails, the researchers requested instructors to forward to researchers’email accounts copies of all electronic mails that students send to them during the4 weeks that they were working on the group projects. The data from electronic mailswere collected and stored in protected digital storage devices as well. The researcherswere the only people that accessed and reviewed the data from the two sources.
4 Findings
4.1 Response to question: What interactions exist between students and instructors inonline learning environments?
Discussion board was the center of information of student group projects. It was theplace that the instructors provided the significant information about group projects for
Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 601
students such as the direction of assignment, rubrics, topic and lists of student groupmembers. The discussion board was also the location that instructors posted grouplinks for students in order to be the place that allowed the students to discuss, shareinformation, and contact with their team members and the instructors. The instructorsdid not require the students to use the group link to discuss their project. However, itwas only the option for the students to use for interactions.
During the 4 weeks, the results from observations showed that the students did notoften use the discussion board or group links to share or contact their team membersand instructors. In one course section, the discussion board was silent. There were nocomments or postings from students through the group links. The researchers foundout that the discussion board only contained the information about the group projectsand there was no evidence that represented interactions between the students andinstructors. In one section of the online course, the researchers found out that therewas only one student group that used the group link within discussion board fordiscussions and to share information on their group project. Most topics that wereposted on the link revealed only student-to-student interactions within the group.
The student surveys data revealed that the students, who participated within thesurveys, used electronic mails to contact with instructors. The occurrences thatstudents contacted instructors were varied. Approximately 42 % of students, con-tacted instructor once a month, 37.82 % of students contacted the instructors once aweek and 12.9 % of them contacted the instructors less than 3 times per week. Only6.5 % of the students had never communicated with instructors during the time thatthey were working on group projects. Only one student in the surveys stated that he/she used wikis, besides electronic mails, to contact instructors.
4.2 Response to question: What challenges do students and instructors face in onlinelearning environments?
A big challenge that the students faced completing their project had to do withcommunication issues among group members. There are three categories related tothis issue:
& Schedules: Most of students who participated in the surveys declared that theyhad different times to meet or discuss about their projects together becauseeveryone had different schedules. The apparent keywords that the researchersfound from the student comments were “difficult, different, and busy schedules.”
& No responses: Many students reported having a big problem communicating withsome of their teammates who never contacted or responded to their emails. Thekeyword that the researcher found was “no or never respond/response.”
& Not getting familiar with partners: Many of student responded in the surveys thatthey experiences a hard time working with the teammates who they considered tobe “strangers.” The apparent keywords that the researcher found was “don’tknow.”
In contrast to the results from the instructor interviews, the instructors reported thatthere were no particular challenges faced while they were working on group projectswith the students. The instructors described having prior online teaching experiences.As a result, many of the student concerns seemed very familiar and could be handled
602 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607
easily—the instructors had some experience dealing with similar problems encoun-tered in online learning environments.
4.3 Response to question: How do online communicational tools influenceinteractions between students and instructors in online learning environments?
The findings showed that an electronic mail was the primary communication tool thatonline students used for contacting instructors and it influenced interactions betweenthe students and instructors during the time that they worked together on online groupprojects. The data from observations suggested that the group links that wereprovided in the discussion boards did not influence interactions and relationshipbetween the students and instructors in the online course. The findings also indicatedthat many students did not use group links to contact their instructors. Evidently,electronic mail commonly used by students used to communicate with the instructors.In terms of interactions, the data from student surveys showed that approximately42 % of students who participated in the surveys sent electronic mails to contact theinstructor once a month, 37.82 % of students sent electronic mails to contact theinstructor once a week, and 12.9 % of them sent electronic mails to contact theinstructors less than 3 times per week. 95 % of students explained that an electronicmail was the most convenient and flexible way that they used to communicate withtheir teammates and instructors.
The data showed that the students understood the content and also completed theirprojects by communicating with instructors via email. The results relate to that ofDavis and Resta (2002) in which they described that the effectiveness of email onnovice teachers’ sustained efforts in their online collaborative projects throughout3 years. Overbaugh (2002) also supported that an electronic mailing was an efficientway to communicate with and among groups and also could improve reflective andcritical thinking of students. The students only contacted the instructors when theyhad questions or problems related to their group projects.
4.4 Response to question: What attitudes do students and instructors harbor towardonline learning activities?
The findings showed that the online group projects did not create social context orsocial learning community to students within the courses. The results indicated thatthe students declined the online collaborative learning activity because they believedthat the project was not useful and also wasted their time. The surveys also revealedthat the group project was difficult for them to complete. The main reasons were thatall the students lived in different locations and had different schedules to login to theInternet in order to discuss their projects with their peers.
4.5 Student attitudes
The results of student surveys showed that most of the students had strong negativeattitudes toward online group projects. There were several reasons that made studentsdislike the online collaborative learning activity. The researchers identified twocategories related to the reasons for the dislike concerns: (a) Useless: Most of students
Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 603
believed that the activity was not useful and also wasted their time; and (b) Difficult:Many students felt that the group project was difficult and hard for them to completebecause they lived in different locations and also had different schedules to connect tointernet. Many students reported that they took the online course because they wantedto work individually. However, one student indicated having a positive attitudetoward online collaborative learning group activity as indicated in this statement: “Ithink it was good to learn how to do this project because there are so many ways thatyou can use online collaboration in teaching.”
4.6 Instructor attitudes
The instructors had different attitudes from that of the students. They stated that theyhad positive attitudes toward the online collaborative learning activity. They said thatthey did not see or have any problems from the students when they worked together.They stated that the group project was successful in which all of the studentscompleted and submit their projects on time. Most of students completed high qualityprojects that contained all elements that the instructors needed. Additionally, theinstructors reported that they felt comfortable working with all of the students, andalso knew how to handle them and help them to complete the projects.
5 Recommendations
The findings indicated that an electronic mail was the primary tool that enhancedstudent learning. Kim (2008) reported obvious benefits of email that included effi-ciency, convenience, and cost when used in a variety of instructional contexts.Therefore, there is need for instructors to explore alternative and effective ways tointeract with students to maximize student learning. This study also identifiedmultiple student identified challenges to group work in an online course. Therefore,instructors can anticipate these challenges when they design and implement an onlinecourse by focusing on developing ongoing facilitation of group work and implement-ing online tools such as a wiki tool that can develop a group project more success-fully. The study findings also indicated that majority of the students declined theonline collaborative learning activity because they believed that it was not a usefulproject and was also difficult to complete. Therefore, there is need for instructors tocollaborate with their learners to identify appropriate course projects that enhancesonline collaborative learning environment.
Planning is an important factor in any successful discussion and interactions inonline environment. To avoid an unnecessary miscommunication and confusionamong students, online tutors would need to plan ahead as to how they are goingto organize online discussion. For instance, they would need to clearly determine howstudents will be put into online discussion groups, to avoid the temptation of somestudents joining wrong groups (Wang and Woo 2007). In grouping students, onlineinstructors need to consider the fact that some prefer dynamic group formation toautomatic group formation (Yang and Chen 2008, p. 48). They also need to considerthe potential impact of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning(Janssen et al. 2009).
604 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607
It is also important that instructors and group leaders make sure that questions fordiscussions in online environments are specific. Specific questions enable students toprovide responses in a timely manner and have more time for deeper discussions,reflections, and interactions (Wang and Woo 2007). In asynchronous online environ-ment, students may not be able to get ready clarifications from others; therefore, anyambiguity in the question is likely to impede students’ successful participation (Wangand Woo 2007). It is also important for online instructors to use appropriate modelsand example to facilitate students’ interaction and collaboration. Due to geographicalbarriers, interaction and collaboration might be difficult without proper understandingof the learning process.
6 Conclusion
Online learning involves a complex process that considers the richness of interactionsbetween instructors to online students and online students to online students (Salmoniand Gonzalez 2008). Online collaborative learning environment serves a uniquefunction that connects and encourages learners to interact and also create theircommunities within an online setting (Cameron et al. 2009). Therefore, onlineinstructors should strive to create successful interactive online learning environmentsthat might lead to these benefits: opportunities for participants to share their knowl-edge and expertise; opportunities for participants to discuss, plan, reflect on andexplore learning issues; increased inspiration, innovation and motivation amongstparticipants; increased social contact between individuals from differing back-grounds; a reduction in feelings of isolation; and increased access to shared resources(Petropouloua et al. 2010).
Mayne and Wu (2011) offer the following strategies to help instructors establisheffective social presence in online learning environments:
& Personal email contact by instructor with request for student information as earlyas 2 weeks before semester begins
& Early course availability with invitation and opportunity to “look around” and askquestions
& In addition to instructor information, an “About Me” section with biographicaland personal information/pictures from instructor
& Announcement with “Begin Here” instructions on course flow, links to helpfultutorials, “help links”
& Inclusive and complete syllabus with timelines, due dates, course expectations,learner’s role, instructor’s role
& Contingency plans for problems and issues& Library links and direct access to library liaison& Rubrics for evaluation of assignments, self-evaluation rubrics& Extensive Resource Section for students to access as needed& Groups formed based on student-submitted information about clinical interest and
work experience& Use of an instructor-designed “seating chart” with specific and personal informa-
tion about students and groups that is used with all asynchronous interactions
Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 605
& Use of ungraded “pre-lesson” with feedback to facilitate group work& “Coffee Shop” that is “off limits” to instructor
References
Bing, W., & Ai-Ping, T. (2008). The influence of national culture toward learner’s interaction in the onlinelearning environment: A comparative analysis of Shanghai TV University (China) and Wawasan OpenUniversity (Malaysia). The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 327–339.
Cameron, B. A., Morgan, K., & Williams, K. C. (2009). Group projects: Student perceptions of therelationship between social tasks and sense of community in online group work. The American Journalof Distance Education, 23, 20–33.
Ciges, A. S. (2001). Online learning: New educational environment in order to respect cultural diversitythrough cooperative strategies. Intercultural Education, 12(2), 135–174.
Davis, B. H., & Resta, V. K. (2002). Online collaboration: Supporting novice teachers as researchers.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 101–117.
Dobbs, R. R., Waid, C. A., & Carmen, A. D. (2009). Students’ perceptions of online courses: The effect ofonline course experience. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 9–26.
Huang, Y.-M., Jeng, Y.-L., & Huang, T.-C. (2009). An educational mobile blogging system for supportingcollaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 163–175.
Huang, J. J. S., Yang, S. J. H., Huang, Y.-M., & Hsiao, I. Y. T. (2010). Social learning networks: Build mobilelearning networks based on collaborative services. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 78–92.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member familiarity ononline collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 161–170.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). UpperSaddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kelly, D., Baxter, J.S., & Anderson, A. (2010). Engaging first-year students through online collaborativeassessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 535–548.
Kim, M. C. (2008). Using email to enable e3 (effective, efficient, and engaging) learning. DistanceEducation, 29(2), 187–198.
Leonard, J., & Guha, S. (2001). Education at the crossroads: Online teaching and students’ perspective ondistance learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 52–57.
Lyons, A., Reysen, S., & Pierce, L. (2012). Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and socialpresence in online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 181–186.
Makri, K., & Kynigos, C. (2007). The role of Blogs in studying the discourse and social practices ofmathematics teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 73–84.
Mayne, L. A., & Wu, Q. (2011). Creating and measuring social presence in online graduate nursingcourses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 110–114.
Overbaugh, R. C. (2002). Undergraduate education majors’ discourse on an electronic mailing list. Journalof Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 117–138.
Petropouloua, O., Altanis, I., Retalis, S., Nicolaou, C. A., Kannas, C., Vasiliadou, M., & Pattis, I. (2010).Building a tool to help teachers analyze learners’ interactions in a networked learning environment.Educational Media International, 47(3), 231–246.
Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding andconstruction of knowledge. Computer and Education, 47, 332–351.
Rhode, J. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration oflearner preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1–23.Retrieved from ERIC database.
Salmoni, A. J., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2008). Online collaborative learning: Quantifying how people learntogether online. Medical Teacher, 30, 710–716.
Simonson, M. (2000). Myths and distance education: What the research says (and does not). The QuarterlyReview of Distance Education, 4(1), 277–279.
Thompson, L., & Ku, H. Y. (2006). A case study of online collaborative learning. The Quarterly Review ofDistance Education, 7(4), 361–375.
Tu, C. H. (2005). From presentation to interaction: new goals for online learning technologies. EducationalMedia International, 42(3), 189–206.
606 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607
Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2003). Building active online interaction via a collaborative learning community.Computer in the Schools, 20(3), 51–59.
Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussionsin a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00621.x.
Woods, R. H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationshipbetween frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners’ perceptions of and participationin online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 377–394.
Yang, S. J. H., & Chen, I. Y. L. (2008). A social network-based system for supporting interactivecollaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 36–50.
Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 607
