understanding social presence in text‐based online learning environments

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 03 December 2014, At: 16:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Distance EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

Understanding social presencein text‐based online learningenvironmentsBenjamin Kehrwald aa College of Education , Massey University , Palmerston North,New ZealandPublished online: 09 May 2008.

To cite this article: Benjamin Kehrwald (2008) Understanding social presence in text‐based onlinelearning environments, Distance Education, 29:1, 89-106, DOI: 10.1080/01587910802004860

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004860

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01587910802004860

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004860

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Distance EducationVol. 29, No. 1, May 2008, 89–106

ISSN 0158-7919 print/ISSN 1475-0198 online© 2008 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.DOI: 10.1080/01587910802004860http://www.informaworld.com

Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments

Benjamin Kehrwald*

College of Education, Massey University, Palmerston North, New ZealandTaylor and FrancisCDIE_A_300652.sgm(Received 28 September 2007; final version received 22 February 2008)10.1080/01587910802004860Distance Education0158-7919 (print)/1475-0198 (online)Research Article2008Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.291000000May [email protected]

This article reports on key aspects of a theory generative study into social presence in text-based online learning environments. The focus of the article is the nature of social presenceas experienced by online learners in those environments. Employing a collective case studydesign, the study accessed online learners’ experience-based heuristic knowledge through amulti-phase dialogical process which functioned as an extended interview. Among the keyfindings was (a) a definition of social presence drawn from learners’ experiences; (b)explication of the nature of social presence in online learning environments; (c) suggestionsfor the creation and sustenance of social presence in those environments; and (d) support fora relational view of social presence which emphasizes human agency in mediated socialprocesses and foreshadows a role for social presence as a critical element of online learningenvironments.

Keywords: constructivist research; learner experience; online learning; social presence

Introduction

As computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies have become more sophisticated,more widely used, and used with greater skill, theoretical constructs of social presence in CMCenvironments, including online learning environments, have also evolved and changed. Despitethe passage of 30 years since the genesis of social presence theory and more than 10 years sincethe identification of social presence as a key component of online learning (Gunawardena &Zittle, 1996), a single, shared understanding of social presence has not emerged (Biocca, Harms,& Burgoon, 2003).

A robust theory of social presence benefits online teaching and learning by advancing explo-ration of learning designs which utilize social processes, promoting understanding of the socialmotivation of users, improving the social affordances of telecommunications systems, andenhancing research into social cognition, interpersonal communication, and theories of mind(Biocca et al., 2003). The lack of a single, shared understanding of social presence is problematicin so far as the improvement of online teaching and learning may be hampered by unexploredassumptions about the nature, role, and function of this critical element of computer-mediatedinteraction. These assumptions arise from a combination of factors, including (a) the fact that theconcept of social presence predates the widespread uptake of CMC to which it is frequentlyapplied (see Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976); (b) the lack of a shared definition for socialpresence amongst practitioners and scholars who seek to understand this concept in the contextof online learning (compare, for example, Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001; Swan& Shih, 2005; Tu, 2002); and (c) the divergence of understandings of social presence as applied

*Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

90 B. Kehrwald

in a variety of contexts including both CMC and non-CMC environments (for example, Kumar& Benbasat, 2002; Shin, 2002).

This article responds to the lack of shared understanding of social presence in online learningthrough a presentation of selected results of an exploratory study into the nature, role, and func-tion of social presence and mediated social processes. While the results of the full study werewide-ranging, this article reports on findings related to four main aspects of social presence: (a)a definition of social presence drawn from learners’ experiences; (b) explication of the nature ofsocial presence in online learning environments; (c) suggestions for the creation and sustenanceof social presence in those environments; and (d) support for a relational view of social presencewhich emphasizes human agency in mediated social processes and highlights social presence asa critical element of online learning environments.

Background

The theory generative nature of this study required that the researcher avoid undue influencefrom existing theoretical frameworks. Therefore, the literature review is used to provide a back-ground to the study focusing on the context of contemporary online learning and the historicaldevelopment of social presence theory.

Contemporary online learning: active, constructive, and social

Experience with online teaching and learning has shown that there are no models of learningexclusive to online environments (see Mayes & de Freitas, 2004; Postle et al., 2003). Rather,there are ‘e-flavours’ of more general learning theories which are made possible though theapplication of technology (Mayes & de Freitas, 2004). In particular, online learning environ-ments have been identified as excellent venues for teaching and learning approaches derivedfrom a constructivist epistemology and those which emphasize social aspects of learning (forexample, Garrison, 1997; Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Bannan Haag, 1995; Reil& Polin, 2004). These approaches recognize learning as a constructive process which, whilepersonal, is a combination of individual mental process and more widely distributed socialactivities (Prawat & Floden, 1994; von Glasersfeld, 1995). They focus on learners and theirefforts to construct knowledge through activity and experience (Garrison, 1993; Jonassen, 1999).

Online learning environments are thus social–relational systems driven by the exchangesbetween individual actors in the environment (Steeples, Jones, & Goodyear, 2002). The connec-tivity afforded by networked communications technologies within these environments createsopportunities for human–human interaction amongst all participants: learners, tutors, subjectmatter experts, and support staff. Therefore, interpersonal interaction is a key feature of contem-porary online learning. The mutual modification of attitudes, ideas, skills, beliefs, and knowl-edge that results from these exchanges has been described as interactivist (Bickhard, 1992),transactional (Shin, 2002), and relational (Lave & Wenger, 1997) learning. The emphasis is onprocesses of cognitive interaction and learning is an active, dynamic process (Goodyear, 2002;Hung & Chen, 2001).

Mediation and presence

Mediation is a key consideration in learners’ experiences of online learning. Networked commu-nications technologies mediate between participants in communicative exchanges and the mediathey employ affect the quality of participants’ experiences (Riva, 2002). These technologiesintroduce social and psychological distance between parties in mediated interactions. As a result,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Distance Education 91

the communication and interaction in online environments is a potentially very differentexperience than face-to-face interaction. However, presence, which refers to the extent to whichmediated interactions seem unmediated (Kumar & Benbasat, 2002; Selverian & Hwang, 2003),mitigates these differences. It creates the illusion of reality (or direct experience) in participants’perceptions of mediated situations.

Social presence

Social presence is a derivative of presence. Short et al. (1976) are widely credited as the first toexplore social presence in depth by comparing mediated and non-mediated interactions (seeGunawardena & Zittle, 1996; Kumar & Benbasat, 2002; Rourke et al., 2001; Shin, 2002; Yoo &Alavi, 2001). Short et al. (1976) define social presence as ‘the degree of salience of the otherperson in a mediated interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal interaction’(p. 65). Salience in this case refers to the relative significance of the other party in the interaction.Further, it indicates the relative strength of the relation between the parties. This definition hasresulted in the development of two main strands of social presence research: the media richnessview and the relational view.

Initially, researchers focused on social presence as a media attribute. Following from Shortet al.’s Social Presence Theory (1976) and Daft and Lengel’s Media Richness Theory (1986),research concentrated on the capacity of media to convey information necessary for mediatedexperience to be perceived as real (non-mediated). Using face-to-face interaction as abenchmark, media were compared with one another and determined to be more or less rich. Itwas argued that rich media were more appropriate for communicative tasks that involvedequivocal or ambiguous messages while less rich (that is, lean) media, such as text-only emails,were suitable only for very straightforward communication (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987).These results were used as a basis for the selection and use of respective media for particulartasks (for example, Carlson & Davis, 1998; D’Ambra, Rice, & O’Connor, 1998; Daft et al.,1987). Typical definitions of social presence from this media richness view refer to media’sability to approximate the characteristics of face-to-face interactions (Hackman & Walker,1990).

However, as CMC technologies evolved and their use spread beyond information processingand transmission, users began to experience very rich and productive communicative exchangesin so-called lean media (Walther, 1992). As a result, researchers reconsidered the limits of defi-nitions which identified social presence as an attribute of media and social presence came to beviewed as a quality of relational systems (Shin, 2002). Definitions of social presence began toreflect this emphasis on relational aspects of communication, including a sense of individuals’abilities to perceive others through their mediated interactions (Collins & Murphy, 1997); focuson the degree of ‘tangibility and proximity’ of others within a communicative situation(McLeod, Baron, & Marti, 1997) and the degrees of affective connection (Swan & Shih, 2005);and project themselves both socially and emotionally in a community (Rourke et al., 2001).

Among the notable implications of this shift to relational views of social presence is thatrelational aspects of communication are dependent upon the participants in the communicativeexchange rather than (or in addition to) the medium. Therefore, social presence is quite dynamic.An emerging body of research suggests that its roles and functions are related to a variety offactors, including (a) the contexts in which the communications occur (Rourke et al., 2001; Yoo& Alavi, 2001) and the type of communicative task (Tu, 2001, 2002); (b) the particular traits ofthe individuals involved, including skills with the media (Tu & McIsaac, 2002), culturaldispositions for or against particular types of communication (Gunawardena, 1998; Tu, 2001),and confidence in communications or particular skills, such as literacy or keyboarding (Tu,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

92 B. Kehrwald

2002; Tu & McIsaac, 2002); and (c) the ways in which those individuals subjectively interpretsocial presence cues (Riva, 2002).

Posing the problem

The apparent complexity and lack of shared understanding of social presence (Biocca et al.,2003) highlight the fact that it is an essentially contested concept. Thus, there is a need toestablish a foundational understanding of social presence in order to inform educational practicesrelated to social and relational activity in technology-mediated environments. Despite this need,online learners continue to have success with mediated social processes, including participatingin highly interactive online courses, engaging in productive collaboration, and being members inonline learning communities (for example, Murphy, 2004; Reil & Polin, 2004). Therefore, anopportunity exists to draw on the experiences of online learners to inform an understanding ofsocial presence in online learning environments.

The study from which this article is drawn sought to ground understanding of social presencein the experience of online learners. This understanding includes foundational aspects of socialpresence: its nature, role, and function.

The aspects of the study presented in this article were guided by the general question: Howdo participants in text-based online courses experience social presence? It was further struc-tured around more specific questions such as: In general, do participants experience otherparticipants as real and present in the environment? In particular, what individual participantsare perceived as real and present in the environment? How do participants experience otherparticipants, that is, are some participants more ‘present’ than others? Do participantsexperience ‘degrees of presence’ of other participants? Are participants aware of their ownsocial presence? Do participants experience the facilitator as real and present? Do participantsvalue social presence? Do participants see social presence as supportive? If so, how?

Methodology

Approach

As stated above, this article is drawn from a theory generative study that sought to understandonline social presence as experienced by online learners. Because the study was focused onunderstanding the world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it, theapproach was qualitative and constructivist (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Schwandt, 1998).

Method and technique

The study sought to access, explicate, examine, and interpret the experience-based heuristicknowledge of participants in the online environment (Padilla, 1991). The basic design consistedof a collective case study: four cases in the context of a single faculty in an Australian universitywere studied with respect to issues identified in the research questions. The aim was to informgeneral conclusions about those issues through understanding respective cases (Stake, 2003). Inthis study, each case was based on an offering of a wholly online postgraduate course in education.

Information for the study was collected via CMC tools within the learning managementsystem that housed the online courses, over a period of 8–10 weeks in each of three consecutiveacademic terms in a calendar year.

Information collection was a structured dialogical process consisting of (a) a questionnairewhich functioned as a structured interview (see the Appendix); (b) a semi-structured one-on-oneinterview conducted via online chat facilities; (c) an initial asynchronous group discussion; (d)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


a secondary one-on-one interview; and (e) a final asynchronous group discussion. Thiscombination of techniques allowed the researcher to access the knowledge and experience ofparticipants individually (interview) and within a group setting (group discussion), therebycreating opportunities to target particular individual perspectives and also to reference theseagainst collective (shared) positions on these issues. Consistent with Padilla’s notion of iterativereflection and the ‘unfolding’ of heuristic knowledge (1991), multiple interview and discussionphases provided explicit iteration and created opportunities for refinement of ideas.

Selection of data sources

The context for this study was online postgraduate courses offered by a faculty at a regionalAustralian university. Of interest were courses which fit the model of contemporary networked(online) learning, characterized by constructivist pedagogy, a learner-centric process orientation,high levels of interaction between participants as part of the course design, extensive use ofCMC tools, and a significant portion of the course content that is dynamic or emergent over theterm of study (see Steeples & Jones, 2002). It was anticipated that these courses would providelearners with experiences relevant to this study, namely, text-based interpersonal interaction,high levels of involvement in learning processes, and social connectivity.

Participants with more experience in online learning were preferred and those with experi-ence over several terms of study in several different courses were considered ideal because ofthe richness of their personal experience and the wealth of their accumulated knowledge with thephenomena in question. For each of the four cases, a group of three to six volunteers wasrecruited from within the learning management system via email to all students enrolled in thecourses under study. In total, 20 took part. To avoid ethical dilemmas related to power relations,the researcher was not part of the teaching or moderation team for any of the courses includedin the collective case study.

Analysis

The general analytical technique was thematic analysis, which is the search for and identificationof common threads that extend throughout a set of data. In this context, a theme is a unit ofmeaning which emerges regularly in the analysis of information (van Mannen, 1997). The act offinding meaning involved a variety of techniques, including noting patterns, splitting andcombining themes, noting relations, and building a logical chain of evidence (Keeves & Sowden,1997; Sowden & Keeves, 1988).

Analysis involved iterative cycles of examination of the data, identification of key themes,and the drawing of tentative conclusions confirmed (or refined) using a combination oftechniques: triangulation, checking for representativeness, respondent validation, investigationof rival explanations, checking/replication of findings, and the examination of outlier cases(Keeves & Sowden, 1997). This approach was consistent with Sowden and Keeves’ generalframework (1988) for the analysis of qualitative data as a three-step process: (a) data reduction;(b) display and examination; and (c) conclusion drawing and verifying. This process was appliedat three points in the study: first, to the ongoing analysis in the dialogical process for each case;second, at the conclusion of information collection for each case; and third, at the end of allinformation collection for the study.

Throughout the iterative analysis, conclusions were constructed as the dialogical processmoved from one phase to the next and layers of meaning were added.

In order to preserve the authenticity of responses and promote the development of accuratere-constructions of the experiences of participants, the interpretation process involved extensive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

94 B. Kehrwald

checking in which the researcher returned to the data frequently to construct meaning progres-sively as more data was collected and more meaning was drawn from the unfolding of participantexperiences (Padilla, 1991). Whenever possible, emergent meanings were reflected back toparticipants for validation, rejection, or refinement. Findings from early cases were used toidentify key issues and inform data collection and analysis in later cases.

Selected findings and discussion

The findings of the study related to the problem identified above are presented below with refer-ence to four areas: (a) a definition of social presence; (b) the nature of social presence and relatedaspects of its role and function; (c) the way individuals establish and sustain social presence intext-based online learning environments; and (d) support for a relational view of social presencewhich emphasizes human agency in mediated social processes.

Defining social presence

Whilst all respondents in the study indicated that they were aware of the concept of social pres-ence, early phases of the information collection in each case showed that shared understandingsof this concept did not exist within the respondent cohorts. The following was a typical response:

I think [social presence] has a few meanings and I don’t know which one is the ‘standard’ one …Does it mean – I think people think I exist? People recognize my name? People look to me as a peer/learned peer? I recognise people? I look up to someone with social presence? I still haven’t decided… Or maybe it’s just that thing about thinking people are real. (Marco)1

Within each respondent cohort, definitions of social presence suggested by respondents werecollected by the researcher, collated, and considered as part of the group discussions. At theconclusion of discussions, the consensus position was synthesized by the researcher and reflectedback to the group for confirmation or refinement. Across the four cases, two key aspects of socialpresence emerged:

(1) There is an ‘other’ party present in the environment as evidenced by their visiblecontributions.

(2) This ‘other’ exists and is identifiable as a real person: a human being, with all thecharacteristics thereof, including personality, emotion, personal history, and context.

These two points highlight a view of social presence as a quality of individuals and their useof online spaces rather than an attribute of the media employed in online learning. The definitionof social presence that emerged from the data is: Social presence is an individual’s ability todemonstrate his/her state of being in a virtual environment and so signal his/her availability forinterpersonal transactions. Social presence is the means by which online participants inhabitvirtual spaces and indicate not only their presence in the online environment but also their avail-ability and willingness to engage in the communicative exchanges which constitute learningactivity in these environments.

The nature of social presence

Social presence was viewed as performative, that is, it was seen to be demonstrated by visibleactivity: posting messages, responding to others, and participating in the activities of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


group. According to respondents, online social presence is conveyed by the combination of (a)the messages online participants send and (b) the way those messages are interpreted byothers:

For me social presence is the form and persona that I assume and represent myself in an onlineenvironment. It is constructed in the context of how I wish others to experience me and ‘see’ me inthis environment. It is my online presence and the textual version of my ‘voice’ in the online space.(Kevin)

I am sometimes (but not always) aware of my own social presence. I think the awareness relies verymuch on the mirror that is provided by other group members through their responses and communi-cations with me. I think I can only guess at my own presence without this feedback from others. Thisdoesn’t mean that without feedback I don’t have any presence but that I have less chance of realis-tically gauging that presence. When somebody responds in some way that shows they have reactedpositively to something I have said online, then it acts as reinforcement and I tend to continue to saysimilar things or at least to be more confident in contributing to discussions. (Don)

All respondent groups suggested that text-based online messages contain cues that indicatethe social presence of the individual who sends them. Those cues include a variety of informa-tion about the senders, including personal histories (cultural backgrounds, levels of education,professional experience), personalities (attitude, demeanour, sense of humour), and currentcircumstances (location, family situation, current professional context). The cues were identifiedby respondents as supportive of online participants’ ability to get to know one another.

The findings affirm the notion that online participants experience other participants as bothreal in the sense of being a real person (a human being) and present in the sense of ‘being there’in (coexisting, inhabiting) the virtual environment. Together these qualities help onlineparticipants identify other salient social actors in the environment. However, the findings suggestthat the conditions of ‘being real’ and ‘being present’ are very different from one another inonline learning environments.

Respondents in this study unanimously viewed their peers as real. Notably, this was consid-ered a foregone conclusion by many of them. As experienced users of online environments, theyindicated that they made assumptions about, and generally attributed human qualities to, otheronline participants. This was seen as a consequence of an empathetic relation in which theyrecognized similarity with other participants and attributed characteristics of ‘sameness’ to them.A portion of this sameness was the notion of being real: if I am real and you are like me, thenyou must also be real. Respondents viewed social presence as a quality of individuals andassociated it with relations between themselves and other inhabitants of the online environmentas both real people and salient social actors.

As for being present, findings were more directly associated with individuals’ abilities toestablish and maintain a personal social presence. The findings indicated that ‘being present’ isnot an either/or proposition; rather, online participants are seen as present in degrees:

[D]ifferent participants exhibit different degrees of social presence … Within my own group, thesocial presence is certainly stronger than for people outside the group … For me there are about 3other people who have a very strong social presence, 3 or 4 with a moderate presence and a couplewith little presence at all. (Don)

The development of social presence

Findings suggest that social presence develops in a two-part process: establishment of socialpresence and ongoing demonstrations of presence:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

96 B. Kehrwald

I guess the … process has tended to fall into two main categories:

(1) The explicit statements, e.g., in the introductions forum where people explicitly tell you thingsabout themselves. From this I tend to store away information like people who work in similar envi-ronments to myself or who have similar interests. Now and then when I can’t quite picture anotherperson in the discussion, I have a peek back at these introductions.

(2) The information that can be teased out of what people say and how they say it. This can be atti-tudes, opinions, feelings, etc., etc.… There is a danger of over-stereotyping people. This danger canbe alleviated by more interaction with the person to test your first impressions of them, and to teaseout what they really meant by earlier statements made. (Don)

First, participants establish that they are present in the online environment by making them-selves known to others. Respondents indicated that this establishment phase often happenedwithin online courses as personal introductions, which included instances of self-description,personal disclosure, and indications of personality, but that it may occur with any sort of initialinteraction between an individual and other individual actors. This establishment involvesexplicit (visible) participation in the online environment.

Second, participants demonstrate ongoing presence through visible activity (for example,posting messages), indicating both their ongoing attendance in the environment and theiravailability for interactions and interpersonal relations at any given time. An individual’s socialpresence was seen as a cumulative result of his/her demonstrations of presence but it is alsoaffected by the strength of relations between individuals and the history of the relationshipbetween them. Respondents indicated that the quality of relationships was also heavilyinfluenced by recent events. They felt a stronger sense of social presence from those they hadinteracted with more recently.

Notably, this two-part process of establishing and maintaining a social presence applies notonly to learner participants, but also to all participants in the online learning environment: tutors,support staff, subject matter experts, and guests:

Interviewer: What does [the facilitator] do to convey a sense of presence?Marco: Her messages, almost daily, her feedback on what she has learnt from our submis-

sions, the chat forums she organized. She is almost as present as an f2f [face-to-face]teacher!

Interviewer: That response would indicate that presence is generated ‘by volume’ … is thatcorrect? More input, more presence?

Marco: Not quite the ‘volume’ but rather the ‘thread of communication’ that is there everyday. It’s like she’s accompanying us all the time.

Given the links between facilitators’ social presence and student satisfaction (Richardson &Swan, 2003), this point underscores the importance of facilitators’ ongoing visibility in onlinecourses.

Promoting the development of social presence

Findings indicate a close relationship between social presence and interpersonal interaction. Theestablishment and growth of social presence is related to three conditions which indicate thelinks between social presence and interpersonal interaction and underscore relational views ofsocial presence: ability, opportunity, and motivation.

First is the ability of participants both to send and to read social presence cues. Referencingtheir own experiences, respondents were explicit about this point: novice learners do not come

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


to online learning environments with these skills. They must be learned. Online courses andprograms must include attention to these skills as part of their designs in order to provide afoundation for productive learning activity. The alternatives to this approach may lead to learnerfrustration, anxiety and, ultimately, failure with online learning (see, for example, Hara & Kling,2000).

Next is the opportunity for participants to interact with one another. Social presencecannot be established, indeed cannot exist, without interpersonal interaction. Opportunities forsuch interaction are not difficult to create, but they should be carefully organized to maximizethe benefits of such activity, including the cultivation of social presence and the resulting rela-tions between participants. These opportunities for interaction should be structured throughdesign and facilitation in order to (a) promote productive interactions; (b) prevent learnersfrom being overwhelmed by the demands of interaction within large groups; and (c) balancethe needs for both flexibility and structure (Coomey & Stephenson, 2001). Respondents high-lighted the role of structure and facilitation to allow learners to make the most of opportunitiesfor interaction:

In this course [interaction] was [structured] in a number of ways … For instance, the introductoryinformation and posting of personal web pages … By making at least 1 mandatory group project …By stating things like ‘respond to 3 postings’ – even if it is not a mark requirement. It gets peopleinteracting. Without this guidance and structure, people will tend to hide behind their computers, dothe tasks required and move on … (Nora)

My sense is that the development of social presence in an online course takes more time, effort, andcare than is usually allowed for in the course structure … The success of this depends a lot on thetutor/teacher’s ability to facilitate this activity … (Kevin)

Finally, motivation is needed for online learners to engage in relational exchanges. Interper-sonal interaction does not take place spontaneously. Moreover, it can be a demanding and costlyprocess in terms of learners’ time and effort. Therefore, learners need a motive which makes theinteractions purposeful and, ultimately, beneficial for themselves. Motivation is provided byeither need, as in the case of learning tasks that require interaction, or interest, as in the case ofrelations that motivate ongoing interaction:

I have only started being ‘active’ on the DF [discussion forum] with the webquests. Before that, therewas no real reason for me to get involved too much so I did the minimum … However, when thereis real need to communicate, then I am happy to participate because it is interesting, I am glad togive my feedback and happy to read feedback on my work. So maybe social presence just dependson whether it is well constructed into the course through tasks … (Kate)

Implications for the role and function of social presence: a relational view

The definition and characteristics of social presence identified above have a number of importantimplications for activity in online environments, including the development of relations betweenonline participants as social actors and the improvement of the quality of communication inonline environments.

First, the social presence of another person implies that online participants experience inter-actions with that person as human–human interactions, not as human–machine interactions.What follows is the potential for the development of relations between these two human actors.Participants get to know one another. They are able to develop a sense of connection to othersand develop relationships. They experience belonging and a sense of being part of social units

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

98 B. Kehrwald

in the environment. They are able to overcome feelings of loneliness or isolation through theidentification of known others. They experience relationships characterized by social–relationalconstructs, such as trust, respect, rapport, and empathy. They experience feelings of safety in theonline environment and comfort with the nature of a social–relational activity that promotes awillingness to put themselves at risk through participation in interpersonal exchanges –exchanges which require self-disclosure or other behaviours likely to expose them to social risksuch as critique, ostracism, or ridicule. In broad terms, social presence enhances learners’ expe-riences of online learning by allowing them to cultivate and maintain productive relations withothers in the online environment. Whilst these processes are relatively straightforward in face-to-face settings, the limitations of text-only media necessitate a re-conceptualization of theseprocesses in online environments and highlight the role of online social presence. Given thatinterpersonal interaction is a prevalent form of online learner activity (Rourke et al., 2001;Steeples et al., 2002), these findings reinforce the notion that social presence is an essentialcomponent of online learning environments.

Second, the messages participants send contain relational cues that indicate the state ofthe relationship between the sender and receiver. These relational cues contain informationregarding the nature of the interaction, the affective state of the sender, and the relative cohe-sion of the social unit in which the sender and recipient are situated (Rourke et al., 2001). Byreading and interpreting both the personal information and relational cues, the recipient is ableto build a context in which to situate the message. As a result, he/she is better able to makesense of it:

[Y]ou can have a perception of face value and ‘looking beneath the face value’ of comments, andtherefore extracting the real meaning of comments. Sometimes when I post a comment that some-how doesn’t come to grips with the real message I am delivering, someone else looks past clumsylanguage and picks out the guts of what I am saying. This shows understanding, not just of thewords, but of the person who said them. (Tina)

In other words, relational aspects of communicative exchanges affect the meaning of themessages. Messages which contain topical information without relational information are morelikely to be misinterpreted. These effects are particularly significant in text-based CMC becauseof the limits of text-only communication. Owing to a lack of non-verbal cues, textual messagesmust convey both topical and relational aspects of messages (Riva, 2002). A relational view ofsocial presence highlights the role of social presence in enhancing relational aspects ofcommunication and adding meaning to messages.

Areas for further research

These findings foreshadow several areas for further research. There is particular need forfurther work on the nature, role, and function of social presence in online learning environ-ments. This work should include study of (a) the establishment and cultivation of social pres-ence not only in other text-based online environments but also in environments based on othermedia; (b) the performative nature of social presence and the implications for participantactivity in online learning environments; (c) the relationship between social presence and thedevelopment of relations in online learning environments; and (d) the supportive nature ofsocial presence as it relates to various types of learning (for example, cognitive learning andaffective learning). Also, there is need for further work to understand mediated socialprocesses and the (potential) role of social presence in these processes. This work may focuson mediated interaction, the development of productive collaboration, and the promotion ofcommunity structures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Conclusion

In summary, the development of social presence in text-based online learning environmentshelps participants to overcome the limits of text-only communication and make these lean mediaenvironments more productive. Whilst the term social presence was originally used to describethe qualities of media and their respective abilities to create the illusion of non-mediation, usersof virtual learning environments have appropriated the term to describe the combination of skillsand abilities which allow them to achieve salient interpersonal interactions (see Short et al.,1976). Because social presence is conveyed in the cues contained in messages and the way thatthose messages are interpreted, social presence is dependent on the actors involved in a commu-nicative exchange.

The findings of this study are noteworthy in relation to the problem posed in the introduc-tion of this article, namely, the issue of developing a shared understanding of social presenceand using that understanding to inform improvement in online teaching and learning. Thesefindings are significant to (a) reinforce the crucial nature of social presence to active, participa-tive learning activities in online learning environments; (b) establish a definition of socialpresence which is drawn from the experiences of online learners and is a result of sharedunderstanding amongst a group of experienced learners; and (c) lend insight into the nature,role, and function of social presence and how this might be used to inform online teaching andlearning practice.

In particular, these findings provide guidance for facilitators of cohorts that include noviceonline learners. Novice online learners need assistance with the development of skills related tonot only establishing and maintaining a social presence, but also reading and making sense ofthe social presence of others. Given the dynamic nature of online learning environments and thenature of the interactive social activities which constitute learning processes in these environ-ments, the ability to skilfully read and send social presence cues is likely to have a considerableimpact on learners’ experiences with online learning. If necessary, online learning programsshould include a developmental approach to ‘learning to be an online learner’ which incorporatesnurturing the ability to use social presence in online environments.

Furthermore, the findings provide guidance for designers, developers, and online teachersregarding both opportunity and need in the cultivation of social presence. First, they highlightthe need for facilitators to cultivate and maintain a visible presence to promote student satisfac-tion and provide a model for online behaviour. Second, they emphasize fit-for-purpose andthoughtful structuring in the design of interactive exchanges that provide opportunities for thecultivation of social presence, as well as creating motivation for users to do so. Given the rolethat social presence plays in adding meaning to textual messages and promoting the developmentof relations between participants, developers and facilitators should (a) focus on purposefulinteractions which allow learners to make meaning, build up understanding, and be productive;(b) develop not only technological infrastructure but also social infrastructure which promotesthe combination of ability, opportunity, and motivation (see also Hung & Chen, 2001); and (c)accommodate learner needs and wants through a combination of flexibility and structure(Coomey & Stephenson, 2001).

Finally, there is a clear indication from these findings that, although technology gets muchof the attention in online learning, it is people who make online learning environments produc-tive. Social presence is a quality of people in online environments, conveyed through their useof language, media, and communications tools. Participants in technology-mediated environ-ments cultivate social presence to achieve meaningful interactions, establish and maintain rela-tions, and create productive social systems in these environments. This conclusion emphasizesthe importance of a focus on human activity over the capabilities (or limitations) of technology.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

100 B. Kehrwald

Note1. All respondent contributions have been edited for readability, including the correction of typographical

errors, which may obscure meaning, and some formatting changes to improve the overall presentation.However, they have not been edited for writing style, expression, or mechanics in order to preserve therespondents’ individual voices. Pseudonyms have been used in all cases to protect the identity ofrespondents.

Notes on contributorBenjamin Kehrwald has been working with education technologies in the USA, Japan, Australia, and NewZealand for the past 13 years. He is currently a Senior Lecturer in e-learning and distance education in theCollege of Education at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

ReferencesBickhard, M.H. (1992). How does the environment affect the person? In L.T. Wineger & J. Valsiner

(Eds.), Children’s development in social context (pp. 33–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of socialpresence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5),456–480.

Carlson, P.J., & Davis, G.B. (1998). An investigation of media selection among directors and managers:From ‘self’ to ‘other’ orientation. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 335–352.

Collins, M., & Murphy, K.L. (1997). Development of communications conventions in instructionalelectronic chats. Journal of Distance Education, 12(1/2), 177–200.

Coomey, M., & Stephenson, J. (2001). Online learning: It is all about dialogue, involvement, support andcontrol – According to the research. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online:Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 37–52). London: Kogan Page.

Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). A proposed integration among organizational information require-ments, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., & Trevino, L.K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and managerperformance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366.

D’Ambra, J., Rice, R.E., & O’Connor, M. (1998). Computer-mediated communication and mediapreference: An investigation of the dimensionality of perceived task equivocality and media richness.Behaviour and Information Technology, 17(3), 164–174.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. InN.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Garrison, D.R. (1993). A cognitive constructivist view of distance education: An analysis of teaching–learning assumptions. Distance Education: An International Journal, 4(2), 199–211.

Garrison, D.R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance education. OpenLearning, 12(2), 3–11.

Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological foundations for networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.),Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 49–76). London: Springer.

Gunawardena, C.N. (1998). Designing collaborative learning environments mediated by computer confer-encing: Issues and challenges in the Asian socio-cultural context. Indian Journal of Open Learning,7(1), 101–119.

Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, R. (1996). An examination of teaching and learning processes in distanceeducation and implications for designing instruction. In M.F. Beaudoin (Ed.), Distance EducationSymposium 3: Instruction (Vol. 12, pp. 51–63). Pennsylvania State University College of Education,American Center for the Study of Distance Education.

Hackman, M.Z., & Walker, K.B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: Theeffects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. CommunicationEducation, 39(3), 196–206.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course. Information,Communication & Society, 3(4), 557–579.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Hung, D.W.L., & Chen, D.-T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from thecommunities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web-based e-learning. EducationMedia International, 38(1), 3–12.

Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D.H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Bannan Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism andcomputer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of DistanceEducation, 9(2), 7–26.

Keeves, J.P., & Sowden, S. (1997). Analysis of descriptive data. In J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational researchmethodology and measurement: An international handbook (2nd ed., pp. 296–306). Oxford:Pergamon Press.

Kumar, N., & Benbasat, I. (2002). Para-social presence and communication capabilities of a web site.eService Journal, 1(3), 5–24.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1997). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mayes, J.T., & de Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. JISCe-Learning Models Desk Study. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf

McLeod, P.L., Baron, R.S., & Marti, M.W. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-faceand computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 706–718.

Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. Brit-ish Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421–431.

Padilla, R.V. (1991). Assessing heuristic knowledge to enhance college students’ success rates. In G.D.Keller, J.R. Deneen, & R.J. Magallan (Eds.), Assessment and access: Hispanics in higher education(pp. 81–92). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Postle, G., Sturman, A., Mangubhai, F., Cronk, P., Carmichael, A., McDonald, J., et al. (2003). Onlineteaching and learning in higher education: A case study. Canberra, Australia: Department ofEducation, Science and Training.

Prawat, R.S., & Floden, R.E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning.Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37–48.

Reil, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Online learning communities: Common ground and critical differences indesigning technical environments. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.H. Gray (Eds.), Designing forvirtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16–50). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1). Retrieved July1, 2006, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/pdf/v7n1_richardson.pdf

Riva, G. (2002). The sociocognitive psychology of computer-mediated communication: The present andfuture of technology-based interactions. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 581–598.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchro-nous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.

Schwandt, T.A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 221–259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Selverian, M.M., & Hwang, H.S. (2003). In search of presence: A systematic evaluation of evolvingVLEs. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 512–522.

Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of ‘transactional presence.’ Open Learning,17(2), 121–137.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of communication. New York: JohnWiley.

Sowden, S., & Keeves, J.P. (1988). Analysis of evidence in humanistic studies. In J. Keeves (Ed.),Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 513–526).Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Stake, R.E. (2003). Case studies. In Y.S. Lincoln & N.K. Denzin (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry(2nd ed., pp. 134–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. London: Springer.Steeples, C., Jones, C., & Goodyear, P. (2002). Beyond e-learning: A future for networked learning. In

C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 323–342). London:Springer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

102 B. Kehrwald

Swan, K., & Shih, L.F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online coursediscussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.

Tu, C.-H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learningenvironment. Education Media International, 38(1), 45–60.

Tu, C.-H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. The Journal of InteractiveOnline Learning, 1(2), 1–24.

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.

van Mannen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience (2nd ed.). London, ON: The Althouse Press.von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism. London: The Falmer Press.Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.

Communication Research, 19, 52–90.Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task

participation and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 371–390.

Appendix. The research questionnaireParticipant information: general experiences with online teaching and learning

1. Including this course and any others which you may be in this semester, how many online courses haveyou taken?

i. Noneii. 1–2

iii. 3–4iv. 5 or more

2. How many other distance education courses have you taken which were not offered wholly online? i. None

ii. 1–2iii. 3–4iv. 5 or more

3. How much experience do you have teaching online? i. None

ii. Less than 1 yeariii. 1–2 yearsiv. 2+ years

4. In online courses you have participated in as a teacher or learner, how often did you use the computer-mediated communications (CMC) facilities (email, threaded discussion forums, synchronous chats,etc.)?

i. Never/rarelyii. Occasionally

iii. Regularlyiv. Always, nearly every day

5. How often do you communicate with other participants in this course using methods other than CMC? i. Never/rarely

ii. Occasionallyiii. Regularlyiv. Always, nearly every day

7. How would you describe your expertise with CMC? i. I’m a noviceii. I’m capable, but still learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


iii. I’m very capableiv. I’m an expert

8. What is your comfort level with CMC? i. I’m very uncomfortable communicating this way.ii. I’m sometimes uncomfortable communicating this way.

iii. I’m usually comfortable communicating this way.iv. I’m almost always comfortable communicating this way.

9. Which learning activities do you prefer? Rank the following activities from 1 to 6 where ‘1’ indicatesthe activity you most strongly prefer to do and ‘6’ indicates the activity you least prefer to do.

— Read course study materials, articles, and textbooks.— Participate in synchronous chats.— Participate in whole-class asynchronous discussions.— Work on collaborative projects in a small group.— Write individual assignments.— Work on individual projects which are not written (for example, develop websites).

Participant experiences with this course

10a. How would you describe your relationship with your peers in this course? i. It is a tight group, a real community. I feel like I know these people.ii. I recognize many of the names in the course and have communicated with some of the

group. I feel like I ‘know’ some of them.iii. I only recognize some of the names in the course, others are very unfamiliar. I don’t have

a clear sense that most of these people are my peers.iv. I can’t say that I ‘know’ anyone. I’m still struggling to recognize most of the names and

I haven’t really connected with anyone.

10b. What is the basis for your answer in 10a? Refer to any specific incidents or situations thatsupport your answer.

11. How many people in the course do you feel you ‘know’?Without referring to the discussion forums, for how many of your peers could you identify:

(a) a personal detail? (b) a professional detail? (c) a personality trait?i. None i. None i. None

ii. 1–3 ii. 1–3 ii. 1–3iii. 4–5 iii. 4–5 iii. 4–5iv. More than 5 iv. More than 5 iv. More than 5

12a. Think of another learner in this course whose postings you have read. In 3–5 sentences, describethat person below. What do you know about them as a student? A professional? A family member?A human being?

12b. For the person you described above, choose the word in each row that describes that person.You may select ‘I don’t know’ if you are unsure or have no basis for your answer.

A Dominant Submissive I don’t know

B Emotional Stoic I don’t know

C Composed Free flowing I don’t know

D Similar to me Different from me I don’t know

E Formal Casual I don’t know

F Task oriented Socially oriented I don’t know

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

104 B. Kehrwald

G Intimate Distant I don’t know

H Familiar with me Unfamiliar with me I don’t know

I Affectionate Cold I don’t know

J Inclusive Selective I don’t know

K Trusting Wary I don’t know

L Involved Detached I don’t know

12c. Do you know all of the other participants in the course as well as the individual you havedescribed above? i. Yes

ii. No

12d. If not, why not? What is the difference between participants in terms of howwell you have gotten to know them?

13a. Think about the facilitator in this course. In each row below, there is a pair of words. Choose theword that best describes the facilitator. You may select ‘I don’t know’ if you have no basis for youranswer.












L Involved Detached I don’t know

13b. What is the basis for your responses above? In one paragraph, describe the basis for your impres-sions of the facilitator, referring to specific incidents whenever possible. Remember that thisinformation will remain confidential.

14a. When communicating online, are you conscious of how others perceive you? i. No. I am not conscious of it.

ii. Yes, but only sometimes.iii. Yes, I usually think about it when using CMC.iv. Yes, I always think about it when using CMC.

14b. If so, how does it affect your behaviour? If possible, give an example of how yourbehaviour has been affected.

15. How would others in this course describe you? Chose one word in each row. If you are unsure orhave no basis for your answer, you may choose ‘I don’t know.’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14













L Involved Detached/distant I don’t know

16. Some online educators have argued that social presence is an important aspect of online learningenvironments. Would you agree with this statement? Why/why not?

17a. How would you characterize each of these aspects of the course in terms of meeting your needs asa learner in this course? Please choose one response for each of the five areas.

1. Technology(web platform, communication facilities, technical support, etc.)

i. Very supportive. I’ve had no problems at all.ii. Supportive, but I could suggest some changes.

iii. Not very supportive. I’ve had problems and finding answers has been difficult.iv. Terrible. I can’t make sense of this and it’s having a negative impact on my study.

2. Course design(instructional process, course content, assessments)



3. Facilitation(activities of the course teaching staff during the course)



4. Peer interaction(communication and other forms of contact between participants in the learning environment)



5. Course social infrastructure(clear roles and responsibilities, rules for participation, level of inclusion, etc.)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

106 B. Kehrwald


17b. Where do you seek support? How important is each of these course components to you for providingsupport? Rank these course components from most important (5) to least important (1) in terms oftheir importance to you in providing support.

TechnicalCourse designFacilitationPeer interactionCourse social infrastructure

(item 18 omitted)

19a. In general, do you feel that this course is supportive? i. Yes

ii. No

19b. What changes would you like to make the course more supportive? If possible, please referto any incidents where you did not feel your needs as a learner were being met.

20a. Have you provided support for others in the course, either explicitly or tacitly? i. Yes

ii. No

20b. If so, briefly describe the situation below.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

6:47

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

understanding social presence in text‐based online learning environments

Documents