Introduction
Social presence is a crucial concept in computer-mediated communication, particularly in higher education context. This concept is commonly used to in discussions on online learning contexts. Such contexts are normally made possible by the technological advancements that have led to improvements in computer-mediated communication. In higher education contexts, the other crucial concepts other than social presence include cognitive presence and teaching presence.
The concepts of social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence were developed within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The CoI is a comprehensive framework as well as a dynamic process model for guiding research and practice relating to online learning communities. The framework has also proven to be helpful for describing and measuring elements that support the development of online communities in the context of higher education.
The explanatory and exploratory nature of the model makes it appropriate for addressing various issues relating to the pursuit of higher education through online platforms. It is just as well that the social, cognitive, and teaching presence form the foundation of this framework. The framework also provides indicators and categories for defining each presence and guiding the process of coding transcripts. An in-depth understanding of these three presences is crucial for promoting social presence within the online environment in a higher education context.
This literature review examines the research trends in the CoI model, particularly in the context of the pursuit of higher education through online platforms. The review of literature is also aimed at identifying areas where researchers agree, where disagreements arise, as well as where research gaps exist. To start with, the research work addresses issues relating to social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence. For instance, it is important for this literature review to explore the role of teaching presence in social presence development.
Another crucial issue is the view of social presence as a mediating variable between cognitive presence and teaching presence. It is evident that teaching presence has a direct influence on the way social presence is created and sustained. In this regard, an issue that requires to be researched into is about how students’ sense of social presence changes in response to change in teaching presence within a social network environment in higher-education context.
The students’ sense of social presence is explored in reference to open communication, affective expression, and group cohesion. The paper explores how these aspects of social presence change in relation to changes in teaching presence, particularly direct instruction and facilitating discourse. Moreover, it is obvious that participants change their level of social presence during higher-education courses that are facilitated in online environments. Such changes are also of great relevant to this literature review. The underlying objective is to determine how the various uses of teaching presence promote the development of social presence among higher education students operating in a social network environment.
At the end of this literature review, it will be clear how teaching presence impacts upon the way social presence is created and sustained. It will also be clear how teaching presence in a social network environment within a higher education context facilitates progress in social presence from open communication to cohesive relations and finally to personal connections. With this understanding, it is possible to provide a comprehensive picture of how students’ social presence keeps changing in response to changes in teaching presence within the social network.
The role of teaching presence in social presence development
According to Garrison & Anderson (2003), teaching presence is the process of designing, facilitating, and directing social and cognitive processes with the aim or realizing educationally worthwhile and personally meaningful outcomes. According to Garrison & Anderson (2003), the three core categories of teaching presence include facilitating discourse, instructional organization and design, and direct instruction.
On the other hand, Garrison (2011) defines social presence as the ability by participants to identify with a specific group, to communicate in a trusting environment, and to develop effect personal relationships progressively through projection of their individual personalities. According to Garrison & Arbaugh (2007), the core categories identified in social presence by Garrison (2011) include open communication, affective expression, and group cohesion.
Teaching presence plays a crucial role in the development of social presence. The online learning environment has revolutionized the way academic discourse is facilitated. It has also brought about numerous changes in direct instruction as well as instructional design and organization. For example, in the online environment, an increasingly large number of students are engaging in student-student online coaching (Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes, 2012). However, Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012) observe that very few studies have been carried out on online learning environment particularly on the issue of one-on-one tutoring.
In their study, Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012) observed that many K-12 students in the US are being coached by teacher-students via instant messaging. This observation was used as a basis for creating an adaptation of the CoI model, which was referred to as the Relationship of Inquiry model (Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes, 2012). This model is appropriate for creating a better understanding of the online coaching practice through the exploration of the extent to which teaching, social, and cognitive presence continues to exist in online coaching environments (Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes, 2012).
According to Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012), a new pattern of interaction appears to be emerging through online coaching. This new pattern appears to be redefining the nature of interactions between coaches and learners in online environments. An analysis of this new pattern from the perspective of relationship of inquiry is crucial for better understanding of aspects of online teaching environment such as online coaching.
There are major differences between the practices of on-site facilitators and online instructors. These differences are evident in regard to their activities according to de la Varre, C., Keane, J. & Irvin, M.J. (2011), most online instructors perceive the facilitating discourse to be core activity in which the majority of facilitators engage. However, the facilitators themselves define their responsibility to be one that entails setting the ideal climate for learning (de la Varre, Keane, & Irvin, 2011).
According to Torras & Mayordomo (2011), teaching presence is a source of conceptual coherence for use in operationalizing and interpreting the way online learning environments are regulated. Torras & Mayordomo (2011) introduce the concept of electronic portfolios; they argue that it contributes significantly to the shift from internal regulation to external regulation. In terms of teaching presence, focus is on regulation processes that address the nature of tools used and the tasks undertaken by students.
The role of teaching presence on social presence development can be analyzed through many ways. Naturalistic observation is one of these ways. Other methods include comparative statistics and content analysis (Torras & Mayordomo, 2011). In a study that made use of a mixed methodology involving content analysis, naturalistic observations, and comparative statistics, Torras & Mayordomo (2011) found out that during the teaching and learning processes, clear patterns of self-regulation and co-regulation are observed. In such a situation, it is evident that the teacher is always responsible for providing techno-pedagogical support to learners. This support is in most cases inherent from an instructional perspective. At other times, it manifests itself in the way information is presented to students as well as the importance that is attached to it during the process of teaching and learning.
The concept of teaching presence has been discussed in detail within the Community of Inquiry framework. In this discussion, a lot of emphasis has been put on its contribution to a better understanding of the field of online distance learning. Through this discussion, a lot of information is available on the interactions that instructors engage in during online teaching (Morgan, 2011). Morgan (2011), however, points out that this discussion is not of much help in shedding light on why instructors make certain interactive decisions. This observation has far-reaching implications on discourse on the role of teaching presence on social presence development.
Within the online activity system, a complex negotiation exists between instructors and the various mediating components. In this environment of complexity, a shift in the conventional understanding of teaching presence appears to be taking shape. When viewed within a socio-cultural perspective, this shift appears to have important implications for the CoIÂ framework, particularly aspects of teaching and design. By extension, this has far-reaching implications on social presence in online learning contexts. For this reason, it may be necessary to create a new definition of the concept of teaching presence in efforts to acknowledge the impact it has on social presence.
Aspects of facilitating discourse
Facilitating discourse may be defined as the means through which students are continuously engaged interactions that build upon the information supplied to them through course instructional materials (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). It is a core pillar of teaching presence, and is of great importance in discussing issues of social presence in social network environment. According to Swann (2010), it may be particularly useful to discuss aspects of teaching presence in a manner that reflects the dialogical approach being adopted in all aspects of online facilitation. Swann (2010) emphasizes on the need to understand the teaching-learning process from the social construction perspective. In many models of online teaching, efforts are being made to promote the social construction perspective (Swann, 2010). According to Swann (2010), encouraging the social construction approach is one of the ways through which the CoI model can be extended to address the dialogical approach to online learning.
According to Shea, Vickers, & Hayes (2010), more than four million students have registered for online courses within the US alone. This increased relevance of online courses is a crucial indicator of the urgent need to embark on an inquiry into the nature of instructional activities in online environment. Shea, Vickers, & Hayes (2010) point out that one of the core areas of inquiry is the role of instructor teaching presence on development of social presence within the online environment.
It is sometimes difficult to figure out how the productive efforts of the online instructor are like within an entire course. According to Shea, Vickers, & Hayes (2010), the most readily available pointers to the level of productivity are in many cases, the main threaded discussions. One of the approaches used to determine this level of productivity is quantitative content analysis. Â However, this approach fails to put capture the impact of most teaching presence behaviors. For this reason, many productive efforts in online instruction end up being underrepresented.
Most indicators of teaching presence take the form of asynchronous text-based discussions. Many online courses are undertaken through such discussion boards. According to Bliss & Lawrence (2009), these discussions tend to have a far-reaching impact on social presence, particularly with regard to the level and nature of participation in online classes. From a disciplinary point of view, not much has been done to document the use of such discussion boards both within and between various online courses. Findings from the study by Bliss & Lawrence (2009) showed that there is a correlation between instructor activity and student participation rates, quality and quantity of posts generated by students, and the extent of threading.
Asynchronous text-based online discussions constitute only one of the platforms available for use by online instructors. Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007) suggest that the text-based discussion boards should be replaced with asynchronous audio feedback in efforts to strengthen a sense of community among students as well as enhance teaching presence. This marks a deviation from previous research trend, which focused on the ways of relying on text-based communication to ensure that participants in various online courses are able to build learning communities.
According to Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007), an auditory element should be included in order to promote social presence. This social presence is achieved largely through the strengthening of the ability by the instructor to build more personal communication links with online students. In the view of Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007), it is better to supplement text with audio instead of replacing the asynchronous text-based communication with audio. In their study, Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007) found out that the level of student satisfaction was extremely high because of embedding asynchronous audio feedback on text feedback.
According to Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007), there are four main reasons why audio feedback should be incorporated into text-based online communication. First, online students perceive audio feedback to be more effective compared to text-based feedback, particularly for conveying nuance (Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007). Secondly, audio feedback creates a greater sense of involvement while enhancing interactions within the learning community. These interactions contribute significantly to the development of social presence in online courses. The third reason for the use of audio feedback is that many online students associate it with increased retention of online course content. The fourth reason is that through this type of feedback, online learners get the impression that the online instructor cares a lot about the progress that they are making in their academic work (Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells (2007).
It appears audio feedback is a very crucial aspect of teaching that instructors can use to promote the development of social presence. One may expect learners to be more eager to engage in an online discussion if there is room for audio commenting in the course of online class projects. Moreover, the students may be encouraged by the presence of audio commenting to engage in online discussions more frequently. The aspects of audio commenting as a replacement for text-based commenting constitute an excellent indicator of the ways in which new media can be used to transform social presence in the online environment. The debate on text-based and audio-based feedback system is also one of the ways through which scholars discuss the aspect of “facilitating discourseâ€. The other two aspects of teaching presence worth discussing in a similar manner include instruction design and organization and direct instruction.
Facilitating is first and foremost important for maintaining interest, engagement, and motivation students in active learning in a social network environment. In CoI literature, students are said to engage in discourse as opposed to discussion. This is because of the need to emphasize on the importance of the so-called “knowledge-building online communityâ€.
For the teacher to fulfill the task of facilitating discourse, he has to read and comment on students’ postings regularly as well as constantly search for ways of supporting the development of the online learning community. This brings to the fore aspects of social presence that do not exist in the traditional classroom setting. In fact, tasks aimed at facilitating discourse normally appear to overlap with the larger “social presence†model. This is because the teacher has to be an active participant in the community of inquiry. However, the teacher is normally faced with a more demanding role than that of all the other participants. It is his sore responsibility to establish and maintain discourse for creating and sustaining social presence.
For the learning objectives agreed upon to be achieved, the teacher has to look up to the efforts of each individual student. This demonstrates the sheer influence that the teacher has on social presence development in the social network environment. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder how this influence differs from the sort of influence wielded in the traditional physical classroom setting.
Just like in the traditional classroom setting, the teacher operating in the social network environment has to support and encourage participation by all students. This role places him in a situation where he is able to model appropriate behaviors by encouraging student responses and commenting upon them. In this process, the teacher is in a position to raise alarm following less active participations. He is also in a position to curtail effusive comments by students who may wish to dominate the virtual learning space.
In the social network environment, the line between formal and informal environments as far as facilitation of discourse is concerned may be thin. Already, the online learning experience is said to be facilitated within a “social network environmentâ€. This assertion creates a mental image of the existence of an informal online learning experience, characterized by exciting social interactions among students as well as between students and the online instructor as part of the online community of inquiry.
According to Swan & Shih (2005), researchers describe the role of teaching presence in social presence development within the online environment in two different ways. In the first perspective focus is on the ways social activities are facilitated in the social network environment. This perspective addresses statements that do not relate to formal subject matter or content. In the second perspective, discourse is facilitated in such a way that there is integration within various aspects of direct instruction as well as instructional activity.
Within the latter perspective, many online instructors should ideally place postings that easily stimulate both individual and group learning. The indicators of individual and group learning cannot be seen through chat sessions of a computer conference. Rather, one has to search for them through the constant support rendered to social discourse through every message posted in content-focused discussions. The presence of such social discourse acts as a crucial indicator that the teacher is rendering the necessary support in efforts to establish a positive learning environment.
One of the indicators used in identifying the facilitating discourse is the identification of issues that have been agreed upon and those that have triggered disagreements. This necessitates the use of an approach similar to the one used in aspects of cognitive development. Whenever an individual encounters someone who contradicts his intuitively derived notions and ideas, cognitive conflicts are created. When a conflict of this nature is resolved, a higher form of reasoning is achieved. Teachers have a responsibility to help students come up with congruent linkages whenever two opinions that seem to be contradictory are expressed. Similarly, it is also helpful for students to be offered help in articulating shared understanding and consensus, even when they are implicit in discussions.
The online instructor also has to undertake facilitation tasks involving the assessment of the efficacy of the entire process. The online learning environment  requires large time commitments from both students and teachers. During online sessions, it may sometimes be difficult to determine whether the discussion is being “steered in the right directionâ€. It is the responsibility of the teacher to ensure that time is being used effectively and efficiently.
Through facilitation, teachers contribute in many ways to the development of social presence. By identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, the teachers assist online learners in determining which areas need to be accorded most attention. Efforts to reach understanding and consensus also enable learners identify issues that may need to be emphasized even though they are implicitly stated in the discussion.
The power of the teacher over the development of social presence is also evident in his role in encouraging students to make contributions as well as acknowledging and reinforcing these contributions. When learners are complemented for making comments in an online discussion, they feel motivated to make even more contributions to the discussion. This adds to the liveliness of the online discourse. Moreover, with the teacher continuously monitoring the efficacy of the online process, students are assured that their posts and comments are being closely monitored.
Aspects of instructional design and organization
According to Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang (2003), it is important to put into consideration the patterns of interaction and engagement in online learning in efforts geared towards instructional design and organization. Instructional design may be defined as the planning and elaborate design of an online course with specific emphasis on aspects of structure, interaction, process, and evaluation (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Teaching presence may be said to begin before the commencement of the course as the instructional designer, in this case the teacher, undertakes planning in preparation for the course of studies. It continues as learners go through the course, during which time the instructor undertakes course facilitation work. Whenever necessary, the teacher provides direct instruction. When teaching presence is adequate, personally relevant outcomes are achieved through formal learning. Moreover, educationally defined outcomes are achieved. Without appearing to denigrate self-directed study and individual learning, it is important to stress the importance of active intervention by an instructor. In the online environment, such intervention may be provided through powerful communication tools computer conferencing. Through cooperative learning, useful instructional tools as well as learning resources are provided.
There is more to formal distance education courses than just dialogue between learners and teachers. The courses also involve web explorations, course readings, exercises, as well as collaborative projects. All these components are mediated by teaching presence. As students and teachers go into conventional higher education, it is always expected that they will have gone through many years of educational experience and background within the formal education system. In the course of online learning, this prior experience and educational background appears less relevant in contextual terms. In such a situation, students and teachers are forced to explicitly redefine their roles. Many predefined roles have to be abandoned by both students and teachers. They also have to shelf numerous behavioral expectations.
Moreover, notions of power, authority, cooperation, rebellion, and dominance arise as teachers ponder over their changes in their ability to establish, maintain, and exert control over the non-place or virtual network. Thus, it seems necessary for new systems to be put in place so that researchers and teachers can make use of them to better appreciate the impact of their behavior in the complex online learning context.
It is difficult to design and plan an online course. The process is time-consuming and extensive. The difficulties are similar to those faced by teachers who engage in classroom-based teaching. The teachers often perceive the need to be thorough, particularly when designing courses that are visible to administrators, peers, visitors, as well as students. The digital format within they have to build the course forces them to keep in mind components of structure, process, interaction, and evaluation. The learned expectations of online classroom norms are normally unavailable for both teachers and students. For this reason, the teacher must be explicit and sufficiently transparent throughout the planning process. This is precisely what the component of design and organization entails.
While undertaking the activities relating to design and organization, online instructors contribute to social presence in many ways. One way of promoting social presence development is the design and administration of course content that is appropriate for a blend of individual and group activities. This can be achieved by repurposing materials so that there is a room for online teacher commentaries, mini-lectures, personal insights, customized views of content. Thus, teaching presence assigns the activities that learners will engage in. At this point, emphasis should be on those activities that enhance interactions and social cohesion among students as well as between students and their teachers.
Teaching presence also has the power to promote social presence of online courses through the setting-up of course timelines. It is up to the instructor to negotiate timelines for all student work and group activities. This is a crucial aspect of learning activities within the online environment. Many researchers have pointed out that instructors face the challenge of synchronizing activities to make learners obtain the feeling of being “in synch†with the rest of the learning community (Yang & Tang, 2003; Wallace, 2003; McConnell, 2000; Swan; 2002).
The teacher is also responsible for providing students with organizational service through the provision of various tips and guidelines. Some of these guidelines relate to the appropriate etiquette as well as the best ways of ensuring that the online medium is used effectively. For instance, higher education students need to be taught how to use the quote and reply functions. Moreover, most of them may be unaware of various ways of repairing communication breakdown. A case in point where communication breakdown may occur is where a posting has been placed in the inappropriate discussion forum.
Moreover, it is the role of the teacher to ensure that students have a “grand design†feel of the course (Wallace, 2003). This feel gives them the reassurance that their participation in various learning activities will ultimately enable them to attain all their learning goals. In essence, through mediated instruction, the teacher creates a narrative path through which students are able to undertake a wide range of learning activities. Through this narrative path, students also become aware of both implicit and explicit learning goals as well as the various activities in which they are participating. The narrative path is also characterized by macro-level comments relating to the course content and process. The comments are a crucial source of orientation and motivation. In this way, they constitute a key element of teaching presence.
The best way to appreciate the role of instructional design and organization is to provide examples of various indicators of this component of teaching presence. For instance, a curriculum is said to have properly set if the teacher provides students with a  clear plan of the issues to be discussed throughout the course. The same case applies to the various designing methods, where the teacher is able to divide learners into groups and instruct them to debate specific topics and themes. Moreover, the ability to establish time parameters is a crucial indicator of success in instructional organization and design. For example, the online instructor may have to instruct the students to have posted a message by the end of every week.
The component of social presence relating to design and organization in the instruction process should also facilitate effective utilization of the online medium. A case in point is the insistence on the need for each student to address the issues that have been raised by others when posting a weekly message. On the same note, the instructor may take this opportunity to request students to establish netiquette in many ways, for example, keeping their messages short. In each of these illustrations, it is evident that teaching presence has revolutionized the development of social presence in online learning programs.
Direct instruction
In direct translation, teachers offer scholarly and intellectual leadership by sharing their knowledge of the subject matter with their students. The instructor needs to have the ability to set as well as communicate the ideal climate for the online seminar or course. He participates in efforts to model scholarly qualities in online students. The instructor must differentiate between social presence development in the traditional brick-and-mortar classroom and in the online classroom. The social presence challenges of these two settings are different in many ways.
The expectations of teachers and students with regard to the way content is communicated in the social network environment differ from those of the traditional classroom setting. In the traditional classroom setting, the teacher has to do many curriculum-related activities in quick succession. For instance, he is able to attend to specific needs of learners who encounter challenges in problem-solving tasks during a mathematics lesson. In an online environment, such an undertaking is not possible because of lack of close physical proximity between the teacher and the student. The undertaking becomes difficult even when the teacher has personal interest and proper understanding of course content.
Gunawardena (1995) suggests the use of a cognitive apprenticeship model in appreciating the assistive role played by teachers in direct instruction. Gunawardena (1995) argues that teachers should readily play this assistive role because of their greater knowledge of course content. In contrast, Stacey (2002) recommends the use of “guide on the sidelineâ€Â approach. In this approach, student discussions are moderated using a laissez faire approach. However, according to Swan & Shea (2005), this approach is often criticized for contributing to a misinterpretation of aspects of models of peer collaboration. In this social cognition model, a key feature is that of an expert adult or a skilled peer who guides the learning process of a novice through scaffolding (Stacey, 2002).
In any case, direct instruction entails the online instructor’s use of pedagogical expertise and the appropriate subject matter. Through this expertise and awareness of content, the instructor sets the stage for online discourse that promotes higher-level thinking and empirical approach to problem-solving. However, some theorists draw out a sharp distinction between classroom-based teaching and online teaching by arguing that in the latter context, the teacher act as a facilitator and not a content provider (Stacey, 2002; Wallace, 2003). The problem with this line of thinking is that the distinction between a content provider and a facilitator is arbitrary.
The alternative view is one where focus is on differences between student-centered and teacher-centered instruction. A commonly-held assumption is that online learning leans more towards student-centered instruction while classroom learning emphasizes more on teacher-centered learning. This assumption aside, it is obvious that social presence development in these two contexts unfolds in very different ways.
In teacher-centered instruction, students exercise a high degree of independence while in student-centered instruction, students are highly dependent on one another for success. In the latter scenario, learners may have difficulties differentiating issues that constitute an educational experience and those that do not. According to Gunawardena & Zittle (1997), the online instructor should be thought of as an “e-moderator†whose role is simply to facilitate learning. Gunawardena & Zittle (1997) creates the impression that extensive expertise on the subject matter is not a necessity for one to qualify as an e-moderator. The main problem with this approach is that the online higher education students risk being given access to education that does not meet the threshold of high-quality professional education.
However, in today’s challenging economic environment, there is an intense demand for instruction that equips the learner with adequate learning experiences. To meet this demand, many higher education institutions design large-scale educational programs that emphasize on the so-called models of “big distance educationâ€. Without any doubt, it is necessary for subject matter experts to participate actively in critical discourse facilitated through the social network environment. Direct instruction by the subject matter expert creates opportunities for students to be inspired by interjecting comments. Moreover, the experts are always in a better position to direct learners to the best sources of information. Most importantly, through organizing activities, students get the opportunity to come up with relevant content that fits into their personal contexts.
A major problem encountered in the social network environment is difficulties in refining and focusing discussions for conversation to progress beyond sharing of information to cover knowledge construction. These difficulties sometimes stall discussions at the preliminary levels of the process of critical inquiry, and may be attributed to inadequacy of teaching presence within the social network environment. The summary provided by the teacher tends to wrap up all previous postings from an impartial perspective. Moreover, it provides a context in which learners can contribute to knowledge growth.
As far as direct instruction is concerned, knowledge growth is not contributed to solely through summaries of previous postings. Statements that seek to confirm understanding also contribute significantly to critical discourse. This is mainly through explanatory feedback and assessments. There are two reasons why assessing students is not possible in a student-centered instruction. First, it is a time-consuming process and secondly, specialized knowledge of a scale higher than the one held by students is always needed.
Social presence development also gains a major boost through direct instruction by way of student participation. This participation is normally undertaken in the form of timely teacher assessment and additional informal sessions. Students value these informal sessions because they enable relate the course content to the real-life world. Through informal sessions, on-line teacher also get a rare opportunity of diagnosing student misconceptions. Such misconceptions impair the capacity by the higher education students to build correct mental schemata and conceptions. Through effective informal online learning activities, students get numerous opportunities for uncovering these misconceptions. However, the informal sessions should not be over-glorified at the expense of teacher assessment and comments on students’ postings.
How students’ sense of social presence changes in response to changing teaching presence in the social network environment in a higher education context
One of the most crucial roles of teaching presence in higher education contexts is to enhance collaborative interactions among learners. Through collaborative interactions, social presence is enhanced. Such social presence is easily demonstrated through modeling, reaction to, and participation in the thoughts and behaviors of other people in the online learning context. It is important for the instructor to pay attention to types and patterns of collaborative interactions in order to promote social presence. Such efforts provide guidance in the way various instructional interventions are designed.
The instructors explicit guidance is always needed in all online learning contexts, including higher-education courses. Without such teaching presence, learners simply get into what “serial monologues†that do not yield any benefits to the learners (Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang, 2003). It is the responsibility of online instructors to put in place structured classroom discussions. The structure of these discussions should be clearly outlined in the online course syllabus. This change in teaching presence brings about instant changes in social presence, for example through timely response to initial posts. Moreover, through structured contributions, the length of contributions during discussions is predetermined. Therefore, no single student can get an advantage over others by dominating discussions.
At the same time, the online instructor has the responsibility of ensuring that students do not feel as if they are engaged in a routine. Instead, the students need to have the feeling of engagement in interactive discussions. In an online environment, the length of postings is crucial in creating an environment of continuing discussion. Subsequently, this determines the social presence that students will experience during the course. For instance, postings that take the form of long messages implicitly put students in a presentation mode; in contrast, shorter messages encourage a lively discussion among students (Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang, 2003). Longer messages do not guarantee discussions of a higher quality or frequency of response. In fact, the contrary is true; they encourage low-quality discussions because the participants sometimes fail to pick up the most crucial points of discussion. At the same time, fewer replies are made because long messages take a lot of time to compose.
Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, & Chang (2003) add that social presence also changes positively whenever leadership and overt instructor facilitation roles are demonstrated by teachers. In contrast, uneven participation by the instructor acts as a major distraction to social presence in the social network environment. By participating regularly through instructor facilitation and leadership roles, online instructors assert the importance of teaching presence in a higher education context. Moreover, in this way, students are guided along the path of higher learning.
Through teaching presence, students should be provided with the right cues so that they can stop brainstorming and instead embark on an integration process. This makes the role of the online instructor similar to that of the physical classroom context, in which the teacher has to anticipate a moment when he has to pull back from his leadership role. At such a point, teachers also have a role to play in influencing the development of social presence. One such role entails the framing of questions in such a way that contexts of resolution and integration are clearly highlighted.
In some situations, the syllabus is designed in such a way that collaborative learning is encouraged. In such a situation, the core objective for the online instructor is to assist students in integrating and synthesizing ideas. Whenever instructors ask questions that address each of those issues, appropriate discussions are facilitated. Emphasis here should be on the regularity of participation by the instructor. This enhances their visibility, which is a good thing for social presence in online learning programs within higher education contexts.
According to Lipman (2003), it is also important for specific discussion roles to be assigned so that teaching presence can be established in a student-centered manner. In this role, discussions should give greater authority and responsibility to students. However, it is imperative for instructors to give students the appropriate training and modeling for them to undertake these roles effectively (Lipman, 2003).
It is also important for teachers to ensure that online students always maintain self-awareness of the objectives and outcomes of all collaborative interaction sessions (Lipman, 2003). This requires students to self-code all their roles as well as their postings that constitute a crucial part of their discussions. According to Lipman (2003), the theoretical basis of this strategy is that self-awareness on aims and outcomes of all forms of interactions creates educational value for students, particularly in higher education contexts. This way, social presence development is greatly promoted since students feel the need to keep track of all their responses and to establish a relationship with course learning objectives.
Moreover, through self-awareness, students are able to govern their interactive behavior during online discussions. They do this by simply by assessing the extent to which the behavior contributes to the achievement of the learning objectives stipulated in the online course. The participants are also able to identify with the rest of the online class, communicate purposefully, and develop affective relationships in such a way their individual personalities are projected. In determining the extent to which social presence is promoted, the core categories to assess include open communication, affective expression, and group cohesion.
How teaching presence promotes open communication
Teaching presence can promote open communication in many ways. One of them is by ensuring that every student takes charge over his interactive behavior. This creates an impetus for the student to find a purpose in all course-related online activities. With such awareness, the student will automatically invest a lot of time in what he posts in the discussion board. The learner also communicates openly with both the members of the group and the online instructor. In such a situation, the aspect of openness becomes achievable because of the existence of the right environment for affective expression.
Gunawardena & Zittle (1997) proposes four categories of roles that teachers should play to have a positive influence on social presence; namely exploratory role, integrative role, applicative role, and “trigger†role. Within the exploratory role, the teacher simply explores ideas on the topic of discussion. In this category, the teacher may have to brainstorm, explore suggestions, and refer to personal experiences relating to the topic. He may also need to explore all the resources that can shed light on the topic such as other courses and previous readings. Gunawardena & Zittle (1997) points out that such efforts enable the teacher understand the various possibilities inherent in the topic of discussion.
As an integrator, the teacher has to integrate all ideas presented in a manner that facilitates seamless direct communication with students Gunawardena & Zittle (1997). In higher learning contexts, the teacher cannot hope to facilitate direct communication if he does not understand the topic of discussion well himself. To do this, the teacher needs to develop on the ideas presented, find common ground, and undertake synthesis of all elements of topic. It is always a good idea to ask students to contribute to this process. According to Gunawardena & Zittle (1997), this serves as an excellent opportunity for the online learners to be inducted into the course content. Attention should also be on the contributions presented earlier by different participants.
Gunawardena & Zittle (1997) indicates that the “trigger†aspect of direct communication entails the use of questions and comments that change the direction of the discussion. This is a necessary undertaking since it stimulates further discussion on the topic. It enables students to share ideas and to make useful contributions to the topic. This enhances the process of social presence development.
The final category presented by Gunawardena & Zittle (1997) is the applicative role. In this category, the teacher has to figure out various ways of practically applying various ideas to teaching. It is also necessary for all integrated ideas to be evaluated to assess whether they can be applied to a real or hypothetical teaching situation. In this undertaking, both the teacher and the online students can clearly determine how various theoretical discussions can be used during teaching and learning activities. In the course of these teaching and learning activities, improvements occur in social presence.
All these interventions are crucial in forming a foundation upon which collaboration between students can take place. It also creates numerous opportunities for a meaningful learning environment to be created. This is an excellent way of developing social presence in an environment of text-based, asynchronous discussion forums. In student-centered learning, which is common in higher education contexts, such collaboration marks a major step in efforts to achieve genuine and purposeful interactions and relationships between students.
How teaching presence promotes affective expression
Despite evidence of an increasingly large number of students pursuing online learning experiences, few details are available regarding how teachers and students make a transition to the new learning environment. Although new technologies have made online learning easier, they have also created the need for new competencies to be developed. Such a change in competences sometimes triggers emotional responses from students. Teachers need to be aware of the various aspects of affective expression in higher education contexts.
Literature on the effect of emotion on the learning process is broadly available. However, there are scanty details on the impact of online learning on learners’ emotions. In the community of inquiry model, affective expression is categorized as a component of social presence. According to Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012), the CoI model provides social and communal approach to the way emotive experience, thinking skills, mental acts, and informal fallacies are integrated into an excellent approach for improving reasoning and judgment. This view is shared by Lipman (2003), who adds that emotional expression is an integral part of maintaining online social presence.
Indeed, the CoI model has received significant attention particularly regarding its relevance in the analysis of emotional presence. In the CoI model, community is viewed as a component whose emergence greatly supports online learning. In social presence, the model highlights the need for the individual online student to be emotionally connected with everyone else within an online environment. Teaching presence provides a central organizing element on which all other elements of the community of inquiry are situated.
Teaching presence promotes affective expression in numerous ways. One way is by enabling online learners to appreciate the role of emotions in cognitive presence. Aspects of teaching presence such as design and organization have a far-reaching impact on learners’ emotions. For example, when the instructions provided are unclear, online learners may experience anxiety. Learners also respond emotionally to cognitive issues such as the complexity of content provided in learning materials and level of success. They also give emotional responses when social issues are being addressed, for example during the communication process. In other words, the emotions disclosed during an online course are influenced a great deal by teaching, social, and cognitive presence.
The emotions disclosed by learners during online learning may be positive or negative. For examples, students may show joy, excitement, and enthusiasm because of the element of flexibility that is provided in online learning. The excitement may predominate particularly during the first few months of the online course. The learner may be contented that he has fulfilled all the course requirements. He or she may also be excited at the emotionally charged environment in which online communication takes place.
On the other hand, learners may also experience negative emotions such as fear and anxiety. In most cases, the feelings of fear and anxiety are triggered by the unknown mode used by learners to engage in online learning. The demands of this new mode are different from those of the traditional classroom, particularly in terms of structure, technology, and time management. Moreover, participants in the social network environment sometimes feel alienated, and thereby feel the need for connectedness.
In a study on affective expression during online learning, Zembylas (2008) found out that during the first few weeks, online students had difficulties identifying satisfying methods of communication. In the study, the learners appeared unsure of the best way of initiating meaningful communication with their instructor as well as classmates (Zembylas, 2008). The learners also felt guilty of being unable to balance multiple responsibilities in the social network environment (Zembylas, 2008). Indeed, the online learning context puts learners in a position where they have to balance their professional, social, and family lives, making it increasingly difficult for them to cope with the demands of online programs.
Emotions are an integral component of the learning environment and this is demonstrated in their influence on outcomes in learning contexts. Positive emotions bring about positive outcomes while negative emotions trigger negative outcomes. For instance, feelings of embarrassment and anger may easily influence learners to choose the wrong course of action or to engage in flawed thinking. Such a situation can be a major deterrent of progress in online learning. In light of this awareness, teachers have to address the challenge of determining the best ways of integrating and controlling emotions within the web 2.0 environment. Various components of teaching presence need to be designed in such a way that various challenges relating to affective expression are addressed.
Through proper use of teaching presence, it may be possible for emotion to be used as an enabler the learning through constructive thinking, stimulation, decision-making, and provision of directions. However, if not properly used, it becomes a source of distraction in online learning. Online learning is one of the learning platforms that are replete with emotion.
All online instructors should expect online learning communities to have an element of affective expression that is presented mainly in the form of emotion. However, the element of affective expression may not be overtly manifested. Many salient issues have to be explored before all aspects of affective expression can be identified. In light of this reality, there is a need for teaching presence to acknowledge the influential role that factors such as emotion play in the online learning process. According to Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (2000), aspects of affective expression are to be found in teaching, social, and cognitive presence.
A major challenge for researchers in future will be to determine whether the emotions present in day-to-day human exchanges as well as the traditional learning environment are similar to those that emerge in online learning environments. In the online environment, one may expect crucial aspects of affective expression to be lost because of the absence of facial and voice expressions. In the online environment these attempts have been made to use emoticons as a representation of these expressions. Attention should be on those emotional states that seem to be absent but play a crucial role in communication and learning via the social network environment.
The discovery of the existence of emotions in all the areas of the online community of inquiry has far-reaching implications on the responses to be made. A crucial question is on how it impacts upon design and organization, aspects of facilitation, as direct instruction. Such an approach may contribute to our understanding of the role of affective expression in all the three aspects of the online community of inquiry. This course of action is based on the understanding that emotions are a major determinant of affective expression.
Different emotions tend to emerge depending on the events that trigger them. Other factors determining the way emotions are perceived include integration, exploration, and resolution. These factors play out particularly in cognitive presence. Sometimes, overlaps of emotions may exist in all the three presences. In fact, there is a need for further research on how the community of inquiry (CoI) as well as other pedagogical models can account for overlap of various aspects of affective expression. Moreover, it is evident that teaching presence occupies a position of greater influence as far as the process of shaping up affective expression is concerned.
Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012) even suggest the introduction of the concept of emotional presence in the community of inquiry model. Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012) seem to suggest that instead of the present situation where the “affective expression†component is embedded in social presence, there is a need for it to be made into an independent aspect of the CoI model. In such a situation, the community of inquiry model would comprise of four presences instead of three.
A crucial feature of emotional presence would be its ability to bring cognition closer to consciousness. There is a need for learners to appreciate the role that emotions plays in learning as well as their benefits. With this understanding, learners can overcome the pitfall of being unaware victims of human emotional responses. Instead, they easily become conscious managers of their emotions.
It is upon instructors to model various emotional responses and their place in their own online learning experience. Moreover, instructors should be in a position to bring emotion closer to consciousness as well as make use of all emotional states in online learning situations. Instructors also have a responsibility of setting up learning situations in such a way that feelings of well-being, security, and self-confidence are aroused in online learners. Furthermore, it is upon teachers to master the ability to challenge the emotions without resorting to intimidation, threats, and undue pressure.
Reasons why participants keep or change their social presence level during the course
Many factors determine whether participants are going to keep or change their social presence in virtual learning communities. According to Lomicka & Lord (2007), the characterization of social presence depends on the technological tools that teachers use to link the virtual community. In their study, Lomicka & Lord (2007) explored the way social presence developed in two universities, whereby teachers operated within virtual communities. Social presence was assessed in the conventional asynchronous computer conferences where all discussions were facilitated via a text-based platform.
However, according to Annand (2011), participants keep their social presence only when there is sustained two-way communication, particularly in all higher-level Web 2.0 learning environments. Annand (2011) also observes that the CoI framework continues to evolve in terms of the theoretical paradigms used to explain it. At first, the social constructivist paradigm was relied upon to explain the model (Annand, 2011). Later on, the objectivist paradigm was resorted to, mainly because of the fact that it is empirically testable (Annand, 2011).
Social presence is also easily maintained when learner-teacher, learner-learner, and learner-content interactions are maintained in varied combinations (Annand, 2011). The variability of combinations of these interactions greatly determines the extent to which social presence is achieved and maintained (Annand, 2011).
Before one can even examine the different circumstances in which social presence is kept or changed, it is imperative to begin by exploring the various ways in which social presence is established in the first. According to Lowenthal & Dunlap (2010), one of these ways is digital storytelling. Â Lowenthal & Dunlap (2010) add that digital storytelling provides an excellent approach for breaking down barriers that sometimes get in the way the establishment of a productive community of inquiry.
It is normally challenging to establish a community of inquiry in the internet-based courses because of the barriers posed by the transactional distance between instructors and learners. The reliance on text-based platforms for communication and social interaction also pause major problems. Such barriers dull the humanness of online instructors. It drowns their humor, emotion, empathy, and sympathy. In the traditional classroom, these human qualities are crucial because through personal sharing, a sense of connection and trust is created between the learner and the instructor. This forms the foundation for the establishment of social presence, which is needed for productive community of inquiry to be created.
In the view of Lowenthal & Dunlap (2010), human beings are storytellers by nature. Storytelling is one of the strategies that they use for personal sharing. Hardly a day passes without an individual telling a story to another individual (Lowenthal & Dunlap (2010). In the context of online courses, digital storytelling is an excellent way of breaking down the barriers that sometimes prevent the participants from expressing their humanness (Lowenthal & Dunlap (2010). Without the human touch, it is impossible for a productive CoI to be established. This effectively means that the presence of the human touch is a key factor in determining whether social presence is kept or changed.
Students easily remember good stories and they quickly forget bad ones. Storytelling is an excellent way through which people keep social presence by maintaining connectivity to others. This is made possible by the fact that the participants disclose personal information while at the same time sharing experiences. Technological advances in multimedia platforms have inspired the continued popularization of the digital storytelling approach. The underlying aim has been to deliver emotionally engaging impact that is founded on the reinterpretation of conventional storytelling approaches. This approach necessitates the use of digital audio, images, and video.
Through digital stories, essential personal expressions are communicated, and the storyteller is able to deliver themes relating to “lessons learnt†that covers not just his point of view but the universal human experience. Such a universal touch is necessary for social presence to be kept. Online learners may readily change a social presence if it focuses on just the storytellers specific experience instead of resonating with the general human experience.
The type of technology used to create social presence also determined the extent to which online learners will retain the social presence. Online learners are easily put off by instructors who use obsolete technologies during discussions. Newer technologies keep emerging all the time. It is imperative that instructors stay informed regarding the emergence of new internet technologies for use in creating, publishing, and distributing content in order to maintain social presence throughout the course.
In computer-mediated communication (CMC), many online students cannot help feeling isolated and alone. This is particularly the case during the start of the course. It is the responsibility of the teacher to succeed in establishing social presence during the first days of the online course. A face-to-face meeting prior to the start of the course may be necessary. In situations where such a meeting takes place, it is less likely for a change in social presence to occur (Annand, 2011). However, face-to-face is not a viable option in today’s globalized world, where online higher education programs continue to attract online participants from all parts of the world.
One of the best alternatives to face-to-face meetings is introductory activities in which the instructors and learners get to know each other. The feelings of trust and connection that are developed during this process are essential for the establishment of a community of inquiry. In such a situation, it is normally difficult for any higher education student to renege on the existing social presence.
However, this objective may fail to be achieved if text-based introductions are used. According to Annand (2011), such introductions easily influence students into changing their social presence. The instructor may need to go beyond text-based narratives and present a photo as well as disclose personal information. This greatly improves the way students perceive online instructors. Some crucial activities that may promote social presence include self-disclosure, subtle humor, and emotional expression.
When instructors share their personal and educational values with their students, the social presence that has already been established is likely to be sustained. The same case applies when the instructors highlight their teaching strategies and approaches. Furthermore, online students tend to overcome the feeling of alienation whenever online instructors expose their families, voices, and personalities. Similarly, it is worthwhile for the instructors to remind students that they were also once students and that they emphasize with their current circumstances.
The innovative online instructor is one who is always looking multiple of sustaining the social presence that is already available to students. He or she encourages self-disclosure in both teacher-learner and learner-learner contexts. Learner-learner disclosure is particularly helpful in student-centered learning, where communication between students is required for better conceptual understanding throughout the course. In such a social presence, students are able to assess learning in a formative and summative manner.
The social media also has an influence on the extent to which participants keep their social presence level. One such social media is Twitter. According to Dunlap & Lowenthal (2009), Twitter has become a core component of learning management system (LMS) in contemporary online learning environments in higher-education contexts. Dunlap & Lowenthal (2009) hold the view that when used appropriately, LMS tools such as Twitter can establish as well as increase social presence.
However, the main problem with the LMS tools is that they require individual students and instructors to log in and then navigate various locations before they can participate in discussions in addition to sharing information with the rest of the online community of inquiry. In such a situation, it becomes difficult for systematic, routine communication to take place. Individual students and instructors log in only when they have some free time to do so. It is also difficult for one student to follow the progress of other students on an hour-to-hour basis. This goes against the wish of many students to have a real-time learning experience. For this reason, it may be true to say that instead of increasing social presence, the use of Twitter may in actual sense reduce it. Dunlap & Lowenthal (2009) appears to share this view by stating that online higher education students lose many opportunities for connection interaction with each other by using Twitter. Moreover, through Twitter, students never really get to know each others’ personalities the way they would through face-to-face encounters.
According to Nippard & Murphy (2007), social presence is said to exist when students continually make sense of the bond that links them with the teacher. In this case, social presence is seen a core aspect of learning. As Nippard & Murphy (2007) indicate, learning entails not just the sharing of information but also the development of relationships between learners and teachers.
In view of the view expressed by Nippard & Murphy (2007), social presence is about how effectively one is able to project himself in an effective manner within a medium. Interactivity should be a core component of social presence. This explains why social media such as Twitter continue to be fronted as appropriate LMS tools for use in higher education contexts (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009).
In their study, Nippard & Murphy (2007) sought to explore how students and teachers manifest social presence in the web-based synchronous high school classroom. Nippard & Murphy (2007) concluded that there was a correlation between the choice of tool and level of social presence. The virtual synchronous learning environment explored involved the use of a direct messaging tool. This tool, which is similar to the one suggested by Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012), supported teacher-to-student, student-to-teacher, and student-to-student real-time text messaging (Nippard & Murphy, 2007).
In the view of Nippard & Murphy (2007), determining the ways in which social presence is manifested by students is not all that difficult. Students manifest social presence in many ways, for instance through complimenting cheers, expression of dissatisfaction, and the use of self-deprecation (Nippard & Murphy, 2007). A high frequency of these responses indicates that the level of social presence is rising. Although this is a simplistic view of social presence, it helps a great deal in creating a better understanding of the circumstances under which social presence may be maintained or changed. Nevertheless, the study Nippard & Murphy (2007) seems weak for not addressing the issue of social identity and its influence on the way social presence is expressed by students in the online learning environment.
Rogers & Lea (2005) address the issue of social identity by pointing out that it is not appropriate for too much attention to be directed at personal identity. This is because whenever group members come together in a distributed virtual environment, the resulting collaboration and communication process may lead to a variety of identities relating to gender, work interests, nationality, and organizational affiliation (Rogers & Lea, 2005). Rogers & Lea (2005) suggest that instead of focusing too much on personal identity, researchers should highlight the salient aspects of shared identity as a way of facilitating social presence. This form of thinking is based on the rationale that the norms adopted by the collaborating group are highly likely to be the ones that are finally adopted by members of the group (Rogers & Lea, 2005). For instance, members of a virtual online group may develop unique ways of using figurative language as a way of increasing their social presence.
Delfino & Manca (2007) elaborate on the use of figurative language in the web-based environment by highlighting the various ways in which it can influence changes in social presence during the course. In this study, figurative language was for students a crucial resource for creating reality out of their new web-based learning environment (Delfino & Manca, 2007). As Zembylas (2008) points out, such a strategy may seem appropriate for those who may be encountering problems with the online learning environment. In most cases, such students may be using the web-based medium for the first time (Zembylas, 2008). In conclusion, Delfino & Manca, 2007) stated that one of the most important future directions could entail investigating how figurative language production creates fruitful interaction between cognitive and social spheres of web-based learning.
According to Swan & Shih (2005), there is a major difference between the perceived social presence and the social presence actually projected during online discussions. Swan & Shih (2005) used survey measures to investigate the relationship between the perceived level of social presence and the actual level of satisfaction with online discussions. Swan & Shih (2005) were also interested in determining how students exhibiting fundamental differences with regard to the perception of social presence perceived their class discussion. The findings presented by Swan & Shih (2005) were quite startling – their conclusion was that students regard social aspects of online academic discussions as more important than the interactive aspects.
A crucial aspect of social presence that many scholars fail to capture relates to ways of bringing into perspective aspects of discourse facilitation, instructional design, and direct instruction when exploring reasons why higher education students keep or change their social presence during a web-based course (Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes, 2012). However, Rourke & Anderson (2002) managed to do just that; the aim of their study was to explore the importance of using students to provide leadership in online discussions. The performance of peer teams in leading online discussions was compared with that of teachers in satisfying the three roles of teaching presence, namely instructional design, direct instruction, and discourse facilitation. The study by Rourke & Anderson (2002) found out that peer teams created a more responsive and interesting environment. This finding is similar to that of Stenbom, Hrastinski, & Cleveland-Innes (2012).
Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer (1999) argue that many researchers continue to offer broad declarations relating to the pedagogical advantages of computer conferencing, yet not many of these generalizations have been rendered sufficient support through empirical data. However, in the present literature review, there are many instances where declarations and assertions have been supported with enough empirical evidence. Nevertheless, a major challenge exists in determining the relationship between perceptions of the value of social presence and the actual contribution of social perception to learning outcomes (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999); Swan & Shih, 2005).
The role of cognitive presence in social presence development
Cognitive presence plays a crucial role in the development of social presence in higher education online programs. The community of framework model has been used extensively to describe the traditional classroom setting. However, it has not been widely used to describe online learning environments (Boston et al., 2009). Moreover, concerns are being raised regarding the attrition rates in online higher education program, which continues to be higher than in traditional face-to-face programs (Boston et al., 2009). The concerns have triggered a flurry of interest in the three presences that make up the CoI model. In this section, focus is on the contribution of cognitive presence in the development of social presence.
Whenever retention problems arise in an online program, this is an indication of failure of social presence. According to Boston et al. (2009), this also means that learners have not been successful in constructing and confirming meaning through discourse and reflection. To understand the assertion made by Boston et al. (2009), it is imperative to understand the process of practical inquiry through which cognitive presence is defined. This process begins when an event is triggered through the identification of a problem or issue. The process of further inquiry starts, both individually and in the context of a student community. This is followed by integration, before the learners finally arrive at a resolution. At this stage, the learners may feel free to use the newly acquired knowledge. This effectively means that by the time the new knowledge is created, social presence will have been developed.
De Leng et al. (2009) explored an e-learning model that most CoI researchers continue to neglect – that of work-based learning. Work-based learning has created excellent opportunities for higher education students to work while pursuing online academic programs (De Leng et al., 2009). Many curriculum designers opt to use a “schooling†perspective while at the same time establishing a link between learning activities and authentic real-life activities. However, the main weakness of the study (De Leng et al., 2009) is its failure to establish a formidable relationship between cognitive presence and social presence development in the work-based learning context.