Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 DOI 10.1007/s10639-012-9197-9 Facilitating active social presence and meaningful interactions in online learning Jared Keengwe & Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng & Watsatree Diteeyont Published online: 18 April 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract Online learning has minimized many barriers and constraints that are common in traditional learning environments. However, due to the absence of faceto-face contacts, students and instructors are usually faced with the lack of active social presence and meaningful interactions in online learning. This article explores a review of the literature on social presence and various types of interactions in online learning environments in the context of a class project. The findings suggest need for online instructors to explore effective ways to design and facilitate active social presence and meaningful interactions in online learning. Keywords Interactions . Online learning . Students . Instructors . Technology . Social presence 1 Introduction Online education has opened the frontiers of college education, making it possible for nontraditional students, who are occupied with work and family responsibilities, and people who live far away from college campuses to have access to higher education (Mayne and Wu 2011). In addition, the flexible options afforded by online courses— that allow learners to access classes anytime and anywhere—is a perfect match to the J. Keengwe (*) : E. Adjei-Boateng University of North Dakota, Teaching and Learning Stop #7189, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA e-mail: jared.keengwe@email.und.edu E. Adjei-Boateng e-mail: emmanuel.adjeiboaten@my.und.edu W. Diteeyont Department of Education Technology, University of North Colorado, McKee 518, BOX 124, Greeley, CO 80639, USA W. Diteeyont e-mail: watsatree.diteeyont@unco.edu 598 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 needs of 21st century learners who have busy lifestyles (Leonard and Guha 2001). The online “platforms are frequently used as an alternative environment for individuals to meet and engage in a variety of activities, like attending courses online” (Lyons et al. 2012, p. 181). Over the past decade, online courses and programs have seen steady growth and increased popularity (Mayne and Wu 2011). This growth could be attributed to affordability and accessibility of computers and Internet technologies for many learners (Dobbs et al. 2009). However, Huang et al. (2010) warn that “although the internet technology has made it possible for people to collaborate effectively without staying physically together, they have led to the unintended consequence of increasing isolation among people with respect to their academic peers” (p.79). A primary issue that confronts both students and faculty in online learning environments is the lack of social presence and interaction due to the absence of face-to-face contacts that is readily available in traditional classroom environments (Mayne and Wu 2011). Wang and Woo (2007) found interactivity and communication to be among five main differences between online and face-to-face classroom discussion. While they found discussion in face-to-face classroom to be more interactive and multidirectional, it was seen to be restricted and one-way among the online group. The authors concluded that it was difficult to have two-way interactions in an online environment, especially when participants have limited time. The role of online instructors is not direct teaching of course materials to students, but rather to facilitate learning and enable peer interaction to flourish (Thompson and Ku 2006). Additionally, educators should have the ability to facilitate interactions in online learning environments. For instance, Makri and Kynigos (2007) applied Web log in mathematics course to ensure reflection, discourse and social presence. Huang et al. (2010) suggest the application of blogs in learning as well as sharing of knowledge through blogs. Therefore, the instructors’ ability to maintain the social presence, facilitate and maintain meaningful interactions, and ensure active engagement of students becomes crucial in online learning environments (Mayne and Wu 2011). Technology-based interactions could support and enhance teaching and learning online. Simonson (2000) noted, “The more interaction there is in distance class, the better” (p. 278). Interactions and collaboration are important elements in online learning environments. A critical component of online learning is the interaction of the individual and learning activities between divergent perspectives and shared knowledge building (Puntambekar 2006). Communicative interaction is also a central concern to quality teaching and learning in web-based distance education (Bing and Ai-Ping 2008). However, social network tools, such as wikis, facebook, and blogs are now used to create and cement online social connections (Huang et al. 2010). Further, many studies suggest Web 2.0 trends for new learning model frameworks and devices that can facilitate successful interactive and collaborative online learning. Wang and Woo (2007) reported the use of Blackboard and Weblog as asynchronous online discussion and interactive tool. The Web log for instance supports students’ discussion in asynchronous leaning environment because it allows students to create their self-reported journal, and permits them to add comments to others report. Asynchronous online discussions affords students have ample time to make Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 599 reference to other supporting resources, which helps both in their lesson process and enhances their learning community (Wang and Woo 2007). Interactions and collaboration in online environment also enable students to have access to relevant knowledge from broader scope of resources (Yang and Chen 2008). Mobile blogging system provides an authentic learning atmosphere and is able to solve the coordination issue in a collaborative learning environment (Huang et al. 2009). Finally, besides facilitating student’s active engagement in a lesson, collaboration among online students enhances their academic performance (Kelly et al. 2010). 2 Theoretical framework Three theoretical constructs are defined to provide a theoretical construct of the class project examines in this article. The three significant theoretical constructs are interactivity, social context, and technology (Tu and Corry 2003). Interactivity within online learning setting refers to interactions of learners and instructors. It asserts an incorporation and engagement of learners inside active collaboration activities. A social context refers to a conception of a learner-centered collaboration activities and social learning community. Therefore, a successful online collaborative learning community is one in which members connect and engage intellectually, mentally, socioculturally, and interactively in order to achieve their common learning goals via electronic communication technologies (Tu and Corry 2003). There is evidence to suggest the potential of educational technology to support and enhance knowledge development and knowledge management within online collaborative learning environments. For instance, technology tools help learners to elaborate on what they are thinking and to engage in meaningful learning (Jonassen 2000). Specifically, learners can use technology as intellectual partners to: articulate what they know; reflect on what they have learned; support the internal negotiation of meaning making; construct personal representations of meaning; and support intentional, mindful thinking (Jonassen 2000). Interactivity provides a way to motivate and stimulate online learners. There are three distinctive interactions that exist in online learning environments: Student-tocontent, student-to-interface, and student-to-instructor interactions (Thompson and Ku 2006). Additionally, the quality of interactions will depend on the choice and application of technology tools. Students can work together, achieve and share their understanding, and also co-create knowledge within web-mediated environments. Technology provides a shared working space that is easy for instructors to exchange information with students (Ciges 2001). However, the quality of communication is critical to enhance meaningful interactions between instructors and students in online learning (Woods 2002). Technologies that support learners’ engagement with content and learner-teacher interactions are more likely to provide a successful online learning experience. Two-way Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) that is central to online interactive learning refers to communication tools such as electronic mails, bulletin boards, and real-time discussion boards. These tools are essential for establishing interactions, communications, and relationships between students and teachers. Even so, Tu (2005) argues that CMC has the potential to enhance and inhibit online 600 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 interaction. Rhode (2009) reiterates that “no matter how one defines interaction, based on recent research it is clear that when the level of interaction is inadequate or nonexistent, learners often feel isolated and an overall degradation of the learning experience can take place” (p. 2). 3 Method 3.1 Research questions The study was guided by four research questions: 1. What interactions exist between students and instructors in online learning environments? 2. What challenges do students and instructors face in online learning environments? 3. How do online communicational tools influence interactions between students and instructors in online learning environments? 4. What attitudes do students and instructors harbor toward online learning activities? 3.2 Participants The participants of the study were students and instructors of an undergraduate online course at a public Midwestern University. The course had multiple sections and was facilitated by three instructors. All the instructors were familiar with the online features and instructional functions of the online course. Majority of the students were also familiar with basic functions of the Blackboard Learning site such as uploading/downloading files, sending electronic mail (Email), or posting messages through a discussion board. 3.3 Class project A group project was a major assignment in this course. The group project goal was to enhance students to learn, research, and practice how to integrate new technological systems such as Blogs, Wiki, Google, or smart boards into their future K-12 classrooms successfully. The group project also provided students with opportunities to recognize how to work with their peers in online learning environments. The primary course objective was to encourage students to learn how to integrate various instructional delivery systems, applications of computing, hypermedia and multimedia, or telecommunications technologies in their teaching effectively. 3.4 Student surveys The student survey was created and posted in the website, www.surveymonkey.com. The survey contained 10 short-ended questions that emphasized the significant theoretical constructs: Online interactivity, social context, and technology. The Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 601 surveys explored student background information, their course interests and level of technological skills. The survey results were used to establish appropriate topics that corresponded with the needs and skills of students. 3.5 Procedure The instructors identified and posted on the discussion board information of group members and group projects. Each group was comprised of 2–3 students and required to complete and submit their projects within 4 weeks. Students were asked to complete surveys through the link that was posted on the announcement page of the online course. The invitation contained the link with directions, consent information, and rationale for completing the survey. The survey would take approximately 10–15 min to complete. Participation was voluntary and students were not required to provide any personal information such as their names or contact information in the surveys. The survey results were recorded and stored in safe place. 3.6 Instructor interviews The instructor interviews were set up separately with the professor and teaching assistants after the deadline of the student group assignments. The instructors were provided with questions to review before the researchers interviewed them. The interviews explored the attitudes of instructors and interactions between students and instructors within the online course. The interviews were recorded by digital recorders and kept in protected digital storage devices. 3.7 Observations The researchers observed discussion boards and electronic mails from students and instructors in the course to find out the interactions between students and instructors. For the discussion boards, the researchers asked permission from the instructors to access the online and make observations, and collect student and instructor comments and feedbacks from the discussion boards every week. The collected data was converted into digital formats and stored in protected digital storage devices. For the electronic mails, the researchers requested instructors to forward to researchers’ email accounts copies of all electronic mails that students send to them during the 4 weeks that they were working on the group projects. The data from electronic mails were collected and stored in protected digital storage devices as well. The researchers were the only people that accessed and reviewed the data from the two sources. 4 Findings 4.1 Response to question: What interactions exist between students and instructors in online learning environments? Discussion board was the center of information of student group projects. It was the place that the instructors provided the significant information about group projects for 602 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 students such as the direction of assignment, rubrics, topic and lists of student group members. The discussion board was also the location that instructors posted group links for students in order to be the place that allowed the students to discuss, share information, and contact with their team members and the instructors. The instructors did not require the students to use the group link to discuss their project. However, it was only the option for the students to use for interactions. During the 4 weeks, the results from observations showed that the students did not often use the discussion board or group links to share or contact their team members and instructors. In one course section, the discussion board was silent. There were no comments or postings from students through the group links. The researchers found out that the discussion board only contained the information about the group projects and there was no evidence that represented interactions between the students and instructors. In one section of the online course, the researchers found out that there was only one student group that used the group link within discussion board for discussions and to share information on their group project. Most topics that were posted on the link revealed only student-to-student interactions within the group. The student surveys data revealed that the students, who participated within the surveys, used electronic mails to contact with instructors. The occurrences that students contacted instructors were varied. Approximately 42 % of students, contacted instructor once a month, 37.82 % of students contacted the instructors once a week and 12.9 % of them contacted the instructors less than 3 times per week. Only 6.5 % of the students had never communicated with instructors during the time that they were working on group projects. Only one student in the surveys stated that he/ she used wikis, besides electronic mails, to contact instructors. 4.2 Response to question: What challenges do students and instructors face in online learning environments? A big challenge that the students faced completing their project had to do with communication issues among group members. There are three categories related to this issue: & & & Schedules: Most of students who participated in the surveys declared that they had different times to meet or discuss about their projects together because everyone had different schedules. The apparent keywords that the researchers found from the student comments were “difficult, different, and busy schedules.” No responses: Many students reported having a big problem communicating with some of their teammates who never contacted or responded to their emails. The keyword that the researcher found was “no or never respond/response.” Not getting familiar with partners: Many of student responded in the surveys that they experiences a hard time working with the teammates who they considered to be “strangers.” The apparent keywords that the researcher found was “don’t know.” In contrast to the results from the instructor interviews, the instructors reported that there were no particular challenges faced while they were working on group projects with the students. The instructors described having prior online teaching experiences. As a result, many of the student concerns seemed very familiar and could be handled Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 603 easily—the instructors had some experience dealing with similar problems encountered in online learning environments. 4.3 Response to question: How do online communicational tools influence interactions between students and instructors in online learning environments? The findings showed that an electronic mail was the primary communication tool that online students used for contacting instructors and it influenced interactions between the students and instructors during the time that they worked together on online group projects. The data from observations suggested that the group links that were provided in the discussion boards did not influence interactions and relationship between the students and instructors in the online course. The findings also indicated that many students did not use group links to contact their instructors. Evidently, electronic mail commonly used by students used to communicate with the instructors. In terms of interactions, the data from student surveys showed that approximately 42 % of students who participated in the surveys sent electronic mails to contact the instructor once a month, 37.82 % of students sent electronic mails to contact the instructor once a week, and 12.9 % of them sent electronic mails to contact the instructors less than 3 times per week. 95 % of students explained that an electronic mail was the most convenient and flexible way that they used to communicate with their teammates and instructors. The data showed that the students understood the content and also completed their projects by communicating with instructors via email. The results relate to that of Davis and Resta (2002) in which they described that the effectiveness of email on novice teachers’ sustained efforts in their online collaborative projects throughout 3 years. Overbaugh (2002) also supported that an electronic mailing was an efficient way to communicate with and among groups and also could improve reflective and critical thinking of students. The students only contacted the instructors when they had questions or problems related to their group projects. 4.4 Response to question: What attitudes do students and instructors harbor toward online learning activities? The findings showed that the online group projects did not create social context or social learning community to students within the courses. The results indicated that the students declined the online collaborative learning activity because they believed that the project was not useful and also wasted their time. The surveys also revealed that the group project was difficult for them to complete. The main reasons were that all the students lived in different locations and had different schedules to login to the Internet in order to discuss their projects with their peers. 4.5 Student attitudes The results of student surveys showed that most of the students had strong negative attitudes toward online group projects. There were several reasons that made students dislike the online collaborative learning activity. The researchers identified two categories related to the reasons for the dislike concerns: (a) Useless: Most of students 604 Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 believed that the activity was not useful and also wasted their time; and (b) Difficult: Many students felt that the group project was difficult and hard for them to complete because they lived in different locations and also had different schedules to connect to internet. Many students reported that they took the online course because they wanted to work individually. However, one student indicated having a positive attitude toward online collaborative learning group activity as indicated in this statement: “I think it was good to learn how to do this project because there are so many ways that you can use online collaboration in teaching.” 4.6 Instructor attitudes The instructors had different attitudes from that of the students. They stated that they had positive attitudes toward the online collaborative learning activity. They said that they did not see or have any problems from the students when they worked together. They stated that the group project was successful in which all of the students completed and submit their projects on time. Most of students completed high quality projects that contained all elements that the instructors needed. Additionally, the instructors reported that they felt comfortable working with all of the students, and also knew how to handle them and help them to complete the projects. 5 Recommendations The findings indicated that an electronic mail was the primary tool that enhanced student learning. Kim (2008) reported obvious benefits of email that included efficiency, convenience, and cost when used in a variety of instructional contexts. Therefore, there is need for instructors to explore alternative and effective ways to interact with students to maximize student learning. This study also identified multiple student identified challenges to group work in an online course. Therefore, instructors can anticipate these challenges when they design and implement an online course by focusing on developing ongoing facilitation of group work and implementing online tools such as a wiki tool that can develop a group project more successfully. The study findings also indicated that majority of the students declined the online collaborative learning activity because they believed that it was not a useful project and was also difficult to complete. Therefore, there is need for instructors to collaborate with their learners to identify appropriate course projects that enhances online collaborative learning environment. Planning is an important factor in any successful discussion and interactions in online environment. To avoid an unnecessary miscommunication and confusion among students, online tutors would need to plan ahead as to how they are going to organize online discussion. For instance, they would need to clearly determine how students will be put into online discussion groups, to avoid the temptation of some students joining wrong groups (Wang and Woo 2007). In grouping students, online instructors need to consider the fact that some prefer dynamic group formation to automatic group formation (Yang and Chen 2008, p. 48). They also need to consider the potential impact of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning (Janssen et al. 2009). Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 605 It is also important that instructors and group leaders make sure that questions for discussions in online environments are specific. Specific questions enable students to provide responses in a timely manner and have more time for deeper discussions, reflections, and interactions (Wang and Woo 2007). In asynchronous online environment, students may not be able to get ready clarifications from others; therefore, any ambiguity in the question is likely to impede students’ successful participation (Wang and Woo 2007). It is also important for online instructors to use appropriate models and example to facilitate students’ interaction and collaboration. Due to geographical barriers, interaction and collaboration might be difficult without proper understanding of the learning process. 6 Conclusion Online learning involves a complex process that considers the richness of interactions between instructors to online students and online students to online students (Salmoni and Gonzalez 2008). Online collaborative learning environment serves a unique function that connects and encourages learners to interact and also create their communities within an online setting (Cameron et al. 2009). Therefore, online instructors should strive to create successful interactive online learning environments that might lead to these benefits: opportunities for participants to share their knowledge and expertise; opportunities for participants to discuss, plan, reflect on and explore learning issues; increased inspiration, innovation and motivation amongst participants; increased social contact between individuals from differing backgrounds; a reduction in feelings of isolation; and increased access to shared resources (Petropouloua et al. 2010). Mayne and Wu (2011) offer the following strategies to help instructors establish effective social presence in online learning environments: & & & & & & & & & & & Personal email contact by instructor with request for student information as early as 2 weeks before semester begins Early course availability with invitation and opportunity to “look around” and ask questions In addition to instructor information, an “About Me” section with biographical and personal information/pictures from instructor Announcement with “Begin Here” instructions on course flow, links to helpful tutorials, “help links” Inclusive and complete syllabus with timelines, due dates, course expectations, learner’s role, instructor’s role Contingency plans for problems and issues Library links and direct access to library liaison Rubrics for evaluation of assignments, self-evaluation rubrics Extensive Resource Section for students to access as needed Groups formed based on student-submitted information about clinical interest and work experience Use of an instructor-designed “seating chart” with specific and personal information about students and groups that is used with all asynchronous interactions 606 & & Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 Use of ungraded “pre-lesson” with feedback to facilitate group work “Coffee Shop” that is “off limits” to instructor References Bing, W., & Ai-Ping, T. (2008). The influence of national culture toward learner’s interaction in the online learning environment: A comparative analysis of Shanghai TV University (China) and Wawasan Open University (Malaysia). The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3), 327–339. Cameron, B. A., Morgan, K., & Williams, K. C. (2009). Group projects: Student perceptions of the relationship between social tasks and sense of community in online group work. The American Journal of Distance Education, 23, 20–33. Ciges, A. S. (2001). Online learning: New educational environment in order to respect cultural diversity through cooperative strategies. Intercultural Education, 12(2), 135–174. Davis, B. H., & Resta, V. K. (2002). Online collaboration: Supporting novice teachers as researchers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 101–117. Dobbs, R. R., Waid, C. A., & Carmen, A. D. (2009). Students’ perceptions of online courses: The effect of online course experience. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 9–26. Huang, Y.-M., Jeng, Y.-L., & Huang, T.-C. (2009). An educational mobile blogging system for supporting collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 163–175. Huang, J. J. S., Yang, S. J. H., Huang, Y.-M., & Hsiao, I. Y. T. (2010). Social learning networks: Build mobile learning networks based on collaborative services. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 78–92. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2009). Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 161–170. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc. Kelly, D., Baxter, J.S., & Anderson, A. (2010). Engaging first-year students through online collaborative assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 535–548. Kim, M. C. (2008). Using email to enable e3 (effective, efficient, and engaging) learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 187–198. Leonard, J., & Guha, S. (2001). Education at the crossroads: Online teaching and students’ perspective on distance learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 52–57. Lyons, A., Reysen, S., & Pierce, L. (2012). Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and social presence in online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 181–186. Makri, K., & Kynigos, C. (2007). The role of Blogs in studying the discourse and social practices of mathematics teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 73–84. Mayne, L. A., & Wu, Q. (2011). Creating and measuring social presence in online graduate nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 110–114. Overbaugh, R. C. (2002). Undergraduate education majors’ discourse on an electronic mailing list. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 117–138. Petropouloua, O., Altanis, I., Retalis, S., Nicolaou, C. A., Kannas, C., Vasiliadou, M., & Pattis, I. (2010). Building a tool to help teachers analyze learners’ interactions in a networked learning environment. Educational Media International, 47(3), 231–246. Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computer and Education, 47, 332–351. Rhode, J. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1–23. Retrieved from ERIC database. Salmoni, A. J., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2008). Online collaborative learning: Quantifying how people learn together online. Medical Teacher, 30, 710–716. Simonson, M. (2000). Myths and distance education: What the research says (and does not). The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(1), 277–279. Thompson, L., & Ku, H. Y. (2006). A case study of online collaborative learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 361–375. Tu, C. H. (2005). From presentation to interaction: new goals for online learning technologies. Educational Media International, 42(3), 189–206. Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:597–607 607 Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2003). Building active online interaction via a collaborative learning community. Computer in the Schools, 20(3), 51–59. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2006.00621.x. Woods, R. H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners’ perceptions of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 377–394. Yang, S. J. H., & Chen, I. Y. L. (2008). A social network-based system for supporting interactive collaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 66, 36–50.