PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2019, Vol. 14(4) 201-217

Social Presence Techniques and Strategies in a Blended Course: Student Satisfaction and Suggestions

Serkan İzmirli & Özden Şahin İzmirli

pp. 201 - 217   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2019.220.12   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1912-04-0004.R1

Published online: December 29, 2019  |   Number of Views: 63  |  Number of Download: 253


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine student satisfaction and suggestions for social presence techniques and strategies in a blended course. Phenomenological research design was used in the study. Participants of this study were 22 senior undergraduate students at a public university in Turkey. A blended course was offered to students, including both face-to-face and online elements. An online course, including techniques for establishing social presence, was designed and developed in the Moodle learning management system (LMS). Adobe Connect was used for online live lessons. Techniques and strategies used in the study included course orientation videos, audio-visual meetings, providing frequent and detailed feedback, limiting class size, using sense of humor, using emoticons, addressing students by name, sharing personal stories and experiences, expressing agreement or disagreement, asking questions and inviting responses, and giving greetings. Students attended the course, which lasted a term. After the course, a form with open-ended questions was administered to the 22 students. A focus group interview was then performed with seven student volunteers. In the analysis of this qualitative data, descriptive and content analysis techniques were used. According to the findings, students were highly satisfied with the course. Students had positive opinions for each online course design technique and participant strategy. They thought that “providing frequent and detailed feedback” and “asking questions and inviting responses” were the strategies that contributed most to establish social presence. Although knowing other students and the instructor from face-to-face class brought some disadvantages, it contributed to social presence in general and facilitated it in online class. Students offered new techniques and strategies to establish social presence. These were “presentation in online live class”, “using teaching methods and techniques that enable group work”, “conducting individual live meetings with students (guidance)”, “rewarding”, and “using 3D virtual environments in online live class”.

Keywords: Social presence, social presence techniques and strategies, satisfaction, blended course


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Izmirli, S. & Izmirli, O.S. (2019). Social Presence Techniques and Strategies in a Blended Course: Student Satisfaction and Suggestions . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), 201-217. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2019.220.12

Harvard
Izmirli, S. and Izmirli, O. (2019). Social Presence Techniques and Strategies in a Blended Course: Student Satisfaction and Suggestions . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), pp. 201-217.

Chicago 16th edition
Izmirli, Serkan and Ozden Sahin Izmirli (2019). "Social Presence Techniques and Strategies in a Blended Course: Student Satisfaction and Suggestions ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 14 (4):201-217. doi:10.29329/epasr.2019.220.12.

References
  1. Aargon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New directions for adult and continuing education, 100, 57–68. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning contexts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1834-1838. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cameron, J. & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cho, Y. H., Yim, S. Y., & Paik, S. (2015). Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-play for pre-service teachers. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 70-77. [Google Scholar]
  5. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd Ed.). California: Sage.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Dunlap, J. C. & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2).  [Google Scholar]
  7. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. [Google Scholar]
  8. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-12. [Google Scholar]
  11. Izmirli, S. (2017). Can we use Facebook groups to establish social presence in online courses?. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 9(4), 173-182. [Google Scholar]
  12. Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356-369. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jusoff, K. & Khodabandelou, R. (2009). Preliminary study on the role of social presence in blended learning environment in higher education. International Education Studies, 2(4), 79-83. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lowenthal, P.R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2018). Investigating students’ perceptions of instructional strategies to establish social presence. Distance Education, 39(3), 281-298. [Google Scholar]
  15. Orellana, A. (2006). Class size and interaction in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 229–248. [Google Scholar]
  16. Oyarzun, B., Barreto, D., & Conklin, S. (2018). Instructor social presence effects on learner social presence, achievement, and satisfaction. TechTrends, 62(6), 625-634. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pollard, H., Minor, M., & Swanson, A. (2014). Instructor social presence within the community of inquiry framework and its impact on classroom community and the learning environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2). [Google Scholar]
  18. Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256-297. [Google Scholar]
  19. Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417. [Google Scholar]
  20. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-16. [Google Scholar]
  23. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  24. So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336. [Google Scholar]
  25. Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp, 147-164). London: Kogan. [Google Scholar]
  26. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tomei, L. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. International Journal for Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 39-50. [Google Scholar]
  28. Topu, F. B., Reisoğlu, İ., Yılmaz, T. K., & Göktaş, Y. (2018). Information retention’s relationships with flow, presence and engagement in guided 3D virtual environments. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1621-1637. [Google Scholar]
  29. Weegar, M. A., & Pacis, D. (2012). A Comparison of two theories of learning-behaviorism and constructivism as applied to face-to-face and online learning. In Proceedings e-leader conference. Manila. [Google Scholar]
  30. Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning, 19(2). [Google Scholar]
  31. Xie, K., Lu, L., Cheng, S. L., & Izmirli, S. (2017). The interactions between facilitator identity, conflictual presence, and social presence in peer-moderated online collaborative learning. Distance Education, 38(2), 230-244. [Google Scholar]