Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 661–685 | Cite as

Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Nowadays, online learning has become a popular option for students because of its flexibility and more online programs are customized to students’ needs. Among all the factors that affect students’ online learning experience, social presence is worth much study considering the asynchronous nature of online learning and communication issues between online instructors and students. This paper reviews the origin, major definitions of social presence and research studies throughout history. Authors also document arguments of the optimal amount of social presence and provide instructional design suggestions for the development of online social presence. Further trends for social presence studies are also proposed at the end of the article.

Keywords

Online learning Social presence Instructional design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  3. Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 100, 57–68. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arbaugh, J. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 9–21.Google Scholar
  6. Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arkoudis, S. (2006). Teaching international students: Strategies to enhance learning. Mebourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  9. Barkhi, R., Jacob, V. S., & Pirkul, H. (1999). An experimental analysis of face to face versus computer mediated communication channels. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8(4), 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 298–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. (1995). Computer-Mediated communication and the online classroom: Vol. 3. Distance learning. Cresskill: Hampton.Google Scholar
  12. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: Embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved from http://mindlab.msu.edu/biocca/index_files/Page507.htm
  13. Biocca, F. (1999). The Cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Human Factors in Information Technology, 13(1), 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biocca, F., & Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the networked minds theory measure. In F. R. Gouveia & F. Biocca (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on presence 2002 (pp. 7–36). Porto: University Fernando Pessoa.Google Scholar
  15. Biocca, F., Burgoon, J., Harms, C., & Stoner, M. (2001). Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence. Paper presented at the Fourth International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Gregg, J. (2001). The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. Paper presented at the 4th International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  17. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burgoon, J., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L. (1995). Developmental differences between distributed and face-to-face groups in electronically supported meeting environments: An exploratory investigation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(3), 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Byam, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Carlson, S. (2004). Online-education survey finds unexpectedly high enrollment growth. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, 14.Google Scholar
  22. Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), 39–41.Google Scholar
  23. Christophel, D. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Costa, M., Dinsbach, W., Manstead, A. S. R., & Bitti, P. E. R. (2001). Social presence, embarrassment, and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(4), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Bruyn, L. L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  30. Driver, M. (2002). Exploring student perceptions of group interaction and class satisfaction in the web-enhanced classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 35–45.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–136.Google Scholar
  32. Durlak, J. (1987). A typology for interactive media. Communication yearbook, 10, 743–757.Google Scholar
  33. Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich.Google Scholar
  34. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance Education. Open Learning, 12(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (pp. 47–58). Needham: The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  36. Garrison, D., & Arbaugh, J. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Garton, L., & Wellman, B. (1995). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review of the research literature. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 434–453). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Gibbons, F. X., & Wright, R. A. (1981). Motivational biases in causal attributions of arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 588–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gorham, J., & Zakahi, W. R. (1990). A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: Monitoring process and product. Communication Education, 39(4), 354–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R. A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16–25). Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2006). The impact of infusing social presence in the web interface: An investigation across product types. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(2), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hassanein, K., Head, M., & Ju, C. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of the impact of social presence on website trust, usefulness and enjoyment. International Journal of Electronic Business, 7(6), 625–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hauber, J., Regenbrecht, H., Hills, A., Cockburn, A., & Billinghurst, M. (2005). Social presence in two- and three-dimensional videoconferencing. In M. Slater (Ed.), Proceedings of 8th annual international workshop on presence 2005 (pp. 189–198). London: University College London.Google Scholar
  48. Haugen, S., LaBarre, J., & Melrose, J. (2001). Online course delivery: Issues and challenges. Issues in Information Systems, 2, 127–131.Google Scholar
  49. Hiltz, S. R. (1990). Evaluating the virtual classroom. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 133–184). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  50. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computers. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. IJsselsteijn, W., Van Baren, J., & Van Lanen, F. (2003). Staying in touch: Social presence and connectedness through synchronous and asynchronous communication media. In C. Stephanidis & J. Jacko (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Theory and practice (pp. 924–928). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Jezegou, A. (2010). Community of Inquiry en e-learning: À propos du modèle de Garrison et d'Anderson. (French). Journal of Distance Education, 24(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  54. Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information Management, 35(4), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kear, K. (2010). Social presence in online learning communities. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  56. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Wendt-Wasco, N. J. (1985). Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes. Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kehrwald, B. A. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Keil, M., & Johnson, R. D. (2002). Feedback channels: Using social presence theory to compare voice mail to e-mail. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(4), 295–302.Google Scholar
  59. Kemp, J., Morrison, G., & Ross, S. (1998). Designing effective instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Merrill.Google Scholar
  60. Kenny, A. (2002). Online learning: Enhancing nurse education? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(2), 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512–1520.Google Scholar
  62. King, J., Walpole, C., & Lamon, K. (2007). Surf and turf wars online–growing implications of Internet gang violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kirkbride, P., Tang, S., & Westwood, R. (1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: Cultural and psychological influences. Organization Studies, 12(3), 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kraut, R. E., Lewis, S. H., & Swezey, L. W. (1982). Listener responsiveness and the coordination of conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lahaie, U. (2007). Strategies for creating social presence online. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 100–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  68. Lowenthal, P., & Wilson, B. (2010). Labels do matter! A critique of AECT’s redefinition of the field. TechTrends, 54(1), 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Luan, W. S., Fung, N. S., Nawawi, M., & Hong, T. S. (2005). Experienced and inexperienced Internet users among preservice teachers: Their use and attitudes toward the Internet. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 90–103.Google Scholar
  70. Madden, M. (2006). Internet penetration and impact. Pew Internet & American Life Project Data Memo. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/182/report_display.asp.
  71. McArthur, L. Z., & Solomon, L. K. (1978). Perceptions of an aggressive encounter as a function of the victim’s salience and the perceiver’s arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1278–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45(3), 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Meyen, E. L., Aust, R., Gauch, J. M., Hinton, H. S., Isaacson, R. E., Smith, S. J., et al. (2002). E-Learning: A programmatic research construct for the future. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 37–46.Google Scholar
  74. Millard, M. (2010). Analysis of Interaction in an Asynchronous CMC Environment. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, April 26-27th, 2010, Raleigh, NC: US.Google Scholar
  75. Neuman, Y., & Bekerman, Z. (2000). Cultural resources and the gap between educational theory and practice. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Newhagen, J. E., & Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A dialogue. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/rafaeli.html
  77. Oliver, R. (1999). Exploring strategies for online teaching and learning. Distance Education, 20, 240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Oreilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 1(1), 17. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008839.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  79. Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language, Learning and Technology, 7(3), 119–140.Google Scholar
  80. Perse, E. I., Burton, P., Kovner, E., Lears, M. E., & Sen, R. J. (1992). Predicting computer-mediated communication in a college class. Communication Research Reports, 9(2), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 24.Google Scholar
  82. Reio, T. G., & Crim, S. J. (2006). The emergence of social presence as an overlooked factor in asynchronous online learning. Retrieved on January 23, 2007, from ERIC database.Google Scholar
  83. Rettie, R. (2003). Connectedness, awareness, and social presence. Paper presented at the 6th International Presence Workshop, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  84. Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451–484.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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
  86. Riva, G., & Galimberti, C. (1998). Computer-mediated communication: Identity and social interaction in an electronic environment. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124(4), 434–463.Google Scholar
  87. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.Google Scholar
  88. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 54–62.Google Scholar
  90. Sallnas, E. L. (2005). Effects of communication mode on social presence, virtual presence, and performance in collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(4), 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Pelz, W. (2003). A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 61–80.Google Scholar
  92. Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of transactional presence. Open Learning, 17(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  94. Smith, A. L. (2011). IPhone application creation and development. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/?iPhone-Application-Creation-And-Development&id=5862911
  95. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1998). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Merrill.Google Scholar
  96. 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 in Education, 51(1), 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Spizzica, M. (1997). Cultural differences within “Western” and “Eastern” education. In Z. Golebiowski & H. Borland (Eds.), Academic communication across disciplines and cultures (pp. 248–257). Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology.Google Scholar
  98. Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: Networking learners at a distance. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Straub, D. W. (1994). The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-mail and fax in Japan and the U.S. Information Systems Research, 5(1), 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Swan, K. (2002). Building communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online course discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147–164). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  102. Swan, K., & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.Google Scholar
  103. Swan, K., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-mentor, 2(24). Retrieved from http://www.ementor.edu.pl/e_index.php?numer=24&all=1
  104. Tammelin, M. (1998). From telepresence to social presence: The role of presence in a network-based learning environment. In S. Tella (Ed.), Aspects of media education: Strategic imperatives in the information age (pp. 219–231). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  105. Tu, C. H. (2000a). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online class (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 731797221).Google Scholar
  106. Tu, C. (2000b). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tu, C. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tu, C. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34–45.Google Scholar
  109. Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for Web-based learning. Educational Media International, 37(2), 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, trans.). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  112. Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Walther, J. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21(4), 460–487.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Walther, J., & Burgoon, J. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Warkentin, M., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  117. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  118. Williams, E. A., Duray, R., & Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 592–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task participation and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Yoo, Y., Kanawattanachai, P., & Citurs, A. (2002). Forging into the wired wilderness: A case study of a technology-mediated distributed discussionbased class. Journal of Management Education, 26, 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional Design and TechnologyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Yantai UniversityYantai, ShandongChina

Personalised recommendations