Effects of learner-to-learner interactions on social presence, achievement and satisfaction

Abstract

One current focus of research regarding online courses concentrates on identifying effective design and delivery methodologies. This non-experimental comparative research study investigated two types of learner-to-learner interaction techniques: designed and contextual interactions and their effects on learner achievement, social presence, interaction quality and learning satisfaction in online asynchronous courses. Designed interactions have a high level of collaborative/cooperative instructional intent. Contextual interactions provide the opportunity for interaction but have little or no collaborative/cooperative instructional intent. Results indicate designed interactions or interactions that have high levels of collaborative/cooperative intent positively affect learner achievement and satisfaction. Results also indicate that a high level of instructor social presence has positive effects on student achievement and learning satisfaction. The results continue to reveal that a high level of interactive quality significantly affects levels of instructor and learner social presence as well as learner satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Alderman, B. (2005). The role of interaction in enhancing achievement and student satisfaction in an online course: A rubric analysis. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-learn: world conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education 2005 (pp. 214–219). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf.

  3. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.

  6. Bol, L., & Garner, J. K. (2011). Challenges in supporting self-regulation in distance education environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 104–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonnell, K. H., Katz, B. A., & Evey, J. A. (2009). Asynchronous communication in distance learning programs. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 28(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewer, S. A., & Klein, J. D. (2004). Small group learning in an online asynchronous environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL.

  10. Fulford, C., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Grandzol, C. J., & Grandzol, J. R. (2010). Interaction in online courses: More is not always better. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1995). An examination of teaching and learning processes in distance education and implications for designing instruction. In M. F. Beaudoin (Ed.), Distance education symposium 3: Instruction (Vol. 12, pp. 51–63). ACSDE Research Monograph. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

  14. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, G. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 50(4), 46–53. doi:10.1007/s11528-006-0046-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kiriakidis, P., & Parker, A. (2008). Faculty and learner interaction in online courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(11), 17–55.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16–39.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521. doi:10.3102/00346543071003449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mykota, D., & Duncan, R. (2007). Learner characteristics as predictors of online social presence. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(1), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oncu, S., & Ozdilek, Z. (2013). Learning with peers: An interdisciplinary comparative study of learner interaction and satisfaction on an instructional design course. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1251–1261.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from cyberspace to the classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Panitz, T. (1996) Collaborative versus cooperative learningA comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Cape Cod Community College, peninsula, Massachusetts, USA. Retrieved February 2016. http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm.

  27. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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), n2.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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 

  30. Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive in distance courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2015). Factors affecting perceived learning, satisfaction, and quality in the online MBA: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Education for Business, 90(6), 296–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, J. E. (2005). Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Thurmand, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tu, C. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Weiner, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth Oyarzun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oyarzun, B., Stefaniak, J., Bol, L. et al. Effects of learner-to-learner interactions on social presence, achievement and satisfaction. J Comput High Educ 30, 154–175 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9157-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Learner-to-learner interaction
  • Online asynchronous learning
  • Social presence
  • Achievement
  • Learner satisfaction
  • Collaborative learning
  • Cooperative learning