Teaching Presence in Online Courses
Published: April 25, 2015 by Sue Alman
After being an online instructor for nearly 13 years with a wealth of anecdotal “evidence” to suggest strategies for engaging students in active learning, I was part of an investigative team that conducted a comparative research study using the Community of Inquiry (COI) survey. The results of the study provided data to suggest that teaching presence–one of the elements in the COI–has a positive effect on learning outcomes and student satisfaction in online courses.
Students in online courses do not have the advantage of seeing their instructor as do students in a face-to-face setting. There are, however, many ways in which an instructor can be “visible” to students through active participation in synchronous or asynchronous discussions, timely feedback, office hours, posting announcements, and video recordings.
The Community of Inquiry (COI) is a concept that refers to a group consisting of an instructor and class of students engaged in learning and/or inquiry. The COI concept was developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer in 2000. (See The Community of Inquiry Framework Ten Years Later.) The Community of Inquiry is a constructivist model that identifies social presence, cognitive presence and teaching presence to “define, describe and measure elements supporting the development of online learning communities.” (Swan and Ice, 2010)
Teaching Presence: A Short Review of the Literature*
Teaching presence is the professional, instructional relationship instructors have with their students. Whether the course is online or on-campus, instructors serve a fundamental leadership role in facilitating and managing the course. In online learning, faculty are often described as “the guide on the side” rather than the “sage on the stage.” Lewenthal and Parscal (2008) emphasized that the “guide on the side” cliché should not mean the instructor is absent or uninvolved in the course. In online education, as in traditional campus courses, teaching presence is important because it has been positively correlated with student motivation, satisfaction, and learning (Swan and Shih, 2005). In fact, Swan (2001) concluded that interaction with instructors led to higher student satisfaction and perceived learning than interaction with peers.
Within the context of online learning, teaching presence is defined as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson, Rouke, Garrison, and Archer, 2001, p. 24). Anderson et al. (2001) described teaching presence as having three main components: (a) instructional design and organization, (b) facilitating discourse, and © direct instruction.
In particular, instructional design had the greatest impact with well-designed courses leading to high levels of student reported satisfaction and learning.
Teaching presence is enhanced by what Moore (1990) called “transactional distance,” or the amount of dialogue that takes place between teacher and learner and how much structure the class provides. Moore (1993) defined transactional distance as the “psychological and communications space to be crossed” (p. 22) by instructors and students who are geographically separated. Under Moore’s model, a highly distant online classroom would feature very little dialogue between teacher and student and very little structure. The opposite, much dialogue and high structure, would offer the least distance (Garrison, 2000; Moore, 1990; Stein and Wanstreet, 2003).
Students value both social and teaching presence in online courses. In fact, it is the teaching presence that seems to link the social presence to the cognitive presence or deep learning that occurs in a course. In particular, students value meaningful dialogue and timely feedback from their instructors (Scollin-Mantha, 2008). Students with high overall perceptions of social presence also scored high in their perceived learning and perceived satisfaction with their instructor (Richardson and Swan, 2003). Research on teacher immediacy behaviors took into account many of the same factors as teaching and social presence. For example, both the quality and quantity of student participation can improve with greater teacher immediacy such as using student names, encouragement, and humor (Lobry de Bruyn, 2004). When compared to high teacher immediacy behaviors, Rifkind (1992) related a lack of immediacy to lower levels of affective student learning, higher levels of student frustration, and a more critical attitude demonstrated by the instructor.
Anderson et al. (2001) identified strategies to develop teaching presence based on the three components of instructional design, discourse facilitation, and direct instruction. Effective instructional design strategies included communicating detailed instructions and clear outcomes. Facilitating discourse in a learning community involved engaging students in meaningful dialogue, acknowledging student contributions, and helping students to reach consensus. Examples of direct or guided instruction included the instructor focusing or summarizing discussions, interjecting material from additional sources, and confirming understanding.
In additional strategies to facilitate effective online learning environments, Wheeler (2005) recommended that faculty respond to students with comprehensive, encouraging messages and feedback sent in a timely manner. Many faculty begin a course with student introductions and model the behaviors that they want students to emulate. To build a teaching and learning community, McInnerney and Roberts (2004) recommend timely synchronous communication in addition to asynchronous communication.
How to Promote Teaching Presence
There are many techniques to increase teaching presence as advocated by Quality Matters and Sloan-C. In 2012 SLIS used the Sloan-C Quality Scorecard to assess and measure the quality of our online programs. Our School’s online programs received a score in the exemplary range according to the Sloan-C Quality Scorecard. Teaching and Learning is one of the nine areas of quality, and SLIS noted some of the ways in which instructors use specific strategies to create a presence in the course:
• Instructors all provide a welcome message at the beginning of the class.
• Instructors are required to use a variety of teaching methods: lectures (which can be delivered live via web conferencing; recorded via web conferencing or Adobe Presenter or Panopto); written up via word documents. Instructors are also required to participate in the discussion forums; and respond within 48 hours to all student questions. They are also required to provide individual feedback to assignments.
• Also Standard 3. Instructor Contribution to Course Content and Student Learning of the SLIS Online Teaching Standards and Indicators. http://slisweb.sjsu.edu/downloads/SLIS_Online_Teaching_Standards.pdf
There is not a proscribed way to establish teaching presence so instructors can select the methods that are most appropriate for the course. The bibliography includes sources that discuss each of the elements of COI and suggestions to implement techniques in the online classroom.
* Excerpts of this entry were taken from: Alman, Susan W., Barbara A. Frey, and Christinger Tomer. Social and Cognitive Presence as Factors in Learning and Student Retention: An Investigation of the Cohort Model in an iSchool Setting. J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 53, No. 4—(Fall) October 2012.
1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/pdf/v5n2_anderson.pdf
2. Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 12(5), 40-56.
3. Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C., Shea, P. Swan, K. (2007). Community of inquiry framework: Validation and instrument development. Paper presented at the 13th annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning, Orlando, FL.
4. Argyle and Dean (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28, 289-
5. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57-68.
6. Beldarrrian, Y. (2007, August). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2).
7. Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/2/22
8. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and 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.
9. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2003). A Theory of Critical Inquiry in Online Distance Education in Moore, M. G. and Anderson W. G. (Eds).Handbook of Distance Education, London: LEA.
10. Garrison, D.R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online education: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
11. Garrison, D.H. (2011). A Response to David Annand – Social Presence within the
a. Community of Inquiry Framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2011. Community of Inquiry http://www.communitiesofinquiry.org
12. Greenlee, B.J. and Karanxha, Z. (2010). A Study of Group Dynamics in Educational Leadership Cohort and Non-Cohort Groups, Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5 (11), 358-382.
13. GunawardenaC.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 2/3), 147-166.
14. Gunawardena, C.N. & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
15. Jolivette, B.J. (2006). Social presence and its relevancy to cognitive and affective learning in an asynchronous distance learning environment: A preliminary literature review. Texas A&M, 533-539. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019…
16. Kazmer, M.M. (2007). How do students experiences differ in online LIS programs with and without a residency. Library Quarterly. 77 (4), pp. 359-383.
17. Kearns, L.R., & Frey, B. A. (2010). Web 2.0 Technologies and back channel
a. communication in an online learning community. TechTrends, 54(4), 41-51.
18. Lewenthal. P.R. & Parscal,T. (2008). Teaching presence. The Learning Curve, 3(4), 1-
a. 2; 4.
19. Maurino, P.S.M. (2007). Looking for critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35 (3), 241-260.
20. McInnerney, J. & Roberts, T.S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community, Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 73-81.
21. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance Education. In D.Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research on educational communications and technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Scholastic Press.
22. Moore, M.G. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. Open Learning. 5(3), 10-15.
23. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge.
24. Newberry, B. (2001). Raising student social presence in online classes. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 466 611.
25. Nunez, Y.S. (2005). Assessing faculty’s social presence indicators in online courses. Focus IV, 1, 47-49.
26. Pribesh, S., Dickinson, G.K. and Bucher, K.T. (2006). A comparison of online and face-to-face cohorts in a school library media specialist graduate program: A preliminary study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47 (4), 303-323.
27. Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination, In S.G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 164-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Richardson, J.C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to student perceived learning and satisfaction. 7 (1), p. 66-88.
29. Rifkind, L. J. (1992). Immediacy is a predictor of teacher effectiveness in the
a. instructional television classroom. Journal of Interactive Television, 1(1), 31-38.
30. Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3 (1). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26468259_Building_Sense_of_Community_at_a_Distance
31. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing, Journal of Distance Education, 16 (2), 1-14.
32. Savery, J.R. (2005). BE VOCAL: Characteristics of successful online instructors. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(2), 141-152. Retreived from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/4.2.6.pdf
33. Scollins-Mantha, B. (2008). Cultivating social presence in the online learning classroom: A literature review with recommendations for practice. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 5 (3), 23-38.
34. Short, J., William, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley and Sons.
35. Stacey, E. (2002). Social presence online: Networking learners at a distance. Education and Information Technologies, 7 (4), 287-294.
36. Stein, D. & Wanstreet, C. (2003). Role of social presence, choice of online or face-to-face group format, and satisfaction with perceived knowledge gained in a distance learning environment. Paper presented at the 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult Continuing and Community Education, 193-198.
37. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306-331.
38. 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.
39. Tisdell, Elizabeth J., Strohschen, Gabriele I.E., Carver, Mary Lynn, Corrigan, Pam,
40. Nash, Janet, Nelson, Mary, Royer, Mike, Strom-Mackey, Robin, O’Connor,
a. Marguerite. (2004). Cohort Learning Online in Graduate Higher Education:
b. Constructing Knowledge in Cyber Community. Education Technology &
c. Society, 7 (115-127).
41. Tu. C.H. (2002). The impact of text-based CMC on online social presence. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1 (2), 1-24.
42. Tu, C.H. (2000). Strategies to increase interaction in online social learning environments. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444550.
43. Wheeler, S. (2005). Creating social presence in digital learning environments: A presence of mind. Featured Paper for the TAFE Conference, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://videolinq.tafe.net/learning2005/papers/wheeler.pdf
44. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language Within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
45. 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.
46. Whiteman, J.M. (2002). Interpersonal communication in computer mediated learning. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465 997