Download pdf - [Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education] Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e-learning Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies Volume 6 || From Connectivity

FROM CONNECTIVITY TO

CONNECTED LEARNERS:

TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE AND

SOCIAL PRESENCE

David Starr-Glass

ABSTRACT

Distance learning has proliferated significantly in the last 20 years. Thischapter considers some of the issues and implications when teaching andlearning moves from an in-person to a distance mode. It begins with abrief history of distance learning, considering both the technologies usedand the dominant pedagogical approaches employed. This is followed by asurvey of the impact of Michael Moore’s theory of transactional distance,which considered the consequences of separating the learner from peersand instructor. Contemporary work on Moore’s contribution includestransaction and participation, activity theory, and transactional presence.A second major aspect of distance learning has been the attempt tointroduce social presence into learning environments. The history of socialpresence is explored, as are its levels and consequences for the learner.Contemporary aspects of social presence reviewed include communities ofinquiry. While Web 2.0 has spectacularly resulted in connectivity, it

Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e-Learning Environments:

Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies

Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6G, 113–143

Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 2044-9968/doi:10.1108/S2044-9968(2013)000006G007

113

DAVID STARR-GLASS114

remains unclear as to whether this automatically resulted in more stronglyconnected learners. Connectivist approaches are considered and distinc-tions made between technological connectivity and pedagogical engage-ment. It is argued that the full and exciting potential of Web 2.0 indistance learning requires a commitment to the distanced learner,balancing learner autonomy and teacher presence, promoting meaningfulsocial engagement, and meeting the specific needs of the distance learner.

INTRODUCTION

Distance learning, in which learners are physically separated from theirinstructors and peers, has a long history in both formal and informaleducation. Through much of its history distance learning has been regardedas a pragmatic compromise rather than as a legitimate paradigm. In the last40 years, however, there has been a rapid increase in distance learningmodalities in higher education and a growing sense that it provides not onlyincreased flexibility but also unique learning opportunities.

In the fall of 2002, only about 1.6 million students enrolled in Americancolleges experienced online distance learning, representing 9.6% of thestudent population. In the fall of 2010, those enrolled in at least one onlinedistance learning course had climbed dramatically to 6.1 million, or 31.3%of all students. In the same year, more than 67% of academic administratorsat American public colleges considered online instruction to be at least asgood as, or superior to, traditional in-person (face-to-face) teaching, andabout the same percentage agreed that online education would play asignificant part in the institution’s strategic planning (Allen & Seaman,2011). This optimism is felt not only for online instruction but also forblended courses that incorporate in-person and distance learning compo-nents. Blended courses have shown a significant growth rate in the last fewyears, even if that rate lags behind online modalities and even although thereare indications that the growth curve may have peaked. The most completesurvey data indicates that, in 2005, about 5.6% of all American collegesoffered at least one blended course (Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007).

The dramatic adoption of online learning and blended courses has onlybeen possible because of exceptional advances in communication andconnective technologies. New technologies provide the means of deliveringdistance learning, but more significantly they increasingly provide teachingand learning opportunities for more effective knowledge creation. From an

From Connectivity to Connected Learners 115

institutional management and marketing perspective, distance learningtechnologies have been eagerly adopted to enter new student markets, toincrease enrollment, and to provide colleges with competitive advantages(Elloumi, 2008; Stromquist, 2002). Communication and connective technol-ogies have been significant in reducing instructional costs and in facilitatingcooperation with other educational providers (Peters, 2000; Selwyn & Fitz,2001). From a broader learning and social perspective, innovation in thetechnology of connecting learners has for the first time made it possibleto establish global communities of knowledge (Maddux & Johnson, 2010;Rajasingham, 2009) and to prepare students for the networked world withinwhich they will live and work (Zong, Wilson, & Quashiga, 2008).

The move from in-person to distance learning has been technology-inspired and sometimes technology-pushed; however, the shift cannot beaccomplished by technology alone. It requires a significant reconsiderationof two key aspects of the learning environment: the process through whichlearning takes place and the dynamics of instructor–learner interaction.Forty years ago, when distance learning began to flourish, in-personinstruction in higher education was dominated by a model in whichknowledge was considered to exist separately and independently from thelearner. The learner’s task was to acquire knowledge defined and presentedby the instructor. The instructor’s task was to indicate and explain relevantknowledge in ways that made acquisition possible. The instructor wascentrally and actively present in the process; the learner was to an extentmarginal and relatively passive. Distance learning radically changed theseassumptions. Instructors could not be actively present and learners have tobecome responsible for the decisions about what they learned and howlearning was to take place. Learners needed guidance in negotiating thechange in dynamics, and support in understanding that ‘‘meaning is createdor constituted in the relationship between the individual and the context’’(Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden, & Benjamin, 2000, p. 388).

Distance learning shifted the model from instructor-centered to learner-centered, with the understanding that knowledge was not passively acquiredbut personally constructed by learners, or co-constructed through colla-boration with peers. The learner was highlighted as an autonomousindividual, but the learner was also repositioned in relation to other distancelearning participants. There was a growing appreciation that learning was asocial activity, in which experience and new understanding could be testedand confirmed through others. When the educational experience wasdistanced, there was the danger that the learner would be isolated andseparated from its social dimension. Distance learning faced the challenge of


creating environments in which learners could sense social connectedness,recognize learning as a social activity, and explore new roles through whichlearner–instructor and learner–learner could interact.

Advances in communication technology provided extraordinary oppor-tunities for distance learning. Increasingly, computer-aided communicationplatforms allowed learners to connect with one another. In a Web 2.0 era,global connectivity has provided the means of bringing physically separatedpeople together in virtual environments. The evolution of distance learningindicates that learning takes place when the technological potential ofconnectivity is harnessed to the social and cognitive needs of the learner. Asconnectivity makes way for learner connectedness, the subject matter, theinstructor, and fellow learners become more accessible and a dynamicprocess of knowledge creation can begin.

This chapter highlights this move from connectivity to connectednessby considering two bodies of research that have proved particularly insight-ful: transactional distance and social presence. Michael Moore’s theory oftransactional distance explores the consequences of distancing learners fromtheir instructor. It provides a comprehensive framework for consideringdistance learning, a framework that is open enough to accommodate newparts but robust enough to provide practical solutions. Ongoing researchshows that Moore’s insights remain pertinent in designing distance learningenvironments for a Web 2.0 world. Theories of social and cognitivepresence provide a second way of understanding the challenges and oppor-tunities of distance learning. The contribution of social presence andcognitive presence research has been particularly useful in enhancing andenriching distance learning environments. Before considering transactionaldistance and social presence, however, it will be helpful to look at theevolution of distance learning.

A SHORT HISTORY OF DISTANCE LEARNING

Distance learning did not begin with a particular theory of teaching andlearning; instead, it was grounded in a pragmatic consideration of increasedaccess and inclusion. In the UK, for example, a growing demand for workerparticipation in higher education was met by Isaac Pitman, the originator ofshorthand, who launched a series of correspondence courses in the 1840s(Schulte, 2011). By the mid-1850s, the University of London created arevolutionary program that allowed external students, studying indepen-dently via distance learning, to earn degrees that were academically identical


to those earned on campus. A key issue in this move was to provide anopportunity for women, who at that time were unable to matriculate, orgraduate from other English universities.

Distance education could be used to overcome social and cultural barriersand bring about wider inclusion. In other situations, the promise of distanceeducation was in reaching students who were physically distanced fromeducational centers. In Australia, for example, territorial distance andwidely dispersed student populations restricted learner mobility, making itimpossible to attend a central campus. Distance education, initially througha correspondence model, allowed the remote learner to actively participatein higher education.

Adoption of distance learning came about in different places for differentreasons. Once instituted, the evolutionary trajectory that it followed isremarkably similar. The evolution has been primarily driven by the availabilityof technology and media, rather than by educational considerations. Whiletechnological opportunity has been the driver, increasing interest has grown inthe educational consequences for the learning process: a reconsideration of thesocial context of learning; theories of teaching and learning; and, learnerautonomy (Schulte, 2011). This pattern can be summarized by drawingtogether two complimentary reviews of the technological opportunities(Taylor, 1995, 2001) and the pedagogical considerations that dominated andguided successive generations of distance learning (Anderson & Dron, 2011).

� First Generation: The correspondence model (1840–1960). In its earlydays, distance learning utilized the media and communication optionsavailable, relying on print and the developing postal services, withstudents receiving learning materials and responding via mail. There wasno clear change in teaching or learning approaches to accommodate theadoption of a distance learning modality.� Second Generation: The multimedia model (1960–1980). This eracontinued to use print and postal services but supplemented these withthe latest audio (radio) and visual (television) technologies. Increasingly,advances in cognitive-behavioralist pedagogy were used in distancelearning. These approaches focused on the individual, regarding knowl-edge as something independent from the learner but capable of beingtransmitted. The instructor’s role, similar to that in traditional in-personteaching, was one of transmission: ‘‘the sage on stage.’’ No socialdimension was recognized and these delivery modes had a markedabsence of what would now be recognized as social presence or teachingpresence.


� Third Generation: The telelearning model (1980–1995). Previous mediaand communication channels continued to be employed; however,advances in computer technology and telecommunications systems (suchas email, electronic bulletin boards, and computer-mediated communica-tion) made it increasingly possible for learning systems to operatesynchronously, with learners responding in real time. Social-constructivistlearning, in which the creation and validation of new understanding issocially mediated (Jonassen, 1991), began to be favored. Social interac-tion, which is central to the social-constructivist model, was provided bycreating social presence and sustaining teaching presence. The instructorassumed the role of guide and helper.� Fourth Generation. The flexible model (1995–2005). Growing technolo-gical advances permitted improved learner access, synchronous andasynchronous possibilities, and real-time collaboration. An expandinginformation age sensitized learners to different ways of accessing infor-mation, creating social connections, and using technology to fulfill theirgoals. Social-constructivist remained the dominant pedagogical approachand there was growing interest in social presence and online communitiesof enquiry.� Fifth Generation: The intelligent flexible learning model (2005–present).Taylor (2001) understood this to be the current stage in evolution ofdistance learning systems. It is derived from Fourth Generationtechnologies integrated and enhanced by the Internet and Web 2.0.Learners are viewed as knowledgeable, self-assured, and capable ofaccessing informational networks to explore, confirm, and augmentlearning. Learners live in a world of digital connections and are familiarwith social media and virtual possibilities. Some suggest that there is amove toward connectivist pedagogies, emphasizing social presence, andthe creation of social capital through maintaining and accessing net-worked links with others. Teaching presence is viewed as enablingand empowering, with instructors themselves engaged in a process ofcontinuous learning: ‘‘fellow voyagers.’’

Several points are significant. First, dates indicated are approximate andcontestable. Distance learning generations have not displaced one anotherabruptly, but have gradually merged and coexisted. Second, newperspectives in technology have led and defined generational change. Thegrowth curve for technology has consistently outpaced that of learning andinstructional theory. Third, as a consequence, theoretical considerations ofdistance learning have retained a great deal of fluidity. They have remained


open to new possibilities and have pragmatically reconsidered the past in asearch for new ways to deal with the present.

TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE: CONSEQUENCES OF

SEPARATING LEARNER AND TEACHER

Michael Moore’s original work (1972, 1973) focused on the consequences ofseparating learner and teacher, rather than on the nature of the separationor the means of subsequent connection. As such, it offers a useful windowinto the changed dynamics of distance learning, even although it was written40 years ago. Moore was dealing with Second Generation distance learning,when distance learning was becoming more common. At such a time, it wasinevitable that distance learning would be directly compared with traditionalin-person instruction (what Moore refers to as ‘‘contiguous learning’’). Thedominant instructional approach was cognitive-behavioralist, where thelearner was understood as the object of knowledge transfer or acquisi-tion. Moore (1973, p. 31) was explicit ‘‘in challenging the behaviourists’hegemony’’ by considering the educational experience from the learner’sperspective. Teachers, in so far as they were considered at all, had an impliedrole in initiating appropriate teaching activities to assist the learner.

Transaction distance is experienced by learners in contexts where they areseparated from the instructor. Three elements are involved in recogniz-ing and reducing transactional distance: structure, dialogue, and learnerautonomy.

Structure, which Moore (1997) defined as:

The ways in which the teaching programme is structured so that it can be delivered

through various communication media. Programmes are structured in different ways to

take into account the need to produce, copy, deliver, and control these mediated

messages. Structure expresses rigidity or flexibility of the programme’s educational

objectives, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods. (p. 26)

Structure is a property of the learning environment. Although initiallyestablished by the instructor, structure must be understood and negotiatedby the learner. Moore (1972, 1973) argued that while some degree ofstructure was required, a rigidly structured environment limited bothmeaningful communication and the learner’s ability to make meaningfulchoices about how and what to learn. A perceived structural rigidityincreased the learner’s sense of transactional distance. Structure applies to


both the instructional design of the environment and the technology, ormedia, used to support it.

Dialogue, which Moore (1997) understood to be:

An interaction or series of interactions having positive qualities that other interactions

might not have. A dialogue is purposeful, constructive and valued by each party. Each

party in a dialogue is a respectful and active listener; each is a contributor, and builds on

the contributions of the other party or parties. (p. 23)

Dialogue is the meaningful communication between those participating inthe learning environment. It is monitored and evaluated by the learner interms of quantity and quality. Transactional distance recognized, to alimited extent, that the process of learning was situated socially; however,the main interest was in the individual benefits accruing to the learner,rather than to the community of learners. Dialogue confirms personal accessand the availability of others. Dialogue is inhibited by high structure. Lowlevels of dialogue add to the learner’s perception that a high (unsatisfactory)level of transactional distance exists.

Learner autonomy, Moore (1997) defined this as follows:

Many students used teaching materials and teaching programmes to achieve goals of

their own, in their own way, under their own control. The term ‘learner autonomy’ was

chosen to describe this processy [it is] the extent to which, in the teaching/learning

relationship, it is the learner rather than the teacher who determines the goals, the

learning experiences, and the evaluation decisions of the learning programme. (p. 31)

In traditional in-person instruction, it is usually the instructor whocontrols the process through course content, teaching approach, and meansof evaluation. Moore suggested that when the instructor was distanced, thelearner had to assume a greater role in restructuring the learning experience.Increasing autonomy would provide the learner with a sense of control andreduce a sense of distance. Learner autonomy includes making decisionsabout what should be learned, redefining the learning process, reevaluatingthe anticipated outcomes, and reformulating evaluation. It includes con-scious efforts to reduce course structure and/or to increase dialogue. Auto-nomy requires active learner involvement, which in turn is moderated bythe significance that the learner attributes to the educational experience andby his/her capacity or ability (Moore, 2006).

Moore’s theory of transactional distance was the first comprehensiveconsideration that addressed distance learning. For learners, Moore’scontribution was to recognize their centrality in the educational process andto understand that they would have to adopt higher levels of autonomy thanin traditional learning situations. The questions, which he did not answer,


were whether learners would recognize this responsibility and have thecapacity to respond to the challenge. For instructors, Moore’s work raisedthree questions that anticipate learner concerns. How could instructorsdesign courses with lower or more flexible structures? How could theydesign and facilitate distance learning environments to increase the level ofmeaningful exchange? How could they signal and support the need forlearner autonomy?

Transactional distance theory provides a useful framework for under-standing the distance learning experience, and empirical research hasconfirmed this utility in constructing effective learning environments.Bischoff (1993) attempted to measure perceived transactional distance indistance and in face-to-face learners, finding higher levels in the former.Reviewing qualitative data for online and in-person learning, Moore andKearsley (1996) confirmed that instructors could reduce the perception oftransactional distance by either increasing learner dialogue or reducingcourse structure. Saba and Shearer (1994) demonstrated that decreasingdialogue in distance learning environments resulted in an increase inperceived transactional distance. Their work, and that of others (Cookson &Chang, 1995; McIsaac & Blocher, 1998), showed specifically that a decreasein instructor–learner exchange caused learners to perceive greater transac-tional distance, which diminished the effectiveness of their learning.

Transactional distance should not be confused with spatial distance.Giossos, Koutsouba, Lionarakis, and Skavantzos (2009) affirmed that the‘‘distance’’ intended was to be understood in terms of a distance inunderstanding, rather than in terms of physical separation. They argued thattransactional distance was not an independent variable, but rather theconsequence of action (teaching activities and strategies) mediated throughpreexisting mechanisms within the learning system (structure, dialogue, andautonomy). Transactional distance can still persist despite technologicaladvances that have increased the possibility of easier and richer communica-tion. Chen and Willits (1998), using pathway analysis, found no relationshipbetween perceived transactional distance and prior online distance learningexperience. They established, however, a weak negative correlation betweentransactional distance and the learner’s computer skills, including familiaritywith noneducational online media. Higher prior exposure to these media wasassociated with lower perceptions of transactional distance.

Transactional distance theory is not without its critics. Gorsky and Caspi(2005) have attacked its logic, the variables it employs, and considered it atheory that ‘‘when operationalized, is transformed into what may be con-strued as a tautology’’ (p. 4). This criticism notwithstanding, the consensus is


that Moore’s work is pertinent for advancing theory and research in distancelearning. For example, Jung (2001) contended that Moore’s theory ‘‘providesa useful conceptual framework for defining and understanding distanceeducation in general and as a source of research hypothesis more specifically’’(p. 527). To this Randy Garrison (2000), reviewing the theoretical challengesfor distance education in the 21st century, added: ‘‘Moore’s work remains oneof the most appealing and well known theories of distance education’’ (p. 9).Research supports the contention that the theory is useful in understandingthe challenges of the novice online learner (Stein, Wanstreet, & Calvin, 2009;Stein, Wanstreet, Calvin, Overtoom, & Wheaton, 2005) and in providingguidelines for more effective instructor action in distance learning contexts(Lemak, Shin, Reed, & Montgomery, 2005).

Transactional distance theory highlighted the consequences of distancelearning and focused on the individual learner’s response to it. The theoryplaced emphasis on the centrality of the learner in the educational process,but was descriptive rather than prescriptive. It responded to the relativenovelty of distance learning, making the direct comparison with traditionalin-person instruction, and was circumscribed by the educational climate ofits time. Garrison (2000) has noted that while early distance educationrecognized and attempted to deal with transactional distance, these effortswere ‘‘made to fit the Procrustean bed created by the industrial andstructural assumptions of the era’’ (p. 13). During the last 40 years, Moore’swork has been reassessed with a growing emphasis on more effectivefacilitation of distance learning and distance teaching.

Transaction and Participation

For the distance learner, the degree of transactional distance becomesmanifest through the perceived quantity and quality of dialogue in thesystem. It is dialogue – the exchange of meaningful information – thatcharacterizes transactions. Transactions, in Moore’s theory are dyadic:learner–instructor, learner–learner, and learner–content. To these, Chen(2001) added learner–interface transactions. Wallace (2003), in her extensivereview of the online educational literature, used transactions as a proxy forparticipation – participation is the observable result of a transaction havingoccurred. She confirmed that, across a wide range of distance learningexperiences, learners value the opportunity to engage in exchanges withinstructor and peers. However, whereas transactional distance theory viewsexchanges as confirming access and availability, Wallace (2003) noted that


‘‘interaction that moves into cognitively complex engagement with ideas isnot common, for reasons that are not clearly explained by research’’(p. 247). The quantity and quality of exchanges between participantsreduces individual perceptions of transactional distance; however, participa-tion is also a precursor for a developing sense of involvement in a commonlearning enterprise and engagement in community.

Activity Theory and Thinking Outside the Box

The theory of transactional distance emerged at a time when technologicalpossibilities were limited and social engagement of learners was notprioritized. Kang and Gyorke (2008) reassessed the theory, looking atcontext rather than the internal dynamics of the model. They proposed‘‘thinking outside the box,’’ situating transactional distance from the broaderperspective of activity theory (Engestrom, 1999). Activity theory links humanactivity, subjects, objects, rules, and community with the cultural andhistorical dimensions in which they are embedded. Using activity theory,they argued that the theory could be better understood in terms of the‘‘interconnected human activities in the context of distance-educationy

cultural–historical aspects of a particular online distance education system’’(Kang & Gyorke, 2008, p. 212). This kind of reexamination positions thetheory more clearly within the matrix of present-day communication options,and suggests a broader appreciation of the cultural aspects of the technologiesemployed and the activity of learning in higher education.

Park (2011) pursued this approach, looking at the social learningpossibilities presented by mobile technologies, and argued that ‘‘individua-lized and socialized activities are mediated by communication technology,which is one kind of cultural-historical artifact in activity theory’’ (p. 89,emphasis in original). She reviewed the literature for mobile technologyapplications in considered four learning contexts: high transactionaldistance with learners receiving either individualized or socialized learningexperiences; low transactional distance with either individualized orsocialized learning. Mobile technology, it was suggested, could supporteach of these four learning and teaching approaches and could facilitate‘‘seamless movement and switch’’ between low and high transactionaldistance, between personalized and socialized learning experiences.

An examination of Moore’s theory has also been recently undertaken byGarry Falloon (2011) in a Web-based virtual learning environment. Heconsidered the external and internal structure of the environment, evaluated


the quality of dialogue, and measured learner autonomy. His study showedthe complex manner in which the elements of transactional distance theoryoperate. Falloon’s (2011) work suggested that transactional distance theoryprovided a useful conceptual lens through which to view distance learning.However, the move toward synchronicity – in which learners can respondinstantaneously in real time – in Web-based online distance learning raisesnew questions about the nature of structure, dialogue, and learner auto-nomy for both educational designer and instructor. A key issue is learnerpreference and personal, or cultural, reluctance to be forced to makespontaneous responses.

Transactional Distance Versus Transactional Presence

Moore (2006) emphasized the interplay between learner and instructor inface-to-face learning situations. Spatial distance disrupts this dynamic,reducing the possibility of meaningful transactions. While the consequencesof physical separate were foremost, little attention was given to howthis transactional distance might be reduced. Munro (1998) stressed that‘‘education involves a relationship, not just a transmission of information’’(p. 39), and suggested that the instructors should be proactive in accentuat-ing their presence in the distance learning environment.

Shin (2002) acknowledged that a relational aspect is critical for bridgingperceived distance, and considered this best accomplished by creating astrong transactional presence. Transactional presence is a positive reactionto transactional distance theory and signifies the extent to which ‘‘distancestudents perceive the availability of, and connectedness with, teachers, peerstudents, and institution’’ (Shin, 2002, p. 132). Transaction presence differsfrom social presence, which will be discussed later, in that it only considersavailability and access. Social presence, on the other hand, looks at socialinteraction, collaboration, and community building. Transactional presence,initiated by distance learning designers and instructors, attempts tocompensate for the sense of distance experienced by learners. Transactionalpresence can be increased by the instructor’s projection of self and by cleardemonstrations of being accessible and available.

Shin (2002, p. 133), putting forward the construct, argued that tran-sactional presence might reduce learner isolation, contribute to strongerlearner-teacher and learner-learner relationships, and produce a deepersense of connectedness for distance learners. Subsequently, she (Shin 2003)found that while higher measures of transactional presence did not correlate


strongly with learner interaction, they did predict success in distancelearning environments. In the Web 2.0 world, instructors have manyopportunities to display access and availability through their learningenvironments using synchronous online systems (chat rooms, Elluminate,Skype, etc.), electronic text communication systems (SMS, email, andmobile technology), and through social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.).

Transactional distance theory provided the first comprehensive way ofunderstanding the consequences of physically separating learner andteacher. It described reactions, but did not prescribe proactive solutions.It was put forward within the context of the technological options availableto distance learning in the early 1970s. It also aligned itself with the learneras an individual possessing the ability to control and personalize thelearning experience. The learner might be better connected to instructor,peers, and content, but connectedness was understood primarily as accessand availability rather than social interaction. The implications for a deepersocial role though connectedness became clearer with the formulation ofsocial presence.

SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE PRESENCE: MEDIATED

REPRESENTATIONS OF THE OTHER

Social presence was first recognized by communication engineers Short,Williams, and Christie (1976), who were concerned about the immediacy andsocial representation of those engaged in electronic communication. Theirwork drew extensively from the existing literature of symbolic interactionism,social construction, and immediacy (Mehrabian, 1967; Wiener & Mehrabian,1968). Short et al. (1976) defined social presence as ‘‘the degree of salience ofthe other person in a mediated interaction and the consequent salience of theinterpersonal relationship’’ (p. 65). Social presence, initially viewed as aquality of the technology employed, allowed participants to recognize thatthey were communicating with other authentic persons. A sense of socialpresence permitted those communicating to realize that, although distanced,they had been brought together in a manner that supported social interaction.For social interaction and an interpersonal relationship to develop, we needto detect the presence of another empathetic person, recognize the immediacyof that person, and respond to social signals and cues.

Future investigation into social presence had a strong appeal for com-munication engineers and distance learning educators. Subsequent research


focused on the ‘‘awareness of and the representation of the other, themedium’s capacity for social interaction, and specifically the presence orabsence of verbal or nonverbal cues in mediated communication’’ (Biocca,Harms, & Burgoon, 2003, p. 460). For educators, attempts to improve andutilize social presence grew in the Third and Fourth Generation of distancelearning (starting approximately in 1980), when learning theorists wereincreasingly looking at social-constructivist approaches to learning.Charlotte Gunawardena stands out as one of the pioneer investigators ofsocial presence. Her landmark paper (Gunawardena, 1995) extensivelyreviewed its history and considered the role that social presence played inlearner interaction and learner collaboration in computer mediatedenvironments.

Social presence had originally been described as a property of thecommunication system. Many, however, began to consider that socialpresence was essentially a ‘‘compendium of impressions regarding warmth,sensitivity, sociability, familiarity, and privacy’’ (Rafaeli, 1988, p. 117),located within users of computer-mediated communication systems.Gunawardena (1995) adopted and promoted this perspective, seeing socialpresence as a shared impression of those participating in the system: thedegree to which each considered the other to be a real person capable ofengaging in social exchange. Gunawardena (1995) found a strong positivecorrelation between learner-perceived social presence and learner satisfac-tion, a finding repeated in her later work (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) andsubsequently confirmed by Cobb (2009), who revalidated the originalGunawardena and Zittle scale for measuring social presence.

Interest in social presence expanded rapidly because of three factors.First, in this generation of distance learning there was an acceleration ofadvances in computer-mediated communication that provided revolution-ary new ways of linking distance learners in real time. Teleconferencing,Skype, and synchronous learning platforms provided mechanisms formediated social contact and interaction. Second, educators generally werebeginning to recognize that the learning process was socially situated(Wenger, 1998) and that knowledge was a social constructed (Harasim,2002). With an increased interest in social-constructivist learning approach(Jonassen, 1991) distance learning designers and instructors began toreconstruct their learning environments accentuating social presence andricher social learning experiences.

A sense of social presence in distance learning environments increaseslearner satisfaction, but it also provides participants with the possibility forsocial interaction, exchange, and a tentative sense of community. Social


presence allows the learner to appreciate that she is not simply interactingwith representations of others, but that embodied in those representationsare real and socially responsive others. As Robert Starratt (2004) put it: ‘‘wecannot be present to the other if the other is not present to us’’ (p. 87).Increasing awareness of social connection and mutuality has multipleoutcomes. It can increase learner motivation (Aragon, 2003) and reduceperformance anxiety (Lee & Chan, 2007). The disposition to act sociallythrough mutual response has been positively correlated with social presenceand the quantity of learner interaction (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). The quality oflearner-exchanges changes often becomes richer and more nuanced asperceived social presence increases (Swan, 2001; Swan & Shih, 2005). At theprogrammatic level, higher social presence has been shown to reduce a senseof learner isolation (Annand, 2011), to decrease attrition in distance learningcourses, and to promote higher student retention rates (DiRamio &Wolverton, 2006).

A third factor associated with increased interest in social presence wasmore subtle: social capital. In an increasingly connected world, social capitaltheory understands that there is value for actors within networks that bindsimilar people and that provide bridges to diverse groups (Dekker &Uslaner, 2001). Learners increasingly came to understand that the learningenvironments in which they engaged provided places to learn, butadditionally provided the opportunity to use these connections to increasetheir social capital. Networks formed in distance learning provided presentand future social resources, similar to those were becoming evident inpopular social media communities such as Face Book and LinkedIn. Therewas the growing recognition that distance learning environments weresimilar to, not uniquely separated from, broader social Internet commu-nities in which learners increasingly participated and which often char-acterize their nonacademic social worlds.

Social presence is a critical prerequisite for developing social capital.Torche and Valenzuela (2011), considering the sociology of communities ofembodied actors, argued that social capital only results if participants sensecopresence, recognize reciprocity, and possess social memory. When contactis with strangers, the predominant determinant of social capital is mutualtrust. In virtual communities, whether educational or recreational, socialpresence makes participants appear less as strangers and more as communitymembers. As learners recognize their inclusion in a community, they begin toappreciate the possibility of mutuality and reciprocity. As communitymembers recognize this, there is the potential for creating and accessing newsocial capital, useful in enhancing present learning and in future dealings.


Enhanced social capital parallels the development of nascent communityof learning in distance learning situations. For these communities todevelop, albeit tentative and bounded, social presence must be present.Communities of learning open up educational opportunities for instructorand learner, opportunities that can lead to learning experiences perceived asricher and more enjoyable, whether in purely online courses (Shin, 2002;Wise, Chang, Duffy, & Del Valle, 2004) or in blended learning situations,where social presence can be cultivated in both in-person and virtualcomponents of the course (Rovai, 2002; Rovai & Jordan, 2004).

Different Levels and Responses to Social Presence

Social presence is not simply present or absent in distance learningenvironment: learners perceive it in different levels. Biocca et al. (2003)proposed three levels. (1) Copresence, in which individuals sense that theyare not alone in the virtual environment. They recognize the existence ofothers and believe that the others are also aware of them. (2) Psychologicalinvolvement, in which there is a cognitive and emotional response.Individuals focus attention, empathize, and respond to the feeling of othersrecognized as present. They believe that the others are aware of theirintentions, motivations, and thoughts. This predisposes those in the virtualsystem to consider social exchange and interaction. (3) Behavioral engage-ment, in which individuals believe their actions are interdependent, related,and connected to others who are sensed to be present. There is enough socialpresence for them to respond to others, believing that the others will bothrecognize and reciprocate this responsiveness.

Shen and Khalifa (2008), after conducting a comprehensive review of theexisting literature (including Biocca, Harms, & Gregg, 2001; IJsselsteijn, deRidder, Freeman, & Avons, 2000), proposed a multidimensional concep-tualization of social presence. They looked at the motivational pathwaysleading to community building in nonimmersive online experiences, andsuggested that social presence could be inferred from the propertiesof interaction. They identified three demonstrations of social presencein distance learning environments (Shen &Khalifa, 2008, p. 729). (1) Aware-ness comes into existence when social actors believe that other social actorsexist and are capable of reacting. (2) Affective social presence results whensocial actors sense an emotional connection with others using the virtualsystem. (3) Cognitive social presence occurs when the user of the system is


able to ‘‘construct and confirm meaning about his or her relationship withthe others and the social space’’ (p. 730).

Social presence is considered to be a multivariate construct, existing atdifferent levels within a distance learning environment. As participants inthe system experience different levels of social presence they reactdifferently, moving from simply acknowledging the presence of others toan active interest in cognitively and affectively engaging with them.Engagement may be expressed in various ways: increased interaction,enhanced understanding, and the development of psychological attachmentbetween participants. From a design and instructional perspective, the firstchallenge is to create higher levels of social presence in online learningsystems. The second challenge is to utilize growing social responsiveness topromote more effective learning outcomes with greater levels of learnersatisfaction.

Social Presence and the Community of Inquiry Model

The ability to recognize the authenticity of other social actors in computer-mediated environments results in a general sense of presence. Garrison,Anderson, and Archer (2000), after analyzing computer conference calltranscripts, suggested that three different presences are involved in distancecommunities of inquiry. (1) Social presence, as described previously, is acritical requirement for the emergence of other perceptions of presence and‘‘an important antecedent to collaboration and critical discourse because itfacilitates achieving cognitive objectives by instigating, sustaining, and sup-porting critical thinking in a community of learners’’ (Akyol, Garrison, &Ozden, 2009, p. 67). (2) Teaching presence can manifest itself to otherparticipants through the recognition that another person (the instructor) hasconsciously designed the learning environment, has selected appropriate oflearning activities, and is skillful mediating the online discussion andinteraction. (3) Cognitive presence becomes apparent to participants as theyexchange and utilize communication in their attempts to construct newmeaning. They may become aware that engagement within the learningenvironment encourages and supports higher orders of thinking: analyzing,synthesizing, and innovating. The learner may sense that the learningenvironment actively encourages an integrated understanding of the subjectmatter.

Social presence, in the community of inquiry model, works in conjunc-tion with teacher presence and cognitive presence. It is theoretically unclear


whether social presence is a separate variable, or whether it is a moder-ator, or modified, of teacher presence and cognitive presence (Garrison,Anderson, & Archer, 2010). Empirical research has found that thecommunity of inquiry framework, which recognizes all three presences andtries to sustain them, seems to enhance perceived learning and satisfactionwith the delivery-medium in distance learning environments (Arbaugh,2008). Shea and Bidjerano (2008) have suggested that social presence andteacher presence work in conjunction to bring about cognitive presence,which participants recognize as the crucial and defining attribute of distancecommunities of inquiry. Their later research (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010) foundweak relationships between both social presence and teaching presence inpredicting cognitive presence outcomes, suggesting that an additionalconstruct – learner presence – may be involved. Learner presence seems tobe the dimension through which learners appreciate their self-efficacy andtheir sense of ongoing success in the learning environment.

CONNECTEDNESS, CONNECTIVITY, AND

CONNECTIVIST APPROACHES

While pragmatism and expediency are valuable assets for distance learningpractitioners, in the long-run learners are probably better served by theory-based innovation. Theory-driven innovation compels us ‘‘to see the bigpicture and makes it possible for us to view our practice and our researchfrom a broader perspective than envisioned from the murky trenches of ourpractice’’ (Anderson, 2008, p. 45). Seeing the bigger picture, and the linkbetween experienced gained in different contexts, becomes particularlyimportant when there are so many different technological options available.

Transactional distance theory has provided this bigger picture – aninclusive appreciation of the dynamics involved when educational movesfrom traditional in-person teaching to distance learning. It highlights thepsychological and social distance that the separated learner experiences interms of dialogue quality and course structure. It centers educationaldynamics on learner, rather than instructor, and predicts that the learnerwill reduce distance by assuming a greater degree of autonomy, makingdecisions about educational content, learning outcomes, and evaluationmethods. The unit of analysis is the individual, rather than the collective,and the learner’s response to distance is to seek greater access to coursecontent and confirm the availability of the instructor.


Likewise, social presence theory has also generated a big picture oflearning dynamics, centering on learning as a social process. Increased socialpresence provides a pathway for participation and collaboration, just as itallows the learner access to psychological empathy and community bonding.While social presence centers on the individual learner, the unit of analysis isoften the developing communities of learning within the system. Socialpresence theory compliments transactional distance theory; indeed, theformer can be seen as embedded within a transactional framework.Transactional distance underscores the general dynamics of distancelearning; social presence describes how distance perceptions can be reducedby moderating structure and enhancing the quality of exchanges. Socialpresence goes further by suggesting that not only can learner isolation bereduced, but that the learner can be integrated into a mutually supportivecommunity of learning. Taken together, transactional distance and socialpresence provide goals for distance learning designers and instructors.Empirical research has shown that both theories are reliable and valid withgood predictive powers, even although neither theory can be viewed ascomprehensive.

Transactional distance and social presence were responses to shiftsbrought about by technological advances. Terry Anderson (2009), con-sidering technological or pedagogical determinism in distance learning,advanced a dance metaphor in which technology created the music, whilepedagogy defined the steps. Music and dance ultimately come togetherseamlessly; however, a review of the evolution of distance learning indicatesthat the technological music comes before the pedagogical choreography.Educational theorists did not present perspectives and then tried to findappropriate technologies that would accommodate them. Instead, theylooked at the consequences of advancing technology and tried to understandwhat opportunities and possibilities were provided by them. A critical issuein the Fifth Generation of distance learning is the extent to whichpedagogical choreography is synchronized with the technological beat.

Connectivist Approaches

It has been argued (Anderson & Dron, 2011) that learning theory hasshifted in the Fifth Generation from a social-constructivist emphasis to aconnectivist perspective. Connectivist approaches center on a globalunderstanding of learner, including their noneducational environment, andask how the pervasive and ubiquitous technologies of connectivity and


social media might further the learning process (Siemens, 2005a). GeorgeSiemens (2005b) argued that in a world of exponential knowledge growth,the critical learner competency is accessing knowledge as it forms. Learningis no longer internal and individualistic, but rather external and sociallyaccessible. He considered that learning, defined as actionable knowledge,(Siemens, 2005b) should no longer be considered a personal attribute butrather as something existing in external databases, organizations, andnetworks. Siemens (2005b) noted that the connections that we can make aremore important than our current state of knowledge, the ability to learnwhat is needed tomorrow more important that what we know today, andthat ‘‘the pipe is more important than the content of the pipe’’ (second lastparagraph).

The learner confronts new information, continuously generated andtechnologically accessible, and requires a high degree of selectivity anddiscrimination. The learner is seen as part of information and communica-tion networks that connects her to others, particularly organizationsand learning institutions. The learner’s personal knowledge flows into thenetwork and is augmented, or modified, by others. Information andknowledge is then reaccessed by the learner through the network to pro-vide new learning (Siemens, 2005b). Connectivist approaches stress socialcapital, which accumulates in a network as users share experience, add newknowledge, and access the accumulating knowledge-value in the system.Knowledge-value is increased for the learner by including ‘‘current andpast learners and those with knowledge relevant to the learning goals’’(Anderson & Dron, 2011, p. 88). The connectivist perspective focuses oninterconnected learners, responsible for defining and generating learningcontent in the system. The instructor’s role is that of a fellow-voyager, nolonger defining content or outcomes but collaborating with learners as acritically informed helper, not a privileged authority (Guthrie, 2010).

Web 2.0, and the explosion in technologies to facilitate personal con-nections, presents exciting opportunities for distance learners and theirinstructors. There is little doubt that the connectivist approach provides aninsightful description of the changed environment and new possibilities.These possibilities have energized and inspired both distance learningdesigners and instructors. Enhanced connectivity has often been enthusias-tically adopted to enrich and democratize learning environments. What isstill unclear is whether connectivist approaches only describe technologicalpossibilities or provide pedagogical alternatives.

Competency in dealing with exponentially increased information is notthe same as learning how to analyze, synthesize, and create new meaning. If


learning is defined as actionable knowledge, it is unclear how the learnerdevelops the skill of deciding what constitutes appropriate action and testingthat decision. If knowledge is externalized and socially accessible, whatmotivation is there for the learner to reshape information in creative andinnovative ways rather than simply access and reproduce it? Connectivismundoubtedly inspires and will shape future distance learning practice;however, many would contend that, ‘‘it does not seem that connectivism’scontributions warrant it being treated as a separate learning theory’’(Kop & Hill, 2008, p. 11). They would also look with interest towardempirical research and qualitative studies that demonstrate the validity ofconnectivist approaches (Bell, 2011).

Connectivity and Connectedness

A distinction between connectivity and connectedness has been made earlier;however, it might be useful to restate this. The possibility for effective distancelearning grew dramatically because of technological connectivity. Increas-ingly, those who participated in distance learning belonged to personal andsocial networks and were accustomed to connectivity. Learning can becomeyet another network within which people wish to be included. Butconnectivity is only a technological potential that allows connections to bemade. It permits connections, but it neither predicts the strengths of people-connections nor guarantees quality of the resulting social exchanges.

The two major distance learning theories considered looked at connectedlearners and predicted that there will be a lack of satisfaction and effectivelearning unless participants can improve the perceived quality and utility oftheir being connected. Connectivity is certainly a prerequisite for connected-ness, but it does not ensure that learners will sense connectedness or findeducational value in being connected. Connectedness is a psychological andsocial awareness that others are sharing empathetically in the learningprocess, contributing toward it, and engaged collectively in creating newknowledge. The connected learner is not only socially engaged in the processof learning but is also critically connected with subject matter being studied.

How might we approach the connectivist landscape of today’s Web 2.0world with a view to engaging and connecting distance learners?

Accepting the Discontinuity Between In-Person and Distance LearningThe exciting opportunities presented by online distance learning environ-ments can be embraced only if the discontinuity with traditional instruction


is accepted. Distance learning not a change in delivery modality, but ratheran educational paradigm shift. As such, it demands a reconsideration of thedynamics of both teaching and learning (Desai, Hart, & Richards, 2008;Morris, 2009). In the past, while embracing new technologies, theoristsand practitioners have often tried to replicate in-person learning experiencesfor distance learners, offering them ‘‘an experience as much like that oftraditional, face-to-face instruction as possible’’ (Schlosser & Anderson,1994, p. 14). This seems paradoxical because in-person instruction cannot bereplicated at a distance and face-to-face discussion can only be reproducedin a reduced form (Peters, 2000).

The challenge for the practitioner is to seek possibilities for increasedconnectedness and collaboration that were unimaginable in traditionalinstruction. That search should be tempered by a consideration of how newpossibilities might be employed within a developing theoretical framework,and not appear quixotic or serendipitous. The challenge for the researcher isto measure and validate the learning effectiveness of distance learningcontexts that innovatively employ the connective technologies of Web 2.0.

Balancing Learner Autonomy and Teacher PresenceWhen online distance learning environments are perceived as rigidlystructured and poor in meaningful dialogue, the learner is forced to assertgrowing autonomy. With increasing access to a Web 2.0 world of infor-mation, the learner needs to assume autonomy in critically evaluating whatis found. Information available through Web 2.0 varies markedly in qualityand in its potential value for knowledge construction. Knowledge, in these‘‘complex-adaptive domains’’ is accumulated and organically revised inways not originally contemplated, in contrast to the ‘‘predictable domains’’that are organized and propagated by instructors and educational insti-tutions (Williams, Karousou, & Mackness, 2011). Learners need thecapacity to differentiate between the values of complex-adaptive andpredictable information domains, and the ability to reconstruct informationin ways that are reliable, valid, and innovative.

The critical issue with learner autonomy is the capacity of the learner. Inonline learning situations, novice learners may not have sufficient experienceto critically engage with what they wish to learn. Teacher presence isessential in creating learning structures and exchanges that allow the learnerto more effectively engage with subject matter and with others. For thepractitioner, a balance has to be maintained between teacher presence andlearner presence; between expressed authority and recognized autonomy.The instructor, whether as caring guide or as informed voyager, should be at


least as engaged in the learning enterprise as other participants. Moreevidence-based research is also required to understand how learnersevaluate, confirm, and personally reconstruct knowledge in our complexcontemporary learning environments. A clearer understanding of the waysin which learners accept and demonstrate autonomy in the learningexperience is essential.

Encouraging Meaningfulness in Social ExchangeRavenscroft (2011) noted the advent of increased connectivity possibilitiesin distance learning required ‘‘new design metaphors for future learning thatplace the person, their social behaviour, and their community at the centreof the design process y fundamentally we must remember that we will stillbe, mostly, people socially interacting with other people’’ (p. 155). Theexciting range of connective technologies in a Web 2.0 world can be used tofacilitate access and availability (Redecker, Ala-Mutka, & Bacig, 2009).Mobile technologies permit ongoing and instantaneous connections betweendistance learning participants (Traxler, 2007); however, the degree to whichthese technologies facilitate meaningful social exchange within the learningprocess remains unclear.

Increasingly, students have sophisticated appreciations of social mediaand yet it is still far from clear how learners incorporate this experience intothe social exchanges and dialogues in learning environments. For thepractitioner, the challenge is to translate the potential of connectivity intothe richness of social exchange and meaningful dialogue in their learningenvironments in ways that stimulate learners, increase motivation, andfacilitate learning outcomes. For the researcher, a better understanding isneeded of the kinds of personal and social transactions that contribute tothe self-construction, or co-construction, of knowledge in the learning space.We also need to have a better understanding of the similarities anddifferences that learners perceive in social networks and learning networks,and of the norms and outcomes that they associate with each.

Not Marginalizing Learners by a One-Fits-All Distance Learning DesignThe Web 2.0 world provides novel and effective ways of connecting learners;however, there is always the danger that these technologies have unintendedresults. Instructional designers and online practitioners often assume that‘‘the learner is a lot more like himself or herself than they in reality are [and]seriously underestimate how important the differences in context are’’(Rogers, Graham, & Mayes, 2007, p. 212). The Web 2.0 world sometimesregards itself as culturally neutral; however, this is not the case. While some


have argued for cultural convergence, national cultural difference in degreesof power-difference, masculinity-femininity, and individuality-collectivismare often evident in online learning.

As online learning expands it is more likely to encounter learner diversity,where different cultural values and assumptions can lead to differentperceptions of learner success, integration, and participation (Ku & Lohr,2003; Liu, Liu, Lee, &Magjuka, 2010). For example, while there is a tendencyto move to synchronous platforms, some individuals and many culturalgroups prefer the ability to formulate and reconsider responses asynchro-nously because this reduces the risk of making premature judgments, or‘‘feeling silly,’’ in front of peers (Falloon, 2011). The challenge for thepractitioner is to design learning environments that recognize culturaldifference and to facilitate them in ways that encourage positive inclusionand productive diversity (Yang, Olesova, & Richardson, 2010).

The challenge for the researcher, in a time when distance environmentsbring together learners from different continents and countries, is to morefully explore cultural difference and the extent to which it enhances or limitslearning outcomes. We need to know more about the cultural determinantsassociated with constructs such as learner autonomy, social presence, andcollaboration. We also need to know how such knowledge could be used toconstruct more satisfying and effective learning environments for differentlearner populations.

CONCLUSION

Distance learning has evolved in a remarkable and confident manner. In itsearly history, many – learners, instructors, and institutions – regarded it asessentially a pragmatic compromise for problems of student remoteness andeducational access. Its development, however, shows the emergence of anexciting and legitimate shift in a learning paradigm, in which critical issuesof dynamics and process were reformulated. Distance learning remains avibrant option in developed countries and particularly significant approachin developing countries, where expanding educational programs arehampered by physical distance, poor infrastructure, and a lack ofdemocratization. As a paradigm shift, distance learning forces a reconsi-deration of the fundamental processes through which new understanding iscreated, and a reassessment of the dynamics involved. These reconsidera-tions have taken place against a background of staggering advance in


communication technologies that have dramatically improved access tolearning environments and enriched their educational potentials.

Exponential availability and sophistication of technology have providedonline practitioners with countless possibilities to further effective learning.Most instructional designers and online instructors would endorse thesentiments of Irlbeck, Kays, Jones, and Sims (2006) who noted that distancelearning practices have become ‘‘complex, flexible, dynamic, and organic’’(p. 183). Complexity and organic dynamism is a hallmark of the Web 2.0 eraof connectivity, and opens up exciting new vistas onto the purposefulprocess of enhancing active learning. New initiatives are currently linkinghigh-reputation American and European universities into a network thatwill provide massively open online courses (MOOCs), available withoutprior educational requirements to interested learners. Undoubtedly, suchenvironments provide complex and dynamic opportunities for learning totake place, but these initiatives raise questions about the way in whichlearning occurs, how it is measured, and how learning accomplishment willbe recognized institutionally. To be productive, these possibilities have topermit learners to connect with subject matter and with co-learners. To beeffective, the enterprise of distance learning has to be harnessed to anilluminating theory of action. The engaged learner, involved and attached tothe processes of creating new understanding, will most likely not emergeincidentally. Rather, the engaged learner will result from designing andfacilitating learning environments underpinned by theories that shape theexperience and involve the learner personally with learning.

Transactional distance theory and social presence theory both suggestwhy and how available Web 2.0 options should be used; however, thesetheories provide only a partial framework – a bigger picture undoubtedly,but not the complete picture. More quantitative and qualitative research,centered on evidence-based measures of learning success, remains a criticalcomponent in advancing theory and in initiating effective learningexperiences. A flexible, organic, and reflective approach is required inonline practice to explore learner satisfaction. Such an approach is alsorequired to investigate optimal learning outcomes and the ways in whichknowledge creation might be furthered. In higher education, teaching andlearning has been significantly recast and vitalized through the activepromotion of a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), in whichpractitioners actively considered what they do and what they accomplish(Shulman, 2011). Distance learning is a particularly fertile area for SoTL. Itallows frontline practitioners to demonstrate professional judgment for theirselection and implementation of pedagogical strategies, to measure the value


that these bring to the distance learning process, and to share their findingswith the broader community of practice.

We should carefully reconsidered old theories, and develop newones, because they will provide us with Saba (2005) ‘‘a dynamic systemthat y would also allow for learner creativity, which by definition can bepotentially anticipated but not predicted and programmed in advance’’(p. 264). The dance between technological richness and educational intentcontinues. The promise – undoubtedly one that will be realized in the nextgeneration of distance learning – is that new technology and new theory,united, will lead to ever-more exciting and increasingly coordinatedchoreographies in distance learning.

REFERENCES

Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of

inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review

of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65–83.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011.

Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group/Sloan-Consortium.

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended

education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan-Sloan Consortium.

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and

practice of online learning (2nd ed., Chap. 2). Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University

Press.

Anderson, T. (2009). The dance of technology and pedagogy in self-paced distance education.

Paper presented at the 17th ICDE World Congress, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97.

Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. International

Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 40–56.

Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education, 100, 57–68.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online

MBA courses? International Review of Research in Open and Distant Learning, 9(2), 1–21.

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in

technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 12(3), 98–118.

Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of

social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual

Environments, 12(5), 456–480.

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 Presence

conference, May 21–23, Philadelphia, PA.


Bischoff, W. R. (1993). Transactional distance, interactive television, and electronic mail

communication in graduate public health and nursing courses: Implications for professional

education. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Chen, Y.-J. (2001). Dimensions of transactional distance in the World Wide Web learning

environment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 459–471.

Chen, Y.-J., & Willits, F. K. (1998). A path analysis of the concepts of Moore’s theory of

transactional distance in videoconferencing learning environments. Journal of Distance

Education, 13(2), 51–65.

Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research

perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241–254.

Cookson, P., & Chang, Y. (1995). The multidimensional audioconferencing classification

system (MACS). American Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 18–35.

Dekker, P., & Uslaner, E. M. (2001). Introduction. In E. M. Uslanger (Ed.), Social capital and

participation in everyday life (pp. 1–8). London: Routledge.

Desai, M. S., Hart, J., & Richards, T. C. (2008). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education.

Education, 129(2), 327–334.

DiRamio, D., & Wolverton, M. (2006). Integrating learning communities and distance

education: Possibility or pipedream? Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 99–113.

Elloumi, F. (2008). Value chain analysis: A strategic approach to online learning. In

T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.), Edmonton,

AB: Athabasca University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen &

R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its

relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 187–209.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education,

2(2-3), 87–105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of

inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5–9.

Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distant education in the 21st century: A shift

from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and

Distant Learning, 1(1), 1–17.

Giossos, Y., Koutsouba, M., Lionarakis, A., & Skavantzos, K. (2009). Reconsidering Moore’s

transactional distance theory. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning,

II (2009/2, article 6) Available at http://www.eurodl.org/?p¼archives&year¼2009&

halfyear¼2&article¼374.

Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. Quarterly

Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1–11.

Gunawardena, C. 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.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction with a

computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education,

11(3), 8–26.


Guthrie, C. (2010). Towards greater learner control: Web supported project-based learning.

Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(1), 121–130.

Harasim, L. (2002). What makes online learning communities successful? The role of

collaborative learning in social and intellectual development. In C. Vrasidas &

G. V. Glass (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning (pp. 181–200). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age Publishing.

IJsselsteijn, W. A., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., & Avons, S. E. (2000). Presence: Concept,

determinants and measurement. Paper presented at the proceedings of the SPIE: Human

vision and electronic imaging V, San Jose, CA, January 24, 2000.

Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). The Phoenix rising: Emergent models of

instructional; design. Distance Education, 27(2), 171–185.

Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(10), 28–33.

Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of

distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525–534.

Kang, H., & Gyorke, A. S. (2008). Rethinking distance learning activities: A comparison of

transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open Learning, 23(3), 203–214.

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13.

Ku, H., & Lohr, L. L. (2003). A case study of Chinese students’ attitude toward their first online

learning experience. Education Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 94–102.

Lee, M. J. W., & Chan, A. (2007). Reducing the effects of isolation and promoting inclusivity

for distance learners through podcasting. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,

8(1), 85–104.

Lemak, D. J., Shin, S. J., Reed, R., & Montgomery, J. C. (2005). Technology, transactional

distance, and instructor effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Academy of Manage-

ment Learning & Education, 4(2), 150–159.

Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S-H., & Magjuka, R. L. (2010). Cultural differences in online learning:

International student perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3),

177–188.

Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2010). Global trends and issues in information technology in

education. Computers in the School, 27(3/4), 145–154.

Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What university

teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 28(5/6), 387–412.

McIsaac, M. S., & Blocher, J. M. (1998). How research in distance education can affect practice.

Educational Media International, 35(1), 43–47.

Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communication.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294–295.

Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning.

Convergence, 5(2), 76–88.

Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of

Higher Education, 44(9), 661–679.

Moore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical

principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). London: Routledge.

Moore, M. G. (2006). Theory and theorists. European Distance and E-Learning Network.

Paper presented at the Barcelona Research Workshop, Castelldefels, Spain, October 27,

2006.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. New York, NY:

Wadsworth.


Morris, D. (2009). Learning design approaches to curriculum redesign: A case study.

International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 589–596.

Munro, J. S. (1998). Presence at a distance: The educator-learner relationship in distance learning.

ACSDE Research Monograph. University Park: American Center for the Study of

Distance Education, Pennsylvania State University.

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational

applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–102.

Peters, O. (2000). The transformation of the university into an institution of independent

learning. In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Changing university teaching: Reflections on

creating educational technologies (pp. 10–23). London: Kogan Page.

Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins,

J. M. Weimann & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and

interpersonal process (pp. 110–134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rajasingham, L. (2009). Breaking boundaries: Quality e-learning for global knowledge society.

International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4(1), 58–65.

Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and

promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. International Review of Research in Open

and Distance Learning, 12(3), 139–160.

Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., & Bacig, M. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of Web 2.0

innovations on educational and training in Europe. European Commission, Joint Research

Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (EUR 24103 EN). Luxembourg:

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Rogers, P. C., Graham, C. R., & Mayes, C. T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional

design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally.

Education Tech Research Development, 55, 197–217.

Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), article 6. Available at http://www.irrodl.org/index.

php/irrodl/article/view/79/153

Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community:

A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International

Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1–13.

Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance

Education, 26(2), 255–272.

Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying the key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of

distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36–59.

Schlosser, C. A., & Anderson, M. L. (1994). Distance education: A review of the literature.

Washington, DC: AECT Publication Sales. ERIC (382159).

Schulte, M. (2011). The foundations of technology distance education: A review of the literature

to 2001. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 34–44.

Selwyn, N., & Fitz, J. (2001). The politics of connectivity: The role of big business in UK

education technology policy. Political Studies Journal, 29(4), 551–570.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of

the community of inquiry model and the net generation. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 39(4), 339–361.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-

regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended

learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731.


Shen, K. N., & Khalifa, M. (2008). Exploring multidimensional conceptualization of social

presence in the context of online communities. International Journal of Human-Computer

Interaction, 24(7), 722–748.

Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of transactional presence. Open

Learning, 17(2), 121–137.

Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning.

Distance Education, 24(1), 69–86.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of communication. New

York, NY: John Wiley.

Shulman, L. S. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and

reflection. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–7.

Siemens, G. (2005a). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. ElearnSpace, (August 10,

2005). Available at http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm.

Siemens, G. (2005b). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.

Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., & Calvin, J. (2009). How a novice adult online learner experiences

transactional distance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 305–311.

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.

Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power.

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and

perceived learning outcomes in asynchronous online courses. Distant Education, 22(2),

306–331.

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.

Taylor, J. C. (1995). Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australian Journal

of Educational Technology, 11(2), 1–7.

Taylor, J. C. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Higher Education Series, Report 40.

Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Torche, F., & Valenzuela, E. (2011). Trust and reciprocity: A theoretical distinction of the

sources of social capital. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(2), 181–198.

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: the moving finger writes

and having writy. International Review on Research in Open and Distance, 8(2), 1–16.

Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online

classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.

Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions

among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241–281.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal

communication. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.

Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in

Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 39–59.


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.

Yang, D., Olesova, L., & Richardson, J. C. (2010). Impact of cultural differences on students’

participation, communication, and learning in an online environment. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 165–182.

Zong, G., Wilson, A. H., & Quashiga, Y. (2008). Global education. In L. S. Levstik &

C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 197–218). New

York, NY: Routledge.