Volume 5, Issue 4 (12-2020)
IJREE 2020, 5(4): 80-100 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mathews Y, Basco L. Social Presence, Synchronous Tool Usage and Learning Performance in the e-Learning Classroom:
What is the Bottom Line?. IJREE 2020; 5 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-458-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-458-en.html
International College, The University of Suwon, South Korea
Abstract: (3987 Views)
This study aimed to determine the university students’ level of social presence, preferred synchronous learning tool, and learning performance and their differences according to sex, age, year, major, Blackboard experience, and perceived computer literacy. The relationship between students’ social presence, preferred synchronous tool, and learning performance was also determined. The respondents were 29 students enrolled in the ESL online elective class, Global Business Communication, at a university in South Korea. There were two sets of online surveys used in this study. The statistical tools used in this study were the mean, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, Mann-Whitney Test, and Kruskal-Wallis Test. The results showed that the students maintained a Moderately High level of social presence throughout the duration of the course, chose KakaoTalk as their preferred synchronous learning tool, and concluded the course with an overall average grade, or learning performance level of “B”. There was a significant difference regarding the students’ learning performance when they were classified according to Blackboard experience; and no significant relationship existed between the students’ social presence, preferred synchronous tool, and learning performance.
References
1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report. Babson Survey Research Group, e-Literate, and WCET. https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenrollment2017.pdf
2. Al-rahmi, W., Othman, M., & Musa, M. (2014). The improvement of students' academic performance by using social media through collaborative learning in Malaysian higher education. Asian Social Science, 10(8), 210-221. doi:10.5539/ass.v10n8p210 [DOI:10.5539/ass.v10n8p210]
3. Al-Rahmi, W., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015). The role of social media for collaborative learning to improve academic performance of students and researchers in Malaysian higher education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn., 16(4), 177-204. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2326 [DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2326]
4. Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New directions for adult and continuing education. San Francisco, 100, 57-68. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/73882/ [DOI:10.1002/ace.119]
5. Asiri, A. A. M., & Aly, H. S. (2018). An evaluative study for the use reality of e-Learning systems and tools in teaching and learning by faculty members and students. World Journal of Education, 8(1), 37-48. doi: [DOI:10.5430/wje.v8n1p37]
6. Beaghan, J. P. (2013). Non-traditional student performance and attitudes toward online and other forms of distance learning. Rev. Bus. Res, 13, 23-28. doi: 10.18374/RBR-13-1.3 [DOI:10.18374/RBR-13-1.3]
7. Bioca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Tele-operators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456-480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270 [DOI:10.1162/105474603322761270]
8. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195-203. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001]
9. Bosch, T. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the University of Cape Town. South African Journal for Communication and Research, 35(2), 185-200. doi:10.1080/02500160903250648 [DOI:10.1080/02500160903250648]
10. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. W. J., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006]
11. Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students' perceptions of teaching and social presence: A comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 10(1), 27-44. [DOI:10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103]
12. Boyd, D., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8). https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3086/2589 [DOI:10.5210/fm.v15i8.3086]
13. Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social networking sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the E-Learning benefits of Ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151-170. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/109412/
14. Cadiz, J. (2000). Distance learning through distributed collaborative video viewing. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 135-144. [DOI:10.1145/358916.358984]
15. Castillo-Merino, D., & Serradell-Lopez, E. (2014). An analysis of the determinants of students' performance in e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 476-484. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.020]
16. Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028]
17. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education: Technology as lever. Accounting Education News, 49, 9-10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246430027_Implementing_the_Seven_Principles_Technology_as_Lever
18. Coopman, S. J. (2009). A critical investigation of Blackboard's e-learning environment. First Monday, 14(6). doi: 10.5210/fm.v14i6.2434 [DOI:10.5210/fm.v14i6.2434]
19. Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2013). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 661-685. doi: 10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1 [DOI:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1]
20. Danchak, M. M., Walther, J. B., & Swan, K. P. (2001). Presence in mediated instruction: bandwidth, behavior, and expectancy violations. Paper presented at the 7th Sloan-C international conference on asynchronous learning networks (ALN), Orlando, FL, November, 17-19.
21. Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657-663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x]
22. Doherty, W. (2006). An analysis of multiple factors affecting retention in web-based community college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 245-255. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.004]
23. Duncan, K., Kenworthy, A., & McNamara, R. (2012). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous participation on students' performance in online accounting courses. Accounting Education, 21(4), 431-449. [DOI:10.1080/09639284.2012.673387]
24. DuVall, J. B., Powell, M. R., Hodge, E., & Ellis, M. (2007). Text messaging to improve social presence in online learning. Educause Quarterly, 30(3), 24-28. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2007/7/text messaging-to-improve-social-presence-in-online-learning
25. Ellis, R., Pardo, A., & Han, F. (2016). Quality in blended learning environments-Significant differences in how students approach learning collaborations. Computers & Education, 102, 90-102. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.006]
26. Elluminate, Inc. (2009). The impact of synchronous online learning on academic institutions customer experiences from K-12 and higher education. Elluminate, Inc.
27. Forbus, P., Newbold, J. J., & Mehta, S. S. (2011). A study of non-traditional and traditional students in terms of their time management behaviors, stress factors, and coping strategies. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15, 109-125.
28. Francescucci, A., & Rohan, L. (2018). Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 60-69. [DOI:10.1177/0273475318818864]
29. Gallagher, M. S. (2017). KakaoTalk meets the ministry of education: mobile learning in South Korean higher education. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/kakaotalk-meets-the-ministry-of-education(a8389bed-ba30-4c39-8796-5f8c0c6b9b30).html
30. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. [DOI:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6]
31. Giesbers, B., Bart, R., Dirk, T., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 285-292. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.005]
32. 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), 826. [DOI:10.1080/08923649709526970]
33. Han, J., & Cho, O. (2015). Platform business eco-model evolution: case study on KakaoTalk in Korea. J. Open Innov, 1, 6. [DOI:10.1186/s40852-015-0006-8]
34. Hostetter, C. (2012). Social presence and learning outcomes. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of Ed Media 2012--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 912-919). Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/40862/
35. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous E-learning. A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4). https://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-synchronous-elearning
36. Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., & Riecke, B. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638-654. [DOI:10.1111/jcal.12107]
37. Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003]
38. Kear, K. (2010). Social presence in online learning communities. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (NLC2010) (pp. 541-548).
39. Keill, M., & Johnson, R. D. (2002). Feedback channels: Using social presence theory to compare voice mail to E-mail. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(4), 295-302. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Feedback-Channels%3A-Using-Social-Presence-Theory-to-Keil-Johnson/484a0ca9197311aca4cf7bea1e98056b4923d5cf
40. Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1512- 1520. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005]
41. Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students' perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335-344. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/102621/ [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.005]
42. Kim, S. H., & Song, K. S. (2012). A meta-analysis on the application of SNS in education for SMART learning: Focusing on Korean case. Creative Education, 3(8), 82-85. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.38B018 [DOI:10.4236/ce.2012.38B018]
43. Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning: effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4.218-231 [DOI:10.3200/JOER.99.4.218-231]
44. Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329-347. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9115-y [DOI:10.1007/s11412-011-9115-y]
45. Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners' acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320-1329. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.014]
46. Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C. J. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165-182. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ938828
47. Lobry de Bruyn, L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: Can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67-81. doi:10.1080/0158791042000212468 [DOI:10.1080/0158791042000212468]
48. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I'll see you on "Facebook": The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1080/03634520601009710 [DOI:10.1080/03634520601009710]
49. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance education. In J. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 403-437). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
50. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
51. Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy, and satisfaction in collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 3(3), 55-77. https://www.tojdel.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v03i03/v03i03-08.pdf
52. Motycka, C. A., Erin, L. S., Onge, E. L., & Williams, J. (2013). Asynchronous versus synchronous learning in pharmacy education. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(1), 63-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jct.v2n1p63 [DOI:10.5430/jct.v2n1p63]
53. Nachmias, R. (2002). A research framework for the study of a campus-wide web-based academic instructional project. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 213-229. [DOI:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00103-3]
54. Nagel, L., Blignaut, S., & Cronje, J. (2009). Read-only participants: a case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37-51.doi: 10.1080/10494820701501028 [DOI:10.1080/10494820701501028]
55. Qais, F. (2017). Effectiveness of Facebook in English language learning: A case study. Institute of Education Sciences, 4, 1-11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581701 [DOI:10.4236/oalib.1104017]
56. Park, Y., & Bonk, C. (2007). Is online like a breeze? A case study for promoting synchronous learning in a blended graduate course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 307-323. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no3/park.htm
57. Parker, M. A., & Martin, F. (2010). Using virtual classrooms: Student perceptions of features and characteristics in an online and a blended course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1) 135-137. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/parker_0310.pdf
58. Parker, M. A., & Martin, F. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and how? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192-210. 265335172_Use_of_Synchronous_Virtual_Classrooms_Why_Who_and_How_MERLOT_Journal_of_Online_Learning_and_Teaching_10_2_192
59. Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and Performance in an Online Course. JALN, 6(1). doi: 10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870 [DOI:10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870]
60. Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (2013). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
61. Rabinowitch, T. C., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Synchronous rhythmic interaction enhances children's perceived similarity and closeness towards each other. PLoS ONE, 10(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120878 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120878]
62. Reynolds, P., Keaton, K., & Mason, R. (2008). Seeing is believing: Dental education benefits from developments in videoconferencing. British Dental Journal, 204(2), 87-92. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2008.9 [DOI:10.1038/bdj.2008.9]
63. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88. doi: 10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864 [DOI:10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864]
64. Robinson, G., Basco, L., Mathews, Y., Dancel, R., Princena, M. A., & McKeever, M. (2017). ESL student perceptions of VLE effectiveness at a university in South Korea. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(5), 847-857. http://www.academypublication.com/ojs/index.php/jltr/article/view/jltr0805847857 [DOI:10.17507/jltr.0805.02]
65. Rodriguez‐Fernandez, M., Egea, J. A., & Banga, J. R. (2006). Novel metaheuristic for parameter estimation in nonlinear dynamic biological systems. BMC Bioinformatics, 7, 483. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2105-7-483]
66. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197319
67. Rousse-Marquet, J. (2013). KakaoTalk, the Korean messaging App turned social phenomenon. INA Global.
68. Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1). Athabasca University Press. Retrieved December 15, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/49515/ [DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79]
69. Sauers, D., & Walker, R. C. (2004). A comparison of traditional and technology-assisted instructional methods in the business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(4), 430-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569904271030 [DOI:10.1177/1080569904271030]
70. Shaw, C. M. (2016). Connecting students cross-nationally through Facebook. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(3), 353-368. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2015.1115741 [DOI:10.1080/15512169.2015.1115741]
71. Smith, G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A., Caris, M., & Martinez, C. (2011). Overcoming student resistance to group work: Online versus face-to-face. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 121-128. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.005 [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.005]
72. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers and Education, 51, 318-336. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009 [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009]
73. Statista Research Department (2015). South Korea: Number of mobile messaging users 2014-2019 (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/485633/number-of-mobile-messaging-users-south-korea/
74. Statista Research Department (2016). South Korea: Number of Twitter users 2014 to 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/558435/number-of-twitter-users-in-south-korea/
75. Staykova, K. S., & Damsgaard, J. (2016). Platform expansion design as strategic choice: The case of Wechat and KakaoTalk. Research Papers, 78. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/78
76. Statista Research Department (2017). South Korea: number of Facebook users 2015-2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/304833/number-of-facebook-users-in-south-korea/
77. Statista Research Department (2017). Number of KakaoTalk users in South Korea from 2016 to 2021 (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/736561/number-of-kakaotalk-users-south-korea/
78. Stevens, V. (2008). Trial by twitter: The rise and slide of the year's most viral microblogging platform. TESLEJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 12(1). http://tesl-ej.org/ej45/int.html
79. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738-1747. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.014]
80. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 115-136. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1788 [DOI:10.24059/olj.v9i3.1788]
81. 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. [DOI:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2]
82. Wang, S. K. (2008). The effects of a synchronous communication tool (Yahoo Messenger) on online learners' sense of community and their multimedia authoring skills. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 59-74. https://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v7/n1/the-effects-of-a-synchronous-communication-tool-yahoo-messenger-on-online-learners-sense-of-community-and-their-multimedia-authoring-skills.html
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
