Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Nasrin Nazemzadeh, Dissertation Defense PPT. (Dr. Kritsonis)

1. Social Presence in Online Courses:
An Examination of Perceived Learning
and Satisfaction
A Dissertation Defense
by
Nasrin Nazemzadeh
Dissertation Chair: William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.
Prairie View A & M University
Educational Leadership
November 2008

2. Committee Members
 Dissertation Chair:
 William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.
 Dissertation Committee:
 David Herrington, Ph.D.
 Solomon Osho, Ph.D.
 Tyrone Tanner, Ph.D

3. Dissertation Defense Format
 What is Social Presence?
 Statement of the Problem
 Subject of Study
 Purpose of the Study
 Instrumentation
 Research Methodology
 Research Questions and Summery of Findings
 Null Hypotheses
 Tables
 Conclusions
 Recommendations
 Recommendations for Further Study

4. Social Presence
 According to Short (1976), the degree to which a person is perceived as “real” in mediated
communication.
 Characteristics:
 1. Interactivity
Short, Williams & Christie (1976), Interaction between instructors
and students, & among students
 2. Mediated Communication
Those communications that occur via computer mediated (i.e., discussion board, e-mail
and chat rooms) between two or more individuals
 3. Immediacy
Anderson (1979), Those nonverbal behaviors that reduce physical
and/or psychological distance between teachers and students
 4. Reciprocal Awareness
Rafaeli (1998), Not only the presence of interactivity but also a recognition and
awareness of the interactivity by participants
 5. Connectedness
Rovai (2001), Sense of involvement and engagement

5. Statement of The Problem
 Online education is the fastest growing segment of the
higher education industry. This growth is global. Spague
(2007) projects that enrollment in distance-teaching
institutions will grow to 120 million by the year 2025.
Two year colleges have recognized the importance of
online education to their long term growth strategies
more than other types of institutions. Therefore, it is
important to investigate if this growth will compound
the educational deficits that have been documented in
traditional education.

6. Subjects of the Study
 The study was conducted on students
enrolled in online courses in the
Department of Business and Technology
at Lone Star College-Tomball in
Tomball, Texas. The results of the study
may be generalized to the population of
students at Lone Star College-Tomball.

7. Purpose of the Study
 The purpose of the study is to examine the role of
social presence in online courses at a community
college. Specifically, the study examines the
relationship of social presence in online courses to
students’ perceived learning and satisfaction with
their educational experience. The result of this
study will help educational leaders to utilize more
effectively the online instruction.

8. Instrumentation
 After careful analysis of several developed
instruments, a modified instrument consisting
of 48 questions was selected. This minimized
the need for validation. The first 42 questions
are multiple-choice, and the last six require
written responses.

9. Instrumentation
 The instrument was placed with Wonder Survey
Inc. Students logged on to the Wonder Survey
web site where they directly answered the
questions and submitted the results electronically
to Wonder Survey. A total of 150 students, 52.1%
of the invited students completed the survey.
Wonder Survey tabulated the responses and
provided the results. The questions and the
choices were relabeled for convenience.

10. Research Methodology
 Data-Analytic Methods used:
 1. Descriptive Statistics
 2. ANOVA
 3. Multiple Regression Analysis
 4. Logit Analysis of Binary Dependent Variable
Models.

11. Research Question # 1 and
Summary of Findings
 Does the online learning experience contribute to
feelings of isolation among students?
 My research shows that 32% of the respondents indicated
that they felt isolated. This proportion is significantly
different from zero as evidenced from a t-stat = 8.4, and
its P-value = 0.000. Moreover, the greater the prevalence
of these feelings, the less satisfied students typically are,
and the less they perceive to learn.

12. Research Question # 2 and
Summary of Findings
 What factors influence student satisfaction in online classes?
Listed in table 9
 Instructor’s social presence
 The extent to which students feel they are part of a group, and
 Effective communication with the instructor and with other
students
 Factors that detract from it are:
Feeling threatened,
Feeling isolated, and
Missing not seeing and hearing the instructor

13. Research Question # 3 and
Summary of Findings
 Is the online learning experience detrimental to students’
motivation? The related item in the instrument reads: The
online course stimulated my desire to learn.
 According to my research, overall, 66% agreed with the
statement and 34% disagreed. The proportion that
disagreed is significantly different from zero, t-stat = 8.76,
probability value = 0.000. A significant proportion of
students report that the online course did not stimulate
their desire to learn.

14. Research Question # 4 and
Summary of Findings
 What factors influence learning outcomes? According to my
research:
 Feeling part of a group
 Being able to communicate with other students and with the
instructor
 Learning about the instructor
 Feeling isolated
 Feeling threatened
 Missing not seeing and hearing the instructor
 The motivation to participate.

15. Research Question # 5 and
Summary of Findings
 Is perceived learning related to social presence?
 The evidence in Tables 11 and 12 shows that a
statistically significant proportion of those
reporting decreased learning, missed not seeing
and hearing the instructor, reported decreased
quantity and quality of interaction with the
instructor and with students, expressed feelings of
isolation, were less motivated to learn, and learned
less about the instructor. All of the above are
components of the larger picture of social presence.

16. Research Question # 6 and
Summary of Findings
 What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of online education?
 The main perceived strength is flexibility: Ninety-four % of the respondents in
this study indicated that they took the online course because it allowed more
flexibility in time management. Consistent with this finding, the overwhelming
majority of respondents indicated that they are willing to take another online
course.
 Weaknesses: The results also indicate that the respondents missed not seeing and
hearing the instructor, felt isolated and threatened, were less motivated to learn,
were less satisfied with the educational experience, reported that the amount
learned decreased, their motivation to participate decreased, the amount and
quality of interaction with the instructor and students decreased, and the online
course did not provide an educational experience similar to the classroom .

17. Null Hypotheses
 H01. There is no statistically significant difference
between the personal experience of the online
course and that of the classroom. (Rejected).
 H02. There is no statistically significant relationship
between labor force activity as measured by
average weekly hours of work, and the decision to
enroll in online courses. (Not Rejected)

18. Ho2. There is no statistically significant relationship between labor force
activity, as measured by average weekly hours of work, and the decision to
enroll in online courses (Not Rejected).
 Table 4
________________________________________________
Hours/Week Percent of Respondents t-Stat P-value
_________________________________________________
1-10 18.7 -1.12 0.26
11-20 14.0 -2.22 0.03
21-30 10.7 -3.09 0.00
31-40 32.7 1.66 0.1
Over 40 24.0
 The decision to enroll in online classes is not systematically
related to hours worked per week.

19. Does the decision to take another online course depend
on labor force activity? Answer: No
 Table 5
_______________________________________________
Hours/Wk Percent of respondents willing t-Stat P-value
to take another online course
__________________________________________________
1-10 89 -0.75 .46
11-20 95 0.11 .92
21-30 94 -0.08 .93
31-40 90 -0.77 .44
Over 40 94
 The difference in means is not statistically significant at .05 and .
01 level.

20. Null Hypotheses
 H03. There is no statistically significant
relationship between commuting time to
school and the decision to enroll in online
courses (Not Rejected).

21. H03. There is no statistically significant relationship
between commuting time to school and the decision to
enroll in online courses (Not Rejected).
 Table 6
 ____________________________________________________________
Commuting Time Percent of
(minutes) Respondents
____________________________________________________________
0-15 44
16-30 30.7
31-45 17.3
46-60 5.3
Over 60 2.7
Contrary to expectations, commuting time does not systematically relate to the
decision to enroll online. Evidently, 74% percent of the students live within a
short distance from the school.

22. Commuting time and the willingness to take
another online course (No Relationship is
Found).
 Table 7
____________________________________________________________________
Commuting Time Percent of respondents willing t-Stat P-value
(minutes) to take another online course
________________________________________________________________
0-15 95 -0.33 .74
16-30 96 -0.32 .74
31-45 73 -1.91 .06
46-60 100 0.00 1
Over 60 100
 There is no statistically significant relationship between commuting time and the
willingness to take another online course.

23. Explaining the decision to enroll in
online courses
Table 8.
 __________________________________________________________________
Took the online course primarily because it allowed me more flexibility in managing my
time and schedule
________________________________________________________________
Strongly agree 64%
Agree 30%
Strongly disagree 0.7%
Disagree 5%
The overriding motivation for taking online courses is flexibility in managing time. Ninety-
four percent of respondents say so.

24. Null Hypotheses
 H04. There is no statistically significant
relationship between student satisfaction with
the educational experience and the
instructor’s social presence (Rejected).

25. H04. There is no statistically significant relationship between
student satisfaction with the educational experience and the
instructor’s social presence (Rejected, t-stat = -4.43).
 Modeling Satisfaction with the Educational Experience by Logit
 The estimation sample is 1 – 150.
_______________________________________________________
 Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-prob
 Constant 1.35239 0.2897 4.67 0.000
 miss -1.64007 0.3701 -4.43 0.000
 log-likelihood -89.6610156 no. of states 2
 no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2
______________________________________________________
 The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected excellent, very
good, or good and equals zero otherwise. The independent variable, ‘miss’
equals one if respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they missed not seeing
and hearing the instructor. The t-stat of the coefficient is negative and highly

26. H04. There is no statistically significant relationship between student
satisfaction with the educational experience and the instructor’s
social presence (Rejected, t-stat = 2.82).
 Modeling Satisfaction with the Educational Experience by Logit
 The estimation sample is 1 – 150
 ___________________________________________________________
 Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-prob
 Constant 2.37308e-016 0.2236 0.00 1.000
 ins 0.987387 0.3496 2.82 0.005
 log-likelihood -96.3789935 no. of states 2
 no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2
___________________________________________________________
The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected excellent, very
good, or good and equals zero otherwise. The independent variable, ‘ins’
equals one if respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they learned a great
deal about the instructor. The t-stat of the coefficient is positive and highly
significant, thus decisively rejecting the null hypothesis.

27. H04. There is no statistically significant relationship
between student satisfaction with the educational
experience and the social presence (Rejected, t= 3.67).
 Modeling Satisfaction with the Educational Experience by Logit
 The estimation sample is 1 – 150
 ______________________________________________________________________
Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-prob
Constant -0.374693 0.2770 -1.35 0.178
group 1.31296 0.3581 3.67 0.000
log-likelihood -93.5351378 no. of states 2
no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2
___________________________________________________________
 The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected excellent, very good, or good
and equals zero otherwise. The independent variable, ‘group’ equals one if respondents
strongly agreed or agreed that even though they were not physically in a traditional
classroom they still felt that they were part of a group. The t-stat of the coefficient is positive
and highly significant, thus decisively rejecting the null hypothesis.

28. H05. There is no statistical evidence that students
feel isolated by the online experience (Rejected t =
-4.52).
 Modeling Satisfaction with Educational Experience by Logit
 The estimation sample is 1 – 150
 _______________________________________________________
Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-prob
Constant 1.02165 0.2244 4.55 0.000
isol -1.71480 0.3796 -4.52 0.000
log-likelihood -89.5007031 no. of states 2
no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2
_________________________________________________________
 The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected
excellent, very good, or good and equals zero otherwise. The
independent variable, ‘isol’ equals one if respondents strongly agreed
with feelings of isolation while taking an online course. The t-stat of
the coefficient is negative and highly significant, thus decisively

29. Null Hypotheses
 H05. There is no statistical evidence that students
feel isolated by the online experience (Rejected).
 H06. There is no statistical evidence that students
find the online medium to be a poor way to
communicate with the instructor (Rejected).

30. Null Hypotheses
 H07. There is no statistical evidence that
students find the online medium to be
threatening (Rejected).
 H08. There is no statistically significant
relationship between perceived learning and
social presence in online education
(Rejected).

31. Table 9. Focuses on Perceived Satisfaction
with the Educational Experience in Relation
to Social Presence
 Table 9 shows descriptive statistics (means),
i.e., the percent of students who rated their
overall educational experience in the online
course in relation to social presence and
perceived satisfaction. Twenty-two
questions from the instrument were selected
for this purpose.

32. Table 9. Description
 1. Students rated their overall educational experience in
taking an online course as follows: Excellent (17%), Very
Good (19%), Good (24%), Satisfactory (31%), and Poor
(8%).
 Question 1, column 2 shows that 50% of the students who
rated their educational experience as excellent agreed with
the statement “Learned a great deal about the instructor.” As
we move to the right we find the following numbers: 66, 52,
40, and 0.
 We observe a tendency for the proportion of students who
learned a great deal about the instructor, to decrease as their
perception of the educational experience worsens.

33. Table 10. Description
 1. The difference between each group mean and
those who rated their experience as poor, the
benchmark group, is examined and t-stats and p-
values were calculated in order to test the null
hypothesis that the difference in group means is
zero.
 2. In question 1 (Learned a great deal about the
instructor), the t-stats shown in columns 2, 3, 4 &
5, are significant, indicating that we reject the
null hypothesis that the difference in each group
mean relative to poor raters is zero.

34. Table 10:Results
 The main characteristics that distinguish the poor raters from the other
four groups are as follows:
 Students tend to feel threatened
 Students tend to feel isolated
 They miss not seeing and hearing the instructor
 They do not feel part of group
 They are less motivated to participate and to learn, and in fact they
report decreased learning
 They see the online educational experience as very different from that
of the classroom
 Finally, they were much less likely to enjoy the online course.

35. Table 11. Focuses on Perceived Learning
in Relation to Social Presence
 Table 11 shows descriptive statistics (means),
i.e., the percent of students who rated the
amount learned in the online course in
relation to social presence. Nineteen
questions from the instrument were selected
for this purpose.

36. Table 11
 Students rated the amount they learned in the online course
as follows: Increased (29%), Increased Somewhat (10%),
No Change (38%), Decreased Somewhat (16%), and
Decreased (7%).
 Column 2 shows that of those students indicating that the
amount learned increased, only 37% missed the instructor’s
presence, as compared to 63% of those reporting that the
amount learned decreased somewhat (column 5), and 100%
of those who indicated that the amount learned decreased
(column 6).
 We observe an inverse relationship between perceived
learning and social presence; specifically, as perceived
learning decreases, a larger percentage of students missed
the instructor’s presence.

37. Table 12
 1. The difference between each group mean and
those who said that the amount learned decreased,
the benchmark group, is examined and t-stats and p-
values were calculated in order to test whether the
difference in means is statistically significant.
 2. In question 1 (Learned a great deal about the
instructor), columns 2, 3, 4 & 5, the t-stats are
significant, indicating that we reject the null
hypothesis that the difference in each group mean
relative to the benchmark group is zero.

38. Table 12: Results
 The main characteristics that distinguish the “least
learners” from the other four groups are as follows:
 Students tend to feel threatened
 Students tend to feel isolated
 They missed not seeing and hearing the instructor
 They do not feel part of group
 Are less motivated to participate and to learn
 The online educational experience is very different
from that of the classroom.

39. Overall Results
 The results in tables 11 & 12 confirm those
reported in tables 9 and 10, and provide
statistically significant evidence that
educational outcomes are adversely affected
by a diminution of social presence in online
classes.

40. Conclusions
 This work shows that in a statistically significant
proportion of online students:
 The motivation to learn decreases
 Tend to feel isolated
 Tend to be threatened
 Miss not seeing and hearing the instructor
 Find the online medium to be a poor way to communicate
and interact with others, and
 In fact, the report shows a decrease in perceived learning.
All of the above underscore the importance of social
presence in online education. This is an important issue
that educational leaders should take into account.

41. Recommendations
 1. Training classes to prepare instructors to design quality online courses
 2. Alerting students about the negative aspects of online learning and how to
overcome them
 3. Pre-testing students to determine if they are ready to tackle online courses
 4. Instructors should encourage students to interact with others by assigning group
projects, case studies and discussion questions via chat-room and discussion board
 5. Instructors must have an active participation rule in classes in a way that students
feel the instructor’s social presence
 Informal gathering of instructors with students or among students
 6. Use streaming videos to make sure the students feel the instructor’s social
presence.

42. Recommendations for Further Study
 1. A study could be conducted to include a larger sample of
students in the Lone Star College System in order to determine
the extent to which the results generalize to students in other
departments besides Business and Technology, and in other
locations
 2. A study could be conducted to include undergraduate
students at the university level in order to ascertain if the results
generalize to a larger cross section of students including juniors
and seniors.
 3. A study could be conducted to include graduate students at
the university level in order to ascertain if the results generalize
to them as well.