Social Presence, Social Interaction, Collaborative Learning, and Satisfaction in Online and Face-to-Face Courses

Taking Affective Learning in Digital Education One Step Further: Trainees’ Affective Characteristics Predicting Multicontextual Pre-training Transfer Intention

“…During our research, the a-synchronous training the participants were about to take was characterized by the absence of physical and online contact between students while contact between students and lecturers was limited to reviewing and advising on the assignments. Social presence (Spears, 2012) and social interaction (Jung et al, 2002;Swan, 2003;Yang et al, 2010) are considered to be two important preconditions for successful online and affective learning (Sun and Chen, 2016;Richardson et al, 2017). After our study, the format of the training has been altered and now includes more synchronous interaction between students through collaborative group assignments.…”

Teaching Presence Influencing Online Students’ Course Satisfaction at an Institution of Higher Education

“…This points to the significance of teaching presence in the online classroom. Teaching presence and pedagogical skills are important for student success (Croxton 2014;Spears, 2012). Garrison and Anderson (2003) posited that teaching presence is the most valued type of collaboration by students, and Battalio (2007) concluded that student-instructor communication repeatedly rates high in online research studies.…”

“…The researcher noticed that teaching presence and the number of assignments indicated that satisfaction was influenced by these changes. As for other variables, there is lack of evidence that age (Alman, Frey, & Tomer, 2012;Bulu, 2012;Croxton, 2014;Sorden & Munene, 2013;Wahab, 2007), number of prior courses, and number of courses completed (Hostetter & Busch, 2006;Cobb, 2011;Spears, 2012) could also influence the level of learning satisfaction, and further investigation is required. Garcia et al (2014) extended their previous survey with a focus group to examine methods to improve instructional delivery for graduate students (n = 48) in an educational leadership course in a Master of Education program in a university located in South Texas, United States.…”

Video-based Feedback on Student Work: An Investigation into the Instructor Experience, Workload, and Student Evaluations

“…Little research has investigated the impact of videos on student evaluations of instructors or student performance or student evaluations of instructors. Studies have not focused on precise impacts on learning (Jung et al, 2002;Richardson & Swan, 2003;Spears, 2012). Positive links exist between social presence and student perceptions of their learning, but most do not analyze actual grades (Hostetter & Busch, 2013;Swan & Shih, 2005;Wise et al, 2004).…”

“…None of these studies examined the impact of video feedback specifically. Finally, most research addresses student perception of video feedback, quality of feedback, and social presence (Spears, 2012;Wade, 2016), but little of the scholarship looks at faculty connectedness to their students, reactions to being required to provide such feedback, or impact on workload and evaluations of their teaching. Attention is now turned to instructor perspectives, as it is contended that the literature does not sufficiently address their experiences when providing video feedback.…”