Immediacy and presence: reflections on an interdisciplinary and rhetorical approach to teaching and learning in the online environment

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus pandemic mandated unexpected “instant transitions” to remote learning and accelerated student demand for online courses. As a result, U.S. colleges and universities across the nation began and have continued to expand their online courses and degree programs,¹ which underscores the need for continuing and expanding the scholarly examination of online teaching and learning.² This reflective essay presents an overview of two disciplinary perspectives on scholarship, instructional communication research related to immediacy and online education research related to presence. A comparison of the six components of instructional communication competence to the constructs of social presence and teaching presence is outlined and mapped. The essay concludes with research-based suggestions for enhancing what teachers say and do in online courses in order to expand our understanding of online teaching and learning. Recommendations are offered for interdisciplinary research regarding instructor immediacy and presence.

KEYWORDS:

• online learning
• immediacy
• teaching presence
• instructor presence
• community of inquiry

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Sean Gallagher and Jason Palmer, “The Pandemic Pushed Universities Online. The Change was Long Overdue.” September 29 (2020), https://hbsp.harvard.edu/inspiring-minds/the-pandemic-pushed-universities-online-the-change-was-long-overdue.

2 Sherwyn P. Morreale, Janice G. Thorpe, and Joshua N. Westwick “Online Teaching: Challenge or Opportunity for Communication Education Scholars?” Communication Education 70, no. 1 (2021): 117–9, https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1811360.

3 Online Education Statistics. EDUCATIONDATA.ORG Distance Learning Statistics [2021], Online Education Trends (educationdata.org).

4 Lindsay McKenzie, “Students Want Onlilne Learning Options Post-Pandemic.” Aril 27 (2021), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/04/27/survey-reveals-positive-outlook-online-instruction-post-pandemic.

5 Morreale et al., “Online Teaching: Challenge or Opportunity;” Alexandra Sousa, “Dialogue in Online Learning Spaces: How Transitioning to Online Learning during a Pandemic Impacts Critical Classroom Dialogue and Inclusivity,” Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology 10, no. 1 (2021): 229–37. doi:10.14434/jotlt.v9i2.31383.

6 Steven Beebe and Timothy P. Mottet, “Students and Instructors,” in 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook, ed. William Eadie (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009), 349–57.

7 Ray Reagans, “Close Encounters: Analyzing how Social Similarity and Propinquity Contribute to Strong Network Connections,” Organization Science (Providence, R.I.) 22, no. 4 (2011): 835–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868899; Saniye Tugba Bulu, “Place Presence, Social Presence, Co-Presence, and Satisfaction in Virtual Worlds,” Computers and Education 58, no. 1 (2012): 154–61.

8 Bernard Choi and Anita W. P. Pak, “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity and Trans disciplinarity in Health Research, Services, Education and Policy: 1. Definitions, Objectives, and Evidence of Effectiveness,” Clinical and Investigative Medicine 29, no. 6 (2006): 351–64.

9 Beebe and Mottet, “Students and Instructors”; Sherwyn P. Morreale, “Instructional Communication Competence in Higher Education,” in Handbooks of communication science: ed. Annegret F. Hannawa and Brian Spitzberg (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2015), 449–76; Beebe and Mottet, “Students and Instructors.”

10 Beebe and Mottet, “Students and Instructors”; Morreale, “Instructional Communication Competence in Higher Education.”

11 Albert Mehrabian, “Some References and Measures of Nonverbal Behavior,” Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation 1 (1969): 213–7.

12 Karla K. Jensen, “Training Teachers to Use Verbal Immediacy,” Communication Research Reports 16, no. 3 (1999): 223–32, https://doi-org.libproxy.uccs.edu/10.1080/08824099909388721.

13 Patrick O’Sullivan, Stephen K. Hunt, and Lance R. Lippert, “Mediated Immediacy: A Language of Affiliation in a Technological Age,” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23, no. 4 (2004): 464–90.

14 Patrick O’Sullivan et al., Mediated Immediacy: Affiliation at Distance in Educational Contexts. The Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. (November 2001).

15 O’Sullivan et al., “Mediated Immediacy.”

16 J.B. Arbaugh, “How Instructor Immediacy Behaviors Affect Student Satisfaction and Learning in Web-Based Courses,” Business Communication Quarterly 64, no. 4 (2001): 42–54.

17 Gordon McAlister, “Computer-Mediated Immediacy: A New Construct in Teacher–Student Communication for Computer-Mediated Distance Education.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing (2001).

18 Jason D Baker, “An Investigation of Relationships among Instructor Immediacy and Affective and Cognitive Learning in the Online Classroom,” The Internet and Higher Education 7, no. 1 (2004): 1–13.

19 Joan Gorham, “The Relationship between Verbal Teacher Immediacy Behaviors and Student Learning,” Communication Education 37, no. 1 (1988): 40–53.

20 J. B. Arbaugh, “How Instructor Immediacy Behaviors Affect Student Satisfaction.”

21 Gordon McAlister, “Computer-Mediated Immediacy: A New Construct in Teacher–Student Communication for Computer-Mediated Distance Education.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing (2001).

22 Baker, “An Investigation of Relationships Among Instructor Immediacy.”

23 Joel Haefner, “The Importance of Being Synchronous,” Academic Writing. 2000. http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/teaching/haefner2000.htm.

24 Richard Schwier and Shelly Balbar, “The Interplay of Content and Community in Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication: Virtual Communication in a Graduate Seminar,” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 28, no. 2 (2002): 21.

25 Susan Pelowski et al. “So Far But Yet so Close: Student Chat Room Immediacy, Learning, and Performance in an Online Course,” Journal of Interactive Learning Research 16, no. 4 (2005): 395.

26 Paul L.Witt and Paul Schrodt, “The Influence of Instructional Technology use and Teacher Immediacy on Student Affect for Teacher and Course,” Communication Reports (Pullman, Wash.) 19, no. 1 (2006): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210500309843.

27 Marcia D. Dixson et al., “Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors and Online Student Engagement: Bringing Past Instructional Research into the Present Virtual Classroom,” Communication Education 66, no. 1 (2017): 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1209222.

28 Anne Bialowas and Sarah Steimel, “Less is More: Use of Video to Address the Problem of Teacher Immediacy and Presence in Online Courses,” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 32, no. 2 (2019): 354–64.

29 Richard Bello, Frances E. Brandau, and Dena Horne, “The Enhancement of Verbal Immediacy in Online University Classes: A Student-Generated Taxonomy,” International Journal of Communication 14 (2020): 1970–86.

30 April Chatham-Carpenter, “The Future Online: Instructional Communication Scholars Taking the Lead,” Communication Education 66, no. 4 (2017): 492–494. doi:10.1080/03634523.2017.1349916.

31 Morreale et al., “Online Teaching: Challenge or Opportunity.”

32 Secil Caskurlu. “Confirming the Subdimensions of Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presences: A Construct Validity Study,” The Internet and Higher Education 39 (2018): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.002; Sebastián R. Díaz et al., “Student Ratings of the Importance of Survey Items, Multiplicative Factor Analysis, and the Validity of the Community of Inquiry Survey,” The Internet and Higher Education 13, no. 1 (2010): 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.004; Peter Shea et al., “Reconceptualizing the Community of Inquiry Framework: An Exploratory Analysis,” Internet and Higher Education 23 (2014): 9–17. https://doi://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.002.

33 Randy D. Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer. “Critical Inquiry in a Test-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education.” The Internet and Higher Education 2 (2000): 87–105.

34 Secil Caskurlu, “Confirming the Subdimensions of Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presences”; Sebastián R. Díaz et al., “Student Ratings of the Importance of Survey Items”; Peter Shea et al., “Reconceptualizing the Community of Inquiry Framework.”

35 Randy D. Garrison, Marti Cleveland-Innes, and Norm Vaughn, “The Community of Inquiry”. (2019) https://coi.athabascau.ca/.

36 Randy D. Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer, “Critical Inquiry in a Test-Based Environment.

37 Randy D. Garrison and J.B. Arbaugh, “Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Directions,” The Internet and Higher Education 10, no. 3 (2007): 157–72.

38 Ibid.

39 Randy D. Garrison and J.B. Arbaugh, “Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework,” 159.

40 Carol Hostetter and Monique Busch, “Community Matters: Social Presence and Online Learning,” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13, no. 1 (2013): 77–86.

41 Charlotte N. Gunawardena and Frank J. Zittle, “Social Presence as a Predictor of Satisfaction with Computer-Mediated Conferencing Environment,” American Journal of Distance Education 11, no. 3 (1997): 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970.

42 Randy D. Garrison and J. B. Arbaugh, “Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework.”

43 Gunawardena, “Social Presence as a Predictor of Satisfaction”; Hostetter et al., “Community Matters”; Fary Sami, “Course Format Effects on Learning Outcomes in an Introductory Statistics Course,” MathAMATYC Educator 2, no. 2 (2011): 48–51.

44 Wally Boston et al., “An Exploration of the Relationship Between Indicators of the Community of Inquiry Framework and Retention in Online Coures,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 13, no. 3 (2009): 67–83. kfl https://www.learntechlib.org/j/ISSN-1939-5256/v/13/n/3/; Hyo-Jeong So and Thomas A Brush, “Student Perceptions of Collborative Learning, Social Presence and Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment: Relationships and Critical Factors,” Computers & Education 51 (2008): 318–36.

45 Linda C. Laing and Gregory K Laing, “A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Attrition in Online Courses,” e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching 9, no. 2 (2015): 39–55; Simon Y. Liu, Joel Gomez, and Cherng-Jyh Yen, “Community College Online Course Retention and Final Grade: Predictability of Social Presence,” Journal of Interactive Online Learning 8, no. 2 (2009): 165.

46 Shane Dawson, “A Study of the Relationship Between Student Communication Interaction and Sense of Community,” The Internet and Higher Education 9, no. 3 (2016): 153–162. doi:10.61016/j.iheduc.2006.06.007; John D. Griffith, A Quasi-Experimental Comparison of Student Satisfaction in Hybrid Versus an Online-Only Course (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest LLC (ED556866) (2014).

47 Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer. “Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education,” The American Journal of Distance Education 15, no. (2001): 7–23; Dragan Gasevic et al., “Externally-Facilitated Regulation Scaffolding and Role Assignment to Develop Cognitive Presence in Asynchronous Online Discussions,” Internet and Higher Education 24 (2015): 53–65. doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.006; Katrina Meyer, “Face-to-Face Versus Threaded Discussions: The Role of Time and Higher-Order Thinking,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks JALN 7, no. 2 (2019): 55.

48 Garrison et al., “Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework”; Richard Ladyshewsky, “Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7, no. 1 (2013): 1–24. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113; Kathleen Sheridan and Melissa Kelly, “The Indicators of Instructor Presence That Are Important to Students in Online Courses,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6, no. 4 (2010): 767–77.

49 Jiangmei Yuan and C Kim, “Guidelines for Facilitating the Development of Learning Communities in Online Courses,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30 (2014): 220–32. doi:10.111/jcal.12042.

50 O. Sheridan et al., “Indicators of Instructor Presence,” 767–77.

51 Terry Anderson et al., “Assessing Teaching Presence in a Computer Conferencing Context,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5, no. 2 (2001): 1–17; Karen P. Swan et al., “Validating a Measurement Tool of Presence in Online Communities of Inquiry,” eMentor 24, no. 2 (2009). http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul_v2.php?numer = 24&id = 543.

52 Papia Bawa, “Retention in Online Courses: Exploring Issues and Solutions-A Literature Review,” Sage Open (2016): 1–11. doi:10.1177/2158244015621777; Randy Garrison and Martha Cleveland-Innes, “Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction is Not Enough,” American Journal of Distance Education 19 no. 2 (2005): 133–148. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x.

53 Alison Carr-Chellman and Philip Duchastel, “The Ideal Online Course*,” Library Trends 50 no. 1 (2011): 145–58.

54 Lean Paulo Kushnir and Kenneth C Berry, “Inside, Outside, Upside Down: New Directions in Online Teaching and Learning,” in International Conference on e-Learning, ed. Miguel Baptista Nunes and Maggie McPherson (Lisbon: Multi conference on computer science and information systems, 2014), 133–40.

55 Laurie G. Hillstock, “A Few Common Misconceptions About Distance Learning,” in Proceedings of the 2005 ASCUE Conference (Myrtle Beach, SC: Association of Small Computer Users in Education (ASCUE), 2005), 139–45; Gail Markle, “Factors Influencing Acheivement in Undergraduate Social Science Research Methods Courses: A Mixed Methods Analysis,” Teaching Sociology 45, no. 2 (2017): 105–15; Alexandra Salas and Leslie Moller, “The Value of Voice Thread in Online Learning: Faculty Perceptions of Usefulness,” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 16, no. 1 (2015): 11–24.

56 Bawa, “Retention in Online Courses”; Garrison, “Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning”; Jonathann Brinkerhoff and Carol M Koroghlanian, “Online Students’ Expectations: Enhancing the Fit Between Online Students and Course Design,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 36, no. 4 (2007): 383–93; Gasevic et al., “Externally-Facilitated Regulation Scaffolding.”

57 Alfred Rovai. “In Search of Higher Persistence Rates in Distance Education Online Programs,” Internet and Higher Education 6 (2013): 1–16.

58 Peter Shea, Chun Sau Li, and Alexandra Pickett, “A Study of Teaching Presence and Student Sense of Learning Community in Fully Onine and Web-Enhanced College Courses,” Internet and Higher Education 9 (2016): 175–90. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005.

59 Bawa, “Retention in online courses”.

60 Martin, “Student Perception of Helpfulness.”

61 Richardson et al., “Conceptualizing and Investigating Instructor Presence in Online Learning Environments,” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16, no. 3 (2015): 256–97.

62 Martin, “Student Perception of Helpfulness,” 53.

63 Joanna C. Dunlap and Patrick R Lowenthal, “The Power of Presence: Our Quest for Thet Right Mix of Social Presence in Online Courses,” in Real life distance education:Case studies in practice, eds A.A. Pina and A.P. Mizell (2014), 41–66. Greenwich: Information Age.

64 Charles Hodges and S Forest Cowan, “Preservice Teachers’ Views of Instructor Presence in Online Courses,” Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 28, no. 4 (2012): 139–45; Sheridan et al., “Indicators of Instructor Presence.”

65 Marcie Cutsinger, Timothy J. Wall, and Tyler Tapps, “Differences of Instructor Presence Levels in Predominately Online Versus Predominantly Not Online Courses within the Community College Setting,” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 21 no. 2 (2018); Martin, “Student Perception of Helpfulness of Facilitation Strategies”; Dunlap and Lowenthal, “The Power of Presence.”

66 Martin, “Student Perception of Helpfulness”; Richardson et al., “Conceptualizing and Investigating Instructor Presence.”

67 Sheridan et al., “Indicators of Instructor Presence.”

68 Peter Shea, “A Study of Students’ Sense of Learning Community in Online Environments,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks JALN 10, no. 1 (2006): 35. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i1.1774.

69 Peter Shea and Temi Bidjerano, “Community of Inquiry as a Theoretical Framework to Foster ‘Epistemic Engagement’ and ‘Cognitive Presence’ in Online Education,” Computers and Education 52 no. 3 (2009): 543–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007 p. 551.

70 Gasevic et al., “Externally-Facilitated Regulation Scaffolding.”

71 Laing and Laing, “A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Attrition,” 47.

72 Gasevic et al., “Externally-Facilitated Regulation Scaffolding.”

73 Beebe and Mottet, “Students and Instructors.”

74 Beebe and Mottet, “Students and Instructors”; Morreale, “Instructional Communication Competence in Higher Education.”

75 Beebe and Mottet, “Students and Instructors.”

76 Wally Boston et al., “An Exploration of the Relationship Between Indicators of the Community”; Randy D. Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer, “Critical Inquiry in a Test-Based Environment.”

77 Beebe and Mottet, “Students and Instructors.”

78 Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, “Critical Inquiry in a Test-Based Environment”; Ladyshewsky, “Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction.”

79 Eizabeth Stacey and Mary Rice, “Evaluating an Online Learning Environment,” Australian Journal of Educational Technology 18, no. 3 (2002): 323–40.

80 Ladyshewsky, “Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction.”

81 Ibid., 19.

82 Shea et al., “A Study of Teaching Presence.”

83 Stacey and Rice, “Evaluating an Online Learning Environment.”

84 Linda Douw et al., “Interdisciplinarity Beyond the Buzzword: A Guide to Academic Work Across Disciplines,” Knowledge, Information, and Innovation; KIN Center for Digital Innovation; Amsterdam Business Research Institute. (2022). //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6341545.