Content-Type: text/html

This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
         If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, 
send email to
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0602A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D3704722%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a> with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").

(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================

Social Presence, Interactivity and Engagement:
A Human-Centered Approach Towards Instructional Technology


Social Presence, Interactivity and Engagement:
A Human-Centered Approach Towards Instructional Technology
Abstract

This paper looks at the question of technology in education from a 
communication perspective and attempts to make the case for a more 
human-centered approach. Concepts of social presence, engagement and 
interactivity are identified as key variables and the relevance of 
these are theorized. A results of a pilot study carried out to 
explore the effect of these variables on student satisfaction in an 
online course are encouraging. The limitations and future directions 
for the research are discussed.
Introduction: Technology in Education & the Communication Discipline
	The relevance of technology, especially that of information 
technology in education has been an intensely debated topic over the 
last decade. Recent developments in technology challenge the 
traditional ways of approaching education. One reaction to these 
developments has been that of extreme optimism, fully committed to 
this new technology and accepting computer-mediated-communication 
(CMC) as an active component of the instructional tools.  On the 
other hand there is extreme skepticism from the conservatives who see 
no reason to abandon proven traditional methods. Between these two 
approaches is an intermediate third approach that superficially 
incorporates information technology driven by commercial interests. 
This study approaches technology from a broader perspective, in the 
quest for a more meaningful understanding of its role in education in 
general and communication education in particular. Technology is 
manifest in our day-to-day life as material objects or tools, as 
knowledge, as activity and as volition (Mitcham, 1994). Seeing 
technology as volition – understanding its use and its consequences 
is perhaps most relevant to our discussion. But before getting into 
the discussions about the demands of technology in practice, it is 
important to stand back and look at the basic philosophical issues.
In a society that is becoming increasingly technologically 
deterministic, it was only a matter of time before education felt the 
influence of the movement. Whereas other technologies such as video 
broadcast of classes and the ever popular PowerPoint presentations 
have come to be established as invaluable tools used to bolster 
teaching and learning, a great deal still remains to be said for the 
use of online classroom forums and their effectiveness as teaching 
tools from the point of view of engagement or the feeling of presence 
that is an important characteristic of traditional learning environments.
	Many scholars argue that technology is neutral and does not 
denigrate education (Russell, 1997) where as Norman(1993) argue that 
technology is not neutral. In fact, critics have pointed out the 
duality of technology even earlier (Mumford, 1934; Giedion, 1948). 
Norman (1993) reminds us that each technology has properties or in 
other words – affordances, which make it easier for doing certain 
tasks and harder for doing others. Norman goes on to argue that each 
technology possess a certain mindset or a particular way of thinking 
about it, which pervades those who use it.  Leamnson (1999) points 
out another drawback of these technologies used in higher education. 
According to him "because many of these technologies can also be used 
to entertain or even misinform, none of them can be used 
indiscriminately" (p 127.)  Leamnson (1999) and Norman (1993) are not 
alone in their distrust of the power of technology. Other media 
theorists like Neil Postman (1992) are even more pessimistic about 
the increased dependence on technology. Leamnson (1999) argues that 
technology is not the sole answer to all the social problems 
including education.
	Despite the reservations expressed by many of the above theorists, 
they are not quite dismissive of the technology either. They (Norman, 
1993; Leamnson, 1999) recognize the positive aspects of the 
technology. Norman (1993) opines that technology also helps us to 
think better and to make more informed judgments, if used 
appropriately and judiciously. To sum up the discussion so far, 
technology is not neutral. It affects the course of the society as 
McLuhan (1964) points out and has its consequences and side effects. 
As educators and users of technology it is up to us to decide what is 
the appropriate course to take or how can we decide what is an 
appropriate technology?
	Depending on the locus, there are two points of view of technology 
according to Norman (1993). The first is a machine-centered view, 
which elevates the mechanical modes of thought as the ideal and the 
second or opposing is the human-centered view, which emphasizes the 
human values (Norman, 1993). He argues that it is time to change the 
our machine centered view of technology as emphasized by the motto of 
the 1933 Chicago's world fair "Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man 
Conforms" to a human centered view such as "People Propose, Science 
Studies, Technology Conforms" (Norman, 1993, p. 253). It is important 
to see how the human-centered approach towards technology is more 
suited for education.

The need for a human – centered approach towards instructional technology
	Mitcham (1994) identifies two distinct philosophical perspectives in 
approaching technology: one based in engineering, which assumes 
technology as central to human life and the other based in humanities 
concerned with cultural and moral issues. Engineering philosophy of 
technology is focused on the "nature of technology itself – its 
concepts, its methods, its cognitive structures and objective 
manifestations" (Mitcham, 1994, p.62). He elaborates that hermeneutic 
(humanities) philosophy of technology seeks "an insight into the 
meaning of technology – its relation to the transtechnical: art and 
literature, ethics and politics, religion" (p.62). Thus the 
engineering approach towards technology is focused on the nature of 
technology and its internal structure where as the humanities 
approach is more concerned with the meaning of technology than its 
internal structure.
	This distinction assumes relevance when we realize that, in mass 
communication academic organizations and departments are classified 
along technological, rather than conceptual backgrounds (Dennis et 
al., 2003). There are still many courses which primarily address the 
skill issues or the nature of the technology especially in film and 
television studies. Despite the divisions based on technological 
lines, the focus of communication education is not primarily on 
teaching technology but "how communicators operate within the realm 
of a given technology" (Dennis et al., 2003, p. 298).
	The attempt to merge these two distinct traditions is perhaps the 
biggest contribution of the pragmatic school of philosophy, which is 
one of the three dominant schools of philosophy in the last century 
(the other two being phenomenology and logical positivism). This is 
most manifest in the contributions of John Dewey, American 
philosopher and renowned educator. Pragmatism emphasizes "primacy of 
human action, practicalities of human involvement, the materiality of 
the world, the interaction of the senses, and the formative power of 
technology" (Coyne, 1995, p17). The major influence on information 
technology has been the pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey and Martin 
Heidegger, and the 'media philosophy' of McLuhan.
	Pragmatic school of philosophy has its origin the work of 
philosopher C.S. Peirce and the pioneer of modern psychology, William 
James. However, pragmatism's most vocal advocate was John Dewey, who 
is best known for his contributions to the cause of liberalism in 
education (See Dewey, 1934; Dewey, 1938). Coyne (1995) establishes 
that there is a strong correlation between philosophical pragmatism 
and the pragmatic orientation to information technology, especially 
computer system design. Pragmatism advances the idea that the theory 
is a kind of practice and embraces liberalism.  Dewey's pragmatic 
approach to technology portrays it in broad terms. For Dewey, 
technology is any tool that helps in the process of inquiry more than 
the final product and considers facts, ideas, and languages all 
qualify as technologies in addition to the 'engineering' notion of 
the term (Hickman, 1990). In the pragmatic tradition, technology and 
its use is seen against the backdrop of daily practice (Coyne, 1995).
The use of a particular medium, a special language having its own 
characteristics, is the source of every art, philosophic, scientific, 
technological and esthetic. The arts of science, of politics, of 
history, and of painting and poetry all have finally the same 
material; that which is constituted by the interaction of the live 
creature with his surroundings. (Dewey, 1934, p.319-320)
Dewey's ideas on education are based on his philosophy of experience. 
Extending his ideas on education to the use of technology, one can 
argue that technology should serve as a tool in enhancing 
experience.  Again, the use of technology should be directed towards 
increasing student awareness and participation is social practices 
that result in an enriching experience. Having discussed the broader 
philosophical issues concerning technology, the focus can be moved 
onto the affordances and constraints that technology offers as a 
medium for instruction.

CMC based instruction
	When referring to technology in education, one primarily refers to 
information technology or to computer-mediated-communication in 
particular. Since the questions raised by the use of technology in 
education are primarily communication questions, Lane and Shelton 
(2001) point out that the communication discipline is in essence the 
core of this discussion. Lane and Shelton stress that any healthy 
pedagogy for implementing technology should address practical and 
evaluative considerations such as accessibility, judicious use, 
potential consequences, need for a healthy criticism and the 
importance of working from pedagogy to technology than the other way round.
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), defined by December (1997) as 
the process by which people, create, exchange, and perceive 
information using networked telecommunications systems, has been an 
area of growth since it was first introduced in the 1980's. The 
exponential growth in technology, in terms of the ever increasing 
speed of processors and enhanced capabilities of microchips used in 
the computing process, along with the rapid networking of computers 
to form the Internet, have helped to create other areas in which 
computer mediation has become applicable. The potential of this new 
medium for distance education was quickly realized and soon was seen 
as an alternative to traditional distance learning classes offered 
through correspondence.
CMC is broken down as, either asynchronous, where communication is 
protracted, as is the case of such media as email, bulletin boards 
and listservs, or synchronous, where communication is real time, as 
in the media of chatting, the use of group software and electronic 
databases (Ferris, 1997; Junge, 1999). In terms of functions and 
applications, CMC encompasses such areas as electronic messaging 
(Johansen, Vallee & Spangler, 1979), distributed decision-making 
(Wellens, 1993), and computer assisted instruction (CAI) (Santoro, 
1995). These features make CMC a highly flexible medium in terms of 
interactivity and level of engagement and thus ideal for a broad 
range of distance education courses.

Elements in a human–centered approach towards CMC based learning: 
social presence,
	The discussion so far points towards the need to approach computer 
based instruction from a social – psychological perspective. In order 
to study CMC from a social psychological perspective, it is important 
to understand the importance of "presence" (Gunawardena & Zittle, 
1997). The concept of presence is relevant for the development and 
evaluation of a broad range of media systems and as such important 
for the field of communications. The Webster's dictionary defines 
presence as "the fact or condition of being present" and its 
adjective present is defined as "being at a specified or understood 
place". Integration of the two definitions as suggested by Kim and 
Biocca (1997) define presence as the subjective experience of "being 
there" at a mediated place. Conceptualizations of presence across 
disciplines deal with humans as subjects. Lombard and Ditton (1997) 
identify six different conceptualizations of presence: presence as 
social richness, presence as realism, presence as transportation, 
presence as immersion, presence as social actor within a medium and 
presence as medium as social actor.  They identify the "perceptual 
illusion of non-mediation" as the common thread among these 
conceptualizations which vary widely.  This can occur in two distinct 
ways, either when the medium appears invisible or transparent and 
when the medium transforms into something more than a medium, a 
social entity (Lombard & Ditton, 1997).
In a mediated social environment such as text based virtual 
environments, presence is defined as a sense of "being together" or 
"co-existence" a rather than as "being there" (Greef & IJsselsteijn, 
2001; Towell & Towell, 1997; Nass & Lee, 2003). Social presence is 
operationalized as the extent to which other beings exist in the 
virtual world and respond to the subject.  Presence is generally 
thought to positively correlate with improved task performance. A 
distinction can be made between physical and social presence in the 
theoretical definitions. The physical presence category would include 
all definitions which approach presence as an experience of "being 
there". The social presence category would include all definitions 
which include those which approach presence as experience of "being 
together" and interacting with others in the mediated environment.

Interaction and Engagement
The learning process is the act of creating relationships through 
interactions and as such there are many aspects to the interactions 
that take place in the classroom environment and beyond the 
boundaries of the class. The first of such interactions is the 
teacher-content interaction, which takes place when the teacher, both 
in the online and traditional classroom, prepares the information to 
be imparted to the student. The second of the interaction processes 
is the teacher- student interaction or the act of teaching itself. 
Although much of the research in this area has been focused in 
classroom study, it has been found that some of the same measures of 
this interaction can be applied in the online environment (Garrison, 
Anderson & Archer, 2000). The process of student–student interaction 
is most evident when collaborative or group learning strategies are 
encouraged or employed by the instructor. Research in this area has 
shown that this style of learning is beneficial when students share 
common concerns, a characteristic that is very true for adult 
students (Brookfield, 1987) who form a sizeable portion of the 
distance learning community. The area of student- content interaction 
is one in which the most interactions take place. Students spend the 
majority of their time relating to content both in the classroom and 
in technology aided or mediated learning. Through the use of modern 
day technology, content, which was once viewed as static, can be 
thought of as animated and can be geared to make student- content 
interactions more active (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). The 
ever-expanding use of computer mediation in the learning process and 
the need to explore its effectiveness as a learning tool is the 
driving force behind this research.
One of the contributions to the literature on CMC in education comes 
from Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999), who based on their experiences 
have developed Engagement Theory. Engagement Theory is based on the 
fundamental idea that "students must be meaningfully engaged in 
learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile 
tasks." These researchers are of the view that technology although 
not necessary for engagement to occur, can be used to "facilitate 
engagement in ways which are difficult to achieve otherwise." This 
body of research goes to counter Postman's (1992) view that 
"including technology in the classroom curriculum will replace 
instruction, create a colder, more impersonal atmosphere, and corrupt 
the recipients from creative learning." They point to engagement 
theory as a framework for the development of technology based 
teaching and identify three criteria for the effectiveness of 
achieving engagement namely group learning, the use of projects 
within the class and using implements with a focus that is outside of 
the class material. Although this research does have benefits, it 
does not consider other methods of engaging the student with the 
material of the class. One such method would be to encourage students 
to involve in a dialogue especially in situations where group 
projects are not applicable.

Student Satisfaction in online courses
	Current literature on distance education especially CMC based 
distance education have focused on evaluating the multiple components 
of the distance education programs such as teacher effectiveness, 
student achievement, providing feedback and comparisons with 
conventional classroom courses among other things (Harrison, Saba, 
Seeman, Molise, Behm & Williams, 1991). However, one aspect that has 
received relatively less attention is the impact of this CMC based 
instruction on learner satisfaction. It is important to study learner 
satisfaction for two reasons. The first reason as Harrison et al. 
(1991) point out is that assessing learner satisfaction is crucial to 
identify and validate the main components of the distance education 
program in which they share a stake. Secondly, organizational success 
which is crucial to any online learning community is directly 
dependent on the maintenance of interest and satisfaction of the 
participants as suggested by Barnard's (1938) 
participant-satisfaction model (Harrison et al., 1991).  Keeley 
(1978, p. 277) states that the importance of any organization depends 
on "the ability of the system to maintain itself by returning human 
benefit in sufficient degree to induce participant cooperation". The 
measures aim to capture students' attitudes and behavior regarding 
their satisfaction towards the CMC based distance education.

Research Question & Hypotheses
	Based on the above discussion, this study examines the influence of 
social presence and interaction on learner satisfaction in online 
learning environments. We are primarily interested in learner 
satisfaction than on learner's academic performance, since a lot of 
other personal factors including intelligence affect performance. 
Learner satisfaction on the other hand is a more direct consequence 
of the mediating environment. The main research question addressed by 
this study is "what is the influence of social presence and 
interaction & engagement on student satisfaction in online courses?" 
Based on this research question the following two hypotheses are proposed.

H1:	The higher the level of social presence in an online learning 
environment, the greater the learner satisfaction.
H2:	The greater the engagement and interaction in an online learning 
environment, the 	greater the learner satisfaction.
Since theories on presence including those on social presence 
identify engagement and interaction as one of the key factors 
contributing to the feeling of presence, we propose a third hypothesis;
H3: Greater the engagement and interaction, greater the feeling of presence.

Method: Participants & Procedure
	This pilot study was conducted as a survey at a large university in 
the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.  The survey was 
administered to the students of introductory mass communication class 
offered by the university as part of its distance education program 
offered completely via the Internet. The students were invited to 
take part in the survey by their instructor through an e-mail request 
with a link to the URL of the questionnaire website. After reading 
the informed consent page which described the purpose of the study 
and other details, the students on agreeing to participate were taken 
to the questionnaire page. The responses of the students were 
recorded automatically in a text file. At no point was any personal 
information about the student revealed, and this helped maintain 
total anonymity. The fact that the survey was conducted online also 
allowed taking the survey in total privacy. There were 19 respondents 
to this pilot study, of which the responses of 2 participants were 
dropped due to incomplete items.

Operationalization of variables and development of measures
Independent Variables
	The study had two primary independent variables:
•	level social presence and
•	level of interaction & engagement

Social Presence
	Presence has been operationalized variously as the level of 
awareness and as task performance.  As discussed earlier, presence is 
a multi-dimensional concept and research into developing reliable 
measures for presence is still its infancy. At present there is no 
single accepted standard measure for presence and as such a variety 
of approaches have been taken. Broadly presence measures can be 
divided into two categories: subjective and objective.
	Presence is primarily a subjective experience and therefore the 
earlier attempts to measure presence relied on subjective report such 
as post test questionnaires. A presence questionnaire administered by 
Slater, Usoh and Steed (1994) immediately after a virtual experience 
sought to measure presence based on the responses to three questions 
on Likert scale. The questions attempted to measure the participants 
sense of 'being there', the number of times the virtual world became 
the dominant reality shutting out real world and the extent to which 
it was an experience of 'places visited'  as opposed to 'things seen'.
	In a mediated social environment such as that of an online course, 
presence or more specifically social presence is defined as a "sense 
of being together" or "co-existence" rather than as "sense of being 
there" (Greef & IJsselsteijn, 2001; Towel & Towell; Nass & Lee, 
2003). Social presence in this study was operationalized as the extent to which
•	one feels part of an online community
•	discussions are impersonal
•	able to form individual impressions of other students.

Interaction & Engagement
	Interaction and engagement was operationalized in this study as the 
extent of communication between the
•	student and content (how many messages posted)
•	student and instructor (instructor feedback, extent of moderating 
discussions etc.)
•	student and student (response to postings or comments, llevel of 
understanding of each others comments etc.
	The level of social presence was measured by 10 items on the 
questionnaire based on the operationalization discussed above with 
some items adapted from Gunawardane & Zittle (1997). The level of 
interaction & engagement was measured using 8 items, again based on 
the operationalization discussed above. The responses were made on a 
likert type scale from "1 = totally disagree" to "7 = completely 
agree". In addition, two items measured the frequency of interaction 
by the "number of messages posted per week" by each student and the 
"number of times the instructor was contacted over the 
semester".  Also included in the questionnaire were items pertaining 
to demographics.

Dependent Variable
Student Satisfaction
	Student satisfaction is operationalized variously as: the perceived 
ability of the students to learn using CMC (cognitive measures), 
motivation to do additional research on the topics discussed or the 
extent of effort on the part of the student (attitudinal measures) 
and motivation to take part in similar classes in the future 
themselves or recommend the course to other participants (behavioral 
measures). Student satisfaction, based on the operationalization 
discussed above was measured using 13 items on a 7 point likert scale 
from "1 = totally disagree" to "7 = completely agree".  See Appendix 
– 1 for the questionnaire.




Results
Factor Analysis & Factor Loadings

	One of the primary objectives of the study is to identify the 
shortcomings of the survey instrument and improve it for the larger 
study. Each set of items measuring the independent and dependent 
variable were therefore subjected to a factor analysis and the 60-40 
rule of factor loading was applied to eliminate any weak item. The 
factor analysis of the level of social presence loaded into two 
different factors. The two items measuring the impersonal nature of 
the medium loaded separately from the other items. Therefore, an 
additive index measuring the impersonal nature of the medium by 
combining the above two items was created. An additive index of the 
remaining 8 items was constructed (by averaging the items) as a 
measure for level of social presence. The descriptive statistics of 
these two variables are described in table – 1. The level of social 
presence index had a high Cronbach's alpha (0.9693) where the 
impersonal nature of the medium had a low Cronbach's alpha (0.7068). 
Hence the latter was dropped from the rest of the analysis.
--------------------------------------------
Insert Table – 1 about here
--------------------------------------------

	Factor analysis of the 9 items measuring interaction and engagement 
revealed three factors based on the Eigen value and 60 – 40 rule of 
factor loading. The item comparing involvement with face to face 
classroom loaded separately from others. Also the two items measuring 
the student feedback to their colleagues' postings and instructor 
feed back loaded separately from the remaining. Thus an additive 
index for feedback was created by averaging these two items. Due to 
low value of Cronbach's alpha (0.5882) this index was discarded. The 
remaining 5 items measuring interaction were combined to create an 
index for interaction (Cronbach's alpha = 0.9561). The descriptive 
statistics of these variables are described in table – 2.
--------------------------------------------
Insert Table – 2 about here
--------------------------------------------

Factor analysis of the 13 items measuring satisfaction loaded into 2 
factors. All items except ease of using the interface loaded 
together. 	Out of the remaining one item was discarded based of the 
60-40 rule of factor loading and an additive index of satisfaction 
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.9662) was created from the remaining 11 items. 
The descriptive statistics of satisfaction variables are described in 
table – 3.
--------------------------------------------
Insert Table – 3 about here
--------------------------------------------

Regression Analysis

	To test each hypothesis, a simple linear regression analysis was 
carried out between the independent and dependent variables. The 
findings of these analyses are reported below.

H1:	Higher the level of social presence in an online learning 
environment, the greater the 	learner satisfaction.

	A simple linear regression was run with satisfaction as the 
dependent variable and level of social presence as the independent 
variable. The results were statistically significant at Pearson's r = 
0.8576 at p < .0001, R2 for the model was 0.7355 and adjusted R2 was 
0.7134. Thus H1 is supported.

H2:	Greater the engagement and interaction in an online learning 
environment, the 	greater the learner satisfaction.
	Regression analysis revealed that interaction predicted satisfaction 
and the results were statistically significant at Pearson's r = 
0.8089 at p = 0.0005, R2 for the model was 0.6544 and adjusted R2 was 
0.6256. Thus H2 is supported.

H3: 	Greater the engagement and interaction, greater the feeling of presence.
It was expected that the engagement and interaction would show a 
significant positive relationship with satisfaction. The results of 
the regression analysis (Pearson's r = 0.9610 at p < 0.0001, R2 for 
the model was 0.8895 and adjusted R2 was 0.8816.) revealed that 
engagement & interaction was a significant predictor of presence. 
Thus H3 is supported.  Table – 4 sums up the results of the 
statistical analysis.
--------------------------------------------
Insert Table – 4 about here
--------------------------------------------

Discussion
	Being a pilot study, the sample size is small and therefore the 
results should be interpreted with caution. However, since the 
results are highly significant, chance of type – 2 error which 
usually occurs in small sample are somewhat reduced. The findings of 
the study reveal that the social presence and interaction and 
engagement contributed significantly to the student satisfaction in 
online courses. This underlies the need for further emphasis for a 
more human centered approach towards technology, especially 
educational technology. One of the primary aims of this study was to 
verify the validity and reliability of the measures before 
undertaking a detailed study. The study reaffirms the validity and 
reliability of the social presence items in the questionnaire drawn 
from previous research. Earlier section detailed the development of 
measures based on attitudinal, behavioral and cognitive aspects for 
learner satisfaction in online learning environments. The results 
indicate that the satisfaction scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.9662) is 
highly reliable.
	The high correlation between social presence and interaction and 
engagement may be a pointer towards interaction effects among the 
independent variables which needs to be explored in the detailed 
study. Earlier studies have shown that presence is a 
multi-dimensional concept (Kalawsky et al., 1999), comprised of many 
factors. This study revealed that there is a strong correlation 
between interaction and engagement and social presence.  Interaction 
and engagement may therefore themselves be factors contributing to 
ones feeling of presence in a mediated social environment such as an 
online classroom. While the social presence items in the survey 
measured the students sense of 'being together in a mediated 
community', the interaction and engagement items measured the extent 
of interaction among students and between the student and the 
teacher. Our study reveals that the extent of interaction and 
engagement among students contribute significantly to their 
satisfaction. The above finding highlights the importance of the 
affordances of the medium with respect to interaction and engagement 
in improving learner satisfaction and building stronger online 
learning communities. This implies that while choosing a CMC based 
medium for distance learning or as a complement to regular 
face-to-face classrooms, due attention should be paid to the 
affordances which the medium offers in terms of enhancing a feeling 
of community and supporting online interactions.
	The study reveals that the social presence results are highly 
correlated with student satisfaction supporting the findings of 
earlier studies by Gunawardane and Zittle (1997). This indicates the 
need for a computer based instruction mediums which enhance presence 
and take a human centered view of instructional technology rather 
than get caught up in the technical aspects of the medium in terms of 
what it can do.  The discussion in this section has so far 
concentrated on the implications of the findings of this study. The 
next section addresses the limitations of the study and directions 
for future research.

Limitations of the study and directions for future research
The main limitation of this study is its relatively small convenience 
sample and as such the results should be interpreted with caution. 
Again due to the constraints of time, the online survey instrument 
did not include qualitative measures such as user comments. An 
elaborate study under review for human subjects' participation by the 
office of research protection includes qualitative measures such as 
user comments and textual analysis of discussion and chat transcripts 
in addition to the modified measurement instrument from this pilot study.
	Most of the web based courses are asynchronous in nature and adopt 
predominantly text-based model of communication. With advances made 
in multimedia technology, specifically the ones aimed at the 
internet, now we have a wide range of tools to choose from for 
computer-based instruction. This study was carried out in a 
predominantly text – based asynchronous online course and is intended 
to set a theoretical direction from a human centered perspective to 
computer based instruction. This study can be extended to other 
online courses employing more interactive multi-media to get a 
clearer idea of how the inherent nature of the medium may influence 
both the sense of presence and learner satisfaction.
	Though this study approaches computer-based instruction more from a 
human-centered perspective, it is not to say that the technology 
itself is not important. Presence, engagement etc and other aspects 
of a human-centered approach are all multidimensional concepts and 
future research should aim to understand how relative contributions 
of different components of the technology in terms of modalities, 
screen size etc affect each of these. Again the technology should be 
evaluated in terms of the affordances it offers as a computer based 
instruction medium. For this, a variable task approach as proposed by 
Nass & Mason (1990) is most ideal. Nass and Mason (1990) point out 
that the theories that are operationalized in terms of one technology 
cannot be applied to another since it is difficult to determine what 
feature or characteristic of the technology led to the effect under 
study. An alternative would be approach the question from a 
communications perspective focused on the variable – centered 
approach. In a variable centered approach as proposed by Nass and 
Mason (1990), technologies are to be approached in terms of specific 
variables that they embody. The variable task approach is the most 
appropriate one to understand the effect of each system variable on 
the concepts under study. The advantage of adopting a 
variable-centered approach is that the findings of the research can 
be extended to other technologies, which use one or more of these 
components. In other words adopting such a strategy would make the 
findings more generalizable.
	While attempting to understand an information rich medium such as 
computer-based instruction from a human-centered point of view, it is 
important to look at aspects of cognition. Lang's (2000) limited 
capacity model of mediated message processing will be an ideal 
backdrop to analyze how the display contents are processed. According 
to the limited capacity model, information processing is considered 
as a set of simultaneously occurring component processes that the 
viewer performs on the display stimuli and the mental representation 
of the stimuli they construct (Lang, 2000, p. 47). Lang's model 
suggests that the processing resources allocated to one sub process 
(encoding, storage or retrieval) may result in insufficient resources 
for another sub process when both are happening simultaneously. 
Lang's model may be ideal to theorize about the processing mechanisms 
in our minds which have a direct bearing on both presence and 
satisfaction. Future studies may also look at the cognitive 
constraints imposed by the medium especially with reference to 
information overload and its impact on learner satisfaction.


References:

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University 	Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Recognizing critical thinking: Developing 
Critical Thinkers. Oxford: Jossey- Bass Publishers.

Coyne, R. (1995). Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern 
Age: From Method 	to Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT 
Press. 


Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity : flow and the psychology of 
discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.

December, J. (1997).  Notes on defining of computer-mediated 
communication. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, (3), 1.

Dennis, E. E., Meyer, P., Sundar, S. S., Pryor, L., Rogers, E. M., 
Chen, H. L., & Pavlik, J.. (2003). Learning reconsidered: Education 
in the digital age. Journalism & 	Mass Communication Educator, 57(4), 
292 – 317.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York: Perigee Books.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.

Ferris, P. (1997). What is CMC? An Overview of Scholarly Definitions. 
Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 4(1), 1-3.

Garrison, D.R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century. 
A Framework for Research and Practice, 39-47.

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: 87-105.

Giedion, S. (1948). Mechanization Takes Command: A Contribution to 
Anonymous History. New York: Norton.

Greef, P. D. & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2001). Social presence in home 
tele-application. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 307-315.

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(2), 8-25.

Harrison, P.J., Seeman, B.J., Behm, R., Saba, F., Molise, G.,& 
Williams, M.D. (1991). Development of a distance education assessment 
instrument. Education, Technology, Research and Development. 39(4), 65-77.

Hickman, L.A. (1990). John Dewey's Pragmatic Technology. Bloomington, 
IA: Indiana University Press.

Johansen, R., J. Vallee, and K. Spangler (1979). Electronic Meetings: 
Technical Alternatives and Social Choices. Reading, MA: 
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Junge, B. (1999). Key Concepts and Debates in Linguistic 
Anthropology: Computer-Mediated Communication. Atlanta: Emory University.

Kalawsky, R. S., Bee S. T. & Nee, S. P. (1999). Human factors 
evaluation to aid understanding of virtual interfaces. BT Technology, 
17(1), 128-141.

Kearsley, G & Shneiderman, B.(1999). Engagement Theory: A framework 
for technology-based teaching and learning. Retrieved November 28th, 
2003 from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm

Keeley, M. (1978). A social-justice approach to organizational 
evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 272-292.

Kim, T. & Biocca, F. (1997). Telepresence via television: Two 
dimensions of telepresence may have different connections to memory 
and persuasion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). 
Retrieved October 20,  2003, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/

Lane, D. R. & Shelton, M. W. (2001). The centrality of communication 
education in classroom computer- mediated communication: Toward a 
practical and evaluative pedagogy. Communication Education, 50, 241-255.

Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message 
processing. Journal of 	Communication. 50(1), 46-70.

Leamnson, R. (1999). Thinking About Teaching and Learning: Developing 
Habits of Learning with First Year College and University Students. 
Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.


Lombard, M., & and Ditton, T., (1997). At the heart of it all: The 
concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 
3(2). Retrieved October 20, 2003, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: Extensions of Man. New York: 
McGraw-Hill.

Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through Technology: The Path between 
Engineering and 	Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt, 
Brace and company.

Nass, C. & Lee, K. M. (2003). Designing social presence of actors in 
human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the CHI 2003 Conference 
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, New York, NY. (pp 289-296)

Nass, C. & Mason, L. (1990). On the study of technology and  task: A 
variable based approach. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), 
Organizations and communications technology. (pp. 46-67). Newbury 
Park: Sage.

Norman, D.A. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human 
Attributes in the Age of the Machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 
Publishing Company

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to 
technology. New York: Knopf.

Postman, N. (2004). Making a living, making a life: Technology 
reconsidered. In K. Ryan, J. M. Cooper (Eds.) Kaleidoscope readings 
in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 419-423.

presence-l listserv. Retrieved September 20, 2003, from 
http://www.temple.edu/ispr/explicat.htm

"Presence", Merriam Webster Online. Retrieved September 20, 2003, 
from http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

Russell, T.L. (1997). The "no significant difference" phenomenon as 
reported in 248 	research reports, summaries, and papers. Raleigh, 
N.C.: North Carolina State 	University.

Santoro, G. M. (1995). What is computer-mediated communication? In Z. 
L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.) Computer mediated communication and 
the online classroom. Vol 1: Overview and perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Slater, M., Usoh, M., Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual 
environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3(2), 130-144.

Towell, J., & Towell, E. (1997). Presence in text-based networked 
virtual environments or "MUDS". Presence: Teleoperators and virtual 
environments, 6(5), 590-595.

Wellens, A. R. (1993). Group situation awareness and distributed 
decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group 
decision making (pp. 267-293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Table – 1
Descriptive Statistics of the social presence items
Variable
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Level of Social Presence
(8 items,  alpha = 0.9693 )
17
2
7
4.6618
1.8502
Impersonal Nature of the Medium
( 2 items,  alpha = 0.7068 )
17
1
6.5
3.2941
1.5916

Table – 2
Descriptive Statistics of the interaction and engagement items
Variable
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Interaction
(5 items,  alpha = 0.9561 )
16
2
7
4.775
2.0987
Feedback
( 2 items,  alpha = 0. 5882)
17
2.5
7
5
1.5712
Involvement compared to FTF
17
1
7
5.1176
1.9327
	

Table – 3
Descriptive Statistics of the satisfaction items
Variable
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Level of Satisfaction
(11 items,  alpha = 0.9662 )
14
2
7
4.7272
1.9930




Table – 4
Correlations
Social Presence
Interaction &
Engagement
Involvement
Satisfaction
Social Presence
-
0.9610**
.0629
.8576**
Interaction &
Engagement

-

-

-0.0560

0.8089**
Involvement
-
-
-
0.1691
** p <.001

Appendix – 1
Survey Questionnaire

Social Presence Scale

1.	The messages on the online discussion board were impersonal.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

2.	I felt comfortable introducing myself online.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

3.	I felt comfortable participating in online discussions.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

4.	The instructor created a sense of an online community.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

5.	The instructor moderated the discussions on the message board.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

6.	Discussions using this online medium tend to be more impersonal 
than face-to-face discussions.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

7.	I felt comfortable interacting with other participants online.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much


8.	I felt that other participants understood my point of view in the 
online class.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

9.	I was able to form individual impressions of other students in 
this online course.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

10.	I felt that I was part of an online community.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

Satisfaction Scale

1.	I learned the course content through this medium.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

2.	I learned from online class discussions.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

3.	I was stimulated to do additional reading or research on class topics.  	
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

4.	I would participate in another online course in the future as a 
result of my experience with this course.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

5.	I made new acquaintances through my participation in this class.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

6.	The diversity of topics covered in class prompted me to 
participate in the discussions.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

7.	I had to put a great deal of effort to learn the interface to 
participate in the discussions.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

8.	This distance education program is a cost-effective way for me to 
get the courses I need.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

9.	I am satisfied discussing ideas in this online forum.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

10.	Online courses are effective in using time efficiently.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

11.	How satisfied are you with the online course?
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

12.	How helpful was the class website in understanding the course content?
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

13.	How satisfied are you with the course compared to the 
conventional classroom courses?
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much
Interaction / Engagement Scale

1.	The course website was easy to navigate.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

2.	I felt less "involved" in this class than in classes with 
face-to-face interaction.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

3.	The instructor gave prompt feedback on my postings and assignments.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

4.	Other students responded to my postings or comments.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much
	
5.	I responded to comments in online discussions.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much
	
6.	It is difficult to offer feedback to the site.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

7.	I communicated more with other students in this online class than 
in classes with face-to-face interaction.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

8.	The online course made it convenient to contact the instructor.
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Not at all						Very Much

Demographics
1.	[  ] Male		[  ] Female

2.	Age  ______

3.	Have you taken other courses online?
[  ] Yes			[  ] No

4.	Does your online course use electronic discussion groups?
[  ] Yes			[  ] No

5.	Was participation in the electronic discussion group a class requirement?
[  ] Yes			[  ] No

6.	On average how many messages did you post to the electronic 
discussion group per week?
[  ] Not at all 	[  ] 1-3 messages 	[  ] 4-7 messages 	[  ] 8-12 messages
[  ] more than 12 messages

7.	How often did you contact the instructor through e-mail or 
discussion board this semester?
[  ] Not at all 	[  ] 1-3 messages 	[  ] 4-7 messages 	[  ] 8-12 messages
[  ] more than 12 messages