SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 3

Examining the Effect of Structured Roles on Social Presence

Uğur Eryılmaz(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI TRABZON)0000-0003-1606-5733
Yasemin Karal(TRABZON ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4744-4541
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that the participants fulfilled the requirements of their respective roles.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effect of discussions carried out with structured roles for participants in an online learning environment, on social presence within the framework of the Community of Inquiry (CoI).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Study participants consisted of 12 bachelors who were doing a Computer Operating course at a Public Education Center.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that the participants fulfilled the requirements of their respective roles.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Online learning · social presence · asynchronous discussions

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effect of discussions carried out with structured roles for participants in an online learning environment, on social presence within the framework of the Community of Inquiry (CoI). The study was conducted with qualitative approach. Study participants consisted of 12 bachelors who were doing a Computer Operating course at a Public Education Center. Discussions continued for eight weeks and data were collected throughout this period. Data was obtained performed by analyzing the discussion board, assessing based on participants' role performances, and analyzing the participants’ views on the process. It was found that the participants fulfilled the requirements of their respective roles. Structured roles indicated a positive effect on social presence.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eryılmaz, U., Karal, Y. (2024). Examining the Effect of Structured Roles on Social Presence. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 13 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1193165

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i5.924
  2. Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2009). Student‐led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236510
  3. Baykara Pehlivan, K. (2005). A study on teacher candidates' perceptions of communication skills. Elementary-Online 4(2), 17-23. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/91073
  4. Beuchot, A., & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums. Distance Education, 26(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081285
  5. Butz, N. T., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2017). Improving student relatedness through an online discussion intervention: The application of self-determination theory in synchronous hybrid programs. Computers & Education, 114(1), 117-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.006
  6. Calli, L., Balcikanli, C., Calli, F., Cebeci, H., & Seymen, O. (2013). Identifying factors that contribute to the satisfaction of students in e-learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 85–101. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/155781
  7. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11(1), 323–346. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11218-008-9054-2.pdf
  8. Correia, A. P., & Davis, N. E. (2007). The design of collaboration in the virtual classroom. 30th Annual Proceedings of Selected Papers on The Practice of Educational Communications and Technology, 2(1), 84-87. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499896.pdf#page=95
  9. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. http://repository.unmas.ac.id/medias/journal/EBK-00121.pdf
  10. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analys transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
  11. De Wever, B. D., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups by introducing roles: Do students act in line with assigned roles?. Small Group Research, 39, 770–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408323227
  12. Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016
  13. Enfiyeci, T., & Filiz, S. B. (2019). Examination of the sense of community of distance education graduate students in terms of various variables. TUBAV Journal of Science, 12(1), 20-32. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tubav/issue/44484/505491
  14. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
  15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text based environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
  17. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/108363/
  18. Gündüz, A., Aydemir, M. & Karaman, S. (2018). Eş zamanlı sanal sınıf ortamındaki uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin sosyal bulunuşluk düzeylerinin demografik değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(2), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.379981
  19. Hawkes, M. (2006). Linguistic discourse variables as indicators of reflective online interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 231–244. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15389286ajde2004_4
  20. Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38(6), 571-606. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0
  21. Hsu, J., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Applying distance learning and structural/pedagogical methods to an adult learner program: The case of global business management. T. Kidd (Eds.), In Online Education and Adult Learning: New Frontiers for Teaching Practices (pp. 224-236). New Jersey: IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/online-education-adult-learning/36890
  22. Jackson, L. C., Jackson, A. C., & Chambers, D. (2013). Establishing an online community of inquiry at the Distance Education Centre, Victoria. Distance Education, 34(3), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835774
  23. Jiang, W. (2017). Interdependence of roles, role rotation, and sense of community in an online course. Distance Education, 38(1), 84-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1299564
  24. Kara, M., Erdogdu, F., Kokoç, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2019). Challenges faced by adult learners in online distance education: A literature review. Open Praxis, 11(1), 5-22. https://openpraxis.org/article/10.5944/openpraxis.11.1.929/
  25. Keleş, E. (2018). Use of facebook for the community services practices course: Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework. Computers & Education, 116, 203-224. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2018). Investigating students’ perceptions of instructional strategies to establish social presence. Distance Education, 39(3), 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476844
  26. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2020). Social presence and online discussions: a mixed method investigation. Distance Education, 41(4), 490-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821603
  27. Lowenthal, P. R., & Snelson, C. (2017). In search of a better understanding of social presence: An investigation into how researchers define social presence. Distance Education, 38(2), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1324727
  28. Mansour, S., El-Said, M., & Bennett, L. (2010, Jun). Does the use of second life affect students’ feeling of social presence in e-learning. Paper presented at the Seventh Education and Information Systems, Florida. https://www.iiis.org/CDs2010/CD2010SCI/EISTA_2010/PapersPdf/EA083JS.pdf
  29. Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02504837
  30. Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2), 2-20. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/43066/
  31. Noteboom, J. T., & Claywell, L. (2010). Student perceptions of cognitive, social, and teaching presence. Paper presented at the twenty-sixth Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, USA. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
  32. Parker, J. (2010). The online adult learner: Profiles and practices. T. Kidd (Eds.), In Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp. 1-10). New Jersey: IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/online-adult-learner/36874
  33. Peterson, A. T. (2006). Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models. Biodiversity Informatics, 3, 59-72. https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v3i0.29
  34. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.5334/2002-1
  35. 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. http://hdl.handle.net/2149/715
  36. Schifter, C. C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. C. (2012). Presence and middle school students' participation in a virtual game environment to assess science inquiry. Educational Technology and Society, 15 (1), 53–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.15.1.53.pdf
  37. Stodel, E. J., Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2006). Learner’s perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpretations through the community of inquiry. International Review of Research in Open and distance Learning, 7(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i3.325
  38. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). The effect of functional roles on group efficiency: Using multilevel modelling and content analysis to investigate computer-supported collaboration in small groups. Small Group Research, 35, 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403260843
  39. Wang, Q. (2008). Student-facilitators’ roles in moderating online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 859–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00781.x
  40. Wei, C. W., & Chen, N. S. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529-545. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9
  41. Wolverton, C. C. (2018). Utilizing synchronous discussions to create an engaged classroom in online executive education. The International Journal of Management Education, 16(2), 239-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.03.001
  42. Xie, K., Lu, L., Cheng, S. L., & Izmirli, S. (2017). The interactions between facilitator identity, conflictual presence, and social presence in peer-moderated online collaborative learning. Distance Education, 38(2), 230-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322458
  43. Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003
  44. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Qualitative research methods in social sciences (9th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing
  45. Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2019). Assigned roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: comparison of transactional distance and knowledge sharing behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1303-1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118786855
  46. Yılmaz, G. K. (2014). Developing a belief scale according to using computer technology in mathematics teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 613-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.252