Nurturing Social Presence in a Blended Learning Environment
Viktor Magnusson , Åsa Devine and Michaela Sandell
School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Sweden
Keywords: Affective Association, Blended Learning Environment, Community of Cohesion, Instructor Investment,
Interaction Intensity, Knowledge and Experience, Social Prescence Model.
Abstract: The ambition of this development study is to explore the opportunity to put the knowledge gained during the
COVID-19 pandemic into practice in a blended, post-COVID, learning environment. The focus is to explore
how a combination of digital and face-to-face activities may allow for fostering social presence among
undergraduate students. The Social Presence model and the five elements of Affective Association,
Community of Cohesion, Instructor Investment, Interaction Intensity, and Knowledge and Experience,
encompass the theoretical framework of the study. The contextual setting is the first course of The Marketing
Programme at Linnaeus University in Sweden, a bachelor program with a 50% Swedish intake and 50%
international intake. Given the diverse background of the students in this course, challenges are typically
encountered in relation to community building. Empirical data was collected during the fall of 2022 among
the enrolled students using an online questionnaire. While the results from this study should be seen as
preliminary, they offer an inspiring glimpse of how to nurture social presence in a blended learning
environment.
1 INTRODUCTION
After two years with COVID -19, with mostly digital
teaching, the students are back in the classroom.
During these years it should be safe to claim that the
digital literacy among university teachers has
increased enormously. For the reason of necessity,
but also curiosity, many colleagues, have taken
different courses in digital teacher and learning. In
one of the digital courses taken by the author of this
study, emphasis was placed on the intriguing concept
of Social Presence. Social Presence is described by
Garrison et al. (2000, p.89) as “The ability of
participants in the Community of Inquiry to project
their personal characteristics into the community,
thereby presenting themselves to the other
participants as “real people”. That is, it addresses the
importance of having individuals within learning
community to become “real” and to give the
participants a feeling of someone “being there”
(Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018). The social presence
becomes especially important when talking about On-
line learning where no physical interaction is
possible, but it has become an important part of
Blended Learning research (Whiteside, 2015), where
face-to-face teaching is aligned with digital teaching.
The interesting thing with the concept is that it derives
from computer-mediated communication rather from
the learning science (Lowenthal, 2010). “Classic”
learning science on the other hand, describes the
importance of social interaction in a learning
environment (e.g. see Elmgren & Henriksson, 2015
or Laurillard, 2012), Turner & Paris (1995) points out
several reasons for why social interaction is
motivational; observation of classmates progress can
increase an individual’s confidence, it can spark
students’ curiosity and interest, and working with
others promotes student engagement. Social
interaction and active collaboration between students
do not only affect the individual student, but it can
also have an effect on the success of fellow students
in their studies (Elmgren & Henriksson, 2015).
Research also shows that the mere belief that
someone has a social interaction with another human
being, improves learning and understanding (Okita et
al., 2007).
COVID-19 has changed the way we give
education in a classic “face-to-face” environment,
where digital tools are integrated to a higher extent.
Even if the teaching we do on The Marketing
Programme cannot be defined as pure Blended
Learning, it is slowly moving in that direction. This
Magnusson, V., Devine, Å. and Sandell, M.
Nurturing Social Presence in a Blended Learning Environment.
DOI: 10.5220/0011967800003470
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2023) - Volume 2, pages 519-526
ISBN: 978-989-758-641-5; ISSN: 2184-5026
Copyright
c
 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
519

argues for using Social Presence as a theoretical
framework to develop also courses in a face-to-face
setting.
This development project is focusing on the first
course of The Marketing Program (Linnaeus
University in Sweden), a bachelor program with
international intake. The course is the 7,5 credit
course Fundamentals in Marketing, which serve as an
introduction to the topic and the program itself. Half
of the class comes from a national (Sweden) intake
and half comes from an international intake. Being
the first course of the program, it is offered in the
period September to October. The number of students
varies between 65-45, with 44 active students in the
fall of 2022.
The fact that the class consists of students from all
over the world creates different challenges:
• Many students are studying at a university for
the first time, which makes it important during
the course to not only teach the subject but also
help them to get into academic studies.
• Students from all over the world means that we
have students used to different studying
cultures. This calls for the need to help
international students to emerge into Swedish
studying culture, how it works and what we
expect from them.
• This is the first course of a three-year program
where social interaction and networking
between students become an important part of
the education. Even if this works quite well on
the program in general, we do see that some
nationalities have a hard time to integrate with
the group then others.
This paper will address the challenges above and
provide a scaffold for the first course of the program,
with the aim of increasing the Social Interaction in the
group from day one on The Marketing Program. The
paper is based on a previous development work by the
main author, conducted on an online course back in
2021 (Magnusson, 2021). The theoretical framework
has the same scaffold but has been developed and
refined for this paper. Some of the activities presented
in previous paper has also been incorporated in this
paper and adjusted to fit the blended learning
environment that is the context of this paper.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
For this paper, the Social Presence Model developed
by Whiteside (2015) will be used as the scaffold for
the development of the course.
2.1 Social Presence Model
The Social Presence Model covers five important
components that builds social presence in an online
setting (Whiteside, 2015). The model can be seen as
guidance to social presence for instructors and for
students. Or as Whiteside puts it; “Social presence
affects learning only to the extent that instructors and
students are willing to integrate the five elements of
social presence.” (Whiteside, 2015, p.14). The model
is illustrated (see in Figure 1) and explained below.
Figure 1: The Social Presence Model (Whiteside, 2015,
p. 11).
Affective Association – this component describes
the emotional connection between individuals within
a course. It addresses emotions, humour and self-
disclosure related to personal emotions. If students do
not feel the emotional bond between themselves and
instructors, they will not invest emotionally in the
course thus performing less. The important part
within Affective Association is to get people to trust
and respect each other, both fellow students and the
instructors. (Whiteside, 2015).
The importance of incorporating emotions in
education is nothing new and it is dealt with in
numerous types of discussions regarding Social
Presence (e.g., see Garrison et al. 2000 and
Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2018) as an important element
to get the students engaged and immersed in a course.
It is also covered in academic teaching literature and
described as an important component to engage for an
improved learning experience (e.g. see Elmgren &
Henriksson, 2015 or Laurillard, 2012). The
importance of emotions has its foundation in
psychology where researchers like Russel and Pratt
(1980) early stressed the importance of having a
person in the right mood to be able to act.
Community of Cohesion – this component relates
to the course community. In a course community
additional resources and information are shared with
CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
520

the class. It should also include possibilities for the
class to share resources and information with each
other. It is also important to get the students to see the
group as a cohesive whole. (Whiteside, 2015).
A review of published studies about learning
communities by Andrade (2007), identified four
primary outcomes of learning communities:
persistence among members its members, academic
achievement, involvement and satisfaction. She
concludes that learning communities do attain
positive outcomes, even if it is difficult to determine
which characteristics of learning communities
account for the success.
Instructor Involvement – this component
addresses the importance of involvement of the
instructors of the course. The instructors are
responsible for the creation of the community and to
build trust in that community. Whiteside’s study
shows that “instructors’ initial community building
“activities” were essential to them [students, ed.
note] in establishing relationships and making social
connections.” (Whiteside, 2015, p. 12). Also, it’s
important for instructors to nurture and encourage
students to engage in critical analysis and higher
order thinking in the online environment. (Whiteside,
2015). Garrison et al. (2000) supports this view and
stresses the importance of clarifying the intended
educational outcomes from the course.
Above discussion has support in academic
teaching literature, where Elmgren & Henriksson
(2015) stress the importance of the teachers’
influence on students in their learning experience.
Even if the student and what the student does is the
most important factor for successful learning, a good
and inspiring teacher are a prerequisite for effective
learning. According to Laurillard, students are “more
likely to engage in learning activities that lead to
higher-level outcomes if the teaching they experience
demands activities such as collaboration, critical
thinking, and practical application” (Laurillard,
2012. p. 42)
Interaction Intensity – this component describes
the interaction between participants and involves
agreement, disagreement, compliments, and
questions. It simply describes the importance of
acknowledgement between other participants of the
course to increase the social presences of the
participants. (Whiteside, 2015).
Laurillard (2012) discuss the importance of peer
communication in a learning situation and that
learning, and development, is built upon peer
discussions. This has an important effect on the
cognitive development of an individual.
Knowledge and Experience – this component
describes the effect prior knowledge and experiences
have on the possibility to build social presence.
Group’s collective knowledge level and experience
can have a positive impact on social presence.
(Whiteside, 2015). Educational researcher Gordon
Wells, claims that: “although no member has
expertise beyond his or her peers, the groups as a
whole, by working at the problem together, is able to
construct a solution that none could have achieved
alone” (Wells, 2000, cited in Whiteside 2015 p. 9)
Laurillard (2012) discusses the importance of the
informal learning environment in education, as it is a
powerful and effective force for learning. From this
informal learning environment, the students bring
their conceptions of it, skills and motivation into the
more formal learning environment, which strengthen
the learning process. Entwistle (2009) also touches
upon the importance of previous experience for
outside education, in a learning situation. Social and
cultural influences are formed early in a persons’ life
and will continue to influence learning in higher
education.
3 PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICE
Even before this development project was initiated,
various activities have been designed into the course
to nurture social interaction. These activities are kept
but complemented with new activities to pinpoint and
increase the Social Prescence in the class. Below are
the different activities presented, where the new once
for the fall of 2022 are marked as new.
Program Introduction
The program introduction starts with a rollcall where
each student shortly presents themselves and where
they come from. After the introduction, a formal
presentation of the program and the Linnaeus
university will follow.
Aim: To right from the start engage the students
and stimulate Affective Association so that
everybody knows who the other students in the class
are and where they come from. This can also be a first
step toward Community of Cohesion.
Scheduling (New)
The course consists of 12 lectures of two to three
hours. They are given during Monday to Wednesday
the first three weeks of the course. To the extent
possible, two lectures are given per day. These
lectures are scheduled with an hour break in between
them for lunch.
Nurturing Social Presence in a Blended Learning Environment
521

Aim: To increase the Community of Cohesion in
the class by hopefully having the students to socialize
during the one-hour break, creating a sense of
community in the group. It also addresses Affective
Association as students get a chance to emotionally
bond in a more informal situation.
Q&A and Availability (New)
The first three weeks of the course end with a
Question and Answer session (Q&A). All teachers on
the course are invited to join. This will be an
opportunity for the students to ask questions and we
will make a short recap of what has been dealt with
during the week. The Q&A will be held at a restaurant
on the university campus, to get a more informal
environment for the session. The teacher hosting the
Q&A is available afterwards for individual questions.
Aim: To nurture Interactive Intensity of the group,
having students asking questions and driving the
discussion. It also touches upon Instructor
Involvement as it shows that the teachers within the
course care about the students and take their time to
answer their concerns.
Study Guidance (New)
A written study guide is be provided for the students.
It describes the structure of the course and gives
reading instructions. It also describes academic
studies in Sweden and how it works. The library at
LNU has good introduction films about academic
studies in general and academic studies in Sweden.
Links to these films are provided directly in the
document and on the digital classroom MyMoodle.
The study guide will also describe the different exams
on the course and what we expect from the students.
Also, The Academic Support Centre at LNU is
booked for a two-hour introduction lecture to talk
about their service and academic studies in general.
This lecture is offered as a digital lecture.
Aim: To help the students getting into their studies
and understand what is expected of them, which is
Instructor Involvement.
Student Forum (New)
A forum is available at the course site MyMoodle
where the students can discuss among themselves.
Aim: To nurture Interaction Intensity among the
students and have them interacting between each
other without instructor involvement. The forum also
aims to create Community of Cohesion in the group
where students can share their thoughts and ideas
with other students.
Group Exam
There is an examination on the course that is
conducted in groups of four students. The course
responsible creates the groups beforehand to make
sure that there is an equal distribution between
genders and that there is more than one nationality
represented in the group (in most cases, at least three
nationalities). The task is designed so that the students
need each other’s experience from consumption in
their home country. As a support for the students, we
will have two lectures and one seminar on
Intercultural Competence, to give the students tools
to use when dealing with the dynamic in the group.
Aim: The design of the exam means that
Knowledge and Experience comes into play when the
students are to solve the task. The exam also activates
Interactive Intensity since the group needs to work
together and discuss with other groups on the
seminars. It also addresses and hopefully strengthens
the sense of Community of Cohesion in the group.
The lectures in Intercultural Competence can be seen
as Instructor Involvement where we help the students
to understand how they can interact in their group.
Supplemental Instruction, Peer-assisted study
sessions (new)
Supplemental Instructions (SI) is a pedagogic
method that builds on learning together with others.
The work is led by older students on the program,
where they meet first year students on a regular basis
in smaller study groups, where they discuss the
course, compare notes, develop study skills, and help
the students prepare for their exam.
Aim: This activity combines Knowledge and
Experience from both older students and the first-year
students, as well as nurture the Community of
Cohesion in the group. It can also help the Interaction
Intensity in the group.
For an overview see Table 1.
4 EVALUATION
The project was evaluated with a survey in two parts.
In the first part questions aimed at understanding the
students view of the Social Prescence in the class
where asked. The second part asked questions about
two specific activities on the course Q&A and SI
sessions. Control questions about age, gender and
citizenship were also asked. A total of 42 out of 44
active students filled in the evaluation.
Part 1
In the first part, the five components of Social
Prescence were operationalized into 11 questions
which are presented below (see Table 2):
CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
522

Table 1: The seven activities mapped against the five components of the Social Presence Model. * Indicate a digital activity.
Comments:
Affective Association: the class scored
comfortableness and respected by others rather high,
which indicates that the emotional connections
between students in the class are quite high. On the
other hand, the question regarding trusting classmates
scored lower than the other two questions, but still,
most of the answers point towards agreeing to this
statement. One reason for this scoring lower, might
be that the questionnaire was sent to the students only
eight weeks after they begun the program.
Community of Cohesion: Two questions were
asked, and both show a wider spread in the answers
then most of the other questions. Especially the
question about sense of community in the class scored
lower then was wished for, since the feeling of a
community is a strong part of Social Prescence as a
concept (Whiteside, 2015).
Instructor Involvement: The students seem to
agree that the activities on the course to some extent
have helped them to establish relationships with new
people and to become a critical thinkers.
Interaction Intensity: The question about how the
students interact with classmates to increase their own
learning, is the only question in the survey where one
can see an uneven distribution among the answers.
Looking at the phrasing of the question in hindsight,
the choice of using the word “frequently” might
explain this since it is rather subjective what
frequently means. This is of course a weakness in the
question and based on that it is hard to draw any
conclusions from the answers since they are uneven
distribution. The second question here asking about if
the student feels accepted in the class, points towards
students agreeing which is positive.
Knowledge and Experience: It seems like
previous experience from studying, influences the
student’s ability to interact with their classmates. The
score for the second question which askes about their
experience from work and how that has helped them
to get into the class, scores lower. An explanation for
this might be that many of the students are young and
have little-to-no work experience when entering the
program.
Conclusion:
It’s hard to draw any deeper conclusions on the result
presented in Part 1, since there is no data to compare
with. But on the other hand, the result gives indication
on what is working and what can improve. One way
to get a clearer picture of the effect, is to repeat this
evaluation in the consecutive spring semester.
Part 2
The second part of the evaluation asked about
participation in two of the new activities added to the
course – the Q&A and SI-sessions – and if the
students considered them to be valuable of not. The
result is showed in below pie-charts.
Comment:
In total, only 38,1% (16 out of 42) of the students
participate on at least one SI session whereof 16,7%
(7 students) participated more than once (see Figure
2). This is a bit disappointing, and we had expected
more students to attend at least once to see what it is
all about. On the other hand, out of these 16, 14
students found the SI sessions valuable or really
valuable (see Figure 3). This speaks for the sessions
being of value to students and that it is worth
continuing with them in the future. The question
about the low attendance will be brought up on a
program council meeting during spring in order to get
deeper information about why so few chose to
participate.
Activities/ Social presence Affective Association Community of Cohesion Instructor Involvement Interaction intensity Knowledge & Experience
Program intro:
Individual introduction X X
Scheduling
lecture-lunch-lecture X X
Q & A and availability
informal setting outside schedule X X
Study guidance *
study guide* X*
academic support center* X*
Student forum * X* X*
Group exam
written paper in mixed groups X X X
lectures intercultural competence X
Supplimentary Instructions XXX
Nurturing Social Presence in a Blended Learning Environment
523

Table 2: Social Presence operationalization and results.
Figure 2: Answers related to the question “Did you take part
in any of the SI sessions on the course?”. Number of
respondents was 42.
Figure 3: Answers related to the question “How valuable
did you consider these sessions to be?”. Number of
respondents was 42.
Comment:
Half of the class participated at least once at the Q&A,
whereof 28,6% (12 students) participated more then
once (see Figure 4). Everybody that participated, saw
the activity as valuable or really valuable (see
Figure 5).
Figure 4: Answers related to the question “Did you take part
in any of the Q&A:s (Questions & Answers) during the first
week of the course?”. Number of respondents was 42.
Figure 5: Answers related to the question “How valuable
did you consider these Q&A:s to be?”. Number of
respondents was 42.
CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
524

Conclusion:
Both these activities will be used next year again but
needs to be communicated better to increase the
participation.
5 CONCLUSIONS &
REFLECTIONS
The learning environment has changed during the
pandemic, so that we have become more comfortable
making use of digital tools to enhance education. This
study explores how a variety of undergraduate course
activities, both digital and face-to-face activities, may
allow for fostering social presence among students in
a blended learning environment. In total seven
different activities were considered. Of these seven
activities, two were digital while the remaining were
face-to-face activities. Interestingly the digital and
face-to-face activities, i.e., a blended learning
environment, together appear promising in order to
help create social presence as stipulated by the Social
Presence model. The early results presented in this
paper indicate that integrating the digital activities
with the face-to-face activities is particularly
promising with regards to strengthening the
community of cohesion and instructor involvement.
The results also indicate particular areas for
strengthening the social presence. One such area
refers to the incorporation of activities, digital as well
as face-to-face, that help strengthening affective
associations between students, as well as collective
knowledge and experience.
The overall impression of the project is that most
activities worked well. However we had hoped for
higher attendance on the SI sessions and the Q&A:s,
but the students who used it seems satisfied. By
continuing these activities in the future, this will
hopefully be a natural part of the course/program and
therefore increase the participatory rate over time.
Worth noting is also that one activity was not used
as anticipated. The forum that was available on
MyMoodle for the students to discuss among
themselves ended up not being used by the students
and may consequently be discontinued. Other
alternative ways of integrating forums, or chats and
instant messaging apps, may however be interesting
to explore. A critique towards forums is the lack of
instant interactivity which can e.g. instant messages
apps like WhatsApp and Telegram provides. These
types of tools give students an opportunity for direct
and instant communication with each other without
having to log on to a separate platform. This calls for
exploring these types of tools on future courses
instead of using a traditional forum.
From the experience of the teacher team, mixing
students of different nationalities and gender into
working groups often result in conflict. Such conflicts
may originate from these differences in background
and perspective and can have a detrimental effect on
the collaborative process of the group. During the
period of data collection, i.e., the fall of 2022, only
one group openly brought up the issue of
disagreement within the group. This is perceived as
very positive. However, it is too early to draw any
conclusion if this is due to stronger social presence
within the student group, or due to chance. It will be
exiting to learn what the conflict and split up rate of
groups are in the coming couple of years. Perhaps this
is a trend, and perhaps it can be attributed to the
implementation of the digital and face-to-face
activities creating social presence.
REFERENCES
Andrade, M. S., (2007), “Learning Communities.
Examining Positive Outcomes” Journal of College
Student Retention, Vol 9(1), pp. 1-20.
Cleveland-Innes, M. & Wilton, D. (2018), Guide to
Blended Learning, Burnaby: Commonwealth of
Learning.
Elmgren, M. & Henriksson, A-S. (2015), Academic
Teaching, second edition, Studentlitteratur AB, Lund
Entwistle, N. (2009), Teaching for Understanding at
University, Red Globe Press, London, UK.
Garrison et al. (2000), “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based
Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher”,
Education. The Internet and Higher Education, no 2(2-
3), p. 87-115.
Laurillard, D. (2012), Teaching as a Design Science,
Routledge, New York
Lowenthal, P. R., (2010), “The Evolution and Influence of
Social Presence Theory on Online Learning”, chapter
in Online educations and adult learning, New Frontiers
for teaching practices, pp. 124-139, Hershey, PA: IGI
Global
Lowenthal, P. R. & Dunlap, J.C. (2018), “Investigating
students’ perception of instructional strategies to
establish social presence”, Distance Education, vol. 39,
no. 3, p. 281-298.
Magnusson, V. (2021), “Individual Assignment: Seminar
series on Digital Learning”, project work on the course
On-line Learning, given by Lärosäten Syd.
Okita, S. Y., Bailenson, J. and Schwartz, D. L. (2007), “The
Mere Belief of Social Interaction Improves Learning”,
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive
Science Society, 29(29), p. 1355-1360.
Russell, J. & Pratt, G. (1980), “A description of the
affective quality attributed to environments,” Journal of
Nurturing Social Presence in a Blended Learning Environment
525

Personality and Social Psychology, no. 38:2, p. 311-
322.
Turner, J. & Paris, S. G. (1995), “How literacy tasks
influence children’s motivation for literacy”, The
Reading Teacher, Vol. 48, No. 8, pp. 662-673.
Whiteside, A. L., (2015), “Introducing the Social Presence
Model to Explore Online and Blended Learning
Experiences”, Online learning (Newburyport, Mass.),
2015-01-14, Vol.19 (2).
CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
526