Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 154–175 | Cite as

Effects of learner-to-learner interactions on social presence, achievement and satisfaction

  • Beth Oyarzun
  • Jill Stefaniak
  • Linda Bol
  • Gary R. Morrison


One current focus of research regarding online courses concentrates on identifying effective design and delivery methodologies. This non-experimental comparative research study investigated two types of learner-to-learner interaction techniques: designed and contextual interactions and their effects on learner achievement, social presence, interaction quality and learning satisfaction in online asynchronous courses. Designed interactions have a high level of collaborative/cooperative instructional intent. Contextual interactions provide the opportunity for interaction but have little or no collaborative/cooperative instructional intent. Results indicate designed interactions or interactions that have high levels of collaborative/cooperative intent positively affect learner achievement and satisfaction. Results also indicate that a high level of instructor social presence has positive effects on student achievement and learning satisfaction. The results continue to reveal that a high level of interactive quality significantly affects levels of instructor and learner social presence as well as learner satisfaction.


Learner-to-learner interaction Online asynchronous learning Social presence Achievement Learner satisfaction Collaborative learning Cooperative learning 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alderman, B. (2005). The role of interaction in enhancing achievement and student satisfaction in an online course: A rubric analysis. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-learn: world conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education 2005 (pp. 214–219). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from
  3. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bol, L., & Garner, J. K. (2011). Challenges in supporting self-regulation in distance education environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonnell, K. H., Katz, B. A., & Evey, J. A. (2009). Asynchronous communication in distance learning programs. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 28(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  8. Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, S. A., & Klein, J. D. (2004). Small group learning in an online asynchronous environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  10. Fulford, C., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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(2–3), 87–105.Google Scholar
  12. Grandzol, C. J., & Grandzol, J. R. (2010). Interaction in online courses: More is not always better. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13, 1–18.Google Scholar
  13. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1995). An examination of teaching and learning processes in distance education and implications for designing instruction. In M. F. Beaudoin (Ed.), Distance education symposium 3: Instruction (Vol. 12, pp. 51–63). ACSDE Research Monograph. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  14. Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, G. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 50(4), 46–53. doi: 10.1007/s11528-006-0046-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiriakidis, P., & Parker, A. (2008). Faculty and learner interaction in online courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(11), 17–55.Google Scholar
  19. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16–39.Google Scholar
  20. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521. doi: 10.3102/00346543071003449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  22. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mykota, D., & Duncan, R. (2007). Learner characteristics as predictors of online social presence. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(1), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oncu, S., & Ozdilek, Z. (2013). Learning with peers: An interdisciplinary comparative study of learner interaction and satisfaction on an instructional design course. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1251–1261.Google Scholar
  25. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from cyberspace to the classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Panitz, T. (1996) Collaborative versus cooperative learningA comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Cape Cod Community College, peninsula, Massachusetts, USA. Retrieved February 2016.
  27. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  28. Pollard, H., Minor, M., & Swanson, A. (2014). Instructor social presence within the community of inquiry framework and its impact on classroom community and the learning environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2), n2.Google Scholar
  29. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.Google Scholar
  30. Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive in distance courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2015). Factors affecting perceived learning, satisfaction, and quality in the online MBA: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Education for Business, 90(6), 296–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, J. E. (2005). Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thurmand, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tu, C. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34–45.Google Scholar
  38. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiner, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations