Hybrid Presence in Networked Learning: A Shifting and Evolving Construct

  • Apostolos KoutropoulosEmail author
  • Suzan Koseoglu
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)


Despite the rapid growth of open online courses (namely, MOOCs) in recent years, a fundamental question is still being debated widely in the education community: how to design and deliver these MOOCs in a way that is not based on, what Freire terms, a banking model of education, in which the teacher has traditionally been the central authority. The goal of this chapter is to examine current conceptions of ways of being in teaching and learning environments through the lens of “presence,” and we identify a different type of being, a different “presence,” which we term hybrid presence. Instead of a single facilitating role that might be connoted by a teaching or teacher presence, we propose a presence which stems out of authentic relationships among, what Rheingold terms, esteemed co-learners. Along with our proposed hybrid presence, we propose a handful of design principles for designing learning environments that foster this hybrid presence among esteemed co-learners.


  1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2). Retrieved from
  2. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1). Retrieved from
  4. Bali, M. (2015). Pedagogy of care—gone massive [Web log post]. Retrieved from
  5. Bayne, S. (2016). Campus codespaces for networked learners. Keynote presented at the Tenth international conference on Networked Learning, Lancaster, UK, 2016. Retrieved from:
  6. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the massive open online course: The UK view. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from
  7. Becker, J., Boaz, B., Campbell, G., Cales, R., Engelbart, C., Gordon, J., Strong, P., & Woodward, T. (2014, June). VCU’s new media cMOOC: Live in concert! Paper presented at the meeting of New Media Consortium, Portland. Retrieved from
  8. Blaschke, L. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56–71. Scholar
  9. Campbell, G. (2014a). Interview by H. Rheingold. Channeling Engelbart: Augmenting human education. Retrieved from
  10. Campbell, G. (2014b). Our summer cMOOC: Living the dreams [Web log post]. Retrieved from
  11. Cleveland-Innes, M., & Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 13(4), 269–292. Scholar
  12. Cormier, D. (2014). Rhizomatic learning – A big Forking course [Web log post]. Retrieved from
  13. Cutajar, M. (2016). Qualitative differences in students’ perceptions of others in a networked learning environment. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016 (pp. 472–480). Retrieved from:
  14. deWaard, I., Abajian, S., Gallagher, M. S., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Koutropoulos, A., & Rodriguez, O. C. (2011). Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. International Review Of Research In Open & Distance Learning, 12(7), 94–115.Google Scholar
  15. Dron, J. (2016). P-Learning’s unwelcome legacy. TD Tecnologie Didattiche, 24(2), 72. Scholar
  16. Farmer, J. (2013). MOOCs: A disruptive innovation or not? [Web log post]. Retrieved from
  17. Friedman, T. L. (2012). Come the revolution. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  18. 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), 1–19.Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: anoverview. In P. M. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning (pp. 1–9). Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  20. Hodgson, V., de Latt, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (2014). Researching design, experience and practice of networked learning: An overview. In V. Hodgson, M. de Latt, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 1–28). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyman, P. (2012). In the year of disruptive education. Communications of the ACM, 55(12), 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kehrwald, B., & Oztok, M. (2016). Social presence and impression management: Understanding networked learners’ cultivation of learning networks. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016 (pp. 226–233). Retrieved from:
  23. Kilgore, W., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2015). The human element MOOC: An experiment in social presence. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Student-teacher interaction in online learning environments (pp. 373–391). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. Kim, P. (2010). Is higher education evolving? Educause Quarterly, 33(1). Retrieved from
  25. Knoll, M. (2009). From Kidd to Dewey: The origin and meaning of ‘social efficiency. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(3), 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Review Of Research In Open & Distance Learning, 12(7), 74–93.Google Scholar
  27. Koseoglu, S. (2016). Third learning spaces in open online courses: Findings from an interpretive case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Minnesota: Twin Cities.Google Scholar
  28. Koutropoulos, A., & Zaharias, P. (2015). Down the rabbit hole: An initial typology of issues around the development of MOOCs. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 2(1). Retrieved from
  29. Koutropoulos, A., Gallagher, M. S., Abajian, S. C., de Waard, I., Hogue, R. J., Keskin, N. O., & Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). Emotive vocabulary in MOOCs: Context & participant retention. European Journal Of Open, Distance And E-Learning, 1.Google Scholar
  30. Koutropoulos, A., Abajian, S., deWaard, I., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., & Rodriguez, C. (2014). What Tweets Tell us About MOOC Participation. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning (IJET), 9(1), 8–21. Scholar
  31. Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2013). Pedagogies of scale [Web log post]. Retrieved from
  32. Northcutt, C, Ho, A., & Chuang, I. (2015). CAMEO Dataset: Detection and Prevention of “Multiple Account” Cheating in Massively Open Online Courses. Retrieved from:, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
  33. Pacansky-Brock, M., Leafstedt, J., & O'Neil-Gonzalez, K. (2015, April). How to humanize your online class. Workshop at the 8th Annual Emerging Technologies for Online Learning International Symposium, Dallas (TX).Google Scholar
  34. Parchoma, G. (2016). Reclaiming distributed cognition in networked learning: An inter-subjective, socio-material perspective. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016 (pp. 113–119). Retrieved from:
  35. Rheingold, H. (2013). Network literacy mini-course. Retrieved from
  36. Rheingold, H. (2014). Co-learning about co-learning [Web log post]. Retrieved from
  37. Rodgers, C. R., & Raider-Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ross, J., Sinclair, C., Knox, J., Bayne, S., & Macleod, H. (2014). Teacher experiences and academic identity: The missing components of MOOC pedagogy. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 56–68.Google Scholar
  39. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70.Google Scholar
  40. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siemens, G., & Downes, S. (2011). How this course works [Website post]. Retrieved from:
  42. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education, JISC CETIS White Paper. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Teaching and Learning Innovation CentreGoldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations