Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Education
This content is subject to copyright.
Frontiers in Education 01 frontiersin.org
Towards a comprehensive
framework of social presence for
online, hybrid, and blended
learning
KarelKreijns
1
*, JaneYau
2, JoshuaWeidlich
2 and
ArminWeinberger
3
1 Faculty Educational Sciences, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Netherlands, 2 Information Center for
Education, Unit Educational Technologies, DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in
Education, Frankfurt amMain, Germany, 3 Department of Educational Technology, Saarland University,
Saarbrücken, Germany
Social presence, which refers to the psychological phenomenon of perceiving
other persons in technology mediated communication as “real” and with whom
one can connect, has gained an increasing interest by teachers and researchers
involved in designing online, hybrid, and blended learning environments,
particularly group learning settings known as computer-supported collaborative
learning (CSCL). While some scholars attribute social presence primarily to the
physical attributes of communication media, others emphasize the importance
of social contextual and individual factors. Despite considering these factors,
they still cannot fully explain the varying degrees of social presence experienced
across dierent communication and collaboration modes and modalities.
Consequently, there is a need for a more comprehensive theoretical account on
the antecedents of social presence. In this article wepropose such an account
that integrates the social information processing (SIP) theory, construal level
theory (CLT), and telepresence theory into one social presence framework.
In line with CLT, we propose that social presence is also influenced by the
impressions (construals) we construct from other persons not only through
the accumulation of messages over time but also through the psychological
distance wefeel to those persons, which may beimposed by features of the
communication media or realities of the learning context. Further, in line with
telepresence theory, we propose that social presence is influenced by the
sense of being “present” in the remote physical or virtual place, as this is where
other salient persons “are.” This comprehensive theoretical framework allows
us to understand varying degrees of social presence while in (pseudo) real-
time and asynchronous communication and collaboration using a variety of
dierent communication media ranging from text-based (e.g., e-mail, instant
text messaging) to immersive (e.g., 3D computer generated; a physical remote
place).
KEYWORDS
social presence, social information processing (SIP) theory, impression formation,
construal level theory (CLT), telepresence, online learning (CSCL), hybrid learning,
blended learning
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Patrick R. Lowenthal,
Boise State University, UnitedStates
REVIEWED BY
Larisa Olesova,
University of Florida, UnitedStates
Mete Akcaoglu,
Georgia Southern University, UnitedStates
Murat Oztok,
University of Aberdeen, UnitedKingdom
*CORRESPONDENCE
Karel Kreijns
karel.kreijns@ou.nl
RECEIVED 31 August 2023
ACCEPTED 22 December 2023
PUBLISHED 11 January 2024
CITATION
Kreijns K, Yau J, Weidlich J and
Weinberger A (2024) Towards a
comprehensive framework of social presence
for online, hybrid, and blended learning.
Front. Educ. 8:1286594.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Kreijns, Yau, Weidlich and
Weinberger. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
TYPE Hypothesis and Theory
PUBLISHED 11 January 2024
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 02 frontiersin.org
1 Introduction
Online, hybrid, and blended forms of learning have become
common additions to higher education programs. e recent covid-19
pandemic that compelled educational institutions to abruptly adopt
online learning showed, however, that social isolation is a particular
concern in online learning as it negatively aects well-being of
students (Arslan, 2021; Aldosari etal., 2022). Social presence of
teachers and peers may reduce feelings of social isolation and
loneliness (Hung-Yuan et al., 2017; Phirangee and Malec, 2017).
However, social presence also renders concrete benets for group
learning; for example, comparing notes and correcting
misunderstandings as well as it helps building trust and communities
of learners (Hostetter, 2013; Richardson etal., 2017; Poth, 2018; Lim,
2023). It is therefore that social presence has gained an increasing
interest by teachers and researchers involved in designing online,
hybrid, and blended learning environments, particularly group
learning settings known as computer-supported collaborative learning
(CSCL). CSCL refers to the instructional situation where students are
grouped together to work collectively on a joint task using computer
applications as mindtools for knowledge construction and meaning
making in order to attain certain learning and social outcomes that
benet both individual members and the group as a whole. Especially
in online CSCL, the only way to communicate and collaborate is
through computers connected to the internet, which allows for both
(pseudo) real-time and asynchronous communication; the latter being
the usual mode for CSCL. If the social presence is low in the online
group learning processes, then this will adversely aect the
transactivity and epistemic interaction (Weinberger, 2003; Weinberger
and Fischer, 2006) underlying collaborative knowledge construction.
erefore, comprehending the concept of social presence and
identifying the factors that inuence it is crucial for eectively
harnessing the online group learning processes for attaining desired
positive learning and social outcomes. In this article, wefocus on the
rst (i.e., the concept of social presence and its antecedents) and not
so on the latter (i.e., how social presence aects learning processes and
outcomes); see for this, for example, Hostetter (2013), Zhao etal.
(2014), Koutromanos etal. (2021), and Kreijns etal. (2023). ough,
group learning (i.e., blended, hybrid, and online CSCL) is the
backdrop from which weview social presence.
We use the following denition of social presence: “the
psychological phenomenon in which, to a certain extent, the other
persons are perceived as physical “real” persons in technology-
mediated communication” (Kreijns et al., 2022, p. 141). In this
denition, the term physical “real” does not refer to the literal reality
of other persons as is the case in face-to-face settings. Instead, it refers
to the extent to which a person feels the presence of these other people
and is subsequently ready to interact with them because they seem to
bereal in many aspects. As a result, the person feels connected to and
inuenced by them. Although the denition employs the plural form
“other persons,” it should beunderstood as denoting the overall sense
of collective social presence, encompassing the combined individual
social presences of all others involved. Within a group learning
context, certain members might exhibit more pronounced social
presence compared to others, while some might exhibit no social
presence due to, for example, non-participation.
Social presence is a concept devised by Short etal. (1976) to study
the eects of real-time business communication on building
interpersonal relationships to facilitate interpersonal interaction and
decision making. Short etal. (1976) dened social presence as “degree
of salience of the other person in the interaction,” (p.65). In their
denition, they refer with the term “salience” to the physical “realness”
of the other person; see, for example, on p.73 they stated that social
presence is invariant across communication behaviors when using a
specic communication medium like a telephone: the “degree to
which heis perceived as a “real person”—the Social Presence aorded
by the telephone—will bethe same.” Short etal. (1976) even expressed
this physical “realness” much stronger in the Preface of their book: “[i]t
is within the scope of foreseeable technology to reconstitute by
electronic means a virtual three-dimensional representation of an
individual who is hundreds of miles distant” (p. v). In their view, this
three-dimensional representation – which, by the way, is a reality
today; see, for example, ARHT Media’s Virtual Global Stage (ARHT,
2023) – was considered the utmost expression of delity to the
“realness” of the other person. Hence, note that Short etal. (1976)
clearly saw media attributes solely determining social presence. Note
also that Short etal. (1976) statements mean that social presence can
only befully experienced while in real-time communication and this
experience ceases once communication concludes. Note further that
in their denition, the singular form “the other person” is employed,
which implies that only two people are involved in the communication.
However, Short etal. (1976) also applied their denition to situations
involving multiple people, such as audio and videoconferencing. In
these situations, they were actually referring to an overall sense of
social presence rather than to individual social presence feelings.
While some scholars attribute social presence primarily to the
physical attributes of communication media as Short etal. (1976) did,
others emphasize the importance of social contextual and individual
factors in its determination (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu and McIsaac,
2002; Kim etal., 2011). Even though these factors are taken into
account, they still cannot fully explain the varying degrees of social
presence in dierent communication situations. Consequently, there
is a need for a more comprehensive theoretical account of the
antecedents of social presence.
While indeed previously the former factors could describe and
predict degrees of social presence perceptions in traditional
communication situations using text-based media (e.g., e-mail, wikis,
discussion fora, SMS) that were dominant in online education during
the early years of online communication, in recent times, there has
been a signicant expansion in the variety of communication media
available, and this trend is expected to continue in the coming years
enabling non-traditional communication settings. One notable
development is the emergence of Metaverse, a platform developed and
promoted by Meta (formerly Facebook) that enables communication
in computer-generated 3D virtual spaces where users (i.e., students)
are represented by avatars. ese avatars can take on diverse forms,
ranging from abstract representations like cartoons to highly realistic
human-like appearances. As the Metaverse – or any other similar
platform – gain prominence in facilitating collaboration and
communication among students, it raises questions about how social
presence will beperceived in environments where students interact
through avatars. Furthermore, the immersive nature of these 3D
environments is likely to evoke feelings of being present in these
environments, potentially inuencing perceptions of telepresence.
Another signicant dierence in the current setup of online
learning compared to the past is the prevalence of geographically
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 03 frontiersin.org
dispersed students in present-day online and hybrid learning settings.
Students may come from various parts of the world but study at the
same higher education institution. Consequently, they may
becomplete strangers to one another and dier in multiple aspects,
including language and cultural background. When such diverse
students are required to collaborate in online computer-supported
collaborative learning (CSCL) settings, these dierences may play a
role in shaping how they experience the social presence of their peers.
us, how will social presence dier between students residing in a
distinct continent with a completely dierent time zone, as opposed
to students living in the same country, possibly even within the
same city?
To address the above issues, wedeveloped a comprehensive
framework of social presence by integrating (1) social information
processing (SIP) theory – which focuses on impression management
and impression formation in online communication (Walther, 1992,
1993, 1996), (2) construal level theory (CLT) – which centers on
psychological distance and construal levels of objects, events, or
people in terms of whether they are concrete versus abstract (Tro pe
etal., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2010), and (3) telepresence theory
(Steuer, 1992; Draper etal., 1998; Waterworth etal., 2015). Note that
while welinked these three theories to social presence in online,
hybrid, and blended learning, it is surprising that the majority of the
research related to them seldom takes these educational contexts such
as group learning into account.
We recognize that individuating impressions of others is adding to
feelings of social presence as hinted by Short etal. (1976, Chapter 6)
when discussing the inuence of “getting to know someone” and
friendships on social presence. To solidify this recognition of the role
of “getting to know someone” – or more precisely, the individuating
impressions weconstruct of others – on feelings of social presence,
we adopted Walther’s (1992) media theory of social information
processing (SIP) theory as it explains how individuating impressions
develop in various communication media and relate it to our
perspective of social presence theory. Another theory that considers
individuating impressions is construal level theory (CLT), put forward
by Trope etal. (2007) and Trope and Liberman (2010). In essence, this
theory establishes a connection between psychological distance and the
construal levels at which objects, events, or people are perceived. Trope
and Liberman (2010) dened psychological distance as the “subjective
experience that something [i.e., an object, event, or someone] is close
or far away from the self, here, and now” (p. 440) whereas a construal
refers to the mental representation of these objects, events, or people,
which can span a continuum from being very concrete to highly
abstract. An analogy of this basic proposition of CLT can befound in
the adage of seeing the forest for the trees, which occurs as weincrease
our distance from it. Conversely, as weapproach the forest, wecan
increasingly make out individual trees and no longer attend to the
forest itself but its individual constituents. In the context of
psychological and interpersonal perceptions, the mental representation
pertains to salient impressions of others, which can bemore or less
specic and distinguishing. us, CLT is addressing the issue
mentioned above where wesee a diversity of students involved in
online education, which can vary signicantly in psychological distance
between them because they are all geographically dispersed and
communicate and collaborate mostly asynchronously. It is important
to note that CLT is not a media theory; it only states that psychological
distance aects construal levels and vice versa, which may have
consequences for how people react, behave, or draw conclusions. But
it is the combination of eects that SIP theory and CLT have on
impression formation in fully online, hybrid, and blended settings that
makes both theories interesting for our social presence framework.
In the above, wealready mentioned Metaverse as an example for
evoking feelings of being present in these environments and
questioned how this feeling connects to perceptions of social presence.
To explain such feelings of being immersed in a distant place, an
appropriate approach can befound in telepresence theory, which is
another media theory (Kim and Biocca, 1997). Telepresence theory
has a long history and was originally developed in the domain of
teleoperations in remote locations (Sheriden, 1992; Steuer, 1992;
Draper etal., 1998; Waterworth etal., 2015) but is now entering the
center of attention because of computer-generated 3D virtual
environments. Telepresence is the psychological phenomenon in
which, to a certain extent, in mediated communication one perceives
being “present” in another place, which can bementally constructed,
a physical remote place mediated by a computer, or a computer-
generated 3D virtual environment. In other words, it is the level of
illusion of being “there” in the other place (Heeter, 1992; Suh and
Chang, 2006). Indeed, “[t]elepresence research […] oen concerns
how to understand why wehave a feeling of being there, in a virtual
place, and how to measure this experience” (Tjotsheim and
Waterworth, 2022, p.2). Succinctly, our interest in telepresence theory
stemmed from the fact that nowadays, virtual reality spaces, such as
the mentioned Metaverse (see Mystakidis, 2022), 3D platforms used
for serious gaming (see Hämäläinen and Oksanen, 2014) and
augmented reality (promoted by Apple with their recent introduction
of its goggles Apple vision pro) (see Cowen, 2023) have experienced
signicant growth of its application in the educational domain. ese
developments point to the emergence of immersive communication
methods as a compelling alternative to traditional video and audio-
based communication. Such environments have specic potentials for
learning; for example, through making phenomena like conductance
of heat or electricity visible or allowing for simulating physical space
between learning partners, and will be integrated in the next
generation of learning environments.
To introduce this comprehensive framework of social presence,
this article will rst review the dierent distinct perspectives of social
presence that were developed by educational researchers for online
learning settings, predominantly those where students learn in groups
using computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools and electronic
platforms (thus, within the online CSCL context). Wecontinue by,
respectively, describing Walther’s (1992, 1993, 1996) SIP theory, Trope
and Liberman’s (2010) construal level theory, and telepresence theory
in more detail. Hereaer, wepresent the comprehensive framework of
social presence by integrating all these theories. is is followed by a
discussion and conclusion.
2 Comprehensive framework of social
presence
Current research about social presence is troubled as there are
many dierent perspectives and interpretations of what social
presence is and how it should be measured, making it dicult,
sometimes even impossible, comparing results and drawing general
conclusions (Lowenthal, 2010; Lowenthal and Snelson, 2017; Öztok
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 04 frontiersin.org
and Kehrwald, 2017; Weidlich and Bastiaens, 2017; Kreijns etal.,
2022). To improve on this situation, Kreijns etal. (2022) provided a
review of the many social presence conceptualizations and
measurements available in the literature. ey found that, aside from
a variety of quite distinct understandings of the concept, many of
them were also confounded within themselves; that is, they sometimes
included multiple distinct concepts under the umbrella of social
presence. As a result of the review, Kreijns etal. (2022) discerned four
mainstream perspectives on social presence, namely: (1) social
presence as the perception of being “real,” determined solely by
medium attributes; (2) social presence as the perception being “real,”
determined by medium attributes, social contextual, and individual
factors; (3) social presence as an ability; and (4) social presence as a
critical literacy. Each of these perspectives will now shortly
beelaborated. e rst perspective regards social presence as the
perception of “realness” of the other persons. is perception is solely
determined by the medium attributes; that is, the physical
characteristics of the medium such as screen size and quality of sound
(Short etal., 1976; Ahn etal., 2014). Accordingly, social presence – in
this perspective – can beconsidered a medium attribute. Researchers
adhering to this perspective tend to compare dierent media in their
degree of social presence (Kuyath and Winter, 2006; Arsenault, 2022).
e second perspective shares the view that social presence is the
perception of the other persons’ “realness,” but it emphasizes that this
perception is shaped by a combination of medium attributes, social
contextual, and individual factors (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu and
McIsaac, 2002; Kreijns etal., 2020). Following this perspective, social
presence cannot bea medium attribute. Social contextual factors
include, for example, the conversation’s topic, the degree of
interactivity, and tone of the communication (Tu and McIsaac, 2002)
whereas individual factors concern personality traits (Weidlich etal.,
2021). e third perspective characterizes social presence as an ability
to project oneself via an online medium as “real” persons
(Gunawardena, 1995; Garrison etal., 2001), which is reformulated as
“the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course
or study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and
develop interpersonal relationships by way of projecting their
individual personalities” (Garrison, 2009, p.352). is perspective on
social presence, along with cognitive and teaching presence, is central
to the community of inquiry (CoI) model to describe the use of
computer-mediated communication (CMC) and computer
conferencing in supporting an educational experience (Garrison etal.,
2001; 2010; Garrison and Anderson, 2003; Garrison and Arbaugh,
2007). In short, cognitive presence refers to the extent to which
learners can construct and conrm meaning through sustained
communication (Garrison etal., 2001). Teaching presence refers to
“the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes
for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educational
worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001, p.5). It is to
be noted that this mainstream perspective is currently the most
dominant one with a large community.
1
Finally, the fourth perspective
posits that social presence is a critical literacy that “serves an inuential
role in advancing and sustaining successful, meaningful learning
experience” (Whiteside, 2017, p.133). According to Whiteside and
1 https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/
Dikkers (2016) social presence is addressing the social dimensions of
online learning by examining ve interconnected components that
form the social presence model (SPM): (1) aective association; (2)
community cohesion; (3) instructor involvement; (4) interaction
intensity; and (5) knowledge and experience.
Note that in discussing these mainstream perspectives, wemust
remind ourselves that the original social presence theory by Short
et al. (1976) was developed in an era that only used analogous
telecommunication tools such as video-, audioconferencing, and
telephone that did not possess any buering capacity so that the
communication had to bedone in real-time. Short et al. (1976)
compared social presence for video conferencing, audio
conferencing, telephone, and face-to-face communication although
the latter is not “technologically mediated.” In contrast, the
perspectives on social presence outlined above usually consider
digital communication tools that oen are programs or apps running
on computers which are interconnected through internet. Hence, the
general term for these types of communication is computer-
mediated communication (CMC). ereby, weobserved that text-
based CMC (e.g., e-mail) mostly supports an asynchronous mode
for communication whereas video-based and audio-based CMC
(e.g., video-conferencing) does so for real-time communication. But
indeed, text-based communication can be(pseudo) real-time as
well, as enabled by instant text message systems such as the popular
WhatsApp. Also, recordings of video footages and audio also make
asynchronous communication possible as they become video and
audio messages.
Whilst discerning the four mainstream perspectives, Kreijns etal.
(2022) disentanglement of the many dierent social presence
conceptualizations also has led to the distinguishment of three key
variables that can foster cumulative research progress: sociability,
social presence, and social space. e latter, social space, is dened as
the network of interpersonal relationships embedded in group
structures of norms and values, rules and roles, and beliefs and ideals.
Social space is, therefore, an attribute shared by the group as a whole.
A thriving/sound social space is characterized by a sense of
community, trust, and cohesiveness, which fosters productive and
successful collaboration among groups because these qualities create
a secure environment for transactive discourse, involving critical
thinking, decision-making, and epistemic interaction. However, the
emergence of a sound social space is contingent on the presence of
social presence. Furthermore, sociability represents a medium
attribute of the virtual learning environment, typically an electronic
platform with CMC- and specialized collaboration tools. Kreijns etal.
(2022) dened sociability as the virtual environment’s capacity to
facilitate the expression and experience of social presence, leading to
the emergence of a cohesive social space. A practical example could
be text-messaging enriched with emoticons and emojis, allowing
group members to express themselves freely and, thus, is a tool for
manipulating how others perceive their social presence (Tang and
Hew, 2020).
We purport that the interrelationships among the three key
variables- sociability, social presence, and social space- and how they
mutually inuence one another emphasize the importance of
exploring additional factors that can inuence the degrees of these
variables besides the key variables themselves. Because this article is
centered on social presence, it becomes imperative to develop a
comprehensive framework of social presence. To this end,
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 05 frontiersin.org
weembraced the second perspective, thus, where “realness” of the
other persons in mediated communication is central and determined
by a combination of media attributes, social contextual and individual
factors. However, despite considering these factors, they fall short in
fully explaining the varying degrees of social presence experienced
across dierent communication and collaboration modes and
modalities. To address this gap, weexpanded the perspective here by
the inclusion of SIP theory, CLT, and telepresence theory, eectively
giving rise to a h perspective on social presence. is h
perspective, in essence, builds upon the second perspective with the
aforementioned expansions, collectively forming the comprehensive
framework of social presence. In the following sections, welay out
these dierent theories and describe how they relate to the concept of
social presence.
3 Social information processing
theory
Our interest in SIP theory (Walther, 1992, 1993, 1996) stemmed
from ndings of social presence researchers that when online persons
self-disclose themselves it will increase their social presence (Kim
and Song, 2016; Raza etal., 2020). Self-disclosure entails revealing
personal life events, information, feelings, and emotions to other
people through talk (Finkenauer etal., 2018) and functions as getting
to know each other. Short etal. (1976, Chapter 6) considered the
process of “getting to know someone” an important aspect of any
conversation as it contributes to building interpersonal relationships
which may become relevant and eective when in task-related
activities. According to Walther (1996) “relationships are necessary
for eective negotiation. Without them, getting consensus and
agreement will not progress in most cases” (p.15). Indeed, when
people are put together in groups, such as is the case in group
learning, the group dynamics are in large part governed by people’s
impression of other group members (Storck and Sproull, 1995).
Based on these impressions, interpersonal relationships can bebuilt.
erefore, teachers oen are advised to start online classes, virtual
seminars, and online group learning with icebreakers and other
opportunities for getting to know each other to develop relationships
before learning together (Conrad and Donaldson, 2011). ese
activities are aimed to compensate for specic hindrances to
impression formation in online settings in comparison to face-to-face
settings. For instance, Storck and Sproull (1995) concluded form their
study on videoconferencing that “impressions people form of remote
others are dierent from and less positive than the impressions they
form of face-to-face others, starting from an equal baseline” (p.1492).
ey further showed that “people make use of dierent kinds of
information informing their impressions” (p.1492). Walther (1992,
1993, 1996) proposed his social information processing (SIP) theory
that explains how impression formation happens online. Heargued
that through exchanging and accumulating messages of the other
over time, impressions of the other persons will successively
individuate; impression formation will thus bestepwise as each
message reveals something new about the other. Note hereby, that SIP
theory was primarily focusing on asynchronous text-based
communication such as e-mail and forums. Nevertheless, SIP theory
can beapplied on synchronous communication as well such as a
video-conferencing, but where then each communication episode
counts as one message exchange. Note further that Walther’s (1992)
SIP theory was actually a critical reaction to media theories at that
time (i.e., around 1970–1990) including social presence theory (as
seen by the rst perspective “social presence as the perception of
being “real,” determined solely by medium attribute”), media richness
theory (Da and Lengel, 1986; Trevino etal., 1990), and reduced
social cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler, 1988) that all suggested that
lean media — because, its low bandwidth constrains the transmission
of non-verbal cues — to be impersonal, inhibiting relational
communication, and therefore fall prone to anti-social and hostile
behavior. Non-verbal cues are, for example, facial expressions, gaze
direction, posture, and tone of voice. Walther’s (1992) SIP theory
disagreed with these so-called “cues-ltered-out” theories and
claimed that even in lean media close relationships can exist because
users adapt to these media and make individuating impressions of
each other. Another factor driving our interest in SIP theory is that
alternative perspectives on social presence dened it as an ability to
project one’s personality in the online community (this is the third
perspective “social presence as an ability”). SIP theory also delves into
impression management, which involves individuals making
conscious eorts to shape how they want others to perceive them.
erefore, the ability to project one’s personality in the online
environment is closely connected to the process of impression
management. SIP theory has been investigated by many researchers,
for example, in online dating (Farrer and Gavin, 2009; Sharabi and
Caughlin, 2017), social media use (Jahng and Littau, 2015), and when
cultural factors are involved in developing trust between virtual team
members (Olaniran etal., 2012).
According to SIP theory, and already mentioned above,
communication partners develop interpersonal relationships over
time; even in communication media that are low in richness in terms
of transmitted cues, the same relational dimensions, and qualities as
in face-to-face relationships can emerge. Two processes take place in
online communication; the rst process is impression formation and
the second is impression management. In impression formation,
communication partners construct mental models; that is,
individuating impressions of each other. is occurs through the
accumulation of messages collected during the many communication
episodes contributing little by little to the construction of mental
models or representations about the communication partners. is
ultimately results in individuating impressions that are very concrete
and detailed. Interestingly, as Walther (1996) showed, there is a
tendency to judge the others more positive and to idealize them than
would bethe case in face-to-face settings, known as the hyperpersonal
eect (Ramirez and Zhang, 2007). In impression management, on the
other hand, communication partners are concerned with how they
are going to present themselves online and how to maintain that.
During the impression management process, the communicating
partners consistently seek feedback to adapt the way they present
themselves in the communication; this is commonly known as
“projecting” oneself. Impression management is necessary as it is a
way for communicating partners to “create” social presence
(Gunawardena, 1995). See also, our previous example of text-
messaging using emoticons and emojis. Impression management also
gives communication partners the possibility to present themselves
more favorably to others and in this way add to the hyperpersonal
eect (Walther, 1996), as can beobserved in social media (e.g., with
TikTok inuencers actively marketing themselves).
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 06 frontiersin.org
4 Construal level theory
Proposed by Trope and Liberman (2003, 2010), construal level
theory (CLT) builds on two main ideas, construal and psychological
distance, and how the two aect each other. at is, how psychological
distance aects construal levels of events, objects, or people, and vice
versa, which in turn aect individuals’ thoughts, decisions, and
behavior toward them (Trope et al., 2007). e rst main idea,
construal, refers to the mental representation of those events, objects,
and people and the construal level is the degree to which the mental
representation is concrete or abstract (Trope and Liberman, 2003,
2010). Concrete construals are focused on the specic details of an
event, object, or person, such as its physical properties, sensory
features, or personality; therefore, concrete construals are designated
to below level. Abstract construals are focused on the higher-level
concepts or ideas associated with an event, object, or person, such as
its meaning or relevance to personal goals; therefore, abstract
construals are designated to behigh level. For example, if someone is
thinking about a close friend, a concrete construal might focus on
whether she is friendly and patient, the specic sneakers she wears,
and her opinions and thoughts about a certain subject, while an
abstract construal might focus on the fact that she is a stranger, the
country in which she lives, the culture of that country that may
determine her habits in addition to the traditional clothing that she
may wear. In general, concrete construals tend to be more
heterogeneous and distinguishing whereas abstract construals tend to
be more homogenous and uniform. e second main idea,
psychological distance, refers – as already mentioned above – to the
subjective experience of a separation between the self, here and now,
and targets of interest such as events, objects, or people. Trope an d
Liberman (2010) indicated that psychological distance is caused by
four types of objective distances: (1) spatial; (2) temporal; (3) social;
and (4) hypothetical distance. Spatial distance refers to the proximity
in physical space; thus, whether the event takes place nearby and
whether object or person are in close physical proximity versus just
the opposite; that is, the event takes place far away and object or
person are also far away. Temporal distance refers to the proximity of
an event, object, and people in time, thus whether the event takes
place right now and objects or persons can beaccessed right at this
moment versus the event will take place somewhere far in the future
as is the accessibility of objects and persons. Social distance refers to
the relationship between the self and others involved in the event, for
example in case of persons, social distance is the degree of similarity
between the self and the other persons, which can refer to the same
interest in topics, reference groups, and ambitions. Finally,
hypothetical distance refers to the likelihood or uncertainty of an
event happening or that an object or person can beaccessed. e
farther an object, event, or person is perceived to be on these
dimensions, the more likely it is to beconstrued at a higher level of
abstraction. But the opposite is also true, if the level of construal is
high then the psychological distance of an event, object, or person is
perceived as far and if the level of the construal is low then the
psychological distance is perceived as near.
Although in CLT psychological distance concerns objects,
events, and people, wefor the purpose of our research on social
presence, only involve psychological distance in relation to people
and places – the latter (places) becomes clearer when wediscuss
telepresence theory. As already been noted, CLT is not a media
theory, so it does not consider the role of the various communication
media within this theory. However, the suitability of CLT for the
comprehensive framework of social presence is based on three
reasons that will be elaborated upon: (1) social presence is
inextricably linked with psychological distance; (2) social presence
is aected by the individuating impressions of the other persons,
which are essentially the construals of these people; and (3) the
causal direction of psychological distance to construal may also
bereversed opening possibilities to reduce psychological distance.
In regard to the rst reason, wedo see a link between social presence
and psychological distance as did many others (e.g., So and Brush,
2008; Lee, 2010). In line with the observations made by So and Brush
(2008), weconcur that research in distance education should move
beyond perceiving distance solely as a lack of physical proximity and
place greater emphasis on the psychological aspects of distance
(p. 319). ese researchers posed several pertinent questions
regarding learners’ perceptions of psychological distance, the factors
inuencing these perceptions, the impact of such perceptions on
learning, and eective strategies for minimizing psychological
distance (p.319). ey approached these inquiries through the lens
of transactional distance theory (Moore, 1997), which explores how
psychological and communication distance can lead to
misunderstandings in teacher-student transactions (Moore and
Kearsley, 1996). However, the theory does not explicitly dene
psychological distance whereas CLT does. CLT draws explicit
attention to psychological distance and how this aects people’s
behavior and thinking. Concerning the second reason, it was alluded
in the previous section that social presence is aected by the
individuating impressions of the other persons. In CLT, psychological
distance is aecting the level of abstractness of objects, events, or
people; this abstractness is reected in the construal that is the
mental representation of those objects, events, and people (Trope
and Liberman, 2003, 2010). Consequently, the mental
representations weform of other people, or in other words, the
individuating impressions we hold of them, are essentially the
construals of these individuals. Also, wemay state that construals as
a result of the process of impression formation, are not only
inuenced by the accumulation of messages over time as is suggested
by SIP theory, but also by the psychological distance wefeel to other
persons as CLT suggests. is insight gained from CLT underscores
its importance in understanding social presence. e third reason
for including CLT into the comprehensive framework of social
presence stems from its assertion that the causal direction of
psychological distance to construal can bereversed, thus, the level
of abstractness of the construals or how detailed the individuating
impressions of other persons are, is aecting the psychological
distance we feel with these other persons. In other words, if
information sources are available to reduce the level of abstractness
of the construals/impressions weform about other persons making
them more detailed and concrete, then the psychological distance
with them will also bereduced (Weidlich etal., 2023). Returning to
SIP theory, accumulated messages over time are one of these sources.
Also, the non-verbal cues about the other persons transmitted via
the CMC-tools of the virtual learning environment may form
another source. Because individuating impressions of other people
determine social presence, wehypothesize that ultimately high levels
of social presence reduce psychological distance. Wemay say that
social presence is bridging psychological distance. is would
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 07 frontiersin.org
support earlier ndings on how social presence alleviates feelings of
social isolation and loneliness (Kreijns etal., 2022).
5 Telepresence theory
Above, wedened telepresence as the psychological phenomenon
in which, to a certain extent, in technology mediated communication
one perceives being “present” in another place, which can either
bementally constructed from transmitted cues, a remote physical
location mediated by a computer, or a computer-generated 3D virtual
environment. e denition is compatible with the many other
denitions of telepresence, in particular for the case where the other
place is mediated or generated by computers. For instance, Steuer
(1992) dened telepresence as “the experience of presence in an
environment by means of communication medium” (p.6), Green and
McAllister (2020) dened it as “the feeling of “being there” in a
mediated or virtual environment” (p.1), and Waterworth etal. (2015)
as “the feeling of being located in a perceptible external world around
the self ” (p.36). Note that in this regard and in contrast to SIP theory,
telepresence theory was primarily relying on the synchronous
transmission of sensory information like visuals and sound. Yet,
asynchronous text-based communication can also induce telepresence
experiences, particularly when messages convey details about the
sender’s surroundings and locations.
Initially, telepresence was researched in the context of
teleoperations and performance in physical remote locations (Min sky,
1980; Sheriden, 1992), for example, locations that are hazardous for
humans because of environmental radiation and, therefore, all
manipulations with objects must be performed by robotics and
haptics. Because teleoperations and task performance were the prime
focus of the initial telepresence research, it did not consider social
environments. Indeed, the remote locations were usually void of
people. However, the advent of aordable video cameras and large TV
screens for telepresence rooms has shied the attention towards
connecting distributed individuals. Recent studies, such as that by
Standaert etal. (2016), have explored the eectiveness of telepresence
as a business meeting mode compared to face-to-face and audio- and
videoconferencing. It was found that telepresence communication
outperformed audio- and videoconferencing but did not signicantly
dier from face-to-face interactions. Interestingly, Short etal. (1976)
used similar communication media (face-to-face, audio- and
videoconferencing, and telephone) for determining degrees of social
presence conveyed in these media. Face-to-face interactions were
found to convey the highest levels of social presence, followed by
videoconferencing, and then audio-conferencing, with telephone
interactions conveying the lowest social presence. is suggests some
connection between telepresence and social presence. It is important
to note that telepresence research extends beyond business meetings
to include other domains, such as remote surgery (see for a systematic
review: Barba etal., 2022), which emphasizes teleoperation and task
performance. As mentioned earlier, apart from connecting remote
physical locations, the interest in telepresence is also driven by the
increasing use of computer-generated 3D environments. Here the
focus is on the manipulation of virtual objects and even more on the
social interaction between the virtual representations of others (i.e.,
the avatars) in mediated communication (Lu et al., 2015).
Incorporating such 3D virtual environments into our future online
platforms for group learning, which involve activities like transactive
discourse, serious games, and object manipulation, necessitates careful
consideration of human interaction. Specically, when comparing the
eects of ultra-realistic human-like avatars and simpler cartoon
avatars on social learning, it becomes crucial to examine their
potential to elicit varying levels of telepresence (and social presence).
6 Putting everything together
We have identied three theories that play a crucial role in
enhancing our understanding of how the degree of perceived social
presence of other persons can beaected while in online real-time,
semi-synchronous, and asynchronous collaboration and
communication; these three theories are: (1) social information
processing theory (Walther, 1992, 1993); (2) construal level theory
(Trope and Liberman, 2010); and (3) telepresence theory (Steuer,
1992). Together, with insights from the second perspective on social
presence (i.e., “social presence as the perception being “real,”
determined by medium attributes, social contextual, and individual
factors”), they form the comprehensive framework of social presence
that is a h perspective on social presence and illustrated in Figure1.
e virtual learning environment enables all social interaction by
means of its embedded synchronous and asynchronous
communication and collaboration tools; the visual representation
depicts this by the arrow going from “virtual learning environment”
to “social interaction.” When wefocus on the second perspective on
social presence, wesee this perspective reected by the inuence of
media attributes on social presence represented by the arrow going
from “virtual learning environment” to “social presence.” For instance,
when students collaborate using a video conferencing system, the
visual and audio cues transmitted through the medium directly
impact their perception of social presence, as explained by Short etal.
(1976). Similarly, if the collaboration takes place in a 3D virtual
environment, telepresence experiences emerge (Faiola etal., 2013).
Social presence motivates students to participate in the social
interaction (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000); the arrow from “social
presence” to “social interaction” is showing this. Conversely, social
interaction reinforces social presence (Akcaoglu and Lee, 2016; Colen,
2022) as shown by the two headed arrow from “social interaction” to
“social presence.” In considering the social contextual (e.g., task type,
demographics, conversation’s topic, degree of interactivity) and
individual factors (e.g., personality traits), researchers like Li etal.
(2015) and Siriaraya and Ang (2012) have shown that these factors can
signicantly impact social presence perceptions. Despite their
importance, they are nevertheless not shown in the visual
representation to avoid clutter. Note that in the gure, processes (e.g.,
social interaction) are drawn as colored circles whereas variables
inuencing or beaected by these processes are drawn as rectangles.
Moving forward, wefurther elaborate on the visual representation
in Figure 1. But before doing so, our focus shis to the individual
models linked with the theories (i.e., SIP, CLT, and telepresence). is
approach aims to enhance the clarity of the comprehensive framework
of social presence, particularly when integrating the individual models.
To begin with, the visual representation of Walther’s (1992, 1993,
1996) SIP theory is depicted in Figure2 using the terminology of
CLT. It shows on the le-hand side the process of impression
formation producing the construals of the other persons, which are
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 08 frontiersin.org
the individuating impressions of them. On the right-hand side, the
gure shows the process of impression management resulting in the
construal of the self that potentially may lead to a hyperpersonal
impression as perceived by other persons. Construals of the self of
other persons aect how individuating impressions of these persons
are formed. Also shown in Figure2 is the prominent role of social
interaction which enables impression formation and management to
take place.
In regard to CLT, weincorporated (see Figures3, 4) the image
presented by Wilson etal. (2013) depicting the Simplied process
model of construal-level theory (the image is on p.632 of Wilson etal.
(2013), which they used to understand the impact of virtuality on
distributed groups. is Simplied process model of construal-level
theory is a chain that starts with “objective distance,” how it aects
“psychological distance,” and how this then aects “abstract construal,”
resulting in “eects of the construal.” is chain, indeed, captures the
central tenets of CLT of Trope and Liberman (2010).
Regarding the connection between CLT and social presence,
Wilson et al. (2013) emphasized that abstract construals have a
signicant impact on individual behavior and group dynamics
because “distance alters perceptions of distributed group members [italic
by authors]” (p. 629). Hence, we have relabeled “eects of the
construal” by “social presence” since “perceptions of distributed group
members” align with the notion of social presence. It is hereby worth
noting that Wilson etal. (2013) probably were not aware of social
presence theory when they conducted their study which may explain
why they did not mention it. To ensure our focus remains on persons
rather than objects or events, werelabeled “abstract construal” by
“construals of other persons” in our framework.
e image of Wilson et al.’s (2013) Simplied process model of
construal-level theory depicts an arrow that is drawn from
“psychological distance” to “abstract construal” (i.e., “construals of
other persons”). is arrow represents the process in which the
abstract construals of the other persons are formed; in our visual
FIGURE1
Visual representation of the comprehensive framework of social presence with hypotheses H1-H13 laid out in the discussion.
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 09 frontiersin.org
representation, this process is identied as the process of impression
formation when the terminology of SIP theory is used.
In Figure3, a visual representation of the chain is depicted with
the new labels and the process of impression formation – note again
that wedraw processes as colored circles such as the one representing
“impression formation.” Wilson etal. (2013) saw objective distance
not limited to spatial, temporal, social, and hypothetical distance and
suggested other forms of distances such as cultural, linguistic, and
experiential distance. erefore, welist the rst four distances in this
gure and added “…” as a placeholder for all those other relevant
distances. Wealso added an extra arrow in the gure to “impression
formation” so to express that there could benumerous additional
sources oering social cues regarding other persons, which could
potentially impact this process. For instance, Walther’s (1992, 1993,
1996) series of accumulating messages serves as an example of
such inuences.
In their Simplied process model of construal-level theory,
Wilson etal. (2013) did not draw a back loop from “abstract construal”
(i.e., “construals of other persons”) to the arrow from “objective
distance” to “psychological distance,” nor did they do so for “eects of
construal” (i.e., “social presence”) (Figure3). However, these feedback
loops were depicted in the image representing the Expanded process
model of construal-level theory (the image is on p.637 of Wilson etal.
(2013) where they moderate the inuence of “objective distance” on
“psychological distance.” Although Wilson etal. (2013) included
“contextual factors” as a mediator within the feedback loops, wedid
not do so. e rst feedback loop (arrow originating from “construals
of other persons”) is explained from with CLT, in that when weform
low level construals of the other persons, the psychological distance
also becomes low thereby suppressing the inuence of “objective
distance.” e second feedback loop (arrow originating from “social
presence”) complies with current social presence theory: the higher
perceptions of social presence, the more one feels in proximity with
other persons, and may even feel connected to them and closeness,
thereby suggesting a lower psychological distance, thus, again by
suppressing the inuence of “objective distance.” In a way, wemight
interpret this as the transportation of the other person to “here.”
Hence, a high degree of social presence is “bridging” psychological
distance (see also: Breves and Schramm, 2021).
In the above, wehave elaborated on the connection of CLT and
social presence (Figure 3). e connection between CLT and
telepresence (Figure4) follows the same line of thought. Instead of the
other persons, it is now the abstract construal of the remote physical
place or the computer-generated 3D virtual environment that is the
focus. Werelabeled “eects of the construal” by “telepresence” and
“abstract construal” by “construal of other places” in our visual
representation for the same reasons as with the connection between
FIGURE2
Model of Walther’s (1992, 1993, 1996) SIP theory.
FIGURE3
Wilson etal. (2013, p.632, p.637) model of CLT applied to social
presence.
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 10 frontiersin.org
CLT and social presence. We further replaced the arrow from
“psychological distance” to “abstract construal” (i.e., “construal of
other places”) from Wilson etal. (2013). Simplied process model of
construal-level theory by a circle representing “place construction,”
the process in which the other place is constructed in the mind.
e two feedback loops can also befound here. Both feedback
loops suggest that high experiences of telepresence and of the
construal of the other places will result in lower psychological distance
with respect to the remote physical place or the computer-generated
3D virtual environment. In regard to telepresence, wemight interpret
this as the transportation of the self to “there.” us, a high degree of
telepresence is “bridging” psychological distance to the other place.
We now integrate the individual models into a visual
representation of the comprehensive framework of social presence.
is integration is shown in Figure1.
Note rst in this visual presentation that “telepresence” and “social
presence” mutually inuence each other (cf., Venkatesh and Johnson,
2002; Nowak and Biocca, 2003). Note further that wehave added the
virtual learning environment because its aordances (e.g., sociability)
and constraints determine how the social interaction; that is, the
communication and collaboration will take place in the dierent
modes and modalities, and how it aects telepresence – especially
when technologies like goggles enable individuals to explore remote
locations visually – as well as social presence perceptions and
expressions, and the emergence of a sound social space (Kreijns etal.,
2022). Wefurther drew an arrow from “social interaction” to “social
presence” because according to Tu (2000), “Social presence is required
to enhance and foster online social interaction, which is the major
vehicle of social learning” (p.27). Additionally, wehave included a
two-headed arrow from “social interaction” back to “social presence”
to signify the reinforcement of social interaction, particularly when it
proves to bevivid and productive.
Finally, note that the comprehensive framework does omits the
virtual learning environment and its direct inuences on social
presence, telepresence, and social interaction for stalled episodes in
blended and hybrid learning scenarios; a stalled episode is the period
of time during a learning session when the communication is
interrupted or not taking place. Subsequently, impression formation
and impression management will also bestalled during these episodes.
If these periods are very long, they may result in the fading of
construals of other places and of other persons.
7 Discussion
is contribution specically explores the relationship between
social presence on the one, and SIP theory, CLT, and telepresence
theory on the other hand, an integration of theories that has yet not
been attempted in existing literature. is comprehensive framework
has the benet of providing a theoretically grounded and
comparatively thorough account of how social presence emerges and
can befacilitated and sustained in a variety of learning scenarios and
across diverse technologies and environments.
However, like all frameworks, the comprehensive framework of
social presence should be supported by empirical evidence that
conrms the hypothesized relationships. In our case, it means that
specically the connections between social presence and the three
underlying theories (i.e., SIP theory, CLT, and telepresence theory)
need empirical studies as wecan already build on empirical evidence
substantiating the validity of SIP, CLT, and telepresence. Regarding SIP
theory, there is empirical evidence available that supports the theory
(Walther and Burgoon, 1992; Walther, 1993; Parks and Roberts, 1998;
Utz, 2000; Ramirez and Zhang, 2007). Interestingly, Ramirez and
Zhang (2007) conducted a study on the eects of modality switching
on relation communication; that is, the inuence of meeting face-to-
face aer varying lengths of relational interaction via text-based CMC
tools and vice versa. ey used both social presence theory as
formulated by Short etal. (1976) thus, pointing to the rst perspective
on social presence (i.e., “social presence as the perception of being
“real,” determined solely by medium attributes”) and SIP theory, with
particular emphasis on the hyperpersonal component (Walther, 1996).
ey conrmed that both theories hold; social presence theory (rst
perspective) was predicting low relational communication in the early
stages of CMC while SIP theory predicted high relational
communication in the later stages of CMC and that the formed
impressions were idealized. Also, overall eects of switching
modalities in early and later stages of relational communication were
as expected by the two theories. Ramirez and Zhang (2007), therefore,
concluded that their ndings contributed to the support of SIP theory
and the hyperpersonal perspective.
In relation to CLT theory, this theory has amassed a substantial
body of empirical evidence across diverse elds (Soderberg etal.,
2015). ese elds encompass consumer behavior (Eyal etal., 2009;
Sordi etal., 2022), motivation (Trope and Liberman, 2003), decision-
making (Raue et al., 2015), climate change (Wang et al., 2019),
interpersonal distance (Liviatan etal., 2008; Norman etal., 2016), and
impression formation. In the context of the latter, the application of
FIGURE4
Wilson etal. (2013, p.632, p.637) model of CLT applied to
telepresence.
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 11 frontiersin.org
CLT to impression formation diverged from SIP theory, which
elucidates the development of individualized impressions over time
through cumulative messages. Instead, CLT was employed to
understand how individuals construct their perceptions of others
based on the presently available information about them (Liviatan
etal., 2008; McCrea etal., 2011; Hess etal., 2018). ese researchers
found on the one hand that individuals with abstract construals of
others tend to emphasize their broader and central features and are
more prone to being inuenced by stereotypes, and on the other hand,
those with concrete construals of others tend to focus on specic
details and are less susceptible to stereotypes.
Regarding telepresence, there exists empirical evidence supporting
the notion that immersing oneself in remote locations and 3D virtual
environments elicits feelings of telepresence (Raminez-Lopes etal.,
2016; Standaert et al., 2016). While no research is available that
investigates the relationship between telepresence and social presence,
there is research that considers telepresence and social presence both
as independent variables on a number of outcomes. See, for example,
on involvement of consumer brand engagement (Algharabat etal.,
2018), exemplication in health messages (Westerman etal., 2015),
and perceived enjoyment, perceived value, and behavioral intention
in virtual golf simulators (Lee etal., 2013).
However, as stated earlier in this article, it is surprising that the
majority of the empirical research related to these three theories
seldom takes into account the educational context of online, hybrid,
and blended learning. erefore, from the propositions of the
framework, wehave generated testable hypotheses for future research
studies that are situated in these educational contexts, for instance 3D
immersive environments such as those that are metaverse-based (Kye
etal., 2021; Singh etal., 2022; Samala etal., 2023).
We formulated the following hypotheses detailing the central
constructs of the framework (see also Figure1):
H1: Levels of construal of other persons inuence perceptions of
social presence.
H2: Levels of construal of other places inuence
telepresence perceptions.
H3a: Experiences of telepresence aect social presence.
H3b: Vice versa, social presence experiences contribute
to telepresence.
Looking at individual components of the framework, wecan
specify more detailed hypotheses for the social presence component:
H4: Psychological distance between other persons and the self can
bebridged by enhancing social presence.
H5: Variations in psychological distance arising from the learning
context or scenario, which in turn establish the objective distance,
aect levels of construal via the process of impression formation.
H6: In addition to psychological distance, the process of
impression formation is further inuenced by the quantity and
quality of social interaction enabling the accumulation of
messages conveying social emotional cues of the other persons.
Analogous hypotheses emerge from the telepresence component
of the model:
H7: Psychological distance between the other places and the self
can bebridged by enhancing telepresence.
H8: Variations in psychological distance arising from the
learning context or scenario, which in turn establish the
objective distance, aect construal of the place via the of process
place construction.
H9: e process of place construction is inuenced by the quantity
and quality of social interaction enabling the accumulation of
messages revealing cues of the other places.
e virtual learning environment plays a central role in the
framework as it directly inuences three main constructs:
H10: Verbal and non-verbal cues about the other persons that are
identiable through the virtual learning environment inuence
social presence perceptions (e.g., by using a video-
conferencing tool).
H11: Non-verbal cues about the place that arise from the virtual
learning environment inuence telepresence perceptions (e.g., by
using an immersive environment).
H12: Aordances and constraints of the virtual learning
environment and the communication media inuence the degree
of social interaction (e.g., the virtual learning environment oers
only discussion).
Finally, there is the relationship between objective distance and
psychological distance:
H13: Variations in objective distance dimensions as established by
the learning context or scenario, inuence psychological
distance perceptions.
Our future work will therefore concentrate on testing the
hypotheses thereby validating the comprehensive framework of
social presence. Also – and inspired by Short etal. (1976) who
assessed social presence in face-to-face settings – wewill probe the
framework for face-to-face group learning and for classroom
teaching, thus, extending the applicability of social presence beyond
online, hybrid and blended modes for these learning scenarios.
ereby, to further elucidate the role of social presence in all the
scenarios and settings, wewill draw upon various pedagogical
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 12 frontiersin.org
theories, including attachment theory, educational style, teacher
personality, expectations and attributions, and transactional
theories in which the perception of students and the teacher would
play a role.
8 Conclusion
In this article, a comprehensive framework of social presence is
presented. e visual representation of the framework serves as an
etiological model to describe, explain, and predict perceived levels of
social presence in online, hybrid, and blended learning given that the
framework is based on the well-established SIP theory, CLT, and
telepresence theory.
e advantage of the comprehensive framework is that it allows
us to understand varying degrees of social presence while in
(pseudo) real-time and asynchronous communication and
collaboration using a variety of dierent communication media
ranging from text-based (e-mail, instant text messaging) to
immersive (3D computer generated, a physical remote place).
Another, and perhaps more important, advantage of the
comprehensive framework of social presence is that it allows for a
deeper insight in what causes levels of social presence, which may
lead to the development of more eective instruments teachers and
students can use to establish to some extent desired levels of social
presence (see for the latter: Weidlich et al., 2022). Lastly, the
comprehensive framework of social presence, which places a strong
focus on the perceived “realness” of other persons, seeks to purify
the concept of social presence, by taking this emphasis – that is core
to Short etal.’s (1976) original denition – as its starting point and
setting aside alternative denitions and interpretations of social
presence developed later. Doing so, social presence is distinguished
from its consequences, preventing the two from being erroneously
merged, as illustrated by the example of considering social space as
a facet of social presence.
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can bedirected
to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
KK: Writing – original dra, Writing – review & editing. JY:
Writing – review & editing. JW: Writing – original dra, Writing –
review & editing. AW: Writing – original dra, Writing – review &
editing.
Funding
e author(s) declare that no nancial support was received for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ahn, D., Seo, Y., Kim, M., Kwon, J. H., Jung, Y., Ahn, J., et al. (2014). e eects of
actual human size display and stereoscopic presentation on users’ sense of being together
with and of psychological immersion in a virtual character. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc.
Net w. 17, 483–487. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0455
Akcaoglu, M., and Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning
through small group discussions. Int Rev Res Open Distrib. Learn. 17, 1–17. doi:
10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293
Aldosari, A. M., Alramthi, S. M., and Eid, H. F. (2022). Improving social presence in
online higher education: using live virtual classroom to confront learning challenges
during COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 13:994403. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.994403
Algharabat, R., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Alaiwan, A. A., and Qasem, Z. (2018). e
eect of telepresence, social presence and involvement on consumer brand engagement:
an empirical study of non-prot organizations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 40, 139–149. doi:
10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.011
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching
presence in a computer conferencing context. J. Asynch Learn. Networks. 5, 1–17. doi:
10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875
ARHT (2023). Available at: https://www.arht.tech/products/virtual-stage/ (Accessed
December 28, 2023).
Arsenault, A. M. (2022). Understanding Media Richness and Social Presence:
Exploring the Impacts of Media Channels on Individuals’ Level of Loneliness, Well-being,
and Belonging. Graduate Student eses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. p.11908.
Available at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11908 (Accessed December 28, 2023).
Arslan, G. (2021). Loneliness, college belongingness, subjective vitality, and
psychological adjustment during coronavirus pandemic: development of the college
belongingness questionnaire. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 5, 17–31. doi: 10.47602/jpsp.v5i1.240
Barba, P., Stramiello, J., Funk, E. K., Richter, F., Yip, M. C., and Orosco, R. K. (2022).
Remote telesurgery in humans: a systematic review. Surg. Endosc. 36, 2771–2777. doi:
10.1007/s00464-022-09074-4
Breves, P., and Schramm, H. (2021). Bridging psychological distance: the impact of
immersive media on distant and proximal environmental issues. Comput. Hum. Behav.
115:106606. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106606
Colen, T. (2022). e Eect of the Online Collaboration Method on the Social Presence
of Students at a Dutch Teacher Training Institute [Unpublished Master’s esis]. University
of Twente, e Netherlands.
Conrad, R., and Donaldson, A. (2011). Continuing to Engage the Online Learner: More
Activities and Resources for Creative Instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cowen, T. (2023) Apple Vision Pro is Receiving Strong Reviews. Policy Commons, USA.
Da, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements: media
richness and structural design. Manag. Sci. 32, 554–571. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Draper, J. V., Kaber, D. B., and Usher, J. M. (1998). Telepresence. Hum. Factors 40,
354–375. doi: 10.1518/001872098779591386
Eyal, T., Liberman, N., and Trope, Y. (2009). “Psychological distance and consumer
behavior: a construal level theory perspective” in Social Psychology of Consumer
Behavior. ed. M. Wänke (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 65–87.
Faiola, A., Newlon, C., Pfa, M., and Smyslova, O. (2013). Correlating the eects of
ow and telepresence in virtual worlds: enhancing our understanding of user behavior
in game-based learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 1113–1121. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.
10.003
Farrer, J., and Gavin, J. (2009). Online dating in Japan: a test of social information
processing theory. CyberPsychol. Behav. 12, 407–412. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0069
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 13 frontiersin.org
Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., and Pronk, T. (2018). “Self-disclosure in relationships:
revealing and concealing information about oneself to others” in e Cambridge
Handbook of Personal Relationships. eds. A. L. Vangelesti and D. Perlman (Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press), 271–281.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). “Communities of inquiry in online learning” in Encyclopedia
of Distance L earning. eds. P. L. Rogers, G. A. Berg, J. V. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice
and K. D. Schenk. 2nd ed (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 352–355.
Garrison, D. R., and Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework
for Research and Practice. London, NewYork: Routledge Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive
presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American J. Distance Edu
15, 7–23. doi: 10.1080/08923640109527071
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2010). e rst decade of the
community of inquiry framework: a retrospective. Internet High. Educ. 13, 5–9. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
Garrison, D. R., and Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry
framework: review, issues, and future directions. Internet High. Educ. 10, 157–172. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Green, M. C., and McAllister, C. A. (2020). “Presence” in e International
Encyclopedia of Media Psychology. ed. J. Bulck Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction
and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun. 1,
147–166.
Hämäläinen, R., and Oksanen, K. (2014). Collaborative 3D learning games for future
learning: teachers’ instructional practices to enhance shared knowledge construction
among students. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 23, 81–101. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2013.838451
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: e subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleop.
Virtual Environ. 1, 262–271. doi: 10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262
Hess, Y. D., Carnevale, J. J., and Rosario, M. (2018). A construal level approach to
understanding interpersonal processes. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 12:e12409. doi:
10.1111/spc3.12409
Hostetter, C. (2013). Community matters: social presence and learning outcomes. J.
Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 13, 77–86.
Hung-Yuan, L., Yu-Mei, Y., and Wen-Chieh, C. (2017). Inuence of social presence
on sense of virtual community. J. Knowl. Manage. Econ. Inf. Technol. 7, 1–14.
Jahng, R. M., and Littau, J. (2015). Interacting is believing: interactivity, social cue, and
perceptions of journalistic credibility on twitter. J. Mass Commun. Q. 93, 38–58. doi:
10.1177/1077699015606680
Kim, T., and Biocca, F. (1997). Telepresence via television: two dimensions of
telepresence may have dierent connections to memory and persuasion. J. Comput.
Mediat. Commun. 3. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00073.x
Kim, J., Kwon, Y., and Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that inuence social
presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Comput. Educ. 57,
1512–1520. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005
Kim, J., and Song, H. (2016). Celebrity's self-disclosure on twitter and parasocial
relationships: a mediating role of social presence. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62, 570–577.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.083
Koutromanos, G., Bellou, I., and Mikropoulos, T. A. (2021). “Social presence,
satisfaction, and learning outcomes in an undergraduate computer programming
distance course” in Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education
TECH-EDU 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science. eds. A. Reis, J.
Barroso, J. B. Lopes, T. A. Mikropoulos and C.-W. Fan, vol. 1384 (Cham: Springer),
301–1312.
Kreijns, K., Bijker, M., and Weidlich, J. (2020). “Chapter 11: A Rasch analysis
approach to the development and validation of a social presence measure” in Rasch
Measurement: Applications in Quantitative Educational Research. ed. M. S. Khine
(Singapore: Springer).
Kreijns, K., Weidlich, J., and Kirschner, P. A. (2023). “Chapter 21 – pitfalls of social
interaction in online group learning” in Cambridge Handbook of Cyber Behavior. ed. Z.
Yan (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press).
Kreijns, K., Xu, K., and Weidlich, J. (2022). Social presence: conceptualization and
measurement. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 139–170. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8
Kuyath, S. J., and Winter, S. J. (2006). Distance education communications: e social
presence and media richness of instant messaging. J. Asynchr. Learn. Network. 10, 67–81.
doi: 10.24059/olj.v10i4.1751
Kye, B., Han, N., Kim, E., Park, Y., and Jo, S. (2021). Educational applications of
metaverse: possibilities and limitations. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 18:32. doi: 10.3352/
jeehp.2021.18.32
Lee, J. (2010). Psychological distance between students and professors in asynchronous
online learning, and its relationship to student achievement and preference for online
courses. Educ. Technol. Int. 11, 123–148.
Lee, H.-G., Chung, S., and Lee, W.-H. (2013). Presence in virtual golf simulators: the
eects of presence on perceived enjoyment, perceived value, and behavioral intention.
New Media and Society 15, 930–946. doi: 10.1177/1461444812464033
Li, S., Feng, B., Li, N., and Tan, X. (2015). How social context cues in online support-
seeking inuence self-disclosure in support provision. Commun. Q. 63, 586–602. doi:
10.1080/01463373.2015.1078389
Lim, J. (2023). Exploring the relationships between interaction measures and learning
outcomes through social network analysis: the mediating role of social presence. Int. J.
Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00384-8
Lin, H.-Y., Yeh, Y.-M., and Chen, W.-C. (2017). Inuence of social presence on sense
of virtual community. J. Knowl. Manage. Econ. Inf. Technol. 7, 1–14.
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social
distance dimension: implications for perception of others’ actions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
44, 1256–1269. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007
Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). “e evolution and inuence of social presence theory on
online learning” in Online Education and Adult Learning: New Frontiers for Teaching
Practices. ed. T. Kidd (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 124–139.
Lowenthal, P. R., and Snelson, C. (2017). In search of a better understanding of social
presence: an investigation into how researchers dene social presence. Distance Educ.
38, 141–159. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2017.1324727
Lu, X., Shen, J., Perugini, S., and Yang, J. (2015) An Immerse Telepresence System
Using RGB-D Sensors and Head-Mounted Display. Computer Science Faculty
Publications. Paper 42. Available at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/cps_fac_pub/42
(Accessed December 28, 2023).
McCrea, S. M., Wieber, F., and Myers, A. L. (2011). Construal level mind-sets
moderate self- and social stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 51–68. doi: 10.1037/
a0026108
Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence. Omni 2, 45–52.
Moore, M. (1997). “eory of transactional distance” in eoretical Principles of
Distance Education. ed. D. Keegan (New York: Routledge), 22–38.
Moore, M., and Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: A Systems Review. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mystakidis, S. (2022). Metaverse. Encyclopedia 2, 486–497. doi: 10.3390/
encyclopedia2010031
Norman, E., Tjomsland, H. E., and Huegel, D. (2016). e distance between us: using
construal level theory to understand interpersonal distance in a digital age. Front. Digit.
Hum. 3:5. doi: 10.3389/fdigh.2016.00005
Nowak, K. L., and Biocca, F. (2003). e eect of the agency and anthropomorphism
on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments.
Presence 12, 481–494. doi: 10.1162/105474603322761289
Olaniran, B., Rodriguez, N., and Williams, I. M. (2012). “Social information processing
theory (SIPT): a cultural perspective for international online communication environments”
in Computer-Mediated Communication Across Cultures: International Interactions in Online
Environments. eds. K. St Amant and S. Kelsey (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 45–65.
Öztok, M., and Kehrwald, B. A. (2017). Social presence reconsidered: moving beyond,
going back, or killing social presence. Distance Educ. 38, 259–266. doi:
10.1080/01587919.2017.1322456
Parks, M. R., and Roberts, L. D. (1998). ‘Making MOOsic’: the development of
personal relationships on line and a comparison to their o-line counterparts. J. Soc.
Pers. Relat. 15, 517–537. doi: 10.1177/0265407598154005
Phirangee, K., and Malec, A. (2017). Othering in online learning: an examination of
social presence, identity, and sense of community. Distance Educ. 38, 160–172. doi:
10.1080/01587919.2017.1322457
Poth, R. D. (2018). “Social presence in online learning” in Enhancing Social Presence
in Online Environments. ed. M. Marmon (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 88–116.
Raminez-Lopes, C. V., Castano, L., Aldape, P., and Tejeda, S. (2016). Telepresence with
hologram eect: technological ecosystem for distance education [special issue: education 4.0:
mobilizing for sustainable development]. Sustainability 13:14006. doi: 10.3390/su132414006
Ramirez, A. Jr., and Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets oine: the eect of modality
switching on relational communication. Commun. Monogr. 74, 287–310. doi:
10.1080/03637750701543493
Raue, M., Streicher, B., Lermer, E., and Frey, D. (2015). How far does it feel? Construal
level and decisions under risk. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 4, 256–264. doi: 10.1016/j.
jarmac.2014.09.005
Raza, S., Khan, K., and Ra, S. (2020). Online education and MOOCs: teacher self-
disclosure in online education and a mediating role of social presence. S Asian J. Manage.
Sci. 14, 142–158. doi: 10.21621/sajms.2020141.08
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., and Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation
to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: a meta-analysis.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 402–417. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Samala, A. D., Usmeldi, , Taali, , Ambiyar, , Bojic, L., Indarta, Y., et al. (2023).
Metaverse technologies in education: a systematic literature review using PRISMA. Int.
J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 18, 231–252. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v18i05.35501
Sharabi, L. L., and Caughlin, J. P. (2017). What predicts rst date success? A
longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Pers. Relat. 24, 370–391. doi:
10.1111/pere.12188
Kreijns et al. 10.3389/feduc.2023.1286594
Frontiers in Education 14 frontiersin.org
Sheriden, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence 1,
120–126. doi: 10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.120
Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976) e Social Psychology of
Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Singh, J., Malhotra, M., and Sharma, N. (2022). “Metaverse in education: An overview”
in Applying metalytics to measure customer experience in the Metaverse. Eds. D. Bathla
and A. Singh (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 135–142.
Siriaraya, P., and Ang, C. S. (2012). Age dierences in the perception of social presence
in the use of 3D virtual world for social interaction. Interact. Comput. 24, 280–291. doi:
10.1016/j.intcom.2012.03.003
So, H.-J., and Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social
presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical
factors. Computers Edu. 51, 318–336. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E., and Ledgerwood, A.
(2015). e eects of psychological distance on abstraction: two meta-analyses. Psychol.
Bull. 141, 525–548. doi: 10.1037/bul0000005
Sordi, J. D., Tomazelli, J., Sampaio, C. H., and Espartel, L. B. (2022). Construal level
theory and consumer behavior: A decade of studies and new research possibilities.
Brazilian J. Marketing. 21, 1060–1091. doi: 10.5585/remark.v21i3.16694
Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1988). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in
organizational communication. Manag. Sci. 32, 1492–1512.
Standaert, W., Muylle, S., and Basu, A. (2016). An empirical study of the eectiveness
of telepresence as a business meeting mode. Inf. Technol. Manag. 17, 323–339. doi:
10.1007/s10799-015-0221-9
Steuer, J. (1992). Dening virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J.
Commun. 42, 73–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
Storck, J., and Sproull, L. (1995). rough a glass darkly: what do people learn in
videoconferences? Hum. Commun. Res. 22, 197–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.
tb00366.x
Suh, K.-S., and Chang, S. (2006). User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online
stores: the role of telepresence. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25, 99–113. doi:
10.1080/01449290500330398
Tang, Y., and Hew, K. F. (2020). Does mobile instant messaging facilitate social
presence in online communication? A two-stage study of higher education students. Int.
J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 17, 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00188-0
Tjotsheim, I., and Waterworth, J. A. (2022) e Psychosocial Reality of Digital Travel:
Being in Virtual Places. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan.
Trevino, L. K., Da, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. (1990). “Understanding managers’ media
choices: a symbolic interactionalist perspective” in Organizations and Communication
Tec h nol o g y . eds. J. Fulk and C. W. Steineld (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), 71–94.
Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psycholog. Rev.. 110, 403–421.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., and Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological
distance: eects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consum.
Psychol. 17, 83–95. doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
Tu, C.-H. (2000). On-line learning migration: from social learning theory to social
presence theory in a CMC environment. J. Network Comput. Appl. 23, 27–37. doi:
10.1006/jnca.1999.0099
Tu, C.-H., and McIsaac, M. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase
interaction in online classes. Am. J. Dist. Educ. 16, 131–150. doi: 10.1207/
S15389286AJDE1603_2
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: the development of
friendships in virtual worlds. J. Online Behav. 1
Venkatesh, V., and Johnson, P. (2002). Telecommuting technology implementations:
a within- and between- subjects longitudinal eld study. Pers. Psychol. 55, 661–687. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00125.x
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal eects in computer-mediated interaction: a
relational perspective. Commun. Res. 19, 52–90. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003
Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated communication.
West. J. Commun. 57, 381–398. doi: 10.1080/10570319309374463
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23, 3–43. doi: 10.1177/0093650960
23001001
Walther, J. B., and Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-
mediated interaction. Hum. Commun. Res. 19, 50–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.
tb00295.x
Wang, S., Hurlstone, M. J., Leviston, Z., Walker, I., and Lawrence, C. (2019). Climate
change from a distance: analysis of construal level and psychological distance from
climate change. Front. Psychol. 10, 1–22. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00230
Waterworth, J. A., Waterworth, E. L., Riva, G., and Mantovani, F. (2015). “Presence:
form, content and consciousness” in Immersed in Media: Telepresence eory,
Measurement and Technology. eds. M. Lombard, F. Biocca, J. Freeman, W. IJselsteijn and
R. J. Schaevitz (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing), 35–58.
Weidlich, J., and Bastiaens, T. J. (2017). Explaining social presence and the quality of
online learning with the SIPS model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72, 479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2017.03.016
Weidlich, J., Kreijns, K., and Bastiaens, T. J. (2021). Individual dierences in
perceptions of social presence: exploring the role of personality in online distance
learning. Open Educ. Stud. 3, 188–201. doi: 10.1515/edu-2020-0153
Weidlich, J., Orhan Göksün, D., and Kreijns, K. (2022). Extending social presence
theory: social presence divergence and interaction integration in online distance
learning. J. Comput. High. Educ. 1, –22. doi: 10.1007/s12528-022-09325-2
Weidlich, J., Yau, J., and Kreijns, K. (2023). Social presence and psychological distance:
a construal level account for online distance learning. Comput. Inf. Technol. doi: 10.1007/
s10639-023-12289-0
Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Eects
of Social and Epistemic Scripts on Collaborative Knowledge Construction. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.
Weinberger, A., and Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative
knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Educ.
46, 71–95. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
Westerman, D., Spence, P., and Lin, X. (2015). Telepresence and exemplication in
health messages: the relationships among spatial and social presence and exemplars
and exemplication eects. Commun. Rep. 28, 92–102. doi:
10.1080/08934215.2014.971838
Whiteside, A. L. (2017). “Understanding social presence as a critical literacy” in Social
Presence in Online Learning: Multiple Perspectives on Practice and Research. eds. A. L.
Whiteside, A. Garrett Dikkers and K. Swan (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing), 133–142.
Whiteside, A. L., and Dikkers, A. G. (2016). “Chapter 11 – leveraging the social
presence model: a decade of research on emotion in online and blended learning” in
Emotions, Technology, and Learning. eds. S. Y. Tettegah and M. P. McGreery (San Diego,
CA: Academic Press), 225–241.
Wilson, J., Crisp, C. B., and Mortensen, M. (2013). Extending construal-level theory
to distributed groups: Understanding the eects of virtuality. Organiz. Sci. 24,
629–644. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0750
Zhao, H., Sullivan, K. P. H., and Mellenius, I. (2014). Participation, interaction and
social presence: an exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. Br.
J. Educ. Technol. 45, 807–819. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12094
Content uploaded by Joshua Weidlich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua Weidlich on Jan 11, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
