An Evaluation of Social Connectedness Online

By Dr Andree Swanson

Picture by Dr. Andree Swanson

Communicating in the online learning environment is difficult at best.  To feel connected to faculty and fellow students is almost impossible.  Interpersonal exchanges are “more difficult for online students to engage in the kinds of collaborative peer interactions that often result in the construction of meaning and achievement of learning goals” (Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2012, p. 347).  Slagter van Tryon and Bishop (2006) have been studying the topic of social connectivity as it relates to student engagement and interaction, and coined the phrase e-connectivity (e-mmediacy).  Swanson, Hutkin, Babb, and Howell (2010) defined as:  “E-mmediacy or e-connectivity is the feelings or believing of social connectedness that students and faculty get through the technologically enhanced online learning environment (Slagter van Tyson, 2007; Slagter van Tyson & Bishop, 2006)” (p. 17).

Before this current study, there was no validated instruments to measure e-connectivity, so Slagter van Tryon and Bishop “designed and development the Social Perceptions in Learning Contexts Instrument (SPLCI)” (p. 348).  The two researchers developed a three-step process to create this instrument.  Phase 1 was involved creating an initial instrument based on their extensive literature review and their previous research on the topic of e-immediacy.  Phase 2 incorporated experts to review and recommend revisions.  In this phase, the researchers tested the reliability and validity of the evolving instrument.  In Phase 3, the final stage involved more analysis and revision, thus resulting in the final assessment tool.

Slagter van Tryon and Bishop and the experts identified three themes that emerged.  To overcome e-connectivity or e-mmediacy in a distance education classroom, one must: 1) increase interactions, 2) provide “comprehensive technical support”, and, 3) provide persistent follow-up (p. 350).  “When students feel e-mmediacy it appears that valuable cognitive resources that might be wasted on inefficient social information processing can be allocated, instead, to cognitive information processing and the learning goals of the course” (Slagter van Tryon and Bishop, p. 352).  Personally, I have found this to be the case in classes where there is increased interaction in the online classroom. 

After creating an in-depth instrument, the researchers tried it on a small pilot study with a sample size of 50.  Although, this was one of the limitations of the study, they concluded that this study was beneficial and further research should be done.  Both Slagter van Tryon and Bishop and Fisher, Durrance, and Unruh (2003) recommend further research into what enhances the learning experience for students by increasing e-connectivity in the online environment.

This study builds on my own dissertation which revealed the best practices for e-connectivity in online courses. 

In a review of contemporary literature, research revealed that students believe they cannot connect with their instructors in online classrooms (Hughes, Ventura, & Dando, 2007; Stichter, Lewis, Richter, Johnson, & Bradley, 2006).  Faculty, administrators, curriculum designers, and student advisors in institutions that offer online programs do not adequately address the social and psychological connectivity needs of students (DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005). This lack of attention to the social and affective needs has a negative effect on learner satisfaction and retention (Bonk, 2002; Melrose & Bergeron, 2006; Moody, 2004; Simpson, 2004; Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2006).  Specific guidance on social interaction in the proprietary online classroom does not exist.  Because of the absence of guidance, training on e-connectivity is lacking for online faculty and students' satisfaction is decreased leading to a higher attrition rate (Dow, 2008; Drouin, 2008; Herbert, 2006; Scollins-Mantha, 2008).

By using Bloom's Taxonomy as a foundation for the overall review, six emerging themes appeared:

Cognitive

}  Show relevance to students.

Affective

}  Establish e-connectivity.

}  Instructor presence.

}  Positive communication.

}  Ability to be open to social networking.

Psychomotor

}  Use of technologies to e-connect. (Swanson, 2011, p. 1)

As this compares to Slagter van Tryon and Bishop’s themes, there is a relationship.

Table 1

Comparison of Swanson et al.’s Themes as Compared to Slagter van Tryon and Bishop’s Themes

Swanson et al.’s Themes	Slagter van Tryon and Bishop’s Themes
Cognitive }  Show relevance to students.
Affective }  Establish e-connectivity. }  Instructor presence. }  Positive communication. }  Ability to be open to social networking.	Increase interactions Provide persistent follow-up
Psychomotor }  Use of technologies to e-connect.	Provide comprehensive technical support

Perhaps in the future, the SPLCI can be used to assess your online classroom.  Interested in giving this a try?

References

Fisher, K. E., Durrance, J.C., Unruh, K. T. (2003). Information communities: Characteristics gleaned from studies of three online networks. Proceedings of the ASSIST Annual Meeting, 40, 298-305.

Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2012). Evaluating social connectedness online: The design and development of the Social Perceptions in Learning Contexts Instrument. Distance Education, 33(3), 347-364.

Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2006). Identifying “e-mmediacy” strategies for web-based instruction: A Delphi study. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 49-63. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

Swanson, A. C. (2011, August). Six themes of e-connectivity in online courses. e-Poster research session, 27th Annual Distance Learning Conference, Madison, WI. Retrieved from University of Madison, WI website: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/46810_2011.pdf

Swanson, A., Hutkin, R., Babb, D., & Howell, S. (2010, Sep). Establishing the best practices for social interaction and e-connectivity in online higher education classes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, Arizona. Publication Number: 3525517. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/3525517.pdf

The Five Best Ways to Build Relationships in the Workplace (Online Classroom)

Authors: Andree C. Swanson, EdD and Paula J. Zobisch, PhD

 
For the online faculty member, his or her workplace is behind a computer.  Often we feel isolated and alone.  Imagine what it must be like for our students who may need someone to connect to virtually (e-connectivity).  

“It’s not enough for a course to be accessible online, it must also be designed in a way that keys into the digital pulse of current events, trending topics and insider knowledge endemic to the web. The three-quarters of 18 to 29 year-olds who have profiles on social networks are likely wondering why online course offerings aren’t nearly as enticing as the content that they find on their favorite social websites.” (Masoni)

As the current Allstate ad says… “we want more, we just want more”.  Students want a relationship with the instructor.  Students need reassurance there is a real instructor and person behind the text who is active and engaged. Two methods to provide more for your students are to build trust and to model behavior that you expect from the students.

Techniques to Build Trust

In the online classroom, faculty members need to build trust in an effort to create an effective learning environment.  Without trust, a student – teacher relationship does not exist.  Bowman (n.d.), a human resources expert, posits five techniques for gaining trust.  If these techniques apply in the work world, they could be applied in the online learning environment.

           

The first is to “establish and main integrity” (Bowman).  Creating integrity in the classroom is akin to three of Spears’ ten tenets of servant leadership, listening, empathy, and awareness (Spears, 2010, p. 27).

The second technique is to “communicate vision and values” (Bowman).  Communication is a very important aspect of creating a relationship.  Spears states that the servant leader must conceptualize and persuade their vision and values.  “The servant leader seeks to convince others, rather than coerce compliance” (Spears, p. 28).

The third technique is to “consider all employees as equal partners” and the forth technique is to “focus on shared, rather than personal goals” (Bowman).  Both of these techniques build community.  Here is an opportunity to express true servant leadership. Approach new and old employees (students) with respect and humility.  Spears offered the concept of creating community; however, within this is the element of communication and trust.  If one’s communication is not clear and honest, one cannot develop a community of coworkers or students.  Clear communication can be achieved by selecting words carefully when writing in the online environment.  “Servant leadership suggests that true community can be created among those who work in businesses and other institutions” (Spears, p. 29).  When there is a community, the element of trust appears.

The final technique is “do what’s right, regardless of personal risk” (Bowman).  This is back to the basic concept of servant leadership. “Servant leadership, like stewardship, assumes first and foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others. It also emphasizes the use of openness and persuasion, rather than control” (Spears, p. 29).

Modeling Behavior

Overall, the instructor is modeling the behavior he expects from students online.  The goal is to provide security and responsiveness between instructor and students.  Being comfortable online is the biggest prerequisite to successful classmate relationships.  Showing respect and interacting when needed is the best way for students to “feel” and develop friendships online.  A method to show respect is to address the students by "Mr" or "Ms", rather than the student's first name.

           

Conclusion

Bowman may not be in a peer-reviewed literature, but his techniques for building trust are solid and supported within the academic resources.  Servant leadership appears as a strong leadership model to follow when building relationships at work and in the online classroom.

References

Bowman, D. (n.d.). The five best ways to build and lose-trust in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/trustworkforce.html

Latch, C. (2012). Tips to building relationships with your online classmates. Retrieved from http://edudemic.com/2012/03/tips-to-building-relationships-with-your-online-classmates/

Masoni, M. (2010). Why online education needs to get social. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2010/08/05/online-education-social/

Spears, L. (2010). Character and Servant Leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1 (1), 25-30. Regent University. School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship.