International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance

Vol. 40 No. 1 (2025)
Research Articles

A Meta-Analysis of Social Presence in Higher Education Online Environments

HTML PDF
  • David Mykota
David Mykota
University of Saskatchewan
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2025.v40.i1.1351

Published 2025-07-11

How to Cite

Mykota, D. (2025). A Meta-Analysis of Social Presence in Higher Education Online Environments. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2025.v40.i1.1351
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This study reports a systematic review and meta-analyses of the construct social presence in online higher education settings. The research objectives are to: 1) determine the overall impact of scale-based measures of social presence on student learning outcomes, and 2) determine the overall impact of scale-based measures of social presence on student satisfaction outcomes. A thorough examination of the research literature from 1995 to 2022 was conducted, employing a three-stage screening process to identify 53 studies suitable for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Utilizing a random effects model for analysis, the study investigated the two outcome measures with subgroup analysis. The results affirm that social presence has a moderate effect on both student satisfaction and learning outcomes, with no evidence of publication bias identified. In conducting a subgroup analysis to help explain some of the heterogeneity, significant effects were found for mode of delivery and for the scale-based instrument used. The paper concludes by advocating for enhanced rigour in research design to facilitate empirically validated investigations into improving social presence in online learning environments.
Keywords: evidence synthesis, higher education, online learning, systematic review, meta-analysis, course design, teaching, technology, social presence

Une étude méta-analytique de la présence sociale dans les environnements en ligne dans l’enseignement supérieur

Résumé : Cette étude présente une revue systématique et des méta-analyses portant sur le concept de présence sociale dans les environnements en ligne dans l’enseignement supérieur. Les objectifs de recherche sont les suivants: 1) déterminer l’impact global des mesures de la présence sociale, fondées sur des échelles, sur les résultats d’apprentissage des étudiants ; 2) évaluer l’impact global des mesures de la présence sociale, fondées sur des échelles, sur la satisfaction des étudiants. Une analyse rigoureuse de la littérature scientifique publiée entre 1995 et 2022 a été menée, selon un processus de sélection en trois étapes, permettant d’identifier 53 études pertinentes pour la méta-analyse. À l’aide d’un modèle à effets aléatoires, deux types de résultats ont été examinés et des analyses de sous-groupes ont été réalisées. Les résultats mettent en évidence que la présence sociale a un effet modéré sur la satisfaction et les résultats d’apprentissage des étudiants, sans preuve de biais de publication. La réalisation d’une analyse de sous-groupe a révélé des effets significatifs selon le mode de diffusion et l’instrument de mesure utilisé. L’article conclut en soulignant la nécessité d’une plus grande rigueur méthodologique pour favoriser la validation empirique des recherches et l’amélioration de la présence sociale dans les environnements d’apprentissage en ligne.
Mots-clés : synthèse de données, enseignement supérieur, apprentissage en ligne, revue systématique, méta-analyse, conception de cours, enseignement, technologie, présence sociale

HTML PDF

References

  1. References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
  2. *Alsadoon, E. (2018). The impact of social presence on learners’ satisfaction in mobile learning. TOJET the Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1). http://cyber.usask.ca/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/impact-social-presence-on-learners-satisfaction/docview/2025352417/se-2?accountid=14739
  3. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
  4. *Arbaugh, J. B. (2013). Does academic discipline moderate CoI course outcomes relationships in online MBA courses? The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 16–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.002
  5. *Arbaugh, J. B. (2014). System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12048
  6. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289–304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786027
  7. Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03033431
  8. *Barbera, E., Clara, M., & Linder-Vanberschot, J. A. (2013). Factors influencing student satisfaction and perceived learning in online courses. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2013.10.3.226
  9. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270
  10. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Gregg, J. (2001). The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Presence Workshop (Presence 2001). Philadelphia, PA. https://ispr.info/presence-conferences/previous-conferences/presence-2001/
  11. Borenstein, M. (2019). Common mistakes in meta-analysis and how to avoid them. Biostat.
  12. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
  13. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
  14. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001
  16. Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students' perceptions of teaching and social presence: A comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 10(1), 27–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103
  17. *Cakiroglu, U. (2019). Community of inquiry in web conferencing: Relationships between cognitive presence and academic achievements. Open Praxis, 11(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.11.3.968
  18. Caskurlu, S., Maeda, Y., Richardson, J. C., & Lv, J. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers & Education, 157, 103966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103966
  19. Chapman, K. (2021). Characteristics of systematic reviews in the social sciences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102396
  20. Chen, X., Fang, Y., & Lockee, B. (2015). Integrative review of social presence in distance education: Issues and challenges. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(13), 1796–1806. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2276
  21. *Chen, Y., Gao, Q., Yuan, Q., & Tang, Y. (2020). Discovering MOOC learner motivation and its moderating role. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(12), 1257–1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1661520
  22. *Chen, C., Jones, K. T., & Xu, S. (2018). The association between students’ style of learning preferences, social presence, collaborative learning and learning outcomes. The Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO2018.15.1.3
  23. Cheung, M. W. L., Ho, R. C., Lim, Y., & Mak, A. (2012). Conducting a meta-analysis: Basics and good practices. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, 15(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-185X.2012.01712.x
  24. Cheung, M. W. L., & Vijayakumar, R. (2016). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis. Neuropsychology Review, 26(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9319-z
  25. *Cho, M. H., Demei, S., & Laffey, J. (2010). Relationships between self-regulation and social experiences in asynchronous online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(3), 297–316. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29491/
  26. *Cobb, S. C. (2011). Social presence, satisfaction, and perceived learning of RN-to-BSN students in web-based nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.115
  27. Cochran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10(1), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666
  28. *Costley, J. (2019). The relationship between social presence and cognitive load. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(2), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2018-0107
  29. Cuijpers, P., Griffin, J. W., & Furukawa, T. A. (2021). The lack of statistical power of subgroup analyses in meta-analyses: a cautionary note. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 30, e78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000664
  30. *Daigle, D. T., & Stuvland, A. (2021). Social presence as best practice: The online classroom needs to feel real. PS, Political Science & Politics, 54(1), 182–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520001614
  31. *Dang, M. Y., Zhang, G. Y., & Amer, B. (2019). Social networks among students, peer TAs, and instructors and their impacts on student learning in the blended environment: A model development and testing. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 44(1), 764–782. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04436
  32. *Daspit, J. J., & D’Souza, D. E. (2012). Using the community of inquiry framework to introduce Wiki environments in blended-learning pedagogies: Evidence from a business capstone course. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 666–683. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0154
  33. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. Collier.
  34. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel‐plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
  35. Fisher, R. A. (1915). Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika, 10(4), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331838
  36. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed), pp. 352–355. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
  37. Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667263
  38. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  39. *Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
  40. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor.
  41. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecomunications, 1(2/3), 147–166. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/15156/
  42. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education,11(3), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
  43. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical models for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
  44. Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
  45. Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Intellect Books.
  46. *Horzum, M. B. (2015). Interaction, structure, social presence, and satisfaction in online learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1324a
  47. *Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–12. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/1670
  48. Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2013). Community matters: Social presence and learning outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 77–86. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1011685.pdf
  49. Hurst, B., Wallace, R., & Nixon, S. B. (2013). The impact of social interaction on student learning. Reading Horizons, 52(4), 375–398. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol52/iss4/5/
  50. *Jaradat, S., & O. Ajlouni, A. (2020). Social presence and self-efficacy in relation to student satisfaction in online learning setting: A predictive study. International Journal of Education and Practice, 8(4), 759–773. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2020.84.759.773
  51. *Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.11.003
  52. *Johnson, R. D., Gueutal, H., & Falbe, C. M. (2009). Technology, trainees, metacognitive activity and e-learning effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(6), 545–566. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910974125
  53. Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12107
  54. *Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students' satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008
  55. Kang, M., Choi, H., & Park, S. (2007). Construction and validation of a social presence scale for measuring online learners’ involvement. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 1829–1833). AACE. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/25619/
  56. *Kang, M., Liew, B. T., Kim, J., & Park, Y. (2014). Learning presence as a predictor of achievement and satisfaction in online learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 13(2), 193–208. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/39342/
  57. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013
  58. Kehrwald, B. (2010). Being online: Social presence as subjectivity in online learning. London Review of Education, 8(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460903557688
  59. *Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01107.x
  60. *Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512–1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005
  61. *Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Hennis, T., Čukić, I., de Vries, P., Hatala, M., Dawson, S., Siemens, G., & Gašević, D. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 119, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.010
  62. *Kožuh, I., Jeremić, Z., Sarjaš, A., Julija, L. B., Devedžić, V., & Debevc, M. (2015). Social Presence and interaction in learning environments: The effect on student success. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 223–236.
  63. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & van Buuren, H. (2011). Measuring perceived social presence in distributed learning groups. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9135-7
  64. Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Community of inquiry: Social presence revisited. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.5
  65. Kreijns, K., Xu, K., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8
  66. *Ku, F., Ho, E., & Lam, P. (2012). Facebook for teaching and learning and its effect on social presence and sense of community. International Conference on e-Learning. Kidmore End, Academic Conferences International Limited. https://www.proceedings.com/content/017/017678webtoc.pdf
  67. *Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning, 23(2), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455
  68. *Kyei-Blankson, L., Ntuli, E., & Donnelly, H. (2019). Establishing the importance of interaction and presence to student learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 30(4), 539–560. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/161956/
  69. *Law, K. M., Geng, S., & Li, T. (2019). Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Computers & Education, 136, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.021
  70. Leong, P. (2011). Role of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning environments. Distance Education, 32(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.565495
  71. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2000). Enhancing interactivity in web-based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology, 40(3), 41–45.
  72. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
  73. Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning, In Kidd, T. (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices (pp.124–139), IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/9781605669847.ch010
  74. Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy and satisfaction in collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 3(3), 55–77.
  75. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1‒6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
  76. Mykota, D. (2018). The effective affect: A scoping review of social presence. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 33(2), 1–30. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1080
  77. *Nasir, M. K. M. (2020). The influence of social presence on students’ satisfaction toward online course. Open Praxis, 12(4), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.12.4.1141
  78. *Natarajan, J., & Joseph, M. A. (2022). Impact of emergency remote teaching on nursing students’ engagement, social presence, and satisfaction during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Nursing Forum, 57(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12649
  79. *Newberry, B. (2003). Effects of social motivation for learning and student social presence on engagement and satisfaction in online classes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas].
  80. *Nyachae, J. N. (2011). The effect of social presence on students' perceived learning and satisfaction in online courses [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas University].
  81. *Pillai, R., & Sivathanu, B. (2020). An empirical study on the online learning experience of MOOCs: Indian students’ perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(3), 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2019-0025
  82. Poth, R. D. (2018). Social presence in online learning. In M. Marmon (Ed.), Enhancing social presence in online environments (pp. 88–116). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3229-3.ch005
  83. PRISMA. (2025). Welcome to the PRISMA website. https://www.prisma-statement.org/
  84. *Reio, T. G., & Crim, S. J. (2013). Social presence and student satisfaction as predictors of online enrollment intent. The American Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.775801
  85. Rettie, R. (2003). Connectedness, awareness, and social presence [Paper]. 6th International Presence Workshop, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/2106/1/Rettie.pdf
  86. Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
  87. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). An examination of social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864
  88. Robb, C. A., & Sutton, J. (2014). The importance of social presence and motivation in distance learning. The Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, 30(2). 2–10.
  89. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. John Wiley & Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0470870168
  90. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71
  91. *Saadatmand, M., Uhlin, L., Hedberg, M., Åbjörnsson, L., & Kvarnström, M. (2017). Examining learners’ interaction in an open online course through the community of inquiry framework. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0004
  92. *Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9024-5
  93. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
  94. *So, H.-J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
  95. *Song, H., Kim, J., & Park, N. (2019). I know my professor: Teacher self-disclosure in online education and a mediating role of social presence. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(6), 448–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455126
  96. *Sorden, S. D., & Munene, I. I. (2013). Constructs related to community college student satisfaction in blended learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12, 251–270. https://doi.org/10.28945/1890
  97. *Spears, L. R. (2012). Social presence, social interaction, collaborative learning, and satisfaction in online and face-to-face courses [Dissertation, Iowa State University].
  98. *Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2019). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Online Learning, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i3.1788
  99. *Tan, C. (2021a). The impact of COVID-19 on student motivation, community of inquiry and learning performance. Asian Education and Development Studies, 10(2), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-05-2020-0084
  100. *Tan, C. (2021b), The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on student learning performance from the perspectives of community of inquiry, Corporate Governance, 21(6), 1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2020-0419
  101. *Teng, Y. (2005). An examination of social presence in online learning through the eyes of native and non-native English speakers [Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany].
  102. The Campbell Collaboration. (2020). Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines. Campbell Policies and Guidelines, Series No. 1.
  103. Tu, C. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980010021235
  104. Tu, C. H. (2002). The relationship between social presence and online privacy. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00134-3
  105. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
  106. *Turel, Y. K. (2016). Relationships between students' perceived team learning experiences, team performances, and social abilities in a blended course setting. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.001
  107. Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215–247. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3102/1076998609346961
  108. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  109. *Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2017). Explaining social presence and the quality of online learning with the SIPS model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.016
  110. Weidlich, J., Göksün, D. O., & Kreijns, K. (2023). Extending social presence theory: social presence divergence and interaction integration in online distance learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(3), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09325-2
  111. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  112. Whiteside, A. L. (2015). Introducing the social presence model to explore online and blended learning experiences. Online Learning (Newburyport, Mass.), 19(2), 53–. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i2.453
  113. Whiteside, A. L. (2017). Understanding social presence as critical literacy. In Whiteside, A. L., Dikkers, A. G., & Swan, K. (Eds.). Social presence in online learning: Multiple perspectives on practice and research, (pp. 133–142). Stylus Publishing.
  114. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  115. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.2190/V0LB-1M37-RNR8-Y2U1
  116. *Yildirim, D., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2021). Evaluation of the effectiveness of online courses based on the community of inquiry model. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.906834
  117. *Yin, B., & Yuan, C. H. (2021). Precision teaching and learning performance in a blended learning environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 631125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631125
  118. Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer Nature. http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23142
  119. *Zhan, Z., & Mei, H. (2013). Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students’ learning achievement and satisfaction across environments. Computers & Education, 69, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.002