Structure and Content of Interactions: Social Presence in Asynchronous Online Whole-Class vs. Small-Group Discussions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v27i3.9316Keywords:
online learning, class discussions, group size, social network analysis, natural language processingAbstract
This study investigates how the format of asynchronous online class discussions (whole class vs. small group) affects the structure and content of student interactions. Data were collected from 8 weeks of discussion forums in a graduate-level, asynchronous, online course at a comprehensive university in the southeastern United States. Social network analysis (SNA) metrics, such as response rate, reciprocity, transitivity, diameter, density, in-degree, and closeness centrality, were used to evaluate interaction structure. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software was used to analyze the linguistic features of the interaction content. Findings revealed differences between the formats: whole-class discussions exhibited greater diameter and variability in response rate, emphasizing formal and analytical communication. In contrast, small-group discussions displayed higher reciprocity and transitivity, as well as more support and socioemotional engagement. Findings underscore the importance of designing and facilitating collaborative online learning experiences by strategically employing discussion formats to meet specific learning objectives. Implications for practice include incorporating both whole-class and small-group discussions to leverage the strengths of each format, such as creativity and critical thinking in larger groups and mutuality and support in small groups. Future research should examine these effects across different educational levels and subject areas, considering instructional contexts and personal learner characteristics.
References
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309
Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293
Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. University of Texas at Austin. https://www.liwc.app/static/documents/LIWC-22%20Manual%20-%20Development%20and%20Psychometrics.pdf
Cheung, S. K. S., Kwok, L. F., Phusavat, K., & Yang, H. H. (2021). Shaping the future learning environments with smart elements: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00254-1
Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2023). Thinking through talk: Using dialogue to develop students’ critical thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, Article 104068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104068
Dado, M., & Bodemer, D. (2017). A review of methodological applications of social network analysis in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 22, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.005
Elaish, M. M., Shuib, L., Hwang, G.-J., Ghani, N. A., Yadegaridehkordi, E., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2023). Mobile English language learning: A systematic review of group size, duration, and assessment methods. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(3), 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1931341
Gao, J., Wei, S., & Dubé, A. K. (2024). Evaluating learners’ online learning experience of informal learning environments: A LIWC analysis. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 13(2), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.59668/1269.15691
Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.2
Gasell, C., Lowenthal, P. R., Uribe-Flórez, L. J., & Ching, Y.-H. (2022). Interaction in asynchronous discussion boards: A campus-wide analysis to better understand regular and substantive interaction. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3421–3445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10745-3
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/15156/
Ho, H. C. Y., Poon, K.-T., Chan, K. K. S., Cheung, S. K., Datu, J. A. D., & Tse, C. Y. A. (2023). Promoting preservice teachers’ psychological and pedagogical competencies for online learning and teaching: The TEACH program. Computers & Education, 195, Article 104725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104725
Hollander, M., Wolfe, D. A., & Chicken, E. (2014). Nonparametric statistical methods (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanovíc, V., Adesope, O., & Hatala, M. (2014). Psychological characteristics in cognitive presence of communities of inquiry: A linguistic analysis of online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.03.001
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
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
Lim, J. (2023). Exploring the relationships between interaction measures and learning outcomes through social network analysis: The mediating role of social presence. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00384-8
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2020). Social presence and online discussions: A mixed method investigation. Distance Education, 41(4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1821603
Lowenthal, P. R., Greear, K., Humphrey, M., Lowenthal, A., Conley, Q., Giacumo, L. A., & Dunlap, J. C. (2020). Creating accessible and inclusive online learning: Moving beyond compliance and broadening the discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 21(2). https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Quarterly-Review-of-Distance-Education-21-2
Luo, H., Chen, Y., Chen, T., Koszalka, T. A., & Feng, Q. (2023). Impact of role assignment and group size on asynchronous online discussion: An experimental study. Computers & Education, 192, Article 104658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104658
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2023). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Taylor & Francis.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015, December). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2013 and fall 2014. Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_311.15.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023, December). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2021 and fall 2022. Digest of Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_311.15.asp
Norz, L.-M., Dornauer, V., Hackl, W. O., & Ammenwerth, E. (2023). Measuring social presence in online-based learning: An exploratory path analysis using log data and social network analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 56, Article 100894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100894
Oh, H., Liu, Z., & Xing, W. (2025). Do actions speak louder than words? Unveiling linguistic patterns in online learning communities using cross recurrence quantification analysis. In A. Martínez Monés, C. Mills, J. Jovanovic, & X. Ochoa (Chairs), The 15th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 992–998). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706569
Palau, R., Fuentes, M., Mogas, J., & Cebrián, G. (2021). Analysis of the implementation of teaching and learning processes at Catalan schools during the COVID-19 lockdown. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1863855
Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. University of Texas at Austin. https://liwc.app/static/documents/LIWC2007%20Manual%20-%20Development%20and%20Psychometrics.pdf
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Booth, R. J., Ashakkumar, A. & Francis, M. E. (2022). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC-22 [Computer software]. Pennebaker Conglomerates. https://www.liwc.app
Phirangee, K., & Malec, A. (2017). Othering in online learning: An examination of social presence, identity, and sense of community. Distance Education, 38, 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322457
Qiu, M., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2014). Influence of group configuration on online discourse writing. Computers & Education, 71, 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.010
Qiu, M., & McDougall, D. (2015). Influence of group configuration on online discourse reading. Computers & Education, 87, 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.006
Ramaswami, G., Susnjak, T., & Mathrani, A. (2023). Effectiveness of a learning analytics dashboard for increasing student engagement levels. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10(3), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7935
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
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. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/92000/
Salter, N. P., & Conneely, M. R. (2015). Structured and unstructured discussion forums as tools for student engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.037
Satar, H. M., & Akcan, S. (2018). Pre-service EFL teachers’ online participation, interaction, and social presence. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44586
Scholand, A. J., Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010, February). Social language network analysis. In K. Inkpen & C. Gutwin (Chairs), The 2010 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 23–26). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718925
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
Staudt Willet, K. B., & Carpenter, J. P. (2020). Teachers on Reddit? Exploring contributions and interactions in four teaching-related subreddits. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1722978
Steponavičius, M., Gress-Wright, C., & Linzarini, A. (2023). Social and emotional skills: Latest evidence on teachability and impact on life outcomes (OECD Education Working Paper No. 304). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/ba34f086-en
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738–1747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.014
Tabassum, S., Pereira, F. S., Fernandes, S., & Gama, J. (2018). Social network analysis: An overview. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(5), Article e1256. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1256
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
Van Wart, M., Ni, A., Medina, P., Canelon, J., Kordrostami, M., Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2020). Integrating students’ perspectives about online learning: A hierarchy of factors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00229-8
Wickersham, L. E., & Dooley, K. E. (2006). A content analysis of critical thinking skills as an indicator of quality of online discussion in virtual learning communities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRDE-06-2006-0007
Yang, T., Luo, H., & Sun, D. (2022). Investigating the combined effects of group size and group composition in online discussion. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420938524
Ye, D., & Pennisi, S. (2022). Analysing interactions in online discussions through social network analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 784–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12648
Zhan, Z., He, G., Li, T., He, L., & Xiang, S. (2022). Effect of groups size on students’ learning achievement, motivation, cognitive load, collaborative problem‐solving quality, and in‐class interaction in an introductory AI course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1807–1818. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12722
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The copyright for all content published in IRRODL remains with the authors.
This copyright agreement and usage license ensure that the article is distributed as widely as possible and can be included in any scientific or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
