Stephanie E. Kelly and David K. Westerman

18New Technologies and Distributed Learning Systems

Abstract: Distance learning refers to any structured learning environment in which the teacher and student are not in the same geographical location. The instructional technologies that support distance learning change constantly, but the goals of teachers and learners remain relatively constant: to transform students’ thoughts and actions through the acquisition of relevant information about the topic of study. Thus, instructional communication scholars are concerned with how the use of ever-evolving technologies can influence communication, instruction, motivation, and learning. In addition to a brief history of distance learning around the world, this chapter overviews how communicating through technology can be managed to provide effective instructional messages, create interpersonal connection between teacher and learners, and foster student engagement with course material. The chapter concludes with predictions and concerns about the future of distributed learning.

Keywords: distance learning, distributed learning, online learning, communication technology, instructional technology, social presence, immediacy

If, as is said to be not unlikely in the near future, the principle of sight is applied to the telephone as well as that of sound, earth will be in truth a paradise, and distance will lose its enchantment by being abolished all together. (Arthur Strand, 1898, as quoted in Hollan & Stornetta, 1992, p. 119)

This assertion is representative of how people often view technology: as a utopian promise. The fact that the assertion was made in 1898 suggests that this utopian promise existed long before today’s advanced technologies, which do allow people to apply the principle of sight to the telephone, and also to circumvent time as well as space. In the 21st century, readily available technologies such as the Internet and video distribution systems enable educators to deliver instruction to off-site learners in a wide variety of contexts, including college courses, professional training modules, and personal instructional units such as those found at Coursera.com,to name but a few. However, when teachers transmit their instructional messages through computer-mediated communication (CMC) as opposed to face-to-face (FTF) interaction in the traditional classroom, a number of questions arise: Is CMC an effective way to teach? Do students learn as much or as well as in FTF classrooms? Should mediated instructional messages be designed differently from on-site classroom instruction? Are off-site learners satisfied with the teaching-learning experience? Are distance instructors satisfied when contact with students is limited to CMC alone? These and many other questions have occupied the attention of researchers and practitioners in both Education and Communication, and they are the focus of this chapter.

Though instructional technologies change constantly, the goals of teachers and learners tend to remain relatively constant: to transform students’ thoughts and actions through the acquisition of relevant information about the topic of study. Therefore, instructional communication scholars are not as concerned with specifics about the technologies themselves (e.g., specifications, capabilities, or technical configurations) as with how the use of technologies can influence communication, instruction, motivation, and learning (cognitive, affective, or behavioral). In the case of distributed learning systems, this means identifying how communicating through technology can be managed to provide (1) an efficient and effective transmission of instructional messages, (2) an acceptable degree of interpersonal connection between teacher and learners, (3) a sufficient level of student engagement with essential course material, and (4) adequate assessment of learning outcomes. Thus, in this chapter we will focus more on communication functions and instructional messages than on specifications of the technologies themselves. We will provide a brief overview of the emergence of e-learning and identify the advantages and disadvantages of technology-assisted instruction. We will examine the roles of communication and instruction in the distance learning experience and discuss the theoretical goal of bridging distance between teachers and learners. Finally, we will offer some predictions and concerns about the future of distributed learning.

The Evolution of Distance Education

Distance Learning in the United States

In the United States, the earliest documented attempts at distance education through technology took place in the late 1980s as universities began broadcasting classes through interactive video and audio equipment to remote satellite campuses (Carrell & Menzel, 2001). The phrase distance education was coined to reflect the nature of the experience in which students were actively and synchronously being educated with peers on the main campus while being geographically separated from that main campus by a distance too far to easily travel (Bejerano, 2008). This form of distance education was a stride forward in making higher education more readily available to the public because it brought education opportunities to those who were too geographically isolated or constrained by busy schedules to otherwise participate. Although correspondence courses had also provided a distance learning option for many years, technology-assisted distance education improved on the correspondence course model because synchronous communication could take place between students and their instructor as well as among peers, allowing for immediate feedback (Carrell & Menzel, 2001). Although some distance learning sites began with one-way broadcast of instruction, the model quickly changed to utilize two-way cameras and microphones, making class time similar to a video conference with the exception that only the instructor was able to see students at all sites. The ability of students to see and interact with instructors provided opportunities for instructors to develop a richer rapport with students and decrease psychological distance (Hackman & Walker, 1990).

Distance education evolved further in the 1990s with the Internet boom (Bejerano, 2008). Slowly, universities took advantage of larger servers and broader bandwidth, transitioning from education heavily dependent on audio-visual equipment (i.e., video cameras, recorders, transmitters, broadcast channels) to placing content on the Internet through assistance of course management systems. Distance education through the Internet, like its broadcast predecessor, was still providing education at a geographic distance. However, placing the content on the Internet provided additional advantages to learners in that courses could now be accessed anytime, anywhere (Bejerano, 2008; Moore, Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011). This gave more autonomy to those learners who had busy schedules and obligations that prevented them from attending a regularly scheduled class time, instead allowing them to sign into the online course at their convenience.

Thanks to the advent of Internet-assisted distance education, for-profit schools such as the University of Phoenix were also able to make a wide sweep across the education market in the 1990s (Cook & Grant-Davie, 2013). While the rise of for-profit online universities increased the popularity of online education, this phenomenon may also have damaged the reputation of distance education, as some students completed degrees at institutions without accreditation or requisite practicums needed to acquire jobs post-graduation. Despite uncertainty regarding the quality of an online education by the general public, the utility of Internet-assisted learning became increasingly clear, not only for college students but also for students in kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12; Rice, 2006). In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education published the National Education Technology Plan, which recommended that states, districts, and schools provide every public school student access to e-learning as a way to recover credits and seek new opportunities. As a result, distance education was implemented in K-12 classrooms across the U.S. via video conferencing, audio-visual broadcasting, and Internet platforms (Rice, 2006).

By 2006, distance education was categorized specifically as online learning if 80% of the course was delivered online (Allen & Seaman, 2006). The heavy reliance on the Internet made online distance education a continuously evolving experience, as universities and K-12 systems adopted emerging media (e.g., learning management systems, social media, edugaming) to find the best delivery modes (Moore et al., 2011; Rice, 2006). By the turn of the century, online education required students to have some technological literacy to navigate learning platforms; because of this, some scholars began using the term distance learning to denote a learner’s skill or ability to learn through computer-mediated communication (CMC), rather than the delivery mode itself (King, Young, Drivere-Richmond, & Schrader, 2001).

Distance Learning in Other Countries

Although the focus of this brief history so far has been distance education in the United States, this is truly only a small piece of the history of distance education. Distance education has spread throughout the world through similar motivations found in the United States: to meet the growing demands for education overcoming geographic and financial limitations. To meet these demands, distance education has been used on every populated continent. While this section cannot cover the entire history of distance education, it can touch on some of the most notable highlights.

Great Britain began using radio to support distance education in the 1920s as a supplement to secondary education (Aggarwal, 2007). Britain replicated its model of radio-supplemented education throughout its colonies in Africa, Canada, and India. This work in distance education substantively changed the availability of education in many countries, particularly in Africa. Though Britain was a pioneer of distance education, it lagged behind the rest of the developed world by the late 1950s, in that it had not expanded into adult distance education (Young, Perraton, Jenkins, & Dodds, 2010). Today, the United Kingdom in partnership with the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are at the forefront of distance education with The Open University, which was established in 1969 (The Open University, 2015). The Open University is an open enrollment distance learning university that uses its website, YouTube, and iTunesU to educate learners across the world. It is the most popular university in the United Kingdom, serving all students through online education.

One of the most notable developments from Britain’s radio-supplemented education exists today in Kenya (Aggarwal, 2007). The Kenyan Correspondence Course Unit (CCU) was developed primarily to accommodate for a lack of qualified teachers. Beginning in 1967, CCU was established by radio through the University of Nairobi, primarily to serve adult learners (Perraton, 2012; Young et al., 2010). Through CCU, any individual could receive a Junior Certificate of Secondary Education or a teaching certificate. By 1972, over 8,000 individuals had enrolled in the program. Today, it still exists through the Department of Distance Learning, using the Internet and teleconferencing to deliver the curriculum. This CCU model was used by Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe when they established their first teacher-training projects in the late 1970s (Perraton, 2012).

Distance education also developed beyond the influence of Great Britain. In the 1920s, the Soviet Union began structuring first correspondence courses and then radio broadcasts to reach rural citizens (Aggarwal, 2007). By the 1930s the system was used widely to increase the quantity of trained laborers (Perraton, 2005). Unlike most countries who used distance education to reach disadvantaged groups for the benefit of individual citizens, the Soviet Union mandated distance education to build a stronger base of educated workforce for the good of the country (Aggarwal, 2007). Because of the widespread dominance and long history of distance education in this area, it is still common for students in the former Soviet Union to have all or part of their education by distance delivery.

Elsewhere, in 1947, with the backing of the Roman Catholic Church, radiophonic schools were established in Columbia and soon throughout Central and Latin America to educate the poor (Aggarwal, 2007). Courses were taught so that adults and children could learn together. The courses were supplemented with printed material made available from the government (Young et al., 2010). By the turn of the millennium, distance learning began to become recognized in Latin America as not a supplement for those who needed remedial education, but rather a legitimate means through which to educate any motivated learner (Armengol, 2002).

Arguably, the current pacesetter for distance education is the nation of Australia. Because Australia has some of the most geographically isolated communities in the world, predominantly composed of cattle stations, camel farms, mining camps, and tourist ventures, the Australian government was prompted to establish the Department of External Studies in 1911 to achieve educational equity (White, 1982). As a result, Australia has consistently been an adopter of technological innovations in distance education and was among the first countries to recognize it as a quality education platform rather than recovery or supplement (Stacey & Visser, 2005; Stevens, 1994). One of Australia’s most notable accomplishments is its remote schooling initiative. For example, School of the Air serves pre-school through year 9 students living in the Northern territory, some of whom live as far as 1000 km from the school’s station in Alice Springs (Alice Springs School of the Air, 2015). Using computers and live, interactive broadcasts, School of the Air allows students to have interactive learning experiences when their geographic isolation would otherwise leave them with only one option, homeschooling.

Overall, distance education is a worldwide phenomenon, allowing people who would not otherwise have access to instruction receive a high-quality education. However, taking classes in the online environment often requires flexibility and self-discipline on the part of students, and special expertise on the part of faculty. In the next two sections, we discuss distance learning from the standpoint of both students and instructors.

Taking an Online Course: The Student’s Perspective

Widespread Appeal

As previously noted, online learning provides opportunities to several subsets of the population who (1) find it difficult to fit traditional classroom education into their schedule or (2) do not reside near the source of instruction (Cook & Grant-Davie, 2013). Among those who are attracted to e-learning are working adults with families, traditional students who need a bit more flexibility in their schedule to accommodate for schedule conflicts, and students with disabilities (Bejerano, 2008). The flexibility of time and access points is one of the biggest appeals to online learners, many of whom need to be able to access courses during non-business hours (Kelly & Fall, 2011).

Further, distance education has been particularly appealing at the K-12 level for students with special needs (Barbour, Archambault, & DiPietro, 2013). Students who would find it physically challenging to attend a classroom can access school from their own home, but still interact with classmates rather than feeling isolated. K-12 distance learning has also become increasingly popular for offering courses for which there is limited teaching staff. For example, it is becoming increasingly more common for elementary students to take foreign language instruction through synchronous distance education to accommodate for a limited supply of qualified instructors (National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, 2015). Unfortunately, not all K-12 schools can afford the technology needed for such virtual classrooms, but those who can have reported greatly benefiting from the variety of course options for students.

Thus, e-learning offers educational opportunities to those who cannot attend FTF classes because of geography, health, or obligations specific to family or employment. However, this broad appeal of convenience does not mean that every student is a good fit for distance learning.

Challenges for Distance Learning Students

Two student characteristics exert particular influence on the successful completion of online learning: technological expertise and self-discipline. Obviously, a certain degree of technological facility is required of e-learners, but achieving competency may pose a challenge for learners of any age (Weaver, Spratt, & Nair, 2008). Many adult learners did not grow up using computers in school (Schwartzman, 2007). Although technology use has increased in elementary schools during the last two decades, not all students enter distance education with the same level of technological exposure (Howley, Wood, & Hough, 2011). For example, the National Science Foundation (2014) found that 84% of K-12 teachers have access to LCD or DLP projectors, 51% have access to interactive whiteboards, and 78% have access to digital cameras. Further, while the current generation of students may be knowledgeable about using technology for entertainment, they may not know how to use technology effectively for interactive, self-paced learning (Kelly & Autman, 2015). Although some exceptionally motivated students intuitively master the technical aspects of e-learning on their own, education providers sometimes provide training and orientation to assist learners who need more help such as an orientation module for the learning platform (Yang & Cornelius, 2005).

Technological expertise is relatively easy to achieve compared with the second challenge faced by distance learning students: the degree of self-discipline required to successfully complete self-paced learning modules. In a traditional classroom setting, class schedules and semester dates provide the structure, while course instructors maintain sufficient focus in the classroom for learning to occur. The nature of independent, self-paced learning both allows and requires students to build their own structure and maintain their own focus (Bejerano, 2008). Thus, distance learning requires an exceptional amount of motivation and self-control on behalf of the student (Easton, 2003).

Working in Groups Online

As previously noted, the majority of online distance learners are working adults with families (Bejerano, 2008; Carnoy, Rabling, Castaño‐Muñoz, Montoliu, & San-cho-Vinuesa, 2012). These individuals are ideal candidates for online learning because they tend to be self-directed learners who are motivated to go to school for their own perceived benefits, and yet this group is typically resistant to being involved in the group work needed to develop classroom cohesion (Easton, 2003). As such, monitoring, guiding, and encouraging online group work can be a challenge for distance educators.

In addition to being useful for forming cohesion, many educators see online group work as real-world practice necessary for students’ success in their later careers (Oliveira, Tinoca, & Pereira, 2011). Despite its relevance, students from all demographics typically find online group assignments to be a frustrating endeavor, making work that they would much rather complete on their own more complicated and/or time-consuming than necessary (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012). Some of the common challenges involved with online group work include:

Because of these innate frustrations with online group work, many students choose to work cooperatively rather than collaboratively (Curtis & Lawson, 2001). Collaborative group work entails group members approaching a problem or task together and synchronously working on a project through completion. Cooperative work, however, involves dividing the work into smaller pieces, with each group member being responsible for his or her individual piece that will be brought together to devise a whole project in the end. As most educators have observed, the problem with cooperative work is that the final product is often a patchwork quilt that simply does not flow together. As such, successful group work is more likely to happen when groups collaborate rather than cooperate, but this is quite a challenge to an online group.

In Capdeferro and Romero’s (2012) case study, the authors cited the largest cause of students’ frustration with collaborating online to be an imbalance of commitment, followed by unshared goals and communication difficulties. The first two frustrations, imbalance of commitment and unshared goals, can likely be explained by lack of awareness regarding how successful teamwork differs from successful individual work. Many students enter group collaborations by forcing into the group context the work style they use individually (Snyder, 2009). This technique is rarely effective. For example, some students are motivated to get class work finished as soon as possible to manage anxiety, whereas others intentionally wait until the last minute because they perceive that they work best under pressure. Such incompatible working styles must be compromised for successful group work to happen. A successful compromise of these work styles is hard to reach without clear communication (Snyder, 2009).

In fact, the ultimate success of an online work group hinges on clear communication (Oliveira et al., 2011). Students must be prepared to discuss ideas openly and clearly, as well as have candid discussions about project goals and working styles in order to make collaboration possible. When group members have a sense of one another’s personality, working styles, and abilities, the better they can collaborate by utilizing one another’s strengths and adjusting their expectations to the abilities and schedules of all group members.

The best practices of online group work may also be explained by social information processing theory (SIPT; Walther, 1992). In general, SIPT assumes that online communicators share the same goals as FTF group members, and that these goals can, in fact, be accomplished using computer-mediated channels. A successful outcome depends to some extent on communicators’ beliefs that the group goals can be accomplished (Utz, 2000) and that they are willing to work to overcome the inherent limitations of CMC (Walther, 1994), such as a lack of nonverbal cues. Another limitation is that online interactions typically take a longer amount of time for group relationships to coalesce and for the group task to be achieved (Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994). SIPT and Walther’s program of research support the assertion that nonverbal cues common to FTF interaction can be replaced with text-only messages, given sufficient time and communication skill among group members (Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005).

Overall, then, SIPT posits that effective computer-mediated communication is capable of supporting group relationships and enabling work groups to achieve their goals. To this end, Walther and Bunz (2005) offer six rules of virtual groups (pp. 833–835):

These strategies encourage clear and frequent interaction, paramount for successful online learning experiences. Although these rules are probably useful for any group to follow, they are especially applicable for virtual groups.

The Crucial Role of Interactivity

Though attractive to many students, distance learning programs have historically had a high attrition rate at the university level compared to traditional FTF learning (Wheeler, 2007). Researchers report that dropout rates for distance learners is typically 10–20% higher than that of on-campus learners (Street, 2010). Among the factors that contribute to this attrition among online learners is the inherent absence of classroom interaction. Though earlier audio-visual broadcasted forms of distance learning emphasized the autonomy of learners to choose involvement with or separation from the main campus, some current distance course designs provide an active learning experience that stresses socialization and group interaction (Bejarano, 2008). Internet-based courses that incorporate the use of video conferencing, instant messaging, audio chat, and discussion boards provide learners and instructors the opportunity to create their own unique meaning and understanding of course content through dialog (McGreal & Elliott, 2011).

Because interactivity is one of the keys to success in online learning (Aragon, 2010; Rovai & Barnum, 2007; Wheeler, 2007), the degree and nature of student involvement have received careful examination from communication researchers. For example, Petrides (2002) found that students were able to think more deeply about content when they were allowed to discuss content through writing in their online courses rather than simply voicing their initial thoughts in a face-to-face classroom. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh (2004) found that a lack of sense of community, that which is formed by classroom dialog and comradery, demotivated online learners. Davies and Graff (2005) found that the students who interact least are also typically the students who fail online classes, perhaps because they never became a part of Song et al.’s (2004) online community.

So and Brush (2008) identified three types of interaction that must be present in online classes to optimize learning. First, learner-content interaction must take place. Effective online learning is less likely if an instructor front-loads quizzes and assigns grades strictly on rote memory. Rather, students must have active practice with the content for the material to become meaningful and useful beyond the classroom. The most effective online course designs include collaborative learning and cooperative problem-solving (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2014; Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005). With cognitive engagement comes the second type of interaction: learner-instructor. Learners need continuous feedback from instructors throughout the semester to gain better understanding of the material, as well as to develop a comfortable relationship with the instructor in which they feel free to seek additional help when needed. In online course designs, student-teacher communication occurs through email, discussion board, and assignment feedback applications. Finally, So and Brush (2008) posited that learners also need to interact with other learners. Learner-learner interaction helps to bridge the communicative gaps that make the classroom feel far away and less real, making the experience feel more like FTF learning.

In the same way that social interaction and peer conversation contribute to overall learning in the traditional classroom (Bruffee, 1999; Wentzel & Watkins, 2002), it is beneficial for online learners to have similar opportunities for student-to-student interaction related to the course content and the e-learning experience. For example, it is well documented that first-year students need interaction with peers to integrate into a campus community (Allen, 2006). Freshmen enter campus with preconceived notions of what college will be like and are typically confronted with an experience unlike their expectations. Interactions with peers are what help students reconcile their preconceived notions of college with their actual experience so that they can effectively adapt to college life (Allen, 2006). First-time distance learners, too, need peer interaction to understand and create meaning for their online college experience. In fact, they may have an even greater need for peer interaction, given the psychological distance inherent in off-site learning contexts.

Though it is more difficult for online students to develop the same sense of belonging and sense of communal support experienced by on-campus students (Aragon, 2010; Carr, Zube, Dickens, Hayter, & Barterian, 2013), high interaction with peers and instructors can help them overcome a sense of being disconnected from school, with the ultimate result that they are more likely to complete their degree (So & Brush, 2008).

Finally, the most important result of student interaction is that the various forms of interactivity are associated with higher levels of learning. Russo and Koesten (2005) performed social network maps of online college courses and found that both centrality (the ability to touch or initiate interaction with others in the class) and prestige (the degree to which other learners touch or initiate interaction with the individual) were statistically significant predictors of classroom performance. Swan (2002) reported that clear and consistent feedback from instructors as well as active, valued discussion with peers contributed to online students’ learning and satisfaction with the course. So and Brush (2008) observed that distance learners need both synchronous and asynchronous tools for engaging with peers to be optimally successful in online courses. In short, online learning works best when all parties are involved and interacting with one another.

Teaching an Online Course: The Instructor’s Perspective

It is true that online teaching provides more autonomy in terms of time and place for instructors as well as students, but designing and conducting online courses is often more challenging and time-consuming than teaching traditional FTF courses (Easton, 2003; Gaytan, 2008). Effective distance course delivery occurs only after creative instructional design, mastery of technological possibilities and limitations, careful preparation and delivery of instructional messages, and successful operation of the selected distribution system. Professional instructors do not merely record lectures, set up automatic grading criteria, stand by while students download the instruction, and then report grades at the end of the semester. When e-learning occurs in this way, students report low levels of satisfaction with the course and teacher, as well as lower levels of learning compared with more active classes (Easton, 2003).

The rewards of teaching online are substantial, but the challenges of effective distance teaching are not easily overcome. Consider the following factors:

Feeling Present: Social Presence in Mediated Contexts

Given today’s technological capabilities of virtual classrooms, sophisticated course designs, and readily available desktop video conferencing interfaces, the literal term distance learning is becoming outdated. Though learners are still geographically separated from instructors, today’s technology often allows them to feel as though they are present (Wheeler, 2007). Achieving the perception of social presence has been a goal of distance education from the beginning, but scholars and practitioners differ in their perspectives about how to achieve the goal. One perspective involves replicating FTF interaction by de-emphasizing the function of technology to mediate instructional messages. These educators judge the effectiveness of a technologically mediated experience by how much it feels like FTF communication (Kehrwald, 2010; Kumar & Benbasat, 2002). For example, telepresence has been called “the illusion (perception) of nonmediation” (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, Presence Explicated section, para. 1; Tamborini & Skalski, 2006). This perspective suggests that the core experience of any perception of presence is to not perceive the technology. Lee (2004) describes this perspective as “a psychological state in which virtual social actors are experienced as actual social actors” (p. 45). Essentially, this conceptualization suggests that social presence occurs when technologically mediated interaction feels like FTF interaction, or when students feel the same as if they were physically present with the instructor.

The second perspective toward achieving social presence is less a comparison to FTF interaction and more the experience of being with someone “psychologically.” Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) offered the classic definition of social presence as “the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationship,” adding that it is “a quality of the medium itself” (p. 65). From this perspective, social presence is an awareness of or sense of connection with another person, but the ability to achieve this experience is an inherent characteristic of the applied technology. This view was reiterated by Gunawardena and Zittle (1997), who suggested that social presence is about how much interpersonal contact two people have (or perceive they have). This perspective emphasizes the feeling of connection through an interface and/ or a mutual awareness of another person, or being with someone “psychologically” (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003).

These two perspectives, though different, are not contradictory. For example, it is reasonable to assume that if students do not notice the technology being used, they will have an increased perception of interpersonal connection with the online instructor. Focusing attention on the mode of communication (especially when it breaks down or has glitches, for example) might take away from focusing attention on the instructor and the content of the instructional message. However, it is also possible that a genuine feeling of interpersonal connection can be achieved even if students are aware of the mediated nature of the interaction. The tenets of SIPT posit that similar perceptions of interpersonal closeness and effectiveness of interaction can be achieved through skillful use of CMC (Walther, 1992; Walther & Bazarova, 2008), and might explain how social presence can be felt (Westerman & Skalski, 2010). In fact, the hyperpersonal perspective of SIPT suggests the possibility that even greater closeness can be achieved through CMC than in FTF contexts (Walther, 1996). This interpersonal dynamic is made possible by certain characteristics of the medium, particularly the ability for communicators to take their time to create and edit effective textual messages.

Bridging the Distance

Related to social presence are the constructs of electronic propinquity and perceived immediacy. Propinquity refers to the physical and/ or psychological distance between two people (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950). As an extension, electronic propinquity refers to how close one person feels to another when communicating through electronic media (Korzenny, 1978), thus focusing on the psychological distance aspect of propinquity. In the context of distance education, students and instructors gauge how close they feel to one another during CMC to assess the electronic propinquity of communication. As previously noted, the goal of CMC is for the geographical distance to be bridged by perceptions of psychological closeness (Walther & Bazarova, 2008).

Similarly, perceived immediacy has been defined as the perceived psychological distance between individuals (Kelly & Westerman, 2014). Immediate behaviors typically used by classroom instructors are smiling, eye contact, inclusive language, gestures, movement, humor, addressing students by name, and using vocal variety (Christophel, 1990). When students observe their classroom instructors using these communication cues, they report higher levels of affective learning, motivation, and satisfaction with the course and instructor (Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004) because students’ perceptions of psychological closeness, perceived immediacy, have increased (Kelly, 2012; Kelly, Rice, Wyatt, Ducking, & Denton, 2015). Perceived immediacy has also been referenced as generalized immediacy (Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979), psychological response to immediacy (Kelly et al., 2015), and when achieved using electronic technologies, mediated immediacy (O’Sullivan, Hunt, & Lippert, 2004).

Mediated immediacy has been defined as “communicative cues in mediated channels that can shape perceptions of psychological closeness between interactants” (O’Sullivan et al., 2004, p. 471). However, Hughes (2014) suggested that immediate behaviors are often equated with the experience of closeness/ immediacy, when in actuality they should be separated, as Kelly (2012) has also pointed out. Various studies have examined immediacy behaviors in non-FTF channels, including television (Hackman & Walker, 1990), distance learning networks (Comeaux, 1995), text messaging, social networks (Kelly & Autman, 2015), and online courses (Baker, 2010; Kelly & Fall, 2011)

Mediated immediacy is expected in distance education courses, albeit less than in face-to-face courses (Witt & Wheeless, 1999), and can be felt in distance and online classrooms (e.g., Hughes, 2014; LaRose, Gregg, & Eastin, 1998; LaRose & Whitten, 2000; O’Sullivan et al., 2004). Immediacy in online classes comes from some of the same cues as offline, such as approachability and regard for others (O’Sullivan et al., 2004) and humor and informality (Comeaux, 1995); however, some are different (Kelly & Fall, 2011; LaRose & Whitten, 2000), suggesting again that behaviors are not equal to the experience of immediacy. Some of these newer cues for increasing immediacy online include synchronicity (Pelowski, Frissell, Cabral, & Yu, 2005) or text-based cues such as presentational and linguistic immediacy (O’Sullivan et al., 2004). Walther et al. (2005) found evidence for the use and transferability of verbal cues substituting for missing nonverbal cues online in regard to the experience of immediacy, also finding that motivation for interaction (affiliation vs. not) explained more immediacy than did channel. This is also consistent with O’Sullivan et al.’s (2004) suggestion that mediated immediacy is a “language of affiliation” (p. 471).

Overall, feeling a degree of interpersonal connection with the instructor serves as motivation for students to enroll in, like, perform better, and complete a distance course (Hughes, 2014; O’Sullivan et al., 2004; So & Brush, 2008; Tu, 2000; Witt & Wheeless, 1999). For example, Richardson and Swan (2003) reported that students who perceive they are interacting with a computer rather than a real instructor find it hard to stay motivated to learn. They concluded that mediated instruction works best when students sense their professor’s personality on the other side of the keyboard, rather than feel as though they are working with a machine. At the very least, they need to feel that the machine is displaying human qualities (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Social presence helps distance learners feel their professor is a real person, someone who will care about their learning experience, and this perception helps make classroom interactions appealing and engaging (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999). Cumulative research findings indicate a positive association between perceptions of social presence and students’ satisfaction with the course and instructor, perceived cognitive learning, affective learning, and retention (Richardson & Swan, 2003; Russo & Benson, 2005; Swan & Shih, 2005). It is clear to see that the development of social presence is crucial for student engagement and learning when instruction is delivered through technology.

Student Perceptions versus Instructor Behaviors

Kelly and Fall (2011) identified a number of instructor communication cues that typically lead to students’ perceptions of social presence:

However, the display of such behaviors does not guarantee students will feel close or connected to the instructor. Students’ expectations going into the distance learning course also play a role in shaping their perceptions of the instructor and course (Witt & Wheeless, 1999). For example, an instructor’s perspective on what constitutes a timely response to an email or friendly correspondence might differ drastically from a student’s expectations. Thus, at the end of the day what the instructor is doing is less important than what the students think the instructor is doing; the meeting of expectations is often what leads to presence (Petty, Bracken, Rubenking, Buncher, & Gress, 2010). For this reason, instructors should set realistic, attainable expectations in students’ minds; for example, the syllabus could contain information about the promptness of replies to asynchronous messages such as e-mail. If, on occasion, these expectations cannot be met (as in the case of the instructor travelling to a conference or having limited e-mail access), a simple advance notification to students helps maintain positive regard and student satisfaction with the course and instructor.

Looking Forward: The Future of Distance Education

The focus of this chapter has been on distance education, and we have suggested that one of the goals of such is to bridge the gap between instructor and learners. As we turn our attention to the future of global education, an engaging question presents itself: Will all education in the future be “distance” education? In Ready Player One, author Ernest Cline (2011) tells the story of the dystopian world of 2044 where the physical world is broken and many people live for the OASIS, a virtual world similar to today’s Second Life. The OASIS is the fertile spot in the desert of physical reality, but it is not a mirage, as much of the reality of everyday life takes place in the virtual OASIS. Even education is experienced virtually, as schooling exists by logging in and attending class on Ludus, the planet designed for education, while being physically somewhere else, like the back of a van as the main character is during his classes.

Will we have to wait until 2044 to see this kind of distance education in our own world? Or is this future already here? Future technologies are likely to be ones that help people accomplish goals they have set for themselves, such as connecting to others and learning. Three current technologies that are likely to see increased usage for distance education in the (near) future are virtual worlds, avatars, and robots.

Virtual Worlds

Perhaps the ultimate vision of distance education is participation in a virtual space designed to function as the classroom, and 3-D virtual environments hold great promise for education. A virtual world can be defined as “a computer-generated display that allows or compels the user (or users) to have a sense of being present in an environment other than the one they are actually in, and to interact with that environment” (Schroeder, 1996, p. 25). Participating in a virtual environment involves interaction between self and others, so virtual worlds are spaces where users can feel socially present, or telepresent. Indeed, this kind of social presence is paramount for education in virtual worlds, and the goal will be for both teacher and student to “be in” a learning space where successful teaching and learning will take place (Garrison & Anderson, 2003).

The concept of virtual worlds dates back to the early 1980s (Warburton, 2009), but the 3-D worlds of today (and tomorrow) are considerably more advanced than the text-based, multi-user dungeons (MUDs) of that bygone era. For example, virtual worlds can (1) help students achieve learning-related tasks that are difficult or impossible to do offline, (2) provide persistent, continuing social interaction, and (3) adapt to the specific learning needs of individual students (Antonacci et al., 2008). Virtual classrooms will allow for experiential learning that is both real and relevant (Prensky, 2010), as user-generated content can challenge teachers and students to create and communicate in synergistic ways that enhance the overall educational experience. Baker, Wentz, and Woods (2009) speak of virtual worlds as Second Life (SL) spaces to meet with students informally, increasing engagement with content and with other users. SL enables students to customize their educational experience, transporting them to virtual locations such as the Sistine Chapel, providing meaningful learning experiences they might never have offline. “Within SL, it is possible to create simulated environments or situations and observe the behavior of avatars within these contexts” (Baker et al., 2008, p. 61). Although these authors are writing about the use of virtual worlds for psychology classrooms, the same can be said about teaching communication, as these can be used to help set up simulations and experience communication in action, including that which might be difficult or dangerous to experience offline.

Although virtual worlds have potential to become a powerful tool for distance learning, a great deal of time is required in order to master the technology, and inherent technical issues can sometimes hinder effective education (Baker et al., 2008; Warburton, 2009). However, the benefits are strong and the potential is limitless as the technology becomes more user-friendly and all-encompassing (e.g., glasses and haptic gloves, haptic suits, and smell-o-vision-like attachments). Virtual classrooms can provide increased access to those who are differently abled, bypassing, for example, a keyboard interface that is difficult for some people (Kamel Boulos, Hetherington, & Wheeler, 2007). In fact, engaging in virtual learning worlds with more “naturally-mapped” controls (Skalski, Tamborini, Shelton, Buncher, & Lindmark, 2011) might be more beneficial for all distance learners. Only the future holds the answer to how elaborate and realistic the virtual classroom will become.

Avatars

To participate in various virtual worlds, learners rely upon avatars. The word avatar derives from Sanskrit, and means “God’s appearance on Earth” (Damer, 1998).In computer settings, an avatar can be defined as a user’s graphical representation in a virtual environment (Nowak, 2000). These representations can be a variety of things, from static images and icons to more complicated dynamic characters that respond in a virtual environment as their use does in the physical environment (Bailenson & Blascovich, 2004).

The potential uses of avatars in education are numerous and might help distance education overcome certain limitations of FTF classrooms. For example, eye contact is a way to increase engagement and social presence/immediacy that is limited in FTF classrooms because teachers can only look one student in the eye at a time (Bailenson, Yee, Blascovich, & Guadagno, 2008). Therefore, if a teacher is looking at one student, it means he/she cannot be looking at others. However, in distributed systems, Bailenson and colleagues have experimented with what they call “augmented gaze.” They use avatars in which the teachers can maintain eye contact with each student at the same time. This is one example of the possibilities of technology to increase social presence beyond that achieved in traditional classrooms, and to help increase engagement and student motivation in virtual worlds, as avatars can (Falloon, 2010).

This notion of customizing avatars so each student sees a different teacher avatar has other possibilities as well. Similar to creating an avatar that looks at every student, avatars could be customized to resemble the student, or represent the student in any other way the student desires. Though customizing avatars to represent teacher, student, and co-learners, there is a downside to this type of customization: it could create a type of echo chamber for students by allowing them to create interactants like themselves instead of getting them to experience avatars of different races, ethnicities, and sexes. It is as yet unclear whether this dimension of virtual experience would affect the effectiveness of the teaching-learning process.

Robots

Another technology that may see increased usage in distance education is the telepresence robot. Rather than an avatar, which is a representation of a person, a robot is more like an agent, which is a more autonomous computer entity (Bailenson et al., 2004). Currently, robots are being used in various communicative roles, including education (Carey & Markoff, 2010). In situations where distance impedes a human teacher from being physically present (a limitation of FTF interaction), robots might be better than computer-based tutors because they can inhabit the same space as the learner, potentially increasing engagement and ease of interaction (Saerbeck, Schut, Bartneck, & Janse, 2010)

As this chapter has suggested, it is likely that robots will need to establish feelings of social presence, especially psychological feelings of being with another person. Scholars have examined people’s expectations of interacting with robots and found, not surprisingly, that they expect to feel less socially present when they know they will interact with a robot rather than a human (Edwards, Edwards, Westerman, & Spence, 2016; Spence, Westerman, Edwards, & Edwards, 2014). This comprises part of a “human-human interaction script,” (Edwards et al., 2016; Spence et al., 2014), the idea that people have cognitively stored scripts to serve as defaults when interacting with others. However, given the basic tenets of SIPT (Walther, 1992), future research can examine whether or not it is possible that actual interaction with a robot might help overcome these initial expectations also found in other forms of CMC (Westerman, 2007), and if so, how this increases the distance education potential of robots.

Conclusion

We began this chapter with a quotation suggesting a utopian promise commonly associated with communication technology: that the ability to connect interpersonally across time and space will lead to a paradise of communication and interconnectedness. Perhaps we should acknowledge, by contrast, the dystopian idea that technology will break down meaningful interpersonal relationships and bring the downfall of society. In this chapter, we have espoused neither of these extreme arguments but have posited that technology, though not a panacea, is a powerful tool with great potential for delivering instruction without geographic or temporal limitations. As future technologies come and go, instructors and students will gravitate toward the ones that function easily and reliably to facilitate effective connection with course content and each other, and maybe even open up possibilities never before imagined for either distance learning or classroom instruction. Lane and Shelton (2001) observed that an often-present attitude among educators and students is, “Look, it’s cool technology, Let’s use it.” They went on to advise discretion, however, admonishing educators to modify their perspective to reflect, instead, “Look it’s cool technology, Let’s use it appropriately” (p. 253–254). In this era of rapidly changing systems and technological innovation, the wisdom of these words speaks to the use of technology in the online distance learning classroom. The integration of new technologies will not assist students if they are not used effectively, and for online educators, much of that effectiveness is a product of skillful, strategic instructional communication.

References

Agger-Gupta, D. (2010). Uncertain frontiers: Exploring ethical dimensions of online learning. In K. E. Rudestram & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning (pp. 226–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alice Springs School of the Air. (2015). Education over the airwaves to Australia’s most remote students. Retrieved from http://www.assoa.nt.edu.au/the-school/

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Allen, T. H. (2006). Is the rush to provide on-line instruction setting our students up for failure? Communication Education, 55, 122–126. doi:10.1080/03634520500343418

Aggarwal, D. D. (2007). History & scope of distance education. New Delhi, India: Sarup & Sons.

Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A., & Jensen, A. D. (1979). The measurement of nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7, 153–180. doi:10.1080/00909887909365204

Antonacci, D., DiBartolo, S., Edwards, N., Fritch, K., McMullen, B., & Murch-Shafer, R. (2008). The power of virtual worlds in education: A second life primer and resource for exploring the potential of virtual worlds to impact teaching and learning. Report from the ANGEL Learning Isle Steering Committee. Available at http://www.angellearning.com/products/secondlife/downloads/The%20Power%20of%20Virtual%20Worlds%20in%20Education_0708.pdf

Aragon, S. R. (2010). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57–68. doi:10.1002/ace.119

Armengol, M. C. (2002). Global and critical visions of distance universities and programs in Latin America. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3, n.p. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/111/383

Bailenson, J., & Blascovich, J. (2004). Avatars. In W. S. Bainbridge (Ed.), Encyclopedia of humancomputer interaction (pp. 64–68). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group.

Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., & Guadagno. R. E. (2008). Transformed social interaction in mediated interpersonal communication. In E. A. Konjin, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 77–99). New York, NY: Routledge.

Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7, 1–30.

Baker, S. C., Wentz, R. K., & Woods, M. M. (2009). Using virtual worlds in education: Second Life as an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 59–64. doi:10.1080/00986280802529079

Barbour, M., Archambault, L., & DiPietro, M. (2013). K–12 online distance education: Issues and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education, 27, 1–3. doi:10.1080/08923647.2013.759452

Bejerano, A. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs: Who are they for and what have we lost along the way? Communication Education, 57, 408–414. doi:10.1080/03634520801993697

Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12, 456–480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. London, UK: Routledge.

Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance‐learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 299–305. doi:10.1002/asi.20277

Bruffee, K. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13, 26– 44.

Carey, B., & Markoff, J. (2010, July 10). Students, meet your new teacher, Mr. Robot. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/science/11robots.html?pagewanted=&_r=0

Carnoy, M., Rabling, B. J., Castaño‐Muñoz, J., Montoliu, J. M. D., & Sancho‐Vinuesa, T. (2012). Does on‐line distance higher education pay off for adult learners? The case of the open University of Catalonia. Higher Education Quarterly, 66, 248–271. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00520.x

Carr, C. T., Zube, P., Dickens, E., Hayter, C. A., & Barterian, J. A. (2013). Toward a model of sources of influence in online education: Cognitive learning and the effects of web 2.0, Communication Education, 62, 61–85, doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.724535

Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 230–240. doi:10.1080/03634520109379250

Christophel, D. (1990). The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813

Cline, E. (2011). Ready player one. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

Comeaux, P. (1995). The impact of an interactive distance learning network on classroom communication. Communication Education, 44, 353–361. doi:10.1080/03634529509379024

Cook, K. C., & Grant-Davie, K. (Eds.). (2013). Online Education 2.0: Evolving, adapting, and reinventing online technical communication. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 21–34.

Damer, B. (1998). Avatars!: Exploring and building virtual worlds on the internet. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.

Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e‐learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 3, 657–663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x

Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52, 87–105. doi:10.1080/03634520302470

Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., & Westerman, D. (2016). Initial interaction expectation with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies, 67, 227–238. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1121899

Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 108–122. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00991.x

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Garrison, R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Gaytan, J. (2008). Understanding teaching with the Internet in business education. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 50, 31–44.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 8–26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970

Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39, 196–206. doi:10.1080/03634529009378802

Hollan, J., & Stornetta, S. (1992). Beyond being there. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennet, & G. Lynch (Eds.), CHI’92 conference proceedings: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 119–125). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/142750.142769

Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26, 1–13.

Hughes, G. K. (2014). The effect of mediated immediacy upon state motivation and cognitive learning in an online lesson. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Kamel Boulos, M. N., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second Life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24, 223–245. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00733.x

Kehrwald, B. (2010). Being online: Social presence as subjectivity in online learning. London Review of Education, 8, 39–50. doi:10.1080/01587910802004860

Kelly, S., & Autman, H. (2015). Effective computer-mediated business communication: Fostering immediacy. The Journal for Research in Business Education, 56, 48–58.

Kelly, S., & Fall, L. T. (2011). An investigation of computer-mediated instructional immediacy in online education: A comparison of graduate and undergraduate students’ motivation to learn. Journal of Advertising Education, 15, 44–51.

Kelly, S., Rice, C., Wyatt, C., Ducking, J., & Denton, D. (2015). Teacher immediacy and decreased student quantitative reasoning anxiety: The mediating effect of perception. Communication Education, 64, 171–186. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1014383

Kelly, S., & Westerman, C. Y. K. (2014). Immediacy as an influence on supervisor-subordinate communication. Communication Research Reports, 31, 252–261. doi:10.1080/08824096.2014.924335

Kelly, S. E. (2012). Examining the role of perceived immediacy as a mediator: Revisiting the relationships among immediate behaviors, liking, and disclosure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

King, F. B., Young, M. F., Drivere-Richmond, K., & Schrader, P. G. (2001). Defining distance learning and distance education. AACE journal, 9, 1–14.

Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communication in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3–24. doi:10.1177/009365027800500101

Kumar, N., & Benbasat, I. (2002). Para-social presence and communication capabilities of a web site. e-Service Journal, 1, 5–24. doi:10.2979/ESJ.2002.1.3.5

Lane, D. R., & Shelton, M. W. (2001). The centrality of communication education in classroom computer-mediated communication: Toward a practical and evaluative pedagogy. Communication Education, 50, 241–255. doi:10.1080/03634520109379251

LaRose, R., Gregg, J., & Eastin, M. (1998). Audiographic telecourses for the web: An experiment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4, n.p. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00093.x

LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2000). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for Web courses: A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 320–338. doi:10.1080/03634520009379221

Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27–50. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. B. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, n.p. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2011). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 143–166). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14, 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001

Wallace, I., & Moore, C. (2012). Providing in-depth and personalised feedback to online students using audio recording. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, IPEDR (Vol. 27).

National Council of State Supervisors for Languages. (2015). NCSSFL position statement on distance learning in foreign languages. Retrieved from http://www.ncssfl.org/papers/index.php?distancelearning

National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014: Chapter 1. Elementary and secondary mathematics and science education. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/chapter-1/c1s4.htm

Nowak, K. (2000). The influence of anthropomorphism on mental models of agents and avatars in social virtual environments. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Oliveira, I., Tinoca, L., & Pereira, A. (2011). Online group work patterns: How to promote a successful collaboration. Computers & Education, 57, 1348–1357. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.017

O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 464–490. doi:10.1177/0261927X04269588

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K., & Yu, T. (2005). So far but yet so close: Student chat room immediacy, learning and performance in an online course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 395–407.

Perraton, H. (2012). Open and distance learning in the developing world (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 69–77.

Petty, G., Bracken, C. C., Rubenking, B., Buncher, M., & Gress, E. (2010). Telepresence, soundscapes, and technological expectation: Putting the observer into the equation. Virtual Reality, 14, 15–25. doi:10.1007/s10055-009-0148-8

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: CSLI Publications.

Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K–12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 425–448. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782468#.VhM6u-xViko

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68–88.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 14, 50–71.

Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2007). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 18, 57–73.

Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8, 54–62.

Russo, T. C., & Koesten, J. (2005). Prestige, centrality, and learning: A social network analysis of an online class. Communication Education, 54, 254–261. doi:10.1080/03634520500356394

Saerbeck, M., Schut, T., Bartneck, C., & Janse, M. D. (2010). Expressive robots in education: Varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In CHI’ 10 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1613–1622). New York, NY: ACM.

Schroeder, R. (1996). Possible worlds: The social dynamic of virtual reality technologies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schwartzman, R. (2007). Refining the question: How can online instruction maximize opportunities for all students? Communication Education, 56, 113–117. doi:10.1080/03634520601009728

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of communication. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Skalski, P., Tamborini, R., Shelton, A., Buncher, M., & Lindmark, P. (2011). Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence and game enjoyment. New Media & Society, 13, 224–242. doi:10.1177/1461444810370949

Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom‐based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 87–101. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x

Snyder, L. G. (2009). Teaching teams about teamwork: Preparation, practice, and performance review. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 74–79. doi:10.1177/1080569908330372

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, 318–336. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003

Spence, P. R., Westerman, D., Edwards, C., & Edwards, A. (2014). Welcoming our robot overlords: Initial expectations about interaction with a robot. Communication Research Reports, 31, 272–280. doi:10.1080/08824096.2014.924337

Stacey, E., & Visser, L. (2005). The history of distance education in Australia. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6, 253–259.

Street, H. D. (2010). Factors influencing a learner’s decision to drop-out or persist in higher education distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13, n.p. Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/street134.html

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2, 23–49. doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016

Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9, 115–136.

Tamborini, R., & Skalski, P. (2006). The role of presence in the experience of electronic games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 225–240). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.

The Open University. (2015). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/mission

Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23, 27–37. doi:10.1006/jnca.1999.0099

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. National Education Technology Plan 2004. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484046.pdf.

Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUD’s: The development of friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1, n.p.. Retrieved from https://constructedidentity.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/social-information-processing-in-muds.doc

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003

Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473–501. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00332.x

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001

Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21, 460–487. doi:10.1177/009365094021004002

Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. N. (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622– 645. doi:10.1177/0093650208321783

Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828–846. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03025.x

Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36–65. doi:10.1177.0261927X04273036

Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 414–426. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00952.x

Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Nair, C. S. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 30–41. doi:10.14742/ajet.v24i1.1228

Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31, 366–377.

Westerman, D. (2007). Comparing uncertainty reduction in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: A social information processing theory approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Westerman, D., & Skalski, P. D. (2010). Computers and telepresence: A ghost in the machine? In C. C. Bracken & P. D. Skalski (Eds.), Immersed in media: Telepresence in everyday life (pp. 63–86). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wheeler, S. (2007). The influence of communication technologies and approaches to study on transactional distance in blended learning. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 15, 103– 117.

White, M. (1982). Distance education in Australian higher education – a history. Distance Education, 3, 255–278. doi:10.1080/0158791820030207

Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (1999). Nonverbal communication expectancies about teachers and enrollment behavior in distance learning. Communication Education, 48, 149–154. doi:10.1080/03634529909379162

Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71, 184–207. doi:10.1080/036452042000228054

Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8, n.p. Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm

Young, M., Perraton, H., Jenkins, J., & Dodds, T. (2010). Distance teaching for the third world: The lion and the clockwork mouse: Incorporating a directory of distance teaching projects. New York, NY: Routledge.