Exploring the Relationship Between Social-Emotional Competencies and Student Outcomes in Online Learning Environments

By Sarah K. Teeple, Gwynedd Mercy University

Sarah Teeple, M.A., M.Ed., is a former licensed professional counselor, having worked in nonprofit settings before beginning her career in education. Sarah has been working in education as a classroom teacher for 12 years, and is currently pursuing her doctorate in Educational Leadership. She conducted her doctoral research on the Habits of Mind in remote learning environments.

ABSTRACT

The present mixed-methods study sought to clarify the complex relationships that may influence student achievement in non-traditional learning environments. In the United States, the number of students who are participating in some form of virtual or remote learning is increasing for a variety of reasons. However, the body of research regarding student outcomes in online learning environments is limited and contains some contradictory findings. The researcher therefore sought to identify the relationships between student proficiency in social-emotional competencies using the Habits of Mind theoretical framework, social presence as defined by the Community of Inquiry framework, and student outcomes on a writing performance task. The results indicate that there is a positive correlation between student social-emotional proficiency and student grades on a summative performance task, although no significant correlation was found between social presence and student performance, despite a moderate effect size. In addition, survey data and narrative responses from individual interviews with teachers and students were used to further extend the discussion on thematic aspects of teaching and learning that were perceived to influence successful student outcomes and a robust sense of social interaction and community.

Keywords: online learning, social-emotional skills, Habits of Mind, social presence

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL COMPETENCIES AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN FULLY ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership (Ed.D.)

School of Graduate and Professional Studies
Gwynedd Mercy University
Gwynedd Valley, Pennsylvania
November 2021

You can view this dissertation in its entirety in PDF form here.

Chapter One

Overview

As online learning environments, whether in part or in full, become more mainstream in primary and secondary schools, leaders in education must consider the unique challenges inherent in the process of meeting the diverse needs of students through a digital platform. Much of the current discourse on digital learning has focused singularly on equity in access to hardware, software, and broadband services, and rightfully so. Indeed, this is a critical component of online instruction that must be addressed through educational policy. However, equity in online instruction cannot be focused only on one-to-one device and broadband access (Bendici, 2020). As the desire and need for alternative educational infrastructure increases, policies designed to ensure equitable access must evolve to include intentional program design in service of equitable cognitive access and the ability to attain a high-quality education through modes of instruction that may differ from traditional face-to-face models.

Globally, the greatest number of digital learning opportunities appear to exist for students living in North America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe (Barbour et al., 2015), with China and the United States at the forefront (Business Wire, 2019). Many of these options follow a blended learning model, in which some of the instruction is delivered face-to-face and some is delivered online (Barbour et al., 2015). In the United States, there is inconsistency in the centralized support of online learning through state departments of education, thus further perpetuating inequities in access to online learning opportunities domestically (Vadell, 2013).

The importance of having viable alternatives for instructional delivery becomes more apparent during times of crisis. Conducting face-to-face instruction can become impossible during periods of natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 resulted in the physical destruction or damage of so many schools in New Orleans, Louisiana that thousands of students were displaced during the disaster (Valent, 2017). In the wake of the crisis, public schools faced challenges in rebuilding and reorganizing in order to resume delivery of instruction. Similar displacements and institutional challenges occurred in 2017, when Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas (Perry, 2020). Less than three years later, the global pandemic of COVID-19 is creating mass disruptions in the delivery of both public and private education.

With little notice, schools can attempt to circumvent the disruption in education by employing alternative methods of instruction in students’ homes, including through paper and pencil work (akin to correspondence courses), public broadcasts, and delivery of instruction using various online learning management systems. There are significant obstacles that became apparent through these endeavors, including how to meet federal mandates for equity in instruction and battling the digital divide in low-socioeconomic rural and urban areas. Sadly, students of color and students from low-income families may suffer disproportionately during times of school closures (Perry, 2020).

The need to find ways to provide alternative means of instruction has become part of the national conversation on education, so much so that new policies are being implemented that mandate the professional development of teachers in providing online education even once the pandemic has ceased. Pennsylvania’s Governor revealed in his recovery plan post-COVID-19 (Kensinger, 2020) that all educators will be required to receive professional development in the delivery of virtual learning, and that experience in online teaching may count towards student teaching requirements moving forward. These shifting expectations regarding what teacher training must entail in months following a global pandemic provide further impetus for research into what makes online education a viable alternative.

Educational policy is largely a reflection of the perception of schools as institutions. When we consider the mission of public education, much of this vision is inherent in federal mandates to provide a free and appropriate public education to all individuals, regardless of demographics or ability. However, for decades, educators have also underscored an additional component to public education that is sometimes taken for granted as a pleasant by-product of the community and social structure of traditional face-to-face classrooms, and that is the notion that students learn as much socially as they do academically. This concept is not new; John Dewey in 1897 stated his belief that “the social life of the child is the basis of concentration, or correlation, in all his training or growth. The social life gives the unconscious unity and the background of all of his attainments” (Dewey, 1897, p. 79). Educators seem to understand that this social aspect to public education is a critical and important component of the implicit curriculum of a school, as evidenced in large part by recent additions of social and emotional instruction in primary and secondary schools.

Therefore, when making the necessary and inevitable shift to online learning environments, it must be in service of both academic and social/emotional goals for student achievement. However, variability in student motivations, dispositions, and abilities can create obstacles to equal access of distance learning models (Journell, 2013). Success in online courses is correlated with higher student levels of intrinsic motivation because the very nature of online or distance learning means students must be, to some extent at least, self-directed learners. Students must also possess the cognitive abilities to access learning tasks presented in alternative formats, so learning opportunities and curriculum must be designed in such a way that students have the ability to access and understand the material regardless of ability or predominant learning styles. This intersection of equity based on ability and motivation leads to two important areas of further study: Universal Design for Learning in online learning environments (OLEs), and social presence, or the perception of social inclusion and connectedness that John Dewey emphasized as a key component and predictor of academic success more than a century ago.

Universal Design in Learning

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has its origins in the architectural model of universal design for physical spaces and environments (Rose & Strangman, 2007). The concept of Universal Design (UD) in education has challenged educators to design systems of learning such that they can be accessible to diverse learners. UDL is based upon the presumption that students have diverse needs that can be proactively accommodated by shifting the perspective on what learning should look like. In other words, instead of merely adjusting the academic parameters or environment on a case-by-case basis, UDL is predicated upon a proactive and intentional model of education design by which one theorizes that the accommodations and structures that are good for one can indeed be good for all.

Federal mandates for equal access to education have been around for decades, and as inclusion within the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) has become more widespread, UDL is becoming more commonplace and important even in traditional classrooms. There are several principles upon which UDL is based, according to Rose and Strangman (2007): varied and flexible opportunities for student engagement, recognition/internalization of course material, and expression of understanding. As UDL is gaining traction with the traditional classroom, it is important to evaluate what UDL might look like as the infrastructure and delivery of education evolves over time. Additional standards attempt to explicitly outline what competencies and skills an online educator must possess, and such standards should also be considered as part of a virtual-learning specific UDL framework. For example, the National Education Association (NEA), The International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL), the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE), and the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) have all released competency frameworks or guides for online education.

Social Presence

One way to address the fundamental social needs in public education as well as help support student motivation and achievement is to focus on building an online community of learners (Journell, 2013). In his book about online strategies for K-12 teachers, Journell (2013) explains that three principles have emerged as foundational to OLEs. Firstly, students and teachers must internalize the belief that interaction is an important component of learning. Secondly, there should be ample opportunities for interaction, both in real-time (synchronously) and asynchronously. Lastly, there must be intentional efforts and interventions to decrease perceptions of isolation and concurrently increase perceptions of social presence.

Social presence as a construct is of utmost importance because it can be a contributing factor to a student’s academic success (Journell, 2013). Additionally, perceptions of social presence can be predictors of attrition and academic achievement. In her research on the role of the instructor in online courses, Crim (2006) notes that regular communications and teacher feedback similarly support the development of an engaged community of learners. In order to help support an online community of learners, there are several strategies and course design elements that have been espoused in the literature (Butler & Evans, 2014; Fiock, 2020; Journell, 2013; Thompson et al., 2017). These elements span in duration from beginning of course to end of course, and encompass both synchronous and asynchronous means of interaction.

In addition to strategies that support the development of an online social presence, educators should consider the vision and mission of the classroom community and the methods of instruction in support of that goal. Even in online instruction, the classroom needs to be student-centered (Bendici, 2020). Students’ needs to feel empowered and connected dictate that delivery of instruction cannot simply be an active process on the part of the teacher and a passive process on the part of the student. It is hypothesized that there is value in the social constructivist learning theory (Crim, 2006; Fiock, 2020), and the 4C’s of instruction: collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking (Bendici, 2020). By designing curriculum from a UDL approach and utilizing varied instructional methods (including project-based learning and cooperative learning), in theory the online classroom environment should be able to replicate the social and cognitive processes that many agree have innate value in face-to-face learning.

Problem Statement

By making the shift to online learning, schools and districts have the opportunity to maximize resources and circumnavigate some of the obstacles in staffing and physical space (Edwards, 2015). There are additional benefits for students when virtual modes of instruction accommodate diverse learning styles and allow for flexibility in the delivery of content. However, planning for this shift in infrastructure is rife with obstacles, and the expense of ensuring digital access to all users alone can take years to see to fruition within the tight confines of school budgets. When the logistics of physical access have been adequately planned for, however, there remains a slew of additional concerns about how to make sure that online learning is being delivered in the best interests of students through evidence-based practices. Indeed, when online learning environments are necessitated instead of merely desired and teachers are mandated to receive training on providing online instruction, it becomes even more important for cyber learning to be designed with the goal of supporting and benefiting all learners.

Across the globe, rates of online learning are increasing. Countries around the world are navigating new territory by integrating virtual instructional models alongside traditional ones. In an international survey of 50 countries that was conducted on the policies and practice of virtual education in K-12 schools, Barbour et. al (2011, p. 17) identified that ambiguities regarding teacher training remain a global issue in the realm of virtual learning; more specifically:

This lack of training is not only in the use of new technologies, but also in the methodology and pedagogy necessary to fully understand how and why technology can positively impact student performance when in the hands of a competent, highly qualified teacher.

When it comes to online learning, the need and potential benefits are undeniable; the question, rather, becomes how this kind of instruction can be done well and in service of education’s most important stakeholders: the students themselves. How can we make the experience of online learning an engaging and enriching one for students, and one in which all students are able to receive a free and appropriate public education?

Purpose of Study

The current body of research on online learning has largely been conducted in secondary or post-secondary schools. There is a lack of formal research on virtual learning in kindergarten through fifth grades. Previous research is still limited and has revealed some contradictory conclusions regarding the efficacy of instruction in online domains. For example, some prior studies (Coombe, 2017) have pointed to lower levels of achievement in online courses when compared to traditional ones, while others have found either no significant difference in achievement when comparing online vs. face-to-face instruction or higher achievement for students enrolled in online courses (Brodersen & Melluso, 2017; Cho & Tobias, 2016; Richardson et al., 2014). In their analysis of survey data from institutions of higher education, Allen et al. (2016) reveal that the majority of academic leaders surveyed in a single year (71.4%) perceived online courses to be equally effective or superior to traditional face-to-face courses, whereas only 28.6% of survey respondents believed that online instruction was inferior when compared to face-to-face instruction.

Student perceptions of the quality of online learning can vary widely, and may increase or decrease depending on instructor-specific behaviors, such as the quantity and quality of interactions and feedback throughout the course (Crim, 2006). Student satisfaction, then, may be positively correlated with academic achievement in OLEs. However, other studies have found no significant relationship between student interactions via online discussions, student satisfaction, and student achievement (Cho & Tobias, 2016).

Social competencies as a component of social and emotional (SEL) skills are a related construct that may be important in further operationalizing the way that we describe social presence. SEL skills have become part of the curriculum of many K-12 schools due to the increasing perception that such skills have an impact on, and beyond, the academic realm of a student’s formal schooling (Jones et al., 2017). While the relationship between social presence and academic achievement has been unclear, other studies on social competencies and SEL have shown positive correlations with student achievement (Yu, 2014).

This study seeks to clarify the relationship that may exist between SEL competencies, social presence, and student learning outcomes in K-12 online environments. A more robust body of research on virtual learning will allow educational leaders to make more generalizable conclusions regarding the efficacy of curricular decision-making in OLEs. Studies in elementary grades specifically are needed in order to begin to make recommendations for effective pedagogy and professional development according to educational level. In sum, research on virtual learning will help inform policy and practice in the coming years.

Research Guiding Questions

The research questions are threefold, and represent mixed methodologies in service of drawing conclusions that may inform online K-12 course design in the future.

To what extent do social and emotional competencies predict online social presence and student performance in fully remote instruction?
How do social and emotional competencies manifest in fully online learning environments?
How are adaptive student behaviors and attitudes reinforced and modeled through remote instruction?

Possible Limitations and Delimitations

While the intent of this study is to help guide online program development for K-12 learners, there are several limitations that must be considered. The methodology employed herein lacks the ability to establish causal relationships between the studied variables. Study participants are not randomly assigned; rather, this study relies on intact groups that are administratively defined and are not within the control of the researcher. Further, there are many variables that may impact student outcomes such as final course grades and student perceptions of learning, and an experimental design to manipulate and control certain variables with the desire to establish causal effects on student outcomes is not within the realm of possibility, particularly within an elementary environment.

Another limitation is the inability to generalize results beyond the scope of the specific population in which this study takes place. Due to the lack of prevalence of established online courses in elementary public schools, there are fewer opportunities to specifically study online learning environments within the targeted age groups. In order to be able to access participants in an elementary online learning course, the study is limited to certain grade levels and content-area units, which in turn limits the generalizability and scope of any conclusions that may emerge.

Key Terms

Affective learning – The extent to which students feel that learning has happened can be a function of different realms or categories of student experiences. Affective learning is a category within the larger construct of perceived learning, and refers to a student’s perceptions about the teacher, the topic, and the course itself. (Rockinson-Szapkiw et. al., 2016).
Asynchronous instruction – This type of instructional delivery within an online learning environment is one in which a student participates in the recognition and expression of course material independent of the time of delivery by the instructor (Journell, 2013).
Blended/hybrid learning – Blended or hybrid learning represents a framework for delivery of course material by some combination of online or web-based applications and face-to-face instruction (Journell, 2013).
Cognitive presence – Cognitive presence is one aspect of the Community of Inquiry framework, and refers to student perceptions of having achieved learning outcomes through metacognitive reflection of content knowledge and skills in a given subject area (Fiock, 2020).
Community of Inquiry (COI) – COI is a theoretical framework with an emphasis on enhancing perceptions of positive learning experiences through social, cognitive, and teaching presences (Fiock, 2020).
Habits of Mind – A set of 16 predispositions to identify, evaluate, and select efficacious behaviors and attitudes for solving challenging tasks (Costa & Kallack, 2000).
Online learning environment (OLE) – This is an environment in which students receive full or partial instruction via web-based applications (Journell, 2013).
Perceived learning – Perceived learning describes a student’s perception that academic outcomes have been achieved as a result of instruction (Rockinson- Szapkiw et. al., 2016).
Social community – Social community is a cumulative descriptor of students’ feelings or perceptions of interdependence, cohesiveness, interaction, safety, sense of belonging, and trust within the context of an educational setting (Rockinson-Szapkiw et. al., 2016).
Social and emotional skills – A range of social, interpersonal, emotional, and cognitive processes (Jones et al., 2017).
Social presence – Social presence is another construct within the COI framework, and refers to student perceptions of feeling a sense of belonging in a learning community, as indicated by group cohesion, open communication, and affective expression (Fiock, 2020).
Synchronous instruction – Synchronous instruction within an online learning environment occurs when the instruction is delivered by an instructor and received by the student in real-time, or when students and instructors are interacting and participating in course-related objectives at the same time, albeit in different locations. (Journell, 2013).
Teacher interaction – This refers to any interaction between teachers and students that are course-specific (feedback or procedural, for the purposes of administering instruction) or social (related to the fostering of a social community or social presence); such interactions are not exclusive to online learning environments, but can act as a variable used to predict student outcomes in online learning (Hawkins et. al., 2013).
Teaching presence – Teaching presence is yet another aspect of the COI framework, and is the combined effect of instructional design, the instructional delivery itself, and the facilitation of discourse or interaction on the social and cognitive aspects of learning (Fiock, 2020).
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) – Universal Design for Learning is a model of curricular design with a focus on developing systems of learning that are accessible to diverse learners in respect to cognitive, physical, social/emotional, and linguistic abilities. UDL is based on having multiple means of presentation of course material, multiple opportunities for student engagement, and varied means of student expression of understanding. (Rose & Strangman, 2007).

Chapter Two

Introduction

Online learning represents a quickly growing field within education, both internationally (Barbour et al., 2011) and domestically, with the U.S. Department of Education (2010) having estimated a 65% increase in enrollment for technology-based virtual learning by K-12 United States public school students between the years of 2002 and 2005 alone. Online K-12 programs have been around for as long as 20 years, and Gemin et al. (2017) describe the proliferation and trends in online learning over the past several decades.

The implementation of online programming in K-12 schools varies from state to state. Some states have state-led initiatives for online learning or state virtual schools, while others, like the state of Pennsylvania, do not have a state virtual school or centralized learning initiatives through the state department of education (Vadell, 2013). The inception of state virtual schools and stand-alone online schools in the late 1990s have paved the way for multiple models of virtual instructional delivery in a variety of charter, private, and traditional public schools (Gemin et al., 2017). Some students receive all of their instruction online, while others participate in online courses as a supplement to their traditional course delivery. There are three basic models for online instruction: full-time online schools, blended or hybrid schools, and traditional schools with supplemental (or web-facilitated) online offerings (Gemin et al., 2017; Picciano & Seaman, 2007). Some researchers operationalize the aforementioned models with greater specificity, by describing full-time online programs as those in which 80% or more of the instruction is provided online, blended/hybrid models as programs consisting of between 30% and 50% online instruction, and web-facilitated or supplemental programs as those in which the majority of instruction is provided face-to-face and less than 30% of instruction is provided online (Allen et al., 2016; Picciano & Seaman, 2007).

Table 2.1 Instructional Models

K-12 education is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States alone (Gemin et al., 2017). An estimated $10.2 billion dollars is spent on hardware, $380 million on learning management systems and platforms, and $8 billion on textbooks, although the amount spent on physical books is declining as spending increases for digital content and tools. Millions of K-12 students are taking supplemental online courses, and hundreds of thousands are attending online schools full-time (Schroeder, 2019). It is unknown how many students are participating in hybrid models of instruction, but one could infer that this number is growing in conjunction with increasing enrollments of fully online and supplemental programs (Gemin et al., 2017). By 2025, it is estimated that the global online education market will balloon to over $350 billion (“$350 Billion Online Education Market”, 2019).

Online or virtual instruction as we know it today has its roots in early modes of computer-assisted instruction (CIA) that predated the world wide web and the revolution of internet-based technology (Gemin et al., 2017). The University of Illinois spearheaded the PLATO project in the 1960s involving computers as a means of instructional delivery. The PLATO system is considered an important milestone in computer-mediated communication and instruction. The project was taken over by the Control Data Corporation in the 1970s, and continued to evolve for usage in higher education, as well as in military and corporate simulation and training. PLATO Learning and NovaNet were two programs that emerged from the larger PLATO project; PLATO Learning is now Edmentum, and NovaNet was used for a time by Pearson. Earlier iterations of online programs like the CIA systems that emerged from PLATO were largely focused on credit recovery, and indeed, this remains a key component and application of online learning today (Gemin et al., 2017).

Another precursor to common forms of online education as we know them today was the use of distance learning, which was primarily aimed at providing instruction to homebound students through the use of print resources, CD-ROMS, and tele-conferencing (Gemin et al., 2017). Distance learning was later used to provide college preparatory courses or Advanced Placement opportunities for students in areas where such opportunities would not otherwise exist, such as urban and rural schools. As the technology improved and the desire for alternative instructional models increased, distance learning via online models evolved. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was estimated that nearly three million K-12 students were enrolled full-time in online learning, for a myriad of reasons (Schroeder, 2019). Motivations for fully online learning include seeking personalized learning at an individual pace or alternatives to traditional instruction in struggling school districts.

Regardless of the basic instructional model and the amount of instruction received online, a variety of digital resources and tools are utilized to provide instruction. These tools can include content websites, content-area specific software applications, and classroom management software or learning management systems (LMSs). In addition, third party suppliers (or vendors) may provide online or digital learning programs that are typically monitored and coordinated by the student’s school (Gemin et al., 2017). Vendors may coordinate directly with a school or district, or they may go through intermediate suppliers such as regional consortia or service agencies, or state virtual schools. An interesting trend is that many school districts who use vendors or suppliers are not relying on one provider alone; rather, many districts are using multiple vendors to meet the needs for online instruction (Picciano & Seaman, 2007). In Pennsylvania, the roughly 500 school districts, 67 counties, and 29 intermediate units within the state have varied degrees of access to and implementation of online learning due to the state’s lack of centralized online programs or initiatives (Vadell, 2013). This also means that school districts have to grapple with the budgetary implications of their obligation to either pay for outsourced education at virtual charter schools or other external online programs compared to providing in-district virtual learning programs that are either partially or fully outsourced.

Clements et al. (2015) also summarize some key trends in online learning, although these findings are limited in geographical scope. In response to the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest’s Virtual Education Research Alliance expressed need for more information about online schooling, Wisconsin’s and Iowa’s state education agencies surveyed public high school administrators, educators, and paraprofessionals. The survey responses illustrated some interesting trends in the use of online education in public high schools in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Credit recovery and core courses represented a large percentage of student enrollment in online courses in both states (71% and 57% of high schools surveyed, respectively, in Iowa and 66% and 73%, respectively, in Wisconsin). Insufficient teacher training was largely cited as a challenge for the Iowa schools, and course quality was a concern in both Iowa and Wisconsin. An additional concern that emerged in Wisconsin’s survey data was adequate funding to support online programming. Concerns about funding, course quality, and teacher training were echoed in the survey results of district administrators from 44 states representing 2% of school districts nationally (Picciano & Seaman, 2007). Researchers recommend that further studies evaluate student outcomes in online courses in order to better inform policy not only at the district level, but at the state legislative level as well (Clements et al., 2015).

Social Presence

Learning as a social activity is not a new concept, but Rockinson-Szapkiw et al. (2016) postulate that the growth of distance learning platforms necessitate further study into the complex relationship between perceptions of learning communities and student achievement. One such way to study perceptions of learning communities is to evaluate the notion of social presence and social community. Tu (2002, p. 34) describes online social presence as a “complicated human perception” but underscores the value in understanding social presence in order to improve instruction in online learning environments. Terry and Doolittle (2019, p. 124), meanwhile, note that “social presence has been a topic of inquiry in a number of contexts and settings with a variety of implications.” These settings extend beyond the field of education, and include applications in broader virtual communities, including social media.

Social community is a cumulative descriptor of students’ feelings or perceptions of interdependence, cohesiveness, interaction, safety, sense of belonging, and trust within the context of an educational setting (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016), whereas social presence is a related but distinct construct that describes student perceptions of feeling a sense of belonging in a learning community, as indicated by group cohesion, open communication, and affective expression (Fiock, 2020). Operationalizing social presence has been an ongoing process. Social presence theory has been hindered by a lack of specificity and consistency in the definition of social presence, as well as by a lack of valid instruments for assessing the complex variables that impact social presence (Terry & Doolittle, 2019; Tu, 2002). Some earlier tools for assessing social presence included the Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire (SPPQ) and the Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) attitude instrument (Terry & Doolittle, 2019; Tu, 2002).

Community of Inquiry

However, as the body of research grew and the complexity of social presence and other learning perceptions became more apparent, a new theoretical model expanded to include unique but overlapping constructs. Community of Inquiry (COI) is a framework that attempts to define the interdependency of three core factors in creating a meaningful experience for learners: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (Zidiropoulou & Mavroidis, 2019). Cognitive presence refers to student perceptions of having achieved learning outcomes through metacognitive reflection of content knowledge and skills in a given subject area, while teaching presence represents the combined effect of instructional design, the instructional delivery itself, and the facilitation of discourse or interaction on the social and cognitive aspects of learning (Fiock, 2020).

Figure 2.1 Community of Inquiry Framework

The current body of literature on social presence within a social community in online learning has largely embraced the COI model, although some researchers are beginning to investigate the possibility of adding a fourth factor (learning presence) into the existing three-factor framework (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016). Others contend that COI as a model still fails to capture the essence of social presence:

Given that its significance and utility as a psychological and pedagogical construct is being evaluated within a variety of different contexts (including Twitter, gaming, and 3D virtual world), and has begun to produce positive outcomes in educational settings, it seems that a logical next step is to conduct research that would produce a more consistent definition that can, in turn, inform appropriate instructional strategies. (Terry & Doolittle, 2019, p. 124)

Nevertheless, many current studies have employed COI in examinations of social presence, perceived learning, and learner satisfaction. Perceived learning describes a student’s perception that academic outcomes have been achieved as a result of instruction. The extent to which students feel that learning has happened can be a function of different realms or categories of student experiences. Affective learning is a category within the larger construct of perceived learning, and refers to a student’s perceptions about the teacher, the topic, and the course itself (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016).

Stenborn’s (2018) systematic analysis and review of over 100 published papers utilizing the Community of Inquiry survey between the years of 2008 and 2017 provide support for the reliability and validity of the survey tool in examining learning experiences. Therefore, although the COI model may still be evolving, it remains a valid and reliable framework for examining the complex structures that define a student’s learning experience.

Student Achievement in OLEs

The existing literature on social presence in online instruction has largely been concentrated in postsecondary institutions. Further research in K-12 settings is needed to determine if conclusions about student achievement in online settings are generalizable to students in primary, intermediate, and secondary schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Many studies support the finding that students in online settings do not underperform or outperform students in traditional settings, based on the instructional environment alone. Richardson et al. (2014) cite evidence over years of empirical research that show no significant difference between traditional classroom instruction and online learning. More recently, McDaniel and Fraser (2016) sought to examine instructional technology and the effectiveness of online learning. They studied a sample of Texas middle school students, and used the The Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI) as a pre- and post-test. Their findings support the previous body of research indicating that there is not a significant difference in student outcomes based on an online or a face-to-face learning environment. Additional studies on perceived outcomes in online courses reveal generally positive perceptions of the efficacy of online learning (Allen et al., 2016). This provides more impetus for a focus on meaningful virtual instructional design in service of bolstering learning outcomes for students, as one can infer that outcomes are not a function of the learning environment in and of itself.

For example, Alqurashi’s (2019) research on online learning in higher education provides further support for the link between student satisfaction and self-efficacy, teacher/ student interaction, and student/content interaction. Instructors can seek to improve online self-efficacy by facilitating perceptions of performance accomplishment to build a foundation for success early in the course, as well as by providing vicarious experiences of student success, wherein students have concrete examples and are able to observe the successes of their peers, such as through exemplar work samples. In addition, teacher feedback that is timely, genuine, and constructive can help to enhance online self-efficacy. Meanwhile, the interaction of students with content can be enhanced by providing a variety of materials and opportunities for engaging with the course material.

Overall, these findings indicate that there is merit in focusing on online instructional design because effective learning environments can transcend a physical setting with appropriate planning. Conversely, a lack of training and course design could have a similarly deleterious effect on student learning if schools make a transition to online learning without proper planning and teacher training. Indeed, teacher training has emerged as a challenge in several surveys about online and blended learning (Barbour et al., 2011; Clements et al., 2015; Picciano & Seaman, 2007). Bendici (2020) emphasizes that educators must use technology to personalize learning and create engaging lessons, further underscoring the importance of teacher training.

Researching Social Presence and COI

According to the COI framework, teacher training manifests in teaching presence. Teaching presence has been found to be linked with cognitive presence, which is one construct that can support perceptions of student learning. For example, Zidiropoulou and Mavroidis (2019) set out to examine the relationship between diverse student learning styles and the three aspects of COI by using multiple tools to survey the experiences of post- graduate students who participated in distance learning courses through a Greek university. They found strong, positive correlations between social and cognitive presence, and between cognitive and teaching presence, further supporting the interconnectedness of the COI aspects. In this particular study, teaching presence was more evident, however, than social and cognitive presence. With respect to learning styles, the researchers concluded that students who lacked experience with online or distance learning appeared to prefer predetermined procedures over variety in learning modules.

Cho and Tobias (2016) cite research that failed to find a significant relationship between student interactions via online discussions, student satisfaction, and student achievement. In their experimental research study, the effects of online course discussions on student achievement and social presence were examined in a population of sophomore students for a fully online undergraduate course at a Midwestern university. While no significant differences in achievement were found between the three different groups studied, there were significant differences in the open communication and group cohesion aspects of social presence. The results help to illuminate the critical role that instructor and student interaction may have on student experiences and perceptions of being part of a learning community.

These findings support the notion that strategic design of a course is important in improving student learning experiences. Thompson et al. (2017) explored how online learning platforms can constrain versus facilitate desired behaviors and interactions. Many online courses are delivered in sequential modules via learning management systems (LMSs). A typical feature of an LMS is a discussion board for the purpose of asynchronous student discussions, which can influence the cognitive presence aspect of COI. Social presence can be more difficult to facilitate online, although synchronous chat sessions regarding course content may increase social presence and cognitive presence concurrently. Thompson et al. (2017) suggest that, to decrease the cognitive overload of a synchronous chat, students be broken up into smaller chat groups. Another tool to foster social presence is video discussion posts, although it is important to note that the data on the efficacy of such tools is still very much anecdotal. The authors recommend careful consideration of any technology tool in order to find a balance between opportunities that the tool can provide to support learning experiences while also ensuring ease of use and accessibility for students. A systematic selection process for technology tools can help educators feel assured that their use results in an enrichment of online learning.

Similarly, Fiock (2020) explains that instructors must design an online course with the multiple presences of COI in mind. For example, limited class sizes, personal pictures and profiles, welcome messages, and interactive learning activities that allow opportunity for students to share personal connections and affective experiences are elements that can facilitate social presence. Additionally, Journell (2013) suggests that teachers can facilitate social presence by setting the expectation for social interaction as a key component of the class and by providing opportunities for non-curricular social interaction and student- moderated forums. Laying the foundation for an online class as a community may also begin with student and teacher introductions, perhaps through posting videos, pictures, and/or having a face-to-face meeting at the beginning of a course when possible (Journell, 2013). Teachers can support continued interactions by creating regular opportunities for one-to-one student/teacher dialogue, video conferencing, and the establishment of regular virtual office hours (Journell, 2013). These suggestions mirror those made by Butler and Evans (2014) in support of their argument that course orientation activities and a variety of opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous interaction help to build social community and social presence.

A relationship that is less clear is the one between social presence and learning outcomes. Like Thompson et al. (2017), Lowenthal (2012) sought to examine the role of interactive discussions on student learning experiences. Lowenthal (2012) explored how social presence is evident in an online graduate class by analyzing the word counts and conducting a qualitative content analysis of course discussion board postings. The researcher also used the social presence dimension of the Community of Inquiry Questionnaire to assess student perceptions of group cohesion, communication, and affective expression. The findings appear to support the idea that social presence is a predictor of student satisfaction in online courses, but it is important to note that there is less research to demonstrate the relationship between social presence, student interaction, and student performance. This may, however, be in part a function of the weakness of self- reported survey data in accurately depicting online social presence, as the researcher takes care to point out.

Hawkins et al. (2013) used survey data to rate the quality, frequency, and type of student-teacher interaction in an online, asynchronous high school learning environment. The types of teacher interaction were classified as either procedural, feedback, or social. The researchers sought to examine the relationship between student-teacher interactions, course completion, and performance. It was hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between the interactions and course completion, as well as between interactions and course performance. However, the study only revealed a significant positive relationship between interaction and completion; no significant relationship was found between interaction and performance, although the researchers note that this could have been due to limited variation in the final grades of respondents.

Slightly contradictory findings about the complex role of student engagement and achievement emerged in a more recent study, albeit with an older and demographically different population of students. According to Im and Kang (2019), variability in achievement may also be described as a function of the extent to which students feel engaged and compelled to participate. The researchers surveyed 1,832 undergraduate students of an online university in Korea using a questionnaire specifically developed for their study. They found that participation was most strongly correlated with overall learner satisfaction, and that participation was largely impacted by perceptions of student self-efficacy. In addition, student participation did impact student achievement.

Still, the aforementioned research on social presence and student learning experiences are limited to older students and rely predominantly on self-reported survey data. Indeed, even the validity of the COI Survey has not been established with younger student populations. It is therefore difficult to extrapolate themes about social presence and perceived learning because the body of research on elementary and middle school students in OLEs is so limited. Broderson and Melluso (2017) analyzed 162 studies pertaining to online learning with the intent to identify common conclusions regarding the impact of K-12 online and/or blended learning programs on academic outcomes. Out of the initially identified studies, only 17 of them fit the criteria the researchers were looking for in their case study, and even fewer (only seven) were identified to have used a rigorous enough methodology to be included in the summary of findings.

Social and Emotional Competencies

Further complicating the understanding of social presence is the related, if not synonymous, concept of social competencies. Yu (2014) discussed social, emotional, and technical competencies as prerequisites to being successful in online learning and in reducing the attrition rate in online postsecondary courses. While some studies have not been able to establish a correlation between social presence and achievement (Hawkins et al., 2013; Lowenthal, 2012), others have shown positive relationships between social and emotional competencies and achievement (Berenson et al., 2008; Yu, 2014). Social competencies are considered to be the set of skills that help build, maintain, and manage social situations and interpersonal relationships, and emotional competencies represent the set of skills that allow one to reflect upon, identify, describe, and effectively manage one’s emotions (Yu, 2014). Picciano and Seaman (2007) reinforce the notion that social and emotional competencies are important, and use their national survey data to emphasize the importance of social and emotional development as a key component of student readiness to participate in online learning.

Even in traditional models of instruction, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that social and emotional skills have intrinsic value in the classroom because of their impact on academic, social, and emotional outcomes for students (Jones et al., 2017). An SEL framework developed by Jones identifies three classifications for SEL skills: social/ interpersonal skills, emotional processes, and cognitive processes (Jones et al., 2017). Cognitive regulation consists of goal-directed skills and behaviors. Emotional processes are the set of skills by which students can regulate, identify, understand, and express a range of emotions, while social and interpersonal skills help students navigate social interactions in a positive manner. (Jones et al., 2017). While outcome research based on SEL programs have largely been conducted in face-to-face learning environments, SEL skills, as evidenced in part by measures of emotional intelligence, have been correlated with higher GPA (Berenson et al., 2008; Yu, 2014) and improved levels of student satisfaction (Kauffman, 2015) in online classes.

Habits of Mind

Costa et al. (2020, p. 54) speak to the evolving emphasis on social and emotional skills when they contend that “a contemporary education should develop students’ understanding of conceptually big, transferable ideas and processes so that they will be equipped to apply their learning to the new (and unpredictable) challenges and opportunities they will face.” In service of this shift from an emphasis on the end result of content-area knowledge to the process by which students and teachers engage in a mutual construction of learning through the reinforcement of key social, emotional, behavioral and cognitive attributes, the Habits of Mind have emerged as a theoretical framework for outlining 16 specific dispositions within the overarching and broader conceptualization of SEL skills (Costa et al., 2020; Kallick & Costa, 2009). Costa and Kallick (2008) denote that possessing a Habit of Mind reflects the proclivity of an individual to habitually access and employ intelligent problem-solving behaviors and attitudes when faced with challenges. Thus, Habits of Mind represent an amalgamation of many skills, attitudes, and behaviors based on prior schema. Habits of Mind are based on the presumption that intelligence and skillful behaviors are malleable and acquired traits, not fixed; therefore, they require mindful and explicit instruction and practice (Atlan et al., 2017, Costa & Kallick, 2008).

The 16 Habits of Mind encompass five predominant dimensions: value, inclination, sensitivity, capability, and commitment (Costa & Kallick, 2009). Value-based habits mean that individuals can differentiate between, and subsequently select, from a repertoire of intelligent behaviors to assist them in navigating difficult tasks. Habits of inclination describe the proclivity with which individuals default to value-based habits. Sensitivity describes the ability of individuals to perceive and be aware of the appropriateness of specific behaviors. Capability habits encompass the basic skills required to employ intelligent behaviors, and commitment defines the continued effort of an individual to reinforce the continued use of mindful behaviors. Costa and Kallick’s (2000) 16 Habits of Mind are summarized in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2

1. Persisting	Demonstrating perseverance and staying focused on a task.
2. Managing Impulsivity	Being deliberative, thoughtful, and thinking before acting
3. Listening with Understanding and Empathy	Making an effort to perceive and understand someone else’s feelings and point of view
4. Thinking Flexibly	Being able to generate and consider alternative options
5. Thinking about Thinking (Metacognition)	Having awareness of one’s own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and being able to understand the effect one has on others
6. Striving for Accuracy	Consistently finding ways to check and improve work so that it meets a high standard
7. Questioning and Posing Problems	Having the disposition to frequently ask questions and identify problems to solve
8. Applying Past Knowledge to New Situations	Transferring prior knowledge to new contexts
9. Thinking and Communicating with Clarity and Precision	Striving for accurate and precise communication in speech and in writing
10. Gathering Data Through All Senses	Using the five senses to observe and perceive the world
11. Creating, Imaging, Innovating	Generating original and new ideas with fluency
12. Responding with Wonderment and Awe	Perceiving the world as mysterious and intriguing
13. Taking Responsible Risks	Trying new things in order to expand the limits of one’s competency
14. Finding Humor	Appreciating what is unexpected, whimsical, or incongruous; not taking oneself too seriously
15. Thinking Interdependently	Being able to work as part of a team; demonstrating reciprocity in group work
16. Remaining Open to Continuous Learning	Rejecting complacency and being willing to embrace what is not known in service of expanding what can be known

Habits of Mind inform pedagogical practice by making learner behaviors and dispositions a key part of the instructional framework (Kallick & Costa, 2009). Kallick and Costa (2009) emphasize that Habits of Mind should be integrated directly into the curriculum. By so doing, the explicit instruction of these habits help change the culture of learning, shifting the balance towards a more interactive and constructivist approach and away from a mechanical, industrial-era view of education. Four student outcomes are outlined within this more contemporary conceptualization of education: content, thinking skills, cognitive tasks that require skillful thinking, and Habits of Mind. These outcomes can be illustrated as nested levels of understanding about the self as well as processes and concepts that are independent of oneself. Habits of Mind represent the largest level of understanding. It is through continued and intentional reinforcement and instruction of these attributes that students can develop the cognitive tasks (i.e. strategic thinking and planning, the ability to conduct research and resolve discrepancies) that will in turn facilitate the thinking skills (i.e. analyzing, synthesizing, inferring, drawing conclusions) that, lastly, enable students to construct an understanding and acquisition of specific content (Kallick and Costa, 2009).

Figure 2.2 Nested Levels of Student Outcomes