外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Brief】

Developing social presence in online classes:
a Japanese higher education context
Satchie Haga, Joshua Rappeneker
Abstract
This paper reports on research that explored two English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ experiencesdeveloping social presence in online learning at one private university in Tokyo, Japan. Qualitative data were collected
through teacher reflections and analyzed through the lens of the social presence model (Tu & McIsaac, 2002) andcultural dimension theories (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980). The paper begins with a brief background on social presence
and cultural dimension theories. The teachers will then present their reports on their efforts to develop social
presence in their online activities within the dimensions of these models. Finally a discussion presents key themes on
how technology and pedagogical activities mediated social presence online in the Japanese context. The findings
suggest that technology and pedagogical activities expanded and mediated social presence, and that social presence
is reflexive to the frequency and depth of interaction. The theoretical implications result in a proposed modification to
the social presence model to reflect a reflexive relationship rather than the one way arrow that currently depicts therelationship.
Keywords: EFL, higher education, Japan, online learning, social presence

Introduction
Social presence, “the ability of participants to identify with a group, communicate openly in atrusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of
projecting their individual personalities,”(Garrison, 2016, p. 25) is a critical component of effective
instructional design. With the rapid growth of the internet and emerging new online forms ofcommunication and learning, social presence is receiving increasing attention in education andcommunication research and has been examined both qualitatively and quantitatively (See, e.g.,
Biocca et al., 2003; Oztok & Brett, 2011; Richardson et al., 2017). Research demonstrates its influenceon student participation (Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu & McIsaac, 2002)
course satisfaction (Akyol & Garrison, 2008; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Hostetter & Busch, 2006;
Swan & Shih, 2005) and both actual and perceived learning (Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Joksimović etal., 2015).
Different students have different social preference strategies and needs (Lowenthal & Dunlap,
2018). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that perception of social presence and how it ismediated through technology can have some cultural influence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Although
there is some research that investigates cultural differences in the perception of social presence (e.g.
Lowry et al., 2010; Tu & McIsaac, 2002) the vast majority of research investigating social presence isconducted in Western educational contexts with white participants. Yet online education, andcomputer mediated forms of intercultural communication are rapidly expanding globally, not only in
education but in all industries. As such, this research examines two teachers’ attempts at developing
social presence in a Japanese online context.

174

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

Dimensions of Social Presence
Synthesizing the research on social presence in the online environment, Tu and McIsaac (2002)
conceptualized a model consisting of two components of social presence (intimacy, and immediacy)that can be broken down further into three dimensions (social context, online communication andinteractivity) (Figure 1). Intimacy refers to physical proximity (e.g. maintained eye contact, bodyleading forward, etc.), while immediacy refers to the psychological proximity that can becommunicated both verbally and nonverbally (Tu & McIsaac, 2002, p.134). This model suggests thatby improving the three central dimensions (interactivity, social context, and online communication),
intimacy and immediacy are enhanced, thus affecting social presence and consequently interaction.

Social Presence
IntimacyInteractivity

Interaction

SocialContext

OnlineCommunication

Increase

Immediacy

Figure 1. Dimensions of Social Presence

Note. Reproduced from Tu and McIsaac (2002, p.132)

Interactivity refers to the types of activities, communication style, and the degree of interaction(Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Immediacy is related to this dimension whereby faster and more frequent
feedback can positively influence student perceptions of teacher social presence (Bialowas & Steimel,2019) . The way teachers and students communicate with each other can also affect social presence(Oyarzun et al., 2018; Yildiz, 2009).
Social context consists of elements such as task orientation, topics, social relationships, andsocial processes. These elements have been found to influence the degree of social presence. For
instance, the more public and focused on a task communication is, the more social presence will
decrease (Tu & McIsaac, 2002, p.134).
Online communication refers to familiarity and comfort with the language and the attributes ofcommunication online. When students receive training and are familiar with online communication
there is an increased degree of social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Also, typing speed or concerns
about how to communicate, or the process of receiving information can affect their social presence(Tu, 2002).

Cultural Dimensions
Hofstede’s (1980; 2010) cultural dimensions theory and Hall’s (1976) intercultural communications
framework, two models widely used in extensive research across many different fields, describe
aspects of intercultural communication (Hofstede et al., 2010; Kirkman et al., 2006; Kittler et al.,2011). Although there is some overlap in the concepts, they describe a spectrum of dimensions
across cultures. Japanese are placed on the high end of the dimensions with the characteristics in175

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Dimension

High (Japan)

Power Distance -degree to which hierarchies exist and are
accepted

Hierarchies

Uncertainty Avoidance – degree of tolerance/avoidance of risk

Risk intolerantGroup vs Individual Orientation

Collectivism – group harmony,non-competitiveness prioritized

Restraint vs Indulgence

Restraint

Note. Adapted from Hoftede et al. (2010) to include dimensions focused within this study.

Table 2
Intercultural communication dimensions
Factors
Context

High (Japan)
Covert indirect messages
Non verbal codes
Reaction held
Strong in and out group distinction

Time

High commitment
Monochronic (single task orientation)Space

Private space large

Note. Adapted from Hall and Hall (1990).

Teacher Reports
This section reports on how two teachers develop online teaching activities based on thedimensions of social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002) and culture (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980)

Incorporation of Social Presence Dimensions
1. Online communication – familiarity and comfort with using technology.
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – assume no prior knowledge & step by step instructions
Every time I use a new technology or introduce a new task I assume students have no priorknowledge. Not only do I walk them through the task/tool, and do it together, I also create an
example task or question that tests their ability to do it in class so I can answer any questions
immediately before they work on a real assignment. I also have students work together in groups inbreakout rooms so that they can help each other resolve their issues.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – technology use through applied activities
In the first week of class in Advanced English (a twice a week course designed to develop
academic English skills in the first year of university) I create groups randomly, and assign them the176

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

task of creating a presentation within a single lesson. The theme is that they must explain a natural
phenomenon, such as magnetism or rainbows to an audience of elementary school children. The
requirements of the task mean that the students must learn to use Zoom to communicate, use shareddocuments such as Google docs to work on their slides simultaneously, and must be able to exchange
information with each other via the chat function of Zoom, or via email.
In the second class the students give the presentations, and then other groups take turns asking
follow-up questions. This brief task allows students to experience and overcome most of thetechnological hurdles that they will encounter during the semester, whilst working within a group.
Working in these groups also means that students have an incentive to use their cameras andmicrophones as much as possible, which I deeply encourage. Unlike Satchie above, I do not model
the use of the tools, but rather leave the students to solve the issues themselves in their groups andobserve – only stepping in to help if the students are truly ‘stuck’.
2. Interactivity—degree of interaction.
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – synchronous (real-time classes), frequency and depth of interaction
I make an effort to enhance immediacy through interactivity by conducting my classes on Zoom
synchronously (in real time) with about 75% of the time spent engaged in interactive activities inbreakout rooms. This allows students to quickly ask me questions either using the chat feature orafter class. Also, I want them to have a way to interact with each other whilst working on tasks,
including those that don’t require speaking, so I put them in breakout rooms in small groups where
they can work together with camera on or off. This way they can ask each other questions if theyneed help or contact me using the help button and I will go to their room immediately.
I also noticed that classes such as debate or discussion with frequent interaction enabled more
opportunities and deeper exploration of ideas compared to classes such as eLearning where students
interacted only a few times. This limited opportunities to develop social presence and consequently
the depth of discussions remained superficial.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – use of online discussion forums
Before the first class I have students write a brief self introduction on a ‘Getting to know you’forum. I make sure they include photos of things that interest them, and then ask each other follow
up questions. Also, each week students write their answers to discussion questions on a shared classforum, and they then reply to at least 3 other students (ideally those who have no replies yet). The
use of forums has the added benefit of ‘levelling the playfield’, so to speak. Whilst the more
extroverted and confident speakers tend to speak up more in Zoom sessions, forums (as an
asynchronous medium) allow students to compose and communicate their thoughts at their own
pace.

177

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

3. Social context—task orientation to social topics, relationships, and processes.
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – encourage student camera use, develop social relationships beyond theclassroom
In order to develop the social context I strongly encourage turning the camera on. I respect
students’ preferences to have the camera off if they do not feel comfortable, or have technical issues
that affect communication over video (e.g. poor wifi connection). However, I promote the social
benefits of using video (i.e. that it can make it easier and more comfortable for others to speak when
they can see your reaction). Prior to entering every breakout session, I remind them of the benefitsof turning on the camera. This results in the vast majority of students speaking with cameras on
during chat sessions. Like Joshua describes below I have small breakout rooms, however, I had notconsidered students not feeling comfortable with only one partner, so I often had one-on-one rooms
as I wanted them to speak more deeply with each other. The time in one-on-one rooms is limited
usually to a maximum 5 minutes like in my face-to-face classroom tasks. After reading Joshua’sreport I realized that this might cause some anxiety for some students who may be partnered withsomeone they are not comfortable with, and have since changed the instructions I provide to
students prior to entering the breakout rooms to include informing them of how long they will be in
the room for, and to remind them of the help button they can use to contact me if they would likesome assistance or feel anxious.
I also enhance the social context and reduce psychological distance by encouraging communication
outside of classes. In the first class I conduct a survey to see if they want a class LINE group. I findthat the vast majority of students want a LINE group, so I ask for a volunteer to set up a group. Thisis a group I am not a member of, but a place where they can get in touch with each other if they haveconcerns or questions outside of class, and participation is voluntary. Also I create social tasks at the
beginning of the course and during breaks where they can meet each other. These tasks are notgraded because the sole purpose is social where they meet each other to develop their social
relations. For example, I ask them to meet with 3 people in the class to interview them. I provide
them with similar interview questions used in a face-to-face class interview activity, however rather
than ask them to do it in class I ask them to arrange to meet in their own time so that they can talkas long (or as short as they wanted). Although my classes are conducted in English I do not set
language requirements in these tasks so they can communicate freely in their preferred language.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – small breakout rooms, microphones on, avoid one-on-one rooms, andlighthearted atmosphere that encourages experimentation
In breakout rooms I always strongly suggest that the students keep their cameras andmicrophones on. The reason for cameras is to maintain eye contact, or it’s Zoom equivalent. I havenoticed that students are more readily able to maintain conversational rhythms when they can see
each other. The reason for microphones being on the entire time, if feasible, is that it allows for morenatural reactions in conversation, for example laughing, gasping, etc. It’s been my experience that
this reduces the mechanical nature of Zoom discussions.
I also try to make sure to keep breakout rooms between three and four students if possible. I

178

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

avoid one-on-one rooms for the most part, because unlike a classroom, in which students are awareof the space and others around them, being in a one on one break out room can feel a little
claustrophobic. As I am unable to monitor all breakout rooms simultaneously, I think it’s safer tomake sure at least three students are in a single room. Conversely, rooms with more than four
students often end up with at least one student silent for the majority of discussions.
Drawing pictures together
Another small and somewhat silly activity I like to do in early classes is to screen share a‘whiteboard’ via Zoom and during a short interval allow students to draw doodles on the board. It has
been my experience that students quickly warmup to the task, and feel somewhat relaxed afterwards.
It has the added benefit of teaching students how to annotate shared screens when working on
projects together.
Playing Werewolf
In the first few weeks of a class I try and play the social game “One Night Werewolf” via Zoom
at least a couple of times. The game is very simple – it involves secret roles and deception, and themain purpose of the game is to discuss which of the players is potentially a werewolf. The first time I
play the game in class I explain the rules to the students, and then tell them that it’s okay to use
Japanese. Whilst the end purpose of the game is to practice English conversation, the secondary
purpose of playing is to create an entertaining atmosphere, and encourage social ties between thestudents.

Incorporation of Cultural Dimensions
Teacher 1: Satchie Haga – collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, public and private space
In terms of the cultural dimensions, I noticed how Japanese students prefer to work in groups orwith a partner. This works well with establishing social presence as they are keen to know about eachother and interact together. However, it seems due to uncertainty avoidance, fear of losing face, andfear of breaking harmony it may be difficult for them to make the first move to create a LINE groupor connect with others. Also I noticed public and private domains have different meanings forJapanese whereby public space is an area where people can communicate to develop relationships,
but also there is a risk of losing face or breaking harmony in public forums (e.g. discussion boards,
or in front of the class).
As such, I use technology to negotiate public and private space, where I collect their “true”
opinion via anonymous forms or have them speak together in breakout rooms before revealing apublic opinion to the group. For example in the debate class I would have groups discuss together
their analysis of the debate they watched prior to revealing a public group decision about theiranalysis. The objective of public social tasks (e.g. discussion boards on Blackboard) is to enhanceharmony with others (e.g. revealing similar interests).
I also noticed that online tools create public space that can be perceived as more concrete thanspace created whilst speaking with someone in person. It seems that technology enables permanenceof video or text that can mediate communication. For instance, although some students appeared to179

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

be comfortable showing their face during video discussions, they were reluctant to be recorded. In
two of my classes I started the semester using FlipGrid, but I stopped using it when two students
asked me for alternatives for posting their video to the site. They did not mind posting videos to ashared folder in Google Drive that only they and I would see, but did not want the video to be posted
where everyone in the class could see it. Even whilst working on written collaborative documents, I
noticed that students preferred to work in breakout rooms to discuss what suggestions they werethinking of adding to the text rather than editing the document through the tracked changes features
outside of class.
Teacher 2: Joshua Rappeneker – restraint, collectivistic, public versus private space, & risk intolerance
Even more so than in a physical classroom, students appear reticent to answer questions posedto the class on Zoom. Instead of singling students out who may not be comfortable answering aquestion and thus potentially alienating the student, I first have the students break out into smallrooms and discuss their answers. Upon returning from the breakout rooms, I ask students first about
their group discussion, and only then about their own opinions.
For classes with a lot of group work, after the first couple of projects I have students answer aform with two questions: ‘Who would you like to work with on the next project?’, and ‘Who would you
not like to work with on the next project?’. The answers are kept secret. I then form the projectgroups making sure everyone is in a group with at least one person they would like to work with, andwith no person they do not wish to work with. So far, I have not had an unsolvable combination of
likes and dislikes (although one student listed themselves as someone they would prefer not to workwith!) The reason I make sure to do this when teaching online is that the social cues that makeassigning groups that will work together well in person are much harder to pick up over Zoom.

Discussion
This section discusses key themes based on the findings explained above.

Technology and pedagogical activities expanded social presence and “public” space
Technology expanded social and public space by providing more locations to communicate (e.g.
discussion forums, recorded videos, collaborative online documents) and increased permanence, sothat it could be viewed over time (e.g. recordings or text based vs spoken comments). Whenconsidered in terms of social presence this can expand opportunities to develop social relationships
through increased interaction regardless of physical location and time. However, expanding
opportunities to develop social presence also results in increased tensions in terms of private versus
public face whereby there may be concerns about future problems arising out of recorded text (e.g.
misunderstanding of peer review comments) or videos made today. Thus, pedagogical activities canbe used to expand social presence through technology. However, teachers should be cognizant that
although this expansion affords benefits, it can also increase opportunities for social tensions.

Technology and pedagogical activities mediated social presence and “public” space
Technology mediated social presence and public space both positively and negatively. Sound and180

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

physical distance between people online is different from when meeting someone in person. Teachers
noticed that students were more reticent to share their opinion openly in front of a class on zoom
than a class in person. When all sound is muted the speaker is spotlighted so that both in audio andvideo they are on a more public display than if they are speaking from their seats and looking at theteacher and responding to a question. Also, reactions are muted and technical issues affectcommunication between people consequently affecting the psychological distance.
However, technology also enabled sharing opinions with reduced risk of losing public facethrough collecting private opinions efficiently and anonymously through online forms and polls. As
such pedagogical activities that incorporate this negotiation of public and private space can enhancesocial presence through encouraging more active anonymous participation. In addition, activities
spread out over time on online discussion forums appeared to enhance participation of students who
may be more reticent in speaking activities, and encouraged more depth to topics which required
more thought. As such, teachers should consider the social and psychological mediation that occurs
with the medium they choose to deliver the task.

The relationship of social presence and interaction is reflexive
This study confirms the relationship between social presence and interaction in the social
presence model (Figure 1) whereby increased social presence enhances interaction. In early online
classes students are reluctant to turn on the cameras, but after a couple of classes cameras are turnedon almost immediately when in the breakout rooms. In other words, increased social presence
affected willingness to communicate and trust, supporting previous research (e.g. Lowry et al.,2010). However, this study found that the frequency and depth of interaction also affects social
presence. The quality and extent of interaction between students affected their trust and willingness
to communicate and thus social presence. As such, we suggest the following modification (Figure 2)
to the model where the arrow indicates a reflexive relationship rather than one way flow.

Social Presence
IntimacyInteractivity

Interaction

SocialContext

OnlineCommunication

Increase

Immediacy

Figure 2. Proposed Modified Dimensions of Social Presence Model
Note. Our proposed modification to Tu & McIsaac’s (2002) model.

Conclusion
This study found that technology and pedagogical practices expand social space and mediate
communication. Social presence was enhanced online not only through increasing interactions but
also by removing face threatening barriers. Teachers can mediate the “private” and “public” views of181

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

communication through the media through which they choose to deliver activities. As teachers wemay understand our position of authority in the classroom and require our students to participate inactivities (e.g. video recordings or technology use) that may have a strong pedagogical value,
however these activities can also encroach on students’ privacy. More research that explores how tobalance privacy, pedagogy, and social presence online is recommended. Also, this research
confirmed that social presence influences interaction, however we found that the frequency anddepth of interaction also influences social presence. More research on the recursive relationshipbetween interaction and social presence is recommended. Although this research is limited to theimpressions of two Western educated English teachers, the findings may have pedagogicalimplications for those in similar contexts such as in other institutions in Japan, or other collectivist
cultures with high uncertainty avoidance and large private space, such as those in Asia and the
Middle East.

References
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an
online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teachingpresence. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 12, 3-22.
Bialowas, A., & Steimel, S. (2019). Less Is More: Use of Video to Address the Problem of Teacher
Immediacy and Presence in Online Courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 31(2), 354-364.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social
presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & virtual environments, 12(5),456-480.
Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for researchand practice. Taylor & Francis.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within acomputer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3),8-26.
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and Americans.
Yarmouth/Main: Intercultural Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5).
Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind:
intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.
Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence
and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-12.
Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence inonline discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of computerassisted learning, 31(6), 638-654.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A
review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal ofinternational business studies, 37(3), 285-320.
Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. (2011). Special Review Article: Beyond culture or beyond

182

DEVELOPING SOCIAL PRESENCE IN ONLINE CLASSES: A JAPANESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

control? Reviewing the use of Hall’s high-/low-context concept. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 11(1), 63-82.
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2018). Investigating students’ perceptions of instructional strategies
to establish social presence. Distance Education, 39(3), 281-298.
Lowry, P. B., Zhang, D., Zhou, L., & Fu, X. (2010). Effects of culture, social presence, and groupcomposition on trust in technology‐supported decision‐making groups. Information Systems
Journal, 20(3), 297-315.
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion
forums. Computers & education, 49(2), 193-213.
Oyarzun, B., Barreto, D., & Conklin, S. (2018). Instructor social presence effects on learner social
presence, achievement, and satisfaction. TechTrends, 62(6), 625-634.
Oztok, M., & Brett, C. (2011). Social presence and online learning: A review of the research.
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human
Behavior, 71, 402-417.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course
discussions. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 9(3), 115-136.
Tu, C.-H. (2002). The impacts of text-based CMC on online social presence. Journal of Interactive
online learning, 1(2), 1-24.
Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.
Yildiz, S. (2009). Social presence in the web-based classroom: Implications for interculturalcommunication. Journal of studies in international education, 13(1), 46-65.

183