Bull. Hiroshima Inst. Tech. Education Vol.16（2017）1-9

ArticleThe Mediating Role of Cognitive and Social Presence on the Relationshipbetween Perceived Interaction and Satisfaction in CSCL
Yumiko ABE＊ and Yukihiro MASHIKO＊＊（Received Oct. 15, 2016）

Abstract
Cognitive presence and social presence and interaction are important factors of learning of CSCL.
This study examines the learning process of two types of CMC: text chat and video chat. Japaneseand Philippine EFL learners at the college level participated in this study. We attempted to determine how much each mode of communication impacts learning and how each application may affect language production by NNs as well as whether cognitive and social presence may stimulate
both NNs within the two modes. More speciﬁcally, the effects of cognitive and social presence on
the relationship among interaction and satisfaction were explored.
The results reveal that for text chat, cognitive presence is closely related to learning and satisfaction, whereas for video chat, the degree of social presence may be mitigated among Japanese participants, and peer interaction is a more inﬂuential predictor of student satisfaction and learning.
Key Words: CSCL, Cognitive presence, Social presence, Interaction, Satisfaction

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a

1. Introduction

pedagogical framework whereby learning occurs throughComputer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)

social interaction by means of a computer. The relevanceoffers many opportunities to improve the efficacy of Eng-of collaboration in CSCL can be traced to Vygotsky’s so-lish as a foreign language (EFL) environments. It is now

cial learning theory, which holds that peers are able towidely understood that interaction plays a key role in theteach each other, and students who have mastered a skill

process of second language (L2) learning (Long, 1985).

can support other students to achieve learning outcomes.

Text chat aids learners as they develop grammatical andLipman (1991) was influenced by Vygotsky’s social model

lexical accuracy in a new language (Yamada & Akahori,of cognitive development, which is the foundation of his2007), and makes it easier for learners to communicate

Community of Inquiry model (CoI). This concept holds

emotions via special characters called emoticons (Gu-that children’s cognitive abilities develop through interac-nawardena & Zittle, 1997). Videoconferencing reducestion with peers. The CoI framework considers three di-physical barriers while at the same time encouraging

mensions or presences: teaching, social, and cognitive

learners to use the target language (McAndrew et al.,(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001).

1996). It also enables learners to deploy non-verbal com-

‘Social presence’ is a term used to refer to learners’

munication strategies, including facial expression and ges-

perception of their sense of connection with learners andtures (Bruce, 1996). Yu, She, and Lee (2010) found that

communities throughout the learning process. Gunawar-

students in computer-supported environments improved

dena (1995) define it as “the degree to which a person islearning outcomes and retained more of what they had

perceived as ‘real’ in mediated communication” (p. 151).

learned than students in lecture/discussion environments.

Social presence has been studied for its role in online＊＊＊

Hiroshima Institute of Technology＊＊＊

Urawa University―1―Yumiko ABE and Yukihiro MASHIKO

learning experiences.

2. Literature Review

The social presence of instructors is an aspect of“teaching presence” (Anderson, et. al., 2001; Shea, Pickett

In the following section we review the existing litera-& Pelz, 2003). Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer

ture related to the issues outlined above.

(2001) defined teaching presence as design and organiza2.1 Cognitive presence and Learning outcomestion, facilitated discourse, and direct instruction. Teaching

Kanuka, Rourke, and Laflamme (2007) reported that

presence has been shown to be important in relation tocognitive presence is composed of concepts spread acrossstudent satisfaction (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
More recently, Mayne and Wu (2011) found that so-a wide spectrum of inquiry. These elements include trig-

cial presence techniques used by instructors could affectgering events, exploration, integration, and resolution.

student social presence and group interaction significantly.

Garrison (2003) insisted that cognitive presence facilitates

Swan and Shih (2005) found that instructor presence may

deeper, more effective learning. Critical thinking skills

be just as important as peer presence; however, the two

may be enhanced through cognitive presence. Cognitive

constructs may sometimes overlap. Peer interactions may

presence is an important element for higher-order thinking

compensate for inadequate interaction with instructors.

(Kanuka & Garrison, 2004), and one recent study of on-

There is a need for further investigation of these constructs

line learning have found a positive correlation between

and how they interact.

cognitive presence and learning outcomes, such as satis-

Cognitive presence refers to students’ perception offaction and achievement (Kang, 2005). If learners develop

their own understanding of the content they have learned.

ways to move themselves and others toward higher levels

It includes their awareness of the relevant informationof cognitive processing, better performance and greater

they have collected and the efforts they put into learningsatisfaction may be the result.

activities or assignments (Wang & Kang, 2006), which are
2.2 Social Presence and Learning outcomesconsidered important elements for positive learning out-

Social presence is a factor of both the medium andcomes (Kanuka & Garrison, 2004).
Cross-cultural studies have been of great interest to

the communicators’ perceptions of presence in a sequence

CMC researchers as well because of the disparate waysof interactions (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Social pres-people communicate across cultures and even across orga-

ence has been identified as a predicting variable for posi-nizations (Hofstede, 1994).

tive learning outcomes in CSCL (Wang & Kang, 2006). Its

More specifically, the effects of cognitive and social

significance is reported in the advanced studies of Richard-presence on the complex and overlapping relationships

son and Swan (2003), Swan and Shih (2005), and Jo andbetween interaction, learning outcomes, and satisfaction

Han (2010). Richardson and Swan (2003) found students’

need to be explored in cross-cultural studies, with differ-perceived social presence and its relationship to their per-ent communication modes as a variable.

ceived learning and satisfaction with course instructors

This study attempts to fill this gap in the body of re-were all highly correlated. Cobb (2011) also reported asearch on the use in English language learning by means

high correlation between social presence and satisfaction.

of CSCL. This study focuses on communication among

Therefore, we assumed that if the participants in this study

and between Japanese EFL learners and Philippine EFL

felt comfortable conversing through an online medium,

learners, investigating whether perceived interaction, cog-they would be willing to participate in another online

nitive presence, and social presence predict or influencecourse, thus leading to better working relationships, andthe outcome of two types of CSCL: text chat and video

they will enjoy learning English through this online activi-

chat.

ty.
2.3 Social Presence and Interaction

Several empirical studies have found that a high levelof interaction can motivate high social presence (Swan,
2003). Perceived interaction in these studies positively―2―

The Mediating Role of Cognitive and Social Presence on the Relationship between Perceived Interaction and Satisfaction in CSCL

correlated with social presence. Interaction is one of the2. To what extent does cognitive presence mediate the re-essential variables in CSCL, which focuses on the stu-lationship between perceived interaction and learning

dents’ experience. It can be linked to increased learning

outcomes (satisfaction) within each mode of CSCL com-achievement (Chang & Smith, 2008). Short, Williams, andmunication?

Christie (1976) claimed that social presence “varies
among different media, and it affects the nature of the in-3. To what extent does social presence mediate the rela-teraction.” Studies on the influence of perceived interac-tionship between perceived interaction and learning out-tion for each mode in a CSCL environment are needed.

comes (satisfaction) within two modes in CSCL?

We believe that the higher the sum of individual interac-

3. Methodology

tions, the higher the social presence, and thus the higher

3.1 Participants and Procedurelearner’s achievement will be.

To test our hypotheses, we recruited volunteer groups
2.4 Teaching presence and Interactionof 57 Japanese intermediate EFL university students (TOE-

Garrison, et. al. (2000) claimed that while interac-

IC 380 to 550) and 55 EFL Philippine university students

tions between participants are necessary in virtual learningin the fall of 2014. Their age ranged from 18 to 20.

environments, interactions themselves are insufficient toProcess variables were social presence, teachingguarantee positive learning outcomes. Teaching presence

presence, and cognitive presence; outcome variables were

has been shown to be important in the satisfaction andinteraction and satisfaction. More specifically the effects

success in explicitly educational communities (Garrison &of cognitive and social presence on the relationship be-

Arbaugh, 2007). Teaching presence consists of three areas

tween either interaction, or satisfaction are explored. Weof responsibility: design, facilitation, and direct instruc-attempt to determine how much each mode of communi-tion. Zhoa, Lei, and Tan (2005) reported that the degree ofcation impacts learning and how each application may af-

instructor involvement in content delivery and interaction

fect language production and interaction among NNs as

with students was crucial for effective distance education.

well as whether cognitive and social presence may stimu-

More research is needed to determine the impact of peerlate both groups of NNs within each mode.

social behavior in CSCL, considering that peer interacTable 1. Participants

tions can compensate for insufficient teacher interaction,
especially when pair work is conducted in a CSCL environment. We examined if learners who described their

Japanese

57

Philippino

55

partner involvement and support as helpful in their online
course would experience greater satisfaction, and what affect such satisfaction might have on communication and

Text chat

30

Video chat27

Text chat29

Video chat26

performance.
3.2 Measurement

Research Questions

Three survey instruments were used in this study toThis study attempts to fill this gap in the body ofmeasure teaching presence and social presence (peer), andknowledge on the use in English language learning in

cognitive presence as measured by Arbaugh, et al. (2008),

CSCL environments among Japanese EFL learners versus

Satisfaction Scale (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), and thePhilippine EFL learners. We conducted an integrated anal-

perceived interaction scale developed by Fulford andysis of major predicting variables for the outcomes of two

Zhang (1993). Responses were scored using the scale (1 =types of CSCL: text chat and video chat. Specifically, weStrongly Disagree) to (5 = Strongly Agree).
Cronbach’s Alpha yielded numbers indicative of highinvestigated the following questions:inter-correlations leading to internal consistencies: 0.94
1. Do social presence, teaching presence, cognitive pres-for Teaching Presence, 0.85 for Social Presence, 0.89 for

ence, and interaction predict the outcome of CSCL satis-

Cognitive Presence, 0.84 for Perceived Interaction, 0.85

faction within each mode of CSCL communication?

for Satisfaction, which indicates that the instruments used―3―

Yumiko ABE and Yukihiro MASHIKO

in this study provide a reliable measure for the existence

higher for all video chat group than for all text chatof a community of inquiry in online learning environ-groups, while the overall mean of Philippine learners wasments.

higher than that of all Japanese learners. In particular, theoverall means for perceived satisfaction, and perceived in-

3.3 Procedure

teraction were higher for video chat groups than for theJapanese participants were paired with a Philippine

text chat groups; while especially, social presence, cogni-

students and then divided into text chat and video chattive presence, and satisfaction were much higher for Phil-

groups. All pairs used Skype as a platform to connect toippine learners than for Japanese learners.

each other for 30 minutes per session to discuss a given
4.2 Correlation Analysis

theme. The weekly topics were provided as a general
guide for open discussion. We provided some question

In advance, a Pearson correlation analysis was con-items related to the theme beforehand to prompt more ac-ducted to examine the relationships among the variables

tive discussion. Students spent 30 minutes in discussion(social presence, teaching presence, cognitive presence,on the assigned tasks, with only the mode of discussion

satisfaction, and interaction) in each mode.

differing (i.e., text chat, or video chat). Data created by

As indicated in Table 3, the higher correlation was

pairs in each mode accumulated on the Moodle (LMS).

found between cognitive presence and interaction (r =Teachers both in Japan and in the Philippines set goals,.728, p < .05) in text chat groups. Moreover, a significant

made instructional design, gave direct instruction, andpositive relationship was also found between interaction

provided technical support during students’ exchanges.

and satisfaction (r = .651, p < .05) and between cognitive
presence and satisfaction (r = .655 p < .05). The correla-

4. Resultstion was moderate between some of the other variables (rbetween .400 and .600, all p < .05). As indicated in Table

4.1 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Scale

The mean standard deviation was evaluated for each4, the highest correlation for video chat groups was foundscale. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2.

between interaction and satisfaction (r = .708, p < .05),

The maximum score possible for each item was five. As

and a strong positive relationship was also found between

Table 2 illustrates, the overall mean for each scale wassocial presence and satisfaction (r = .645, p < .05).

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Each Scale
JPN
Social Presence

PHL

Text

Video

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

3.60

0.42

4.03

0.59

3.79

0.57

3.83

0.54

Teaching Presence

3.50

0.66

4.07

0.62

3.68

0.74

3.88

0.64

Coginitive Presence

3.66

0.40

4.06

0.61

3.85

0.51

3.87

0.59

Interaction

3.90

0.41

4.17

0.67

3.95

0.53

4.12

0.59

Satisfaction

3.80

0.41

4.12

0.49

3.90

0.45

4.02

0.50

Table 3. Correlation Analysis for Text Chat Groups (n = 59)
SocialPresence

Mean (SD)Teaching
Presence

Coginitive
Presence

Interaction

Social Presence

34.05（5.11）-

Teaching Presence

41.03（7.93）.408**-

Coginitive Presence

42.71（5.61）.448**.521**

Interaction

19.61（2.61）.485**.496**.728**-

Satisfaction

35.07（3.90）.522**.390**.655**.651***p < .05 **p < .01―4―

Satisfaction-

The Mediating Role of Cognitive and Social Presence on the Relationship between Perceived Interaction and Satisfaction in CSCL

4.3 ‌Analysis of Predictor Variables for Satisfaction

indicating that social presence explained approximately

Identifying which variables predict satisfaction in

23.4% of the variance in satisfaction.

text chat groups, multiple regression analysis was imple-

On the other hand, to identify which variables predictmented, assigning social presence, teaching presence, in-satisfaction in video chat groups, a multi-regression analy-

teraction, and cognitive presence as predictor variables,

sis was used setting social presence, teaching presence,and satisfaction as a criterion variable (see Table 5). Ac-

interaction and cognitive presence as predictor variables

cording to the results, cognitive presence (β = .350, p <while satisfaction was a criterion variable (see Table 6).

.05) was found to significantly predict satisfaction (F (5,As a result, social presence (β = .350, p < .05) was found53) = 12.513, p < .001), and predicted 35.0 % of the vari-

to significantly predict satisfaction (F (5, 45) = 15.692, p

ance in satisfaction ( p = .02); their explanatory power< .001), indicating that social presence explained approxi-

2

was approximately 53.3% (adj. R = .498). Social pres-mately 35.0 % of the variance in satisfaction; their ex-ence was significant predictors of satisfaction ( p = .037),

planatory power was approximately 62.9% (adj. R 2 =Table 4. Correlation Analysis for Video Chat Groups (n = 53)
SocialPresence

Mean (SD)Teaching
Presence

Coginitive
Presence

Social Presence

34.50（4.93）-

Teaching Presence

42.40（7.33）.547**-

Coginitive Presence

42.48（6.69）

.326*

.350*

-

Interaction

Interaction

20.73（3.02）.477**.322*.500**-

Satisfaction

36.08（4.68）.645**.432**.490**.708**

Satisfaction-*p < .05 **p < .01
Table 5. Regression Analysis of Satisfaction for Text Chat Groups (n = 59)
Sec.

Predictor
Variables

Criterion
Variables

B

SE

β

t

p

F

2
R（adj.
R2）

.179

.084

.234

2.133

.037＊

15.384＊＊.533（.498）- .019.056- .038- .333.740

Cognitive
presence

.243

.098

.350

2.473＊.017＊

Interaction

.450

.212

.301

2.122

.038＊

Socialpresence
Variables
enteredTeaching
presence

Satisfaction*p < .05 **p < .01
Table 6. Regression Analysis of Satisfaction for Video Chat Groups (n = 53)
Sec.

Predictor
Variables

Criterion
Variables

B

SE

β

t

p

F

2
R（adj.
R2）

.329

.110

.350

1.355

.004＊＊

19.515＊＊.629（.597）

.019

.070

.030

.269

.789

Cognitive
presence

.098

.076

.137

1.293

.202

Interaction

.716

.175

.457

4.100

.000＊＊

Socialpresence
Variables
enteredTeaching
presence

Satisfaction*p < .05 **p < .01―5―

Yumiko ABE and Yukihiro MASHIKO

1.00, AGFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.04. Figure 2 shows a.597).
Interaction (β = .457, p < .01) was found to signifi-

model with social presence as a mediator between interac-cantly predict satisfaction (F (5, 45) = 15.692, p < .001);

tion and satisfaction. Utilizing standardized data, interac-2tion had an effect on satisfaction ( .49), and interaction= .597). However, cognitive presence was not found to

had effect on social presence ( .48). Thus, the indirect ef-

significantly predict satisfaction ( p = .202), and explained

fect of interaction on satisfaction ( .20) via social pres-only 13.7% of the variance in satisfaction.

ence, was lower than the direct effect of interaction ( .49)

its explanatory power was approximately 62.9% (adj. R

on satisfaction. This means that social presence has a par4.4 Veriﬁcation of Mediating Effects of Social Presence

tial mediating effect on interaction and satisfaction in vid-

Between Interaction and Satisfaction

eo chat group, and that interaction was weakly related to

As in previous studies that found a positive correla-satisfaction through their effect on social presence.

tion between students’ perceptions of course-related inter-

5. Discussion and Conclusion

action and their course satisfaction (Chang & Smith,
2008; Swan, 2002), we have seen (Table 3), a significant

This study investigated whether perceived interaction,

positive relationship between interaction and satisfaction

cognitive presence, and social presence predict or influ-

in text chat groups. In addition, cognitive presence wasence the outcome of CSCL. A Pearson correlation analysis

found to significantly predict satisfaction (see Table 5).

was conducted to examine the relationship among each

Therefore, in order to test our predictions regarding thevariable. The results show a significant positive relation-

mediating effects of cognitive on satisfaction and interac-ship between interaction and satisfaction and between cog-tion, we conducted Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

nitive presence and satisfaction. For video chat, a strongly

to develop a model that represents the relationships among

significant positive relationship was found between social

interaction, satisfaction, and cognitive presence (see Fig-

presence and satisfaction. Thus the higher the sum of indi-

ure 1). To test our predictions regarding the effects of sat-

vidual interactions, the higher social presence, and theisfaction we specified the model in Figure 1. Lastly, thehigher learner’s satisfaction.

model showed an adequate goodness of fit: GFI = 1.00,

The findings showed that social presence predicts the

AGFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05. Figure 1 shows a modeloutcome of CSCL (satisfaction). Social presence predicts

having the cognitive presence as a mediator between in-learner satisfaction in CSCL for students functioning interaction and satisfaction. Utilizing standardized data, theboth of modes. Social presence explained approximately

indirect effect of interaction on satisfaction ( .28) via cog-

23.4% of the variance in satisfaction for text chat. For

nitive presence, was lower than the direct effect of inter-video chat, social presence explained approximately 35.0

action ( .38) on satisfaction.

% of the variance in satisfaction. The current findings sup-This means that cognitive presence has a mediating

port previous findings of a high correlation between social
presence and satisfaction (Cobb, 2011).

effect on interaction and satisfaction, and that interaction
was weakly related to satisfaction through their effect on

The results showed that for text chat there is a significant positive relationship between interaction and satis-

cognitive presence.
As we have seen (Table 6), social presence wasfaction and between cognitive presence and satisfaction.

found to significantly predict satisfaction in video chatRegression analysis showed that cognitive presence andgroups. In order to test our predictions regarding the me-social presence were found to significantly predict satis-

diating effects of social presence on interaction and satis-

faction. This may be because interaction via text chat pro-faction, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used tovides opportunities to receive input that learners could

develop a model that represents the relationships among

have made comprehensible. As Yamada et al. (2007) alsoInteraction, satisfaction, and social presence (see Figuresuggested, text chat aids learners as they develop gram-2).

matical and lexical accuracy in a new language. Thus it is
To test our predictions regarding the mediating ef-

so for learners in text chat groups. Text chat without time

fects of social presence, we specified the model in Figurepressure may afford more opportunities for learners to no-

2. The model showed an adequate goodness of fit: GFI =tice the linguistic forms in the input than they might have
―6―

The Mediating Role of Cognitive and Social Presence on the Relationship between Perceived Interaction and Satisfaction in CSCL

Figure 1. Results of structural equation modeling of mediating effects of social presence for text chat groups.

Figure 2. Results of structural equation modeling of mediating effects of social presence for video groups.

in video-chat spoken input. In addition, we found thatgestures of my partner, I think he is funny,” and “His ges-most of the participants in text chat groups used special

tures show that he is interested in what I’m saying.”

characters called emoticons, such as smiling, which madeAs for satisfaction, the higher score for video chatit easier for learners to communicate emotions (Gunawar-

than text chat was illustrated by the comment, “I made ac-

dena & Zittle, 1997). Emoticons impact social presence

quaintances in other parts of the country.” From the inter-by compensating for the lack of social nonverbal cues

views, regarding facial impressions, the Philippine learners(Richardson & Swan, 2003).

reported that his/her partner was having fun, and veryOn the other hand, for video chat, a strongly significant

courteous but shy or embarrassed over delays.

positive relationship was found between social presence andFrom the path presence diagram and hypothesis test-

satisfaction and between interaction and satisfaction. Re-

ing, we drew the following conclusions. For text chat, cog-

gression analysis showed that social presence significantly

nitive has a mediating effect on interaction and satisfaction.

predicted satisfaction. The results also support Cobb’s (2011)

Thus, we can say that learners using text chat developed

study that found a high correlation between social presence

ways to move themselves and their partners toward higher

and satisfaction. As Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) pointed

levels of cognitive processing. Thus, cognitive presenceout, the positive polar ends of the social indicators were: im-helped achieve successful learning and supported effective

mediate, interactive, personal, sensitive, social, and warm.

learning for learners in CSCL.

Actually video chat provides participants with a sense of

On the other hand, for video chat, social presence had

immediacy, compared with text chat. In addition, for video

a mediating effect on interaction and satisfaction; howev-

chat the participants felt more satisfied; this may be partly

er, social presence has a partial mediating effect on inter-because video chat creates a feeling of face-to-face commu-

action and satisfaction, but interaction was directly related

nication, and thus the participants could easily recognize ex-

to satisfaction. For video chat, we can say interaction is apressions of doubt, happiness and anxiety.

more essential variable in satisfaction. However, the de-From the interviews, we found that the participants

gree of social presence may be mitigated for video chat,in video chat groups employed verbal and non-verbal

partly because Japanese participants did not use non-ver-communication strategies, reporting that, “regarding thebal cues effectively. As for gestures, most of the Philippine―7―

Yumiko ABE and Yukihiro MASHIKO

learners reported that Japanese learners used a minimal

entific Research (C) from the Ministry of Education. The

number of words to convey the meaning, and that they did

authors would like to thank the students and their teachers

not use their hands as much for non-verbal communica-

in University of the Philippines.

tion.

References

Another finding of this study is that the overall meanof Philippine learners was higher than that of JapaneseAnderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W.

learners. It is thus reasonable to infer that Philippine learners(2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computerwith higher English proficiency may facilitate peer interac-

conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronoustion. It is also reasonable to infer that Philippine English

Learning Networks, 5 (2), 1-17.

learners promoted communication between themselves andArbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison,

Japanese English learners, and thus mutual understanding

D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, & Swan, K. P. ( 2008 ).

between them deepened. This inference is supported by theDeveloping a community of inquiry instrument:

facts that perceived interaction of Philippine learners was

Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry

higher and that video chat groups scored higher than text

framework using a multi-institutional sample. The

chat groups.

Internet and higher Education, 11 (3-4), 133-136.

To sum up, this study has found that in CSCL, text

Bruce, V. (1996) The role of the face in communication:chat is based on the constructivism, and cognitive pres-

Implication for videophone design, Interacting withence closely related to learning, where learners construct-

Computers, 8 (2), 166-176.

ed knowledge; whereas for video chat, social presence has

Chang, S. H. H., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness ofa partial mediating effect on learning. Video chat is based

Personal Interaction in a Learner-Centered Paradigm

more on behaviorism under time pressure, where peer in-Distance Education Class Based on Student

teraction is a more influential predictor of student satisfac-

Satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology intion and their learning.

Education, 40 (4), 407-426.

Cobb, S. C. ( 2011). Social presence, satisfaction, and

6. Limitations

perceived learning of RN-to-BSN students in webbased nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives,

The major limitations of this study are the time difference between Japan and the Philippines and PC opera-

32 (2), 115-119. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

tion. At times these issues made online communication

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perception of interaction:

imperfect. Also, it is necessary to continue to study these

The critical predictor in distance education. The

issues in light of continuing technological improvements

American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (3), 8-21.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson T., & Archer, W. (2001). Criticalto the environment and the tools of the network.
Regarding the effectiveness of synchronized CSCL,

inquiry in a text-based environment: computer

we should consider the environment in which computers

conferencing in higher education. The Internet andare used, English proficiency of learners, the Internet envi-

Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 87-105.

ronment, and the difference of satisfaction across cultures.

Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective

The results of this study were not conclusive. We need toasynchronous online learning: The role of reflective

choose the communication medium carefully, in view ofinquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne &the curriculum, network environment, language proficien-

J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education:

cy of the learner, and learners’ characteristics. More spe-

Practice and direction, the Sloan C Series (Vol. 4, pp.
29-38). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

cifically, the effects of cognitive and social presence on
the relationship between either interaction, learning out-

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching thecome, or satisfaction need to be explored in cross-culturalcommunity of inquiry framework: Review, issues, andstudies, and with different tasks in future studies.

future directions. The Internet and Higher Education,
10, 157-172.

Acknowledgements

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory andimplications for interaction collaborative learning inThis study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Sci―8―

The Mediating Role of Cognitive and Social Presence on the Relationship between Perceived Interaction and Satisfaction in CSCL

computer conferences. International Journal of

Perceived Learning and Satisfaction. Journal of

Educational Telecommunications, 1 (2-3), 147-166.

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (1), 68-88.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence

Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Pelz, W. ( 2003 ). A follow-up

as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY

mediated conferencing environment. The American

Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3), 8-26.

Networks, 7 (2), 61-80

Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and Organizations: Software

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The socialof the Mind, in R., Goodwin (Eds.), Personal

psychology of telecommunications. London: John

Relationships Across Cultures (pp. 22-36) Routledge,

Wiley and Sons.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. ( 2005 ). On the Nature andLondon.
Jo, E., & Han, A. (2010). The Effect of Social Presence on

Development of Social Presence in Online Course

Learning Flow and Learning Effects in Online

Discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Learning Community. Korean Association for

Networks, 9 (3), 115-136.

Educational Information and Media, 16 (1), 23

Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the researchKang, M. H. (2005). Cybergogy for engaged learning.

tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements

Seoul, Korea: Ewha Womans University Academic-of quality online education, practice and directionindustrial Cooperation Association.

(pp.13-45). MA: Sloan Center for Online Education

Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & E. Laflamme. ( 2007 ). The

Wang, M. J. & Kang, J. (2006). Cybergogy of engaged

influence of instructional methods on the quality oflearning through information and communication

online discussion. British Journal of Educational

technology: A framework for creating learnerTechnology 38 (2), 260-271.

engagement. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.),

Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Cognitive Presence

Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp.
225-253). New York: Springer Publishing.

in Online Learning. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 15 (2), 21-39.

Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence inLipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York:synchronous CMC- based language learning: How

Cambridge University Press.

does it affect the productive performance andLong, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition

consciousness of learning objectives? Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 20 (1), 37-65.

theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA.:Yu, W. F., She, H. C., & Lee, Y. M. (2010). The effects ofNewbury House.

web-based/non-web-based problem-solving instruction

Mayne, L. M., & Wu, Q. (2011). Creating and measuringand high/low achievement on students ’problem-

student presence in online graduate nursing courses.

solving ability and biology achievement. Innovations

Nursing Education Perspectives, 32 (2), 110-114.

in Education and Teaching International, 47 (2), 187199.

McAndrew, P., Foubister, S. P., & Mayes, T. ( 1996 ).

Zhoa, Y., Lei, J., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes theVideoconferencing in a language learning application.
Interacting with Computers, 8 (2), 207-217.

difference? A practical analysis of research on the

Richardson, J. C., Swan, K. ( 2003 ). Examining Social

effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College

Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students’―9―

Record, 107 (8), 1836-1884.