In the context of Community of Inquiry we have learnt about the importance of establishing social presence in a course to ensure group cohesion and free communication as well as a generally safe and comfortable environment for sharing and testing out ideas [1] and having an overall good discussion climate. One theory says that it is about the ability of people to present themselves as ‘real people online’ online [2]. This probably applies online as well as offline.

What is social presence about? It can include emotional (affective) expression, open communication, and group cohesion [3]. Studies have shown that social presence has a positive effect on both student and teacher satisfaction leading to better learning outcomes [4], which is what we are looking for.

In practice, social presence can be enhanced by, for example, designing a welcoming course website, teaching in small classes [5] (difficult in law programmes), estalishing course rules including on active participation in discussion [6], and including community building group activities in classes [6].

I have been doing many of these things in my teaching, intuitively and based on my own experiences as a student, because I have very much believed in a safe classroom environment where an exchange of ideas takes place among peers. I have, for example, brought examples in lectures and seminars which are personal but not private, concerning my experiences with the application of EU law. They can be anything from troubles with exercising free movement to consumer issues. I have also made a great effort in learning the students’ names – I know this can be tricky for many – and using the names during class which is a good way of buiding trust in class. Not all students enjoy personal attention, though, which may backlash on the teacher. Overall, my students’ have shown very good learning result and their satisfaction with the courses overall has been very high as well. The few exceptions to the general rule can, however, be tough to handle.

What to look out for when designing for a high degree of social presence in a course?

Sure, one must distinguish the personal approach from being private in order to maintain a professional working atmosphere. The line is not always easy to draw in practice but ever so important. All social communication is about risk-taking but one must be aware not to invest (too much of) one’s personal self into teaching.

Some research has been carried out on university teachers’ emotional burnout, which should not be confused with stress. There are three aspects to burnout: ‘emotional exhaustion’, ‘depersonalisation’, and ‘personal accomplishment’ [7]. Emotional exhaustion is about the depletion of emotional resources [8]. Emotional exhaustion is more widespread among women whereas depersonalisation prevails among men [7] and younger staff appears more vulnerable to emotional exhaustion [7]. This all sounds quite logical. Teaching at a university is a job that involves intensive interaction with others, comparable to schoolteachers and healthcare workers [7], and is prone to having a negative impact on the wellbeing of the employees [9] due to ‘sustained emotional involvement in the workplace’ [7]. Studies have actually shown that highly engaged teachers may be experiencing emotional exhaustion at the same time [10].

With a significant increase in the general awareness of mental health issues, I think it is important to bear the limitations in mind when theorising around social presence in university teaching and perhaps developing some guidelines or best practices on how to prevent emotional burnout among university teachers. 

References

1 Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press. Chapter 1 ”Conceptual Framework” available at https://read.aupress.ca/read/teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/section/ac46044a-ecde-4fc4-846d-8c17fe8bf712.

2 Lowenthal, D. A., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). A mixed methods examination of instructor social presence in accelerated online courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9582-5.ch006

3 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

4 Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68−88.

5 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.

6 Richardson, J. C., Arbaugh, J.C. Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K. and Garrison, D.R. (2010). Using the community of inquiry framework to inform effective instructional design. Paper presented at the 2010 AECT Research Symposium: Bloomington, IN, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4614-1785-9_7

7 Watts, J. & N. Robertson (2011). Burnout in university teaching staff: a systematic literature review. Educational Research, 53(1), 33-50.

8 Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach’s dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 743–747.

9 Figley, C.R. (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder. London: Bruner-Routledge.

10 Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and Emotional Exhaustion in Teachers: Does the School Context Make a Difference?. Applied Psychology, 57, 127-151.