Social Presence Online Tutoring: A study of Peer Effect Mechanism
The purpose of this study is to analyze whether Social Presence affects students' learning completeness in distance learning? at the University of PGRI Argopuro Jember (N = 600), the assessment was measured by Grade-Point Average (GPA). Data, obtained from variables consisting of: variable composition of students, class environment and the average value of students. Previous research has stated that Social Presence affects positive attitudes that have an impact on student learning mastery. It was found that the effect of learning enthusiasm that affects learning success with a high GPA difference was found. Students with high social presence get a complete average score in all of their competencies. The results show that the effects that influence students on the composition of Social Presence and frame factors are class composition, student interaction, and teacher interaction.
Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). A Response to the Review of the Community of Inquiry Framework. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 123–135. Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). BRIDGED EDITIO A FOIt , AND EDITORS. 302. Google Scholar
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875
Bäckström, P. (2021). School composition, disruptive classroom behaviour and student results: A study of mechanisms of peer effects. Nordic Studies in Education, 41(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.23865/NSE.V41.2965
Bramoullé, Y., Djebbari, H., Fortin, B., Bramoullé, Y., Djebbari, H., Fortin, B., Effects, P., & Fortin, B. (2020). Peer Effects in Networks : a Survey To cite this version : HAL Id : halshs-02440709 Working Papers / Documents de travail Peer Effects in Networks : a Survey. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3518599
Brody, H., & Chamberlin, T. (1999). Index on censorship 4 1999 41. 41–47.
Burke, M. A., & Sass, T. R. (2013). Classroom peer effects and student achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(1), 51–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/666653
Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll Model: A 25-Year Retrospective and Prospective View. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001026
Codding, R. S., & Smyth, C. A. (2008). Using performance feedback to decrease classroom transition time and examine collateral effects on academic engagement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410802463312
Coleman, J. S. (1969). Equality of educational opportunity, reexamined. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 2(2–4), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(69)90029-9
Dollmann, J., & Rudolphi, F. (2020). Classroom composition and language skills: the role of school class and friend characteristics. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(8), 1200–1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2020.1799754
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice, Second edition. In E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice, Second Edition (Issue April 2016). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838761
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
Granero-Gallegos, A., Gómez-López, M., Baena-Extremera, A., & Martínez-Molina, M. (2020). Interaction effects of disruptive behaviour and motivation profiles with teacher competence and school satisfaction in secondary school physical education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010114
Gustafsson, J. E., Nilsen, T., & Hansen, K. Y. (2018). School characteristics moderating the relation between student socio-economic status and mathematics achievement in grade 8. Evidence from 50 countries in TIMSS 2011. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 57(September), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.09.004
Haliti, D. (2016). Communication in Learner-Centered Classrooms An explorative study of the communication patterns in two classrooms. April 2016. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25155.14887
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.741
Isriyah, M., Degeng, I. N. S., Lasan, B. B., & Muslihati. (2020). Online guidance study on the enhancement of completeness in completing the final duties of distance students. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(8), 12412–12423.
Karweit, N. (1983). Time on Task: a Research Review. Certer for Social Organization of School, 332.
Kristoffersen, J. H. G., Krægpøth, M. V., Nielsen, H. S., & Simonsen, M. (2015). Disruptive school peers and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 45(8823), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.004
Lavy, V., & Schlosser, A. (2011). Mechanisms and impacts of gender peer effects at school. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(2), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.2.1
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2007). Social presence in virtual communities of foreign language (FL) teachers. System, 35(2), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.11.002
Lowenthal, P. R. (2011). Social Presence. Social Computing, January 2009, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-984-7.ch011
Motteram, G. (2001). The role of synchronous communication in fully distance education. 17(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1787
Ojo, B., & Yemi, F. (2021). A Psychological perspective of Parent and Peer Influence during Adolescence : A Critical Review of Existing Literature. International Journal of Education and Research, 9(5), 45–54. Google Scholar
Osmont, A., Camarda, A., Habib, M., & Cassotti, M. (2021). Peers’ Choices Influence Adolescent Risk-taking Especially When Explicit Risk Information is Lacking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(2), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12611
Pedder, D. (2006). Are small classes better? Understanding relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning. Oxford Review of Education, 32(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980600645396
Rapp, S., Segolsson, M., & Aktas, V. (2017). The Director of Education and Research-Based Education : Exploring the Tensions between Policy and What Directors Actually Report. 2, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.19239/ijrev2n4p%25p
Rugutt, J., & Chemosit, C. (2005). A Study of Factors that Influence College Academic Achievement: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 5(1), 66–90. Google Scholar
Schindler Rangvid, B. (2003). Educational Peer Effects Quantile Regression Evidence from Denmark with PISA2000 data. Copenhage: Institut of Local Government Studies, 45, 41. Google Scholar
Shin, I. S., & Chung, J. Y. (2009). Class size and student achievement in the United States: A meta-analysis. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 6(2), 3–19. Google Scholar
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Skolinspektionen. (2016). Skolans arbete för att säkerställa studiero. Google Scholar
Sun, A., & Chen, X. (2016). Online education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15(2016), 157–190. https://doi.org/10.28945/3502
van Ewijk, R., & Sleegers, P. (2010). The effect of peer socioeconomic status on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.02.001
Vigdor, J., & Nechyba, T. (2004). Peer Effects in North Carolina Public Schools Jacob Vigdor and Thomas Nechyba * Duke University and NBER July 15, 2004. North. Google Scholar
Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., & Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework’ s powerful effects on learning. Educational Leadership, april, 76–79. Google Scholar
Wan, Z., Wang, Y., & Haggerty, N. (2008). Why people benefit from e-learning differently: The effects of psychological processes on e-learning outcomes. Information and Management, 45(8), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.08.003
Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2002). Introduction: peer influences on learning: where are they? International Journal of Educational Research, 37(5), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00012-0
Yildirim, Z., & Kilis, S. (2019). Posting patterns of students’ social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence in online learning. Online Learning Journal, 23(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1460
Copyright (c) 2022 Mudafiatun Isriyah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution that allows the sharing of articles published with the acknowledgement of authorship and the initial publication in this magazine.
2) The authors are authorized to make additional contracts separately for distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, publication in an institutional repository or as a chapter of the book), as long as there is recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are authorized and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (for example, in institutional repositories or on their personal pages) at any time before or during the editorial process, as it increases the impact and reference of the published work.