Video Presentation: Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Interactions

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/_kM5DBJN9Ns?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/_kM5DBJN9Ns?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Video

ASYNCHRONOUS VERSUS SYNCHRONOUS INTERACTION

Video Presentation

INTRODUCTION

In all instructional contexts, including hybrid and distance education, there is an expectation that learning involves human interaction. Current instructional applications of technology provide two distinct formats for such interaction - asynchronous and synchronous (Hines & Pearl, 2004).

Interaction between instructor and learners and among students is fundamental to higher education (Berge, 1999). Teacher-student, student-student, student-content interactions are prerequisite to course satisfaction to limit attrition.

OVERVIEW

Individuals traced synchronous applications of instructional technology to the closed-circuit television on university campus in 1940s.  By the 1980s, video-conferencing and interactive television connected remote classrooms, allowing students to ask questions and discuss concepts (Bernard et. al., 2004).  synchronous instructions occur in real time and require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004).  Synchronous communication and collaboration tools, such as synchronous text chat, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, and white boards, are increasingly important components of online learning (National Center for Accessible Media, 2005). 

Asynchronous instruction has its roots in early forms of distance education such as correspondence schools (Keegan, 1996); communication was truly asynchronous because of postal delays (Bernard et al., 2004, p. 387). Asynchronous instruction occurs in delayed time and does not require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Rovy & Essex, 2001; Sabau, 2005).  Students experienced learning events independently and learning is not synchronized in time or space. Although asynchronous voice conferencing has proven useful in some instructional contexts (Mclntosh, Braul, & Chao, 2003), text-based conferencing is widely implemented in post-secondary education (Berge, 1999; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004; Tu & Corry, 2003) and is synonymous with asynchronous online discussion (Fjermestad, Hiltz, & Zhang, 2005).

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

In a survey of educators, synchronous chat was reportedly useful for holding virtual office hours, team decision-making, brainstorming, community building, and dealing with technical issues" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with synchronous discussion included; getting students online at the same time, difficulty in moderating larger scale conversatioans lack of reflection time for students, and intimidation of poor typists (p. 36).

In a survey of educators, asynchronous online discussion was reportedly useful for encouraging in-depth, more thoughtful discussion; communicating with temporally diverse students; holding ongoing discussions where archiving is required; and allowing all students to respond to a topic" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with asynchronous discussion included; "lack of immediate feedback, students not checking in often enough, length of time necessary for discussion to mature, and students feeling a sense of isolation" (p. 36). Based on a survey of student preferences, Dede and Kremer (1999) concluded that asynchronous discussion provided "richer, more inclusive types of interchange" (p. 4), but required more time and provided less social interaction than synchronous chat. While synchronous discussions are more difficult to implement than asynchronous discussions, "they have the advantages of providing a greater sense of presence and generating spontaneity" (Mines & Pearl, 2004, p. 34).

NEEDS OF DYNAMIC SKILLS

In case of the online chat agenda is already set, instructors could note student input on areas of progress as well as difficulty, which could be addressed separately upon the conclusion of the chat session or as part of an asynchronous discussion Student-centered and self-regulated  teaching, using online resources to facilitate information sharing in a networked form to promote learning. Learners show higher -level cognitive  Processing when they demonstrate  analysis, evaluation, and creation. Dynamic skills support Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive learning is  prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane  (Driscoll, 2005, p. 139). Student-instructor interaction, student-content interaction, student-student interaction, feedback from peers and instructor  provide asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that simultaneously connects students to the wider affordances of the Internet (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012).

MOVING TOWARD DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY

Distance education (distance teaching and learning) is evolving at a fast pace to include static (podcasts or video casts, Web pages, and text ) and dynamic (virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools) technologies (Moller, 2008).  Moller (2008) argued that static technologies were efficient at broadcasting information and helping learners build their own knowledge, while dynamic technologies served as catalysts to engage learners in a deep understanding, application, and transfer of knowledge, through representation, manipulation, and reflection on what students knew.

Technologies allow individuals to capture information in online learning environment that is supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple perspectives, complex understanding and reflection than face-to-face learning environment.

REFLECTIONS

In asynchronous and synchronous environments, instructional designers and subject matter experts should develop, test, and implement incipient and appropriate media and technology theories with instructional and learning theories to increase students’ interactions (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2005).  The 21^st century online learning environment should portray high-quality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 2008).

References

Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A.  (2012).  Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education?  Distance Education, 33(3), 311-329. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723162

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R.  (2013).  The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence: A narrative analysis of four cases.  Distance Education, 34(1), 48-63.  doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.770427

Moller, L., Forshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008a).  The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web.  Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75.  doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0158-5 

Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008b).  The Evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web.  Techtrends:  Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70.  doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0179-0

Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A.  (2013).  Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar.  Techtrends:  Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 54-59.  doi: 10.1007/s11528-013-0663-z

Sauter, M., Uttal, D. H., Rapp, D. N., Downing, M., & Jona, K.  (2013).  Getting real:  The authenticity of remote labs and simulations for science learning. Distance Education, 34(1), 37-47.  doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.770431

Shaltry, C., Henriksen, D., Wu, M., & Dickson, W. W.  (2013).  Situated learning with online portfolios, classroom websites and facebook.  Techtrends:  Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 20-25.  doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0658-9

Shinyi, L., & Yu-Chuan, C. (2013).  Distributed cognition and its antecedents in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).  Asian Social Science, 9(7), 107-113.  doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n7p107

Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Merrienboer J. V., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.).  (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.).  New York:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Strang, K. D.  (2012).  Empirical research:  Skype synchronous interaction effectiveness in a quantitative management science course.  Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 3-23

Terass, H. & Teras, M.  (2012).  Using Google tools for authentic learning and progressive

inquiry in 21st century faculty development. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012. Chesapeake, VA: AACE

INTRODUCTION

In all instructional contexts, including hybrid and distance education, there is an expectation that learning involves human interaction. Current instructional applications of technology provide two distinct formats for such interaction - asynchronous and synchronous (Hines & Pearl, 2004).

Interaction between instructor and learners and among students is fundamental to higher education (Berge, 1999). Teacher-student, student-student, student-content interactions are prerequisite to course satisfaction to limit attrition.

OVERVIEW

Individuals traced synchronous applications of instructional technology to the closed-circuit television on university campus in 1940s.  By the 1980s, video-conferencing and interactive television connected remote classrooms, allowing students to ask questions and discuss concepts (Bernard et. al., 2004).  synchronous instructions occur in real time and require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004).  Synchronous communication and collaboration tools, such as synchronous text chat, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, and white boards, are increasingly important components of online learning (National Center for Accessible Media, 2005). 

Asynchronous instruction has its roots in early forms of distance education such as correspondence schools (Keegan, 1996); communication was truly asynchronous because of postal delays (Bernard et al., 2004, p. 387). Asynchronous instruction occurs in delayed time and does not require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Rovy & Essex, 2001; Sabau, 2005).  Students experienced learning events independently and learning is not synchronized in time or space.

Although asynchronous voice conferencing has proven useful in some instructional contexts (Mclntosh, Braul, & Chao, 2003), text-based conferencing is widely implemented in post-secondary education (Berge, 1999; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004; Tu & Corry, 2003) and is synonymous with asynchronous online discussion (Fjermestad, Hiltz, & Zhang, 2005).

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

In a survey of educators, synchronous chat was reportedly useful for holding virtual office hours, team decision-making, brainstorming, community building, and dealing with technical issues" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with synchronous discussion included; getting students online at the same time, difficulty in moderating larger scale conversatioans lack of reflection time for students, and intimidation of poor typists (p. 36).

In a survey of educators, asynchronous online discussion was reportedly useful for encouraging in-depth, more thoughtful discussion; communicating with temporally diverse students; holding ongoing discussions where archiving is required; and allowing all students to respond to a topic" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with asynchronous discussion included; "lack of immediate feedback, students not checking in often enough, length of time necessary for discussion to mature, and students feeling a sense of isolation" (p. 36). Based on a survey of student preferences, Dede and Kremer (1999) concluded that asynchronous discussion provided "richer, more inclusive types of interchange" (p. 4), but required more time and provided less social interaction than synchronous chat.

While synchronous discussions are more difficult to implement than asynchronous discussions, "they have the advantages of providing a greater sense of presence and generating spontaneity" (Mines & Pearl, 2004, p. 34).

NEEDS OF DYNAMIC SKILLS

In case of the online chat agenda is already set, instructors could note student input on areas of progress as well as difficulty, which could be addressed separately upon the conclusion of the chat session

or as part of an asynchronous discussion Student-centered and self-regulated  teaching, using online resources to facilitate information sharing in a networked form to promote learning. Learners show higher -level cognitive  Processing when they demonstrate  analysis, evaluation, and creation. Dynamic skills support Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive learning is  prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane  (Driscoll, 2005, p. 139). Student-instructor interaction, student-content interaction

student-student interaction, Feedback from peers and instructor to provide asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that simultaneously connects students to the wider affordances of the Internet (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012).

MOVING TOWARD DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY

Distance education (distance teaching and learning) is evolving at a fast pace to include static (podcasts or video casts, Web pages, and text ) and dynamic (virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools) technologies (Moller, 2008).  Moller (2008) argued that static technologies were efficient at broadcasting information and helping learners build their own knowledge, while dynamic technologies served as catalysts to engage learners in a deep understanding, application, and transfer of knowledge, through representation, manipulation, and reflection on what students knew.

Technologies allow individuals to capture information in online learning environment that is supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple perspectives, complex understanding and reflection than face-to-face learning environment.

REFLECTIONS

In asynchronous and synchronous environments, instructional designers and subject matter experts should develop, test, and implement incipient and appropriate media and technology theories with instructional and learning theories to increase students’ interactions (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2005).  The 21^st century online learning environment should portray high-quality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 2008).

Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Interaction

Video
Asynchronous instruction has its roots in early forms of distance education such as correspondence schools (Keegan, 1996); communication was truly asynchronous because of postal delays (Bernard et al., 2004, p. 387). Asynchronous instruction occurs in delayed time and does not require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Rovy & Essex, 2001; Sabau, 2005). Students experienced learning events independently and learning is not synchronized in time or space.
Although asynchronous voice conferencing has proven useful in some instructional contexts (Mclntosh, Braul, & Chao, 2003), text-based conferencing is widely implemented in post-secondary education (Berge, 1999; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004; Tu & Corry, 2003) and is synonymous with asynchronous online discussion (Fjermestad, Hiltz, & Zhang, 2005).
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
In a survey of educators, synchronous chat was reportedly useful for holding virtual office hours, team decision-making, brainstorming, community building, and dealing with technical issues" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with synchronous discussion included; getting students online at the same time, difficulty in moderating larger scale conversatioans lack of reflection time for students, and intimidation of poor typists (p. 36).
In a survey of educators, asynchronous online discussion was reportedly useful for encouraging in-depth, more thoughtful discussion; communicating with temporally diverse students; holding ongoing discussions where archiving is required; and allowing all students to respond to a topic" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with asynchronous discussion included; "lack of immediate feedback, students not checking in often enough, length of time necessary for discussion to mature, and students feeling a sense of isolation" (p. 36). Based on a survey of student preferences, Dede and Kremer (1999) concluded that asynchronous discussion provided "richer, more inclusive types of interchange" (p. 4), but required more time and provided less social interaction than synchronous chat.
While synchronous discussions are more difficult to implement than asynchronous discussions, "they have the advantages of providing a greater sense of presence and generating spontaneity" (Mines & Pearl, 2004, p. 34).
NEEDS OF DYNAMIC SKILLS
In case of the online chat agenda is already set, instructors could note student input on areas of progress as well as difficulty, which could be addressed separately upon the conclusion of the chat session
or as part of an asynchronous discussion Student-centered and self-regulated teaching, using online resources to facilitate information sharing in a networked form to promote learning. Learners show higher -level cognitive Processing when they demonstrate analysis, evaluation, and creation. Dynamic skills support Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive learning is prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane (Driscoll, 2005, p. 139). Student-instructor interaction, student-content interaction
student-student interaction, Feedback from peers and instructor to provide asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that simultaneously connects students to the wider affordances of the Internet (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012).
MOVING TOWARD DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGY
Distance education (distance teaching and learning) is evolving at a fast pace to include static (podcasts or video casts, Web pages, and text ) and dynamic (virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools) technologies (Moller, 2008). Moller (2008) argued that static technologies were efficient at broadcasting information and helping learners build their own knowledge, while dynamic technologies served as catalysts to engage learners in a deep understanding, application, and transfer of knowledge, through representation, manipulation, and reflection on what students knew.
Technologies allow individuals to capture information in online learning environment that is supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple perspectives, complex understanding and reflection than face-to-face learning environment.
REFLECTIONS
In asynchronous and synchronous environments, instructional designers and subject matter experts should develop, test, and implement incipient and appropriate media and technology theories with instructional and learning theories to increase students’ interactions (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2005). The 21st century online learning environment should portray high-quality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 2008).
References

Moving Toward Dynamic Technologies

Distance education (distance teaching and learning) is evolving at a fast pace to include static (podcasts or video casts, Web pages, and text ) and dynamic (virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools) technologies (Moller, 2008).  Moller (2008) argued that static technologies were efficient at broadcasting information and helping learners build their own knowledge, while dynamic technologies served as catalysts to engage learners in a deep understanding, application, and transfer of knowledge, through representation, manipulation, and reflection on what students knew.

As technologies allow me to capture information in online learning environment that is more supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple

perspectives, complex understanding and reflection than face-to-face learning environment, I could say I am moving from the middle of the spectrum, where I use wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and create new knowledge through analysis and argumentation, toward the right extreme of the continuum (dynamic technologies). Dynamic integrated technologies, in the field of educational technology, support students’ learning and assessment by connecting theory to practice about computing systems, planning and management, instructional program development, staff development, and other advanced applications of technology-based standards.  Dynamic technologies provide a learning environment that portrays high-quality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 20078).

References

Anderson, T. (Ed.).  (2008). The theory and practice of online learning.  (2nd ed.).  Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A., & Bethel, E.C.  (2009). “A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education.”  Review of eEducational Research, 79, 1243-1288.  doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844

Moller, L.  (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools.  [Unpublished Paper]

Moving Toward Dynamic Technologies

Distance education (distance teaching and learning) is evolving at a fast pace to include static (podcasts or video casts, Web pages, and text ) and dynamic (virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools) technologies (Moller, 2008).  Moller (2008) argued that static technologies were efficient at broadcasting information and helping learners build their own knowledge, while dynamic technologies served as catalysts to engage learners in a deep understanding, application, and transfer of knowledge, through representation, manipulation, and reflection on what students knew.

As technologies allow me to capture information in online learning environment that is more supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple

perspectives, complex understanding and reflection than face-to-face learning environment, I could say I am moving from the middle of the spectrum, where I use wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and create new knowledge through analysis and argumentation, toward the right extreme of the continuum (dynamic technologies).

            Dynamic integrated technologies, in the field of educational technology, support students’ learning and assessment by connecting theory to practice about computing systems, planning and management, instructional program development, staff development, and other advanced applications of technology-based standards.  Dynamic technologies provide a learning environment that portrays high-quality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 20078).

References

Anderson, T. (Ed.).  (2008). The theory and practice of online learning.  (2nd ed.).  Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A., & Bethel, E.C.  (2009). “A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education.”  Review of eEducational Research, 79, 1243-1288.  doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844

Moller, L.  (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools.  [Unpublished Paper]