Asynchronous online learning is individually oriented learning and is not as effective for learning as it lacks the sociability of synchronous online interaction.
An essential challenge is to critcally study the benefits and limitations of emerging types of asynchronous, synchronous, and hybrid [blended] e-learning. This will facilitate understanding of the complex task ahead - taking avantage of emerging media in ways that benefit learning (Hrastiski, 2008).
The following table, which is cut in half as it is too wide, was compiled by Hrastinski and shows when, why and how to use synchronous and asynchronous e-learning:
As this discussion has shown, when it comes to choosing an e-learning style, it is not about 'either/or'. There are times when it is most useful to use synchronous modes and times when it is best to use asynchronous modes of e-learning. I completely agree with Stephen when he wrote this in his final post: the focus of our research, practice and debate should not be which is better out of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning, but how do we design and deliver more effective e-learning so that student achievement is enhanced.
As this blog discussion has progressed, some of us may have been asking of ourselves: what exactly is the point of e-learning? It may seem at times that online learning merely, as Micah put it, ‘imitates a classroom’. To me, the word ‘imitation’ carries negative connotations. For example, the richness of real vanilla beans can never be substituted for by imitation vanilla essence. There is something egalitarian, perhaps, about imitation (it is much cheaper) but something very important is lost.
This sentiment is expressed by Leunig as a loss of soul that has occurred in new forms of online communication. Danny Katz provides his own satirical take on the loss of real human interaction through digital communication in his article titled, The Lost Art of Mouth Talking.
Now, popular culture's voracious apetitite for thrill and gimmick over skill and substance (think 20/20 v test cricket or Hollywood v Cannes) may suggest that our use of technology in the classroom acts as little more than a "powerplay" in our already exciting and engaging lessons. But my intuition tells me such a cynical view is not quite the case.
All this gets me wondering: what is it that asynchronous e-learning has to offer us as learners and educators? what makes it more than mere imitation?
Hrastinski (2008) suggests the following occasions for when asynchronous e-learning should be utilised: 1) reflecting on complex issues; 2) when synchronous meetings cannot be scheduled because of other commitments. Essentially, Hrastinski sees that asynchronous e-learning offers us a flexibility which allows for greater 'cognitive participation'. Or, using the language of constructivism that has been running through our discussion, asynchronous e-learning increases our opportunity for cognitive constructvism.
I think about my senior classes where a lot of discussion is had. In history, we talk about issues of justice, non-violence, change etc. in relation to slavery and civil rights in the United States. In ethics, we talk about euthanasia or bioethics and the many factors involved in developing an ethical stance. In many ways, it would be far better to have these discussions in an asynchronous environment such as a blog to allow a greater number of students time to reflect and then offer thoughtful, considered responses. The reality is that, in the classroom, there are fewer students who contribute to these important discussions. I am sure that both time to think and greater confidence when hidden behind a screen and keyboard would increase the number of students willing to participate.
It is for this reason that Lado believes that 'asynchronous learning gives e-learning much of its appeal'. He writes that, 'learners can engage each other when it is most convenient and a knowledge trail is left of discussions...[so] students that are trailing behind in course work still receive the benefit of being able to read discussion posts.'
The problem with synchronous e-learning is that all it really does is imitate the actual classroom. Asynchronous e-learning, however, provides a new, richerand more just learning experience for students. Asynchronous technologies have provided for truly innovative approaches to education rather than mere gimmicks.
While we are indeed individuals, we exist as part of a society and, thus, other people, it could be argued, are integral to our own “journeys” and sense of self.
Philosophy of Self and Other
Philosopher Paul Ricoeur, ‘consistently asserts the relational and dialogical nature of human existence, he rejects the fantasy of individual self-sufficiency in an acknowledgement of the realities of human interdependence’ (O’Dwyer, 2009). For Ricoeur, this dialectic between self and the other is fundamental to individual identity (thus, one is not more important than the other). In fact, in the introduction to his book, Oneself as Another, Ricoeur (1994) states that otherness ‘is not (or not merely) the result of comparison...[but] can be constitutive of selfhood’. Thus, he presents a critique of the common construction of a dichotomous relationship between self and other, which can be seen in, for example, Hegel’s master-slave dialectic or Levinas’ assertion that self can ‘can only exist in a meaningful way when it “answers” to the call of the other’ (O’Dwyer, 2009). Contrary to these polarised perspectives that require comparison and difference to be realised, Ricoeur (1994), believes that ‘selfhood of oneself implies otherness to such an intimate degree that one cannot be thought of without the other’ (emphasis mine).
Creating the social constructivist learning environment
If we are to accept Ricoeur’s conception of selfhood (which, indeed, we may not!), then we can begin to see why it is that not only is engagement with the other a vital aspect of the learning experience, but more importantly, willing encounter with the other. Thus, there is a “moral” aspect to the way in which we construct learning environments that can impact on the way our students conceive of themselves as individuals and/or as part of a community. Asynchronous e-learning provides greater opportunities for individualistic approaches to, and experiences of, learning. Yet, at this point, I need to make clear that I would not argue that asynchronous e-learning is individualistic in essence. I would merely put forward the view that there is not the constructivist philosophy built into its “DNA” as there may well be in the case of synchronous e-learning. But the point is, then, that educators need to take greater care to consider this when setting guidelines in asynchronous e-learning to ensure a positive, constructivist environment.
Micah makes the very interesting point that a ‘synchronous e-learning classroom is a constructivist classroom.’ Indeed, he suggests that synchronous learning does not merely employ the ideas and strategies of constructivism, but actually is, in essence, constructivist. This is, perhaps, the key point of difference between synchronous and asynchronous e-learning.
Firstly, we need to be clear that there are two related, but importantly different strands of constructivism: social and cognitive. While I would argue that asynchronous has no problems in adopting a cognitive constructivist approach, there may be more difficulty in creating a social constructivist environment. For the purpose of this post, I am interested in social constructivism and this is what is meant by the phrase “constructivism” from here on. Finally, I am assuming the acceptance of constructivism as a desired educational philosophy. The debate over whether it is in actual fact desirable will come later.
Individualism and Asynchronous e-Learning
There is the possibility for asynchronous e-learning to follow constructivist ideas. For example, a blog allows students to create knowledge together. However there is, inherent to asynchronous e-learning, the option to ignore the ‘Other’. Whereas synchronous e-learning is fundamentally communitarian, asynchronous e-learning provides for – perhaps even supports – the primacy of the individual over the community. In a world where the message conveyed is so often “it’s all about me”, we as educators may need to be careful that we do not unnecessarily or, indeed, unwittingly contribute to this.
Marketing professor at Monash University, Michael Morrison, is quoted by Rebecca Martin as saying that ‘While there's something like 15 million iPods out there, not one of them are the same. The iPod carries “my music”, it is “my space”’. In an asynchronous world, this customisation becomes possible. And customisation, of course, gives extraordinary power to the creator/host. I can choose to block people from being able to comment on my blog, or I can moderate comments or I can make it a “closed” site altogether. If this kind of becomes normative, it severely diminishes one’s understanding of, and commitment to, community. While we are indeed individuals, we exist as part of a society and, thus, other people, it could be argued, are integral to our own “journeys” and sense of self.
I will post again tomorrow, focusing on the relationship between the self and the 'other' and creating a social constructivist learning environment.
Micah has introduced to us synchronous e-learning. It is my task to briefly explain what is meant by asynchronous e-learning.
At the outset, I would like to make clear that, despite the seemingly dichotomous nature of this “debate”, I don’t think that synchronous and asynchronous e-learning are polar opposites as such. Rather, the terms describe differences in the mode of learning, not fundamental differences which make the two incompatible.
As Micah has pointed out, ‘Synchronous e-learning takes place in “real-time” and is therefore immediate’. Conversely, ‘Asynchronous learning occurs when the training is accessed at the learner’s convenience and can take place in different time frames and places.’ Much of the ICT use in education thus far has been asynchronous. For example, I wonder how many of us have used ‘self-paced computer-based learning via the Internet or from CDs and data streaming, audio/video, bulletin boards and e-mail’?
Many of us have experienced the benefits of asynchronous e-learning which, according to Etherington (2008), ‘lets students access prepackaged software on their own time, working at their own pace and communicating with a cyber-instructor or even other students through e-mail. In addition, asynchronous E-learning is reflected by school student’s use of the Web; practices which involve students connecting to and downloading information.’
Hrastinski (2008) suggests that asynchronous e-learning ‘increases a person’s ability to process information [because] the receiver has more time to comprehend a message because an immediate answer is not expected.’ This may well actually contribute to the development of - both a sense and real manifestation - a learning community, which contrasts with the implication in Micah's post that "community" is created with a synchronous approach.
While the benefits of flexibility will be immediately obvious to the reader/educator, I want to begin my exploration of asynchronous e-learning by considering some of the potential issues which might be of concern to the educator. My next post will focus more critically on the implicit values inherent in asynchronous e-learning.
