Limitations of Synchronous e-learning

The next two posts will outline some of the important contentious issues with synchronous e-learning and a few of the main benefits. After reading these posts, I hope you are better able to make an informed decision about whether the benefits out-weigh the negatives and whether to use synchronous e-learning in your classroom.

Studies that have tried to determine which e-learning style is ‘better’ (synchronous or asynchronous) have generally yielded ‘no significant differences’. Thus, it is more important to work out when, why and how to use different types of e-learning (Hrastinski, 2008). It is also important to remember that users determine how they will use each medium, so often the differences between synchronous and asynchronous e-learning is negligible. Nonetheless, it is worth looking at the positives and negatives of each to determine which style is better suited to how you like to learn and how your students learn.

I have broken down the limitations regarding synchronous e-learning into three main components: problems with technology, lack of flexibility, no time to think/reflect (quantity rather than quality).

Technology:

Anyone who has been involved in a Skype chat session will be aware of the problems that can arise: difficulty hearing, people talking over each other, line ‘dropping out’, background noise, etc. These tend to lead to halted conversations and participant frustrations (perhaps leading to a keyboard through the monitor...). It is often difficult to continue a conversation for more than five minutes. I am sure that everyone could tell similar stories about technology problems in their schools and classrooms. I lost count of the times a student ‘forgot their password’ or the system was down. Without the proper technological structures in place, e-learning – and in particular synchronous e-learning – is nearly an impossible task.

Furthermore, the advance of e-learning in developed countries inevitably increases the ‘digital divide’ which is already so apparent. The growth of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), globalization and the digital divide likewise, have together put new pressures on developing countries to accelerate their development to meet these demands (Paul T. Nleya, 2009). This puts further pressure on struggling economies and educational systems.

Lack of flexibility:

One of the major benefits of e-learning is that it allows for flexible study. You can fit study around your other responsibilities and just jump online when it best suits. E-learning has made distance education possible. For example, Open Universities Australia allows students to ‘study online and graduate with a degree from a leading Australian University. With over 90 courses & 1000 units to study, there's something for everyone’. The problem with synchronous e-learning is that it is not ‘open’ in the sense that you can do it whenever you want. As I wrote in a previous post, synchronous e-learning imitates a classroom, connecting people via streaming audio, video or text through a chat room. The difference between this and regular study is that instead of going to class, the class comes to you via your computer.

No time to think/reflect, quantity rather than quality:

The time taken to reflect and think before responding to a statement or question is severely limited in a synchronous e-learning environment. In his research, Stefan Hrastinski found that in an asynchronous e-learning environment a person’s ability to process information is greatly increased. A receiver has more time to comprehend a message because an immediate response is not required. Therefore, people have time to find some more facts and do some research. Conversely, in a synchronous e-learning community, the focus is often on quantity rather than quality. Participants often write something down quickly before someone else writes a similar thing. Synchronous tools definitely enable communication, though communication does not necessarily mean that participants stay on task.

This idea of quantity rather than quality is expressed by Yun Jeong Park and Curtis J. Bonk (2007) who has found that some researchers have expressed concerns or are openly hesitant about available synchronous tools and choice options: for instance, Marjanonic (1999, p. 131) stated that “…the majority of synchronous collaborative tools enable communication (such as textbased chat systems or video teleconferencing) rather than... collaboration.”

These are just a few of the limitations of synchronous e-learning, though research suggests that the benefits of synchronous e-learning far outweigh the negatives. I will be looking at some of the benefits in my next post.

A Constructivist Classroom

In previous posts, I wrote about synchronous e-learning and its links with constructivism and postmodern educational theories. I believe that the theory of constructivism is inherent in a synchronous e-learning environment, but I realise it is important to see these theories in practice. It is also important to use a range of technologies and resources to cater for different learning styles. So, I have picked out a couple of short YouTube clips: the first gives a visual overview of constructivism and the second is an example of a constructivist activity in a primary school class. Through these clips we should see the strength of the relationship between constructivism and synchronous e-learning.

The first clip gives a brief overview of constructivism. The clip makes it clear that constructivism is about the teacher and students working together to construct new ideas, knowledge and understanding.



I hope you can see how this also has links with postmodern theories of education. In a previous post I described how the interaction between a teacher and student, in postmodernism, should be seen as a conversation – that is – the teacher and students working together.

The second YouTube clip is an example of a constructivist activity in a primary classroom. Students are given shapes of various colours, shapes, sizes and textures that groups of students will sort. Every time a student uses a word relating to the characteristics of the objects, the teacher writes the word in the ‘yes’ column.



How is this activity constructivist? Through this activity, students will transform their prior knowledge about the properties of objects into new knowledge – they are constructing knowledge. Students not only work with their peers, they also listen and learn from them. The teacher acts as a facilitator of the discussion.

What is the relationship between this activity and synchronous e-learning? Can anyone think of a simple synchronous e-learning activity (which utilises computer/www2.0 technology) that uses similar theories/ideas to the activity in the clip? (I will post my own learning activity as a comment to this post).

Postmodernism and Synchronous e-learning

Accounts of postmodernism abound today in the literature of both general philosophy and educational theory. As a general cultural phenomenon, postmodernism has such features as the challenging of convention, the mixing of styles, tolerance of ambiguity, emphasis on diversity, acceptance (indeed celebration) of innovation and change, and stress on the constructedness of reality (Beck, 1993).

A postmodern pedagogy can be seen in a synchronous e-learning community. In postmodern thought, we (teacher and student) are involved in an interactive process of knowledge creation and are developing a ‘working understanding’ of reality and life. By drawing broader connections between phenomena (Vygotsky’s notion of interaction) and the exploration of their value implication, learning comes alive. These ideas are inherent in constructivism and a sociocultural theory of education and are inextricably linked with synchronous learning environments (refer to my last post for a more detailed discussion on constructivism). Through synchronous e-learning, students are able to interact with peers and teacher, challenge their pre-conceived notions of phenomena and seek immediate responses.

The interaction between the teacher and student (expert and non-expert) is often best seen as a ‘conversation’ in which there is mutual influence rather than simple transmission from one to the other. Clive Beck gives a summary of teacher-student interaction in a postmodern context when he writes:

We must think increasingly in terms of “teachers and students learning together,” rather than the one telling the other how to live in a “top-down” manner. This is necessary both so that the values and interests of students are taken into account, and so that the wealth of their everyday experience is made available to fellow students and to the teacher.

(Stephen made a very similar point in his last post, when he wrote that ‘engagement with the other [is] a vital aspect of the learning experience’).

There are direct links that can be made between postmodern education philosophy and computer and web-based technologies. Jean-Francois Lyotard has pointed out the extent to which students today can learn from computerised data banks, which he calls ‘the Encyclopaedia of tomorrow.’ Teachers must help students learn how to learn, using such technology. In a synchronous e-learning community, students construct knowledge in two ways: with the help of the ‘Encyclopaedia of today’ and through interaction with other members of the community. The collaborative nature of synchronous e-learning means that students are actively involved in determining what they learn and why, and thus are able to give expression to their distinctive interests and needs.

I realise that my last few posts have been heavy on theory without many practical examples. In my next post, I will use a couple of youtube clips which show the theories I have been discussing (constructivism and postmodernism) in practice.

Information about postmodernism and education has been adapted from: Clive Beck (1993), Postmodernism, Pedagogy, and Philosophy of Education.

Synchronous e-learning and Constructivism

The philosophical and educational benefits of synchronous e-learning can be justified by looking at a few experts and theories related to the aforementioned fields.

It is interesting to note that I am not the only person who has mentioned the connection between e-learning technologies and constructivism. Andrea/Martine have used Vygotsky's Social-Constructivist theory to underpin their proposal that a computer can be utlized as a useful tool to enhance student learning and social interactions. Likewise, synchronous e-learning has a focus on constructivism and its links with social interaction.

Constructivists believe that individuals must construct their own knowledge and that all knowledge is temporary (that is, each concept is considered true until further experiences allow the learner to refine it). Learners in a constructivist classroom use a ‘problem-centred’ approach and content is not studied as isolated facts but as broad concepts and interdisciplinary themes (see here for a brief introduction to constructivism). Furthermore, ‘constructivism emphasises that learning takes place in a sociocultural environment. We learn not as isolated individuals acquiring chunks of disassociated quasi-permanent truths, but as members of society’ (Kate Wilson, 2003).

The notion of constructivism and social interaction are at the heart of synchronous e-learning, where, with practice, learners become aware of themselves as members of a community. These ideas can be supported by the work of Russian psychologist, and educational theorist, Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934).

At the core of Vygotsky’s Social-Cultural Theory (an introduction to this theory can be found here), is the idea that child development is the result of the interactions between children and their social environment. These interactions include interactions between the learner and their parents, teachers, siblings and peers. There are also interactions that occur between the learner and significant objects such as books, toys and culturally significant places. Through these interactions, learners actively construct knowledge, skills, and attitudes that do not merely mirror the world around them. Though Vygotsky lived well before the development of e-learning technologies, it is clear that synchronous e-learning can be included in the list of ‘interactions’ or ‘tools’.

Stephen has suggested that asynchronous e-learning increases a person’s ability to process information which ‘may well actually contribute to the development of - both a sense and real manifestation - a learning community’. This may well be true, though it appears as though asynchronous e-learning lacks the interactive and collaborative elements that are foundational to constructivism and social interaction. The construction of knowledge in asynchronous e-learning does not occur immediately (in real-time) as it does in synchronous e-learning. Does this inhibit and slow learning?

A synchronous e-learning classroom is a constructivist classroom. Each student brings prior knowledge, developed through a complex web of interactions, with them into the learning environment. Within the synchronous community, students are able to ask questions and gather responses immediately in order to construct further knowledge. The synchronous e-learning context is one in which students play an active role in learning. Information is gathered in a collaborative manner, with the teacher working with the students to help facilitate meaning.