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.
In my last post I discussed three limitations of synchronous e-learning. In this post I look at three of the main benefits: community, communication and psychological arousal. Community: Research has found that if teachers and students rely on asynchronous e-learning, students may feel isolated and not part of a community - which is ‘essential for collaboration and learning’ (Hrastinski, 2008). Synchronous e-learning does not suffer from these limitations. As synchronous e-learning more closely resembles face-to-face learning, students feel part of a learning community. Synchronous sessions help e-learners feel like participants rather than isolates: ‘Isolation can be overcome by more continued contact, particularly synchronously, and by becoming aware of themselves as members of a community rather than as isolated individuals communicating with the computer.’ (Hrastinski, 2008)
Supports other types of communication: There are three types of communication which are important for building and sustaining e-learning communities: contentrelated, planning of tasks and social support (Haythornthwaite in Hrastinski, 2008). Both synchronous and asynchronous e-learning provide avenues for content related communication and planning of tasks though synchronous e-learning far surpasses asynchronous e-learning when it comes to social support. Social support is vitally important as it creates an atmosphere of collaborative learning and increases psychological arousal (more on this later).
The importance of social support was evident in an examination of synchronous interactions in military training sessions. Researchers found that the pattern of communication was similar to a corresponding face-to-face course: on task (55%), social (30%), or technology related (15%). ‘The researchers argued that clear patterns of collaborative interaction occurred in a synchronous problem solving context. They also contended that social interactions had a positive impact on the group problem-solving behaviours’ (Park, 2007).
It could be argued that an increase in social communication could have negatives impacts, with participants focusing on quantity rather than quality (outlined in a previous post). To overcome this, Bonk and Reynolds (1997) suggest assigning different roles to each student to keep them on task. Three examples include: a starter who begins the discussion, a wrapper who summarises the discussion, and a debater who offers the pros and cons about the given topic (Park, 1997). Social support is clearly evident in the group Skype sessions for this subject, particularly at the beginning and end of the session. Questions are asked between participants that are not content related. The benefits of social support in these types of synchronous interactions are immense. One of the key benefits is that there is an increase in psychological arousal (motivation) amongst participants.
Psychological arousal: The ability to communicate in real-time, get immediate responses and, in some cases, observe facial expressions and body language (through video conferencing) contributes to psychological arousal. In asynchronous interactions however, these elements are suppressed and can lead to disengagement and a decrease in psychological arousal (Hrastinski, 2008).
Research has shed some light on the influence of the ‘psychological elements’ on e-learning students’ learning and motivation. Psychological arousal, as a result of social support, not only enhances the cognitive learning, but also creates a social climate which increases interactivity among participants (Park, 2007). The interactivity between participants is a key element of synchronous e-learning. Participants know they will get an immediate reposnse so they are more motivated to send and read messages. Learners respond quickly so as not to disrupt the conversation. Hrastinski argues that learners do this because they are more psychologically aroused.
In my last post I will summarise the main ideas of my side of the discussion.
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 thatcan 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.
Micah has written about the link between synchronous e-learning and constructivism. In my last post, I suggested that educators need to create structures which ensure that asynchronous learning adheres to social constructivism. In this post, I’d like to define more clearly social constructivism and discuss how it relates to the construction or design of e-learning.
Ernest suggests that social constructivism ‘posits that human agreement is the ultimate arbiter of what counts as justified knowledge.’ So then, social constructivism goes beyond mere cognitive constructivism in the sense that new knowledge is created and agreed upon by the community. So perhaps we can consider again Micah’s comment on the object sorting activity in his last post where he suggests that ‘students not only work with their peers, they also listen and learn from them’. Do the students agree upon the new knowledge? Implicitly, they probably do. But, to what extent does the facilitator need to ask questions that help students come to agreement on new, constructed knowledge? My guess is that agreement on new knowledge – with some level of sophistication – is more likely to happen naturally as students get older, though it cannot be a given.
Let me use blogging as an example. Students in my History class may each write their own blogs about particular historical issues (let’s say social life in Nazi Germany). Students may read each other’s blogs and find themselves thinking about new ideas. Indeed, they may even leave comments and influence each other’s thinking through debate. But have they agreed upon new knowledge?
My intuition tells me that: 1) students almost certainly construct their own new knowledge; 2) will often, implicitly, agree upon this new knowledge; 3) will rarely reflect that they have, together, constructed new knowledge without the guidance of an educator.
This guidance could manifest in a variety of ways. It may be through carefully structured questions, or it could be through careful development of learning activity guidelines and it should involve careful consideration of how the technology can be used to gain the desired results. Muniz-Solariand Coats (2009)put this another way, suggesting that a ‘system framework, an e-learning “ecosystem,” must be developed that specifies the learning system architecture for pedagogical development’ and that this “ecosystem” ‘must allow flexible, learner-centered education’.
Furthermore, Matt Rota writes that ‘highly effective asynchronous eLearning begins with understanding the roles that fall into the realm of the eLearning instructional design process’. Thus it would seem that the role of the educator is paramount to ensuring effective learning takes place in an asynchronous environment. Indeed, it would appear that constructivism does not have a ‘mind of its own’ but needs to be expertly manipulated.
Increasingly, it seems to me that a truly rich learning experience online will require a combination of synchronous and asynchronous activities. Certainly, I’m not convinced that asynchronous learning on its own provides enough opportunities to allow for shared, agreed upon, newly-constructed knowledge. Muniz-Solariand Coats (2009) affirm this when they write: ‘A need exists to incorporate real-time synchronous technologies for text, visual, and audio communication.’ Specifically, in relation to the “togetherness” of the learning experience, it may be argued that synchronous technologies work to enhance students’ sense of belonging to what may actually be deemed as a learning community (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004).
I wonder what the experiences of others have been in relation to e-learning and social constructivism. Have you found that synchronous technologies have contributed to a sense of community – learning from and with each other?
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.
