Asynchronous versus Synchronous Learning Online

Fast developing computer technology has allowed many methods and tools of communication among students and between student and facilitator to emerge. ‘Minimally, these systems provide an environment in which two or more people can communicate, either synchronously (chat) or asynchronously (e-mail; discussion board).’ (van Amelsvoort 2006, pp 26)  She also goes to say that computer mediated communication has advantages and disadvantages. Students miss the non-verbal cues of face to face communication which aid in understanding. This will mean that, learners will have to be much more explicit and clear in their written communication. Within face to face communication social factors also come into play and can hinder communication, an issue which does not arise in computer mediated communication. This form of communication may be slow but it allows the learners to return to the information time and again. Writing down of ideas, thoughts and arguments also support learning.

‘Asynchronous e-learning is when communication between people does not occur simultaneously. Some examples of asynchronous e-learning include taking a self-paced course, exchanging e-mail messages with a mentor, and posting messages to a discussion group.’ (Hall 2004) 

Asynchronous discussion allows students to reflect, display evidence to support ideas, carry out close analysis and critically appraise concepts (Kennedy 2005). There is a record of the discussion and threaded communications can be viewed, to give a complete overview of the content, allowing the group an opportunity to revisit the discussion leading to transparency (Salmon 2000). The asynchronous discussions are perceived to be empowering as it allows the student to join the discussion at any time. It must be noted that students have to participate in the discussion or the tutorial will not work out. (Tolley 2000) Tolley also proposes that there is a need to initiate community building by getting students to introduce themselves. By formatting the method of introduction it allows for understanding where the student is ‘coming from’. There is a greater chance of a one to one intense tutorial with all and with the group as it takes place over time. As with face to face cohort, there are a majority who will intermittently participate, while a core will be regular participants. It is difficult to moderate when groups are very large especially as some can write long messages. (Tolley 2000) While the more student interaction, the less the need for tutor presence but there is definitely a need to ‘weave’ as suggested by Salmon (2005).

Though Williams (2006) identifies that having to wait for responses can be counterproductive as the time lapse allows the student to stray from the original focus of discussion. She also identifies difficulties in getting students to use the asynchronous discussion board within blended learning as it is very much dependent on issues like motivation, time management and IT skills. The student’s motivation can decline due to delay in response to questions or contributions as well as the fact that, their need for continuity of thought is broken. Generally the student has to have motivation (Regan 2003) and good time management skills to ensure continued participation. Most mature students are working full time so the use of a discussion board can become a lower priority, particularly in blended programmes, as they will have access to a lot of learning material allowing them to ‘get on’ with their own learning. This is especially true of individuals undertaking continuing professional development, a must in the current climate. According to Reece & Lockee (2005) asynchronous methods are useful when:

• outcomes are related to interpersonal skills development,
• behavioural or attitudinal change is required,
• skills require demonstration or application by the instructor, and
• for post-instruction purposes, such as group debriefing, assessment strategies, and evaluation data collection.

Another popular method of communication is ‘synchronous or live e-learning, means that communication occurs at the same time between individuals and information is accessed instantly. Examples of synchronous e-learning include real-time chat and video/audio conferencing.’ (Hall 2004) ‘Synchronous discussion has the advantage of the immediacy of live feedback when compared with asynchronous discussion….’ (McAllister et al 2004, pp 195) 

Use of chat room simulates the face to face discussion in that, responses are in real time allowing for thinking to be furthered simultaneously as well as fostering the community feeling. Using video conferencing allows a face to face approach despite the physical distance.  A record can be made of this ‘conversation’ in the chat room. However, the access to the record is restricted to the tutor. This can be viewed as a limitation but the transcript can be posted on to the discussion board as notes. When notes are put up, it allows for reflection and can stimulate supplementary asynchronous discussion. Haigh (2004, p 547) opines that use of IT will facilitate ‘transmission of high quality content, support of life-long learning, flexibility of access and enhanced opportunities for communication’.

Hay (2008) opines that simultaneity of dialogue is vital and this supports the idea of synchronous online learning via appropriate online learning tools. Motivation to contribute can be maintained as it is a real-time discussion, with an environment of lively debate and creativity, which needs to be sustained by skilful facilitation. It allows for the forming of a learning community which according to Havel (1999) creates a sense of belonging, unity and support, further extending and enhancing face-to-face relationships and is underpinned by Wenger’s communities of practice theory.

However there is a need for both, the students and particularly the tutor, to be fairly skilled in using a chat room facility. Students’ lack of skill can be overcome by preparation, practice, patience and encouragement. ‘This method of communication is slow in gaining popularity and the anecdotal evidence points to the lack of chat room skills on the part of the facilitator and therefore difficulty in transferring existing facilitation skills.’ (Williams 2006, pp 153)

‘The availability of learners to each other and to the tutor asynchronously as well as synchronously has the potential to overturn the emphasis on distance education as an individualised form of learning. The potential to create extensive dialogues and interchange electronically means that online teaching is often prioritising the learning group as the chief resource for learners and the focus for the tutor, rather than the needs of each individual learner, though these too can be accommodated if the pedagogical design supports that.’ (Thorpe 2002, pp 114) She cites Feenberg (1989) in identifying that lack of non-verbal cues can lead to misunderstanding and breakdown in communication.  There may be some who are reluctant to contribute or some who will try to take short cuts through the course. However, when there is purposeful sharing and interaction the group functions well and provides intrinsic rewards plus motivation. The use of interaction and learners as resources allow for formation of communities and thus improve the experience of learning for an online student.