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.

Social Learning Theories: Socio-Cultural Theory

Individuals also can come together for the need to learn and form community of learners. Community of learners, according to Brown and Campione (1994) is a pedagogical model that intends to take advantage of the distributed expertise and cognitive diversity. ‘The approach is focused on adopting the goals, values, beliefs, and forms of discourse characteristic to scientific practice.’ (De Laat 2006, pp 22) Conceptual advancement is made by cultivating each member’s own expertise with the participants engaging in a self-regulated and collaborative inquiry as a group (Lehtinen et al., 1999 cited by De Laat 2006). The participants are apprentice learners, learning how to think and reason in a variety of domains (Brown, 1997). In a community of learners they try to foster support overlapping zones of proximal development that stimulates growth through mutual appropriation and negotiated meaning.

Hence socio-cultural learning theory takes into consideration that learners will achieve more with assistance from others, which according to Vygotsky (1978, and also cited by Wells 2000) is the ‘zone of proximal development’. Lave and Wenger (1991) find that there are three characteristics in relation to the interpretation of the concept of zone of proximal development. They are :

• There is a distance between the abilities of problem solving of a learner who works alone and the abilities displayed by a learner who works in collaboration or is assisted by other more experienced / knowledgeable people. The idea being that learning is increased through support and from scaffolding between learners and experts.
• There is a distance between the cultural knowledge that comes from historical contexts or events and the day-to-day experience of individuals. Here Lave and Wenger (1991) cite Hedegaard (1988) who explains that there is distance between understood knowledge, which is transmitted via instructions and active knowledge, which comes from participation and thus owned by the individual. 
• Final interpretation is from Engestrom (1987, cited by Lave and Wenger 1991) who states that there is a distance between the everyday actions of individuals and new forms of societal activity that will transform the society. The focus is on the change / transformation that will occur in the culture as individual becomes functioning members of the community.

Learning is about actively engaging in the practices of the community. This means learners will eventually become full participants in the community of practice, this in itself refines the practices of that community and the interconnectedness of communities allows the whole organisation to become more effective and valuable within the society. So learning is situated in the activity an individual carries out, when trying to become a member of a community. This according to Lave and Wenger (1991) is the central characteristic of legitimate peripheral participation, ‘a way to speak about the relations between newcomers and old-timers, and about activities, identities, artefacts, and communities of knowledge and practice’ (pp. 83).

Newcomers work with experts or old-timers in specific activities. The newcomer assists in and later carries out the activities peripheral to the central activity. The old-timers acts as a role model as well as provides explanation and guidance to the newcomer who takes on increasingly more responsibilities and finally to carry out the entire activity alone. This brings back the old idea of apprenticeship model of learning, though there is definitely more to this form of learning than just watching and copying as it ‘emphasises on comprehensive understanding involving the whole person rather than receiving a body of factual knowledge about the world; on activity in and with the world; and on the view that agent, activity, and the world mutually constitute each other’. (Lave and Wenger 1991, pp. 85)

After reading about the socio-cultural theory I can see elements that can be linked into the way a community of practice learns. These elements are related to learning from each other and learning to think with each other within synchronous online learning discussion. The community of learners are therefore just another kind of community and carry the familiar characteristics of common need, focus on sharing resources and experiences to support and scaffold learning leading to development of self and the community. Therefore the learning is individual as well as in the group. Thus the old apprenticeship model within professions have a basis within well explained learning theory.

Social Learning Theory - Communities of Practice

Wenger (1999) explains that since humans are social beings learning occurs in the social context. The experiences and activities we engage in are seen to be meaningful and allow us to participate in the world. This active participation takes place through knowing and the ‘knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises’. (Wenger 1999, pp. 4) Wenger (1998) explains learning is based on the following premises –

1. ‘We are social beings. Far from being trivially true, this fact is a central aspect of learning.
2. Knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises – such as singing in tune, discovering scientific facts, fixing machines, writing poetry, being convivial, growing up as a boy or a girl, and so forth.
3. Knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such enterprises, that is, of active engagement in the world.
4. Meaning – our ability to experience the world and our engagement with it as meaningful – is ultimately what learning is to produce.’ (pp 4)

Learning is an integral part of our life and it takes place through participation in communities. When we get placed in situations that challenge our ability to respond we seek out others who can enable us to learn and develop new practices. This allows for development of individuals and leads to their becoming fully functional members of the society in which they live. This makes it necessary to look at individuals and also the social and material environment with which they interact, as a part of their development. Learning takes place through people’s engagement in actions and interactions which is embedded in culture and history. These actions and interactions allow learning to take place and this in turn replicates and transforms the social make-up in which it occurs. (Wenger 1998)

Learning shapes the individuals through the activities of the past generations. The process also leads to change / progress in the society. To learn, the individual first has to make sense of others and then construct knowledge, which will allow him to relate to self and to his situation. The emphasis is on the interaction with others, which leads to becoming functioning members of community before internalisation of knowledge can occur. This indicates that thinking of individuals is influenced by the group. Thus people with common interest or activity will come together to form a community of practice. Within this group mediated understanding there is a merger of social and intellectual processes and a tension between the collective understanding of the group and the individuals within. 

De Laat (2006) identifies this tension as the driving force for the collective processing of the group. The example he gives is, ‘when an individual member of the group expresses his or her opinion in relation to the shared public understanding of the group, this will be based on an attempt to synthesise his or her own understanding with the public one. The other members of the group will compare this new synthesis with their own understandings of the group-accepted version and their own disagreements with it. Depending on the outcome of this process there may be further interaction and negotiation until the group accepts a new meaning or understanding.’ (pp. 16)

A community of practice according to Wenger (1998) has three dimensions which would be relevant when learning in groups is considered:

• It is a joint endeavour as understood by the members. It can be also continually renegotiated by its members.
• The members form a social entity through relationships of shared engagement.
• The members share resources that they have developed over time so that this becomes a repository which can be accessed by any group member.

The issues central to this social learning theory are related to learning in groups, having a discussion where participants describe their experiences and understanding, comment of others contributions in an effort to scaffold, collaborate and negotiate meaning. I believe this helps them to reflect and internalise meaning and build on their understanding of the concept being discussed. These have to be central in any elearning development as edcucationalists continuously endeavour to ensure that learners gain from learning with and from each other.