Module 6

Asynchronous versus Synchronous Communication

References

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamin, R. M., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1249.

Beyth-Marom, R., Saporta, K., Caspi, A. (2005).  Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: Factors affecting students’ preferences and choices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 245-262.

Branon, R. F., Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education.  Tech Trends, 45(1), 36-37.

Cao, Q., Griffin, T. E., Bai, X. (2009). The importance of synchronous interaction for student satisfaction with course web sites. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 331-338.

Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an Online Learning Environment: What Do Teacher Education Students and Staff Think?. Australian Journal Of Teacher Education, 36(7), 1-16.

Koskinen, H. (2010). From Synchronous Face-to-Face Communication to Asynchronous Online Interaction: A Case from the Veterinary Medical Education. International Journal Of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(1), 127-137.

Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Teaching: Perspectives of Canadian High School Distance Education Teachers. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583-591.

Riordan, E., & Murray, L. (2010). A corpus-based analysis of online synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication within language teacher education. Classroom Discourse, 1(2), 181-198. doi:10.1080/19463014.2010.514728

Sherman, W. H., Crum, K. S., & Beaty, D. M. (2010). Perspectives on Distance Technology in Leadership Education: Transfer, Meaning, and Change. Journal Of Research On Leadership Education, 5(13), 589-610.

Speece, M. (2012). Learning Style, Culture and Delivery Mode in Online Distance Education. US-China Education Review A, (1a), 1-12.

Module 5: Technology and Media for Distance Education

       Distance education is progressing along the static to dynamic continuum.  In some cases, the transition appears dramatically rapid.  There are occasions when the progress is sluggish and filled with problems.

I see the value in the static activities, but look forward to the transition to several of the dynamic options.  This will require time to experiment with the tools and develop a comfort level.  There are times when this experimentation achieves immediate competency, and transfer to the classroom is seamless.  Unfortunately, there are other times when the process encounters unexpected glitches that spoil the learning experience.  In a recent attempt with a dynamic technology, the students experienced substantial frustration with numerous failed Logins and slow response time.  In testing the technology, there were no problems.  There is a huge difference between one teacher testing a concept, and multiple students logging in simultaneously. 

Each attempt at implementing a dynamic technology can suffer this fate.  This class has shown me that there are abundant resources for moving into dynamic learning opportunities.  It is not necessary to try all of them at one time.  Integrating new items into the classroom needs repetitive, but manageable, changes.  The motto is “just keep putting one foot forward”.