Materials presented a AECT 2014

1. Blending Online Synchronous
and Asynchronous Learning
Lisa C. Yamagata-lynch
University of Tennessee

2. Resources You can Access
Related to this research
 Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014). Blending Online
Asynchronous and Synchronous Learning. The
International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 15(2), 189-212.
 OIT Faculty Spotlight (2014). Retrieved October 8,
2014, from
https://oit.utk.edu/instructional/spotlight/Pages/d
efault.aspx
 Video_LiveOnline@UT. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaImS3zKMtI
&feature=youtube_gdata_player

3. Study
Background

4. Purpose
 Explore how synchronous online learning can
complement asynchronous learning in higher
education settings introducing a study about a
15-week online graduate level course
 How can the designer/instructor optimize
learning experiences for students who are
studying about online learning environments in a
blended online course relying on both
synchronous and asynchronous technologies?
 The course itself was on Online Learning
Environments so I had to practice what I preach

5. Current Trends in Online
Learning
 Discussion on pedagogically sound blended online
course design that provides an account beyond
the shortfalls of text-based chat and take
advantage of video conferencing synchronous
communications is a timely topic.
 Most conversations are about asynchronous tools
such as Palloff and Pratt (2007), Gayol (2010), and
Garrison and Cleveland-Innes (2005)
 Synchronous chat communications introduced as
an optional means to engage students in
discussions; however, there often is a caveat that
synchronous chats are likely to be ineffective
(Hrastinski, 2010, Johnson, 2006; Petty & Farinde,
2013).

6. Discussions on Synchronous
Online Learning
 While engaged in synchronous learning when
compared to asynchronous learning participants:
(a) find a stable means of communication, (b)
tend to stay on task, (c) feel a larger sense of
participation, and (d) tend to experience better
task/course completion rates (Chen & You, 2007;
Hrastinski, 2010).

7. Design Decisions
 Rely on university supported online instructional
delivery technologies and design course within
the Learning Management System—Blackboard
Discussion Boards and Blackboard Collaborate
 Course will be designed 100% online with 50%
asynchronous discussions and 50% synchronous
meetings

8. Typical Week
Based on Course Delivery
Format
 Asynchronous discussions on topic and readings
 E.g. Topic: Understanding Online Learners—Readings
focused on who are online learners and what barriers
they often encounter; Asynchronous activity involved
participants investigating details regarding induction
programs ranked in US News & World Report and share
what they find common to or not common to readings
 Synchronously during class hours after completion
of asynchronous activities
 E.g. Summery of readings and asynchronous activities
by instructor, participant breakout team activity
designing 1-day online induction program, present
breakout team progress, whole group discussion, and
participant Q&A with instructor

9. Study Methods

10. Methodological Stance
 Self-study as the instructor/designer of a course
concerned with making private privileged
teaching knowledge public through rigorous and
systematic qualitative research methods
(Loughran, 2007)
 As the designer and researcher took a
development research approach (Brown, 1992,
The Design-Based Researcher Collective, 2003)

11. Self-Study Design Question
 How can I as the designer/instructor design and
implement a learning environment relying on
both synchronous and asynchronous
technologies for participants to take an active
role in a 15-week course about Online Learning
Environments?
 First time I designed and implemented a 100% online
course equally relying on both asynchronous and
synchronous technologies, so I was struck by this
simple question.

12. Methodology
 Acted as a participant observer (Glesne, 2011) and
took a critical role in the course design and
instruction
 Primary data--student reflection papers collected
at three different times during the semester.
 I tested the guiding framework for the reflection
paper in a different study (Yamagata-Lynch, Click,
& Smaldino, 2013) where we relied on activity
systems analysis (Engeström, 1987)
 All students enrolled in the course completed
assignment, but for the purpose of this study I had
voluntary permission from 8 out of a total 13
students.

13. Participant Reflections guided
by Activity Systems Analysis
 Followed methods introduced by Yamagata-Lynch,
Click, and Smaldino (2013)
 Participants submitted guided reflections at
beginning, middle, and end of the course
 Assignment detail at:
 http://it532.lisayamagatalynch.net/632_online_learner_s
elf_reflction_guide_rubric.docx?attredirects=0
 Also reviewed anonymous participant course
evaluations
 Engaged in thematic analysis of all text based
data

14. Findings

15. Design Lessons
 Participants come to online courses with varied
participatory learning experiences, and need
time to find a new identity as an online learner
 Many students assume online learning is
asynchronous learning passive self-paced learning
 They needed activities to develop an identity
through asynchronous and synchronous interactions
to find who they are as an online learner

16. Design Lessons
 Synchronous delivery modes can provide a
stronger sense of connection among
participants, and a blended online synchronous
and asynchronous course can strengthen social
presence.
 Spontaneous environment
 Cannot be passive
 Experience a variety of communication
 Felt stronger connection to others

17. Design Lessons
 Participant experiences are greatly affected by
the designer/instructor's ability to bring a sense of
cohesion and structure in the synchronous
learning environments.
 Tension between structure and flexibility
 Meeting tools
 Ground rules
 Knowing where the course is heading
 Autonomy of not being tied to a campus location

18. Implications

19. Course Design Level
 As the number of online courses relying on synchronous
technologies rises in the future, the nature of the tension
between structure and flexibility may evolve
 What we know now from past and current research
may no longer be the status quo and online learning
environment scholars need to be willing to
conceptually change their understanding related to
synchronous online learning
 Need to identify when and how much structure within a
flexible system is appropriate for their participants
based on who the participants are, the course
schedule, the content, and the affordances of the
synchronous communication technologies

20. Program Design Level
 Using the sole perspective of a brick and
mortar institution as the primary vantage point
for addressing future developments in online
learning limits the potential transformation that
it can bring to instructor and student
experiences within universities

21. Future Questions
 How can higher education institutions provide
meaningfully structured learning experiences within
flexible online learning spaces, while not being
burdened by their historical highly structured brick
and mortar infrastructure?
 How can faculty and university support staff work
together to transform faculty into designers of
online courses and share their experiences in a
scholarly manner?
 How can both course and program level design
lessons that are discovered through developmental
research and self-studies be shared as design
knowledge based on precedents?

22. Questions?