Downloaded 28 times
More Related Content
Similar to Asynchronous vs synchonous interraction kossivi spptx
Asynchronous vs synchonous interraction kossivi spptx
- 1. ASYNCHRONOUS VS SYNCHRONOUS INTERACTIONS Video Presentation Segla Kossivi,PhD Student: Educational Technology Walden University Fall Quarter 2013
- 2. INTRODUCTION • Pre-requisite • Interactions Instructionalcontexts • Instructor-Students • Students-students • Students-Content Current instructional applications of technology Hybrid and distance education Learning and Human Interaction
- 3. OVERVIEW Synchronous Asynchronous • Synchronous applicationsof instructional technology can be traced to the use of closed-circuit television on university campuses in the 1940s. By the 1980s, videoconferencing and interactive television connected remote classrooms, allowing students to ask questions and discuss concepts (Bernard et al, 2004). • Synchronous instruction occurs in real time and requires the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). • Synchronous communication and collaboration tools, such as synchronous text chat, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, and white boards, are increasingly important components of online learning" (National Center for Accessible Media, 2005). Asynchronous instruction has its roots in early forms of distance education such as correspondence schools (Keegan, 1996) Asynchronous instruction occurs in delayed time and does not require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Rovy & Essex, 2001; Sabau, 2005). Learning events are independently experienced by students and learning is not synchronized in time or space. • Although asynchronous voice conferencing has proven useful in some instructional contexts (Mclntosh, Braul, & Chao, 2003), text-based conferencing is widely implemented in post-secondary education (Berge, 1999; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004; Tu & Corry, 2003) and is synonymous with asynchronous online discussion (Fjermestad, Hiltz, & Zhang, 2005). • In a survey of educators, asynchronous
- 4. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS Synchronous •Useful for holding virtual office hours, team decision-making, brainstorming, community building, and dealing with technical issues"(Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). • Limitations with synchronous discussion include getting students online at the same time • Difficulty in moderating larger scale conversations • Lack of reflection time for students • Intimidation of poor typists. • Synchronous discussions are more difficult to Asynchronous • Useful for encouraging in-depth, thoughtful discussion; communicating with diverse students; holding ongoing discussions; and allowing all students to respond to a topic (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). • Offer flexibility • Asynchronous discussion provided richer, more inclusive types of interchange (Dede & Kremer 1999) • Limitations include lack of immediate feedback. Students irregular check in, and transactional distance. • Length of discussion time, and students’ sense of
- 5.
- 6. Needs For DynamicSkills Needs For Dynamic Skills Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive learning is prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane (Driscoll, Adaptive learning is prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane (Driscoll, 2005, p. 139). 2005, p. 139). Student-Instructor interaction, Student-Content interaction Student-Instructor interaction, Student-Content interaction Student-Student interaction, Feedback from peers and instructor Student-Student interaction, Feedback fro peers and instructor To provide To provide asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that simultaneously connects students to the wider affordances of the Internet (Roseth, simultaneously connected our students to the wider affordances of the Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012). internet (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012).
- 7.
- 8. REFLECTIONS instructional designers and subjectmatter experts The 21st century online learning environment should portray highquality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 2008). appropriate media and technology theories with instructional and learning theories to increase students’ interactions (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2005). THANKS FOR WATCHING
- 9. References Anderson, T. (Ed.).(2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311-329. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723162 Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence: A narrative analysis of four cases. Distance Education, 34(1), 48-63. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.770427 Moller, L., Forshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008a). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0158-5 Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008b). The Evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0179-0 Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A. (2013). Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 54-59. doi: 10.1007/s11528-013-0663-z Sauter, M., Uttal, D. H., Rapp, D. N., Downing, M., & Jona, K. (2013). Getting real: The authenticity of remote labs and simulations for science learning. Distance Education, 34(1), 37-47. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.770431 Shaltry, C., Henriksen, D., Wu, M., & Dickson, W. W. (2013). Situated learning with online portfolios, classroom websites and facebook. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 20-25. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0658-9 Shinyi, L., & Yu-Chuan, C. (2013). Distributed cognition and its antecedents in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Asian Social Science, 9(7), 107-113. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n7p107 Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Merrienboer J. V., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Strang, K. D. (2012). Empirical research: Skype synchronous interaction effectiveness in a quantitative management science course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 3-23 Terass, H. & Teras, M. (2012). Using Google tools for authentic learning and progressive inquiry in 21st century faculty development. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012. Chesapeake, VA: AACE
Editor's Notes
- #3 In all instructional contexts, including hybrid and distance education, there is an expectation that learning involves human interaction. Current instructional applications of technology provide two distinct formats for such interaction - asynchronous and synchronous (Hines & Pearl, 2004).Interaction between instructor and learners and among students is fundamental to higher education (Berge, 1999). Teacher-student, student-student, student-content interactions are prerequisite to course satisfaction to limit attrition.
- #4 Individuals traced synchronous applications of instructional technology to the use of closed-circuit television on university campuses in the 1940s. By the 1980s, video-conferencing and interactive television connected remote classrooms, allowing students to ask questions and discuss concepts (Bernard et al, 2004).Synchronous instruction occurs in real time and requires the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). "Synchronous communication and collaboration tools, such as synchronous text chat, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, and white boards, are increasingly important components of online learning" (National Center for Accessible Media, 2005). Asynchronous instruction has its roots in early forms of distance education such as correspondence schools (Keegan, 1996); "communication was truly asynchronous because of postal delays" (Bernard et al., 2004, p. 387). Although asynchronous voice conferencing has proven useful in some instructional contexts (Mclntosh, Braul, & Chao, 2003), text-based conferencing is widely implemented in post-secondary education (Berge, 1999; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004; Tu & Corry, 2003) and is synonymous with asynchronous online discussion (Fjermestad, Hiltz, & Zhang, 2005). Asynchronous instruction occurs in delayed time and does not require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Rovy & Essex, 2001; Sabau, 2005). Learning events are independently experienced by students and learning is not synchronized in time or space.
- #5 In a survey of educators, synchronous chat was reportedly useful for holding virtual office hours, team decision-making, brainstorming, community building, and dealing with technical issues" (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). However, associated limitations with synchronous discussion include getting students online at the same time, difficulty in moderating larger scale conversations, lack of reflection time for students, and intimidation of poor typists (p. 36). Asynchronous online discussion was reportedly useful for encouraging in-depth, more thoughtful discussion; communicating with temporally diverse students; holding ongoing discussions, and allowing all students to respond to a topic(Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Identified limitations associated with asynchronous discussion included; "lack of immediate feedback, students not checking in often enough, length of time necessary for discussion to mature, and students feeling a sense of isolation" (p. 36). Based on a survey of student preferences, Dede and Kremer (1999) concluded that asynchronous discussion provided "richer, more inclusive types of interchange" (p. 4), but required more time and provided less social interaction than synchronous chat.While synchronous discussions are more difficult to implement than asynchronous discussions, "they have the advantages of providing a greater sense of presence and generating spontaneity" (Mines & Pearl, 2004, p. 34).
- #7 In case of the onlinechat agenda is already set, instructors couldnote student input on areas of progress as wellas difficulty, which could be addressed separatelyupon the conclusion of the chat sessionor as part of an asynchronous discussionStudent-centered and self-regulated teaching, using online resourcesto facilitate information sharing in a networked form to promote learning.Learners show higher level cognitive Processing when they demonstrate analysis, evaluation, and creation. Dynamic skills support Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning.Adaptive learning is prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane (Driscoll, 2005, p. 139).Student-Instructor interaction, Student-Content interactionStudent-Student interaction, Feedback from peers and instructor To provide asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that simultaneously connects students to the wider affordances of the Internet (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012).
- #8 Distance education (distance teaching and learning) is evolving at a fast pace to include static (podcasts or video casts, Web pages, and text ) and dynamic (virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools) technologies (Moller, 2008). Moller (2008) argued that static technologies were efficient at broadcasting information and helping learners build their own knowledge, while dynamic technologies served as catalysts to engage learners in a deep understanding, application, and transfer of knowledge, through representation, manipulation, and reflection on what students knew. As technologies allow me to capture information in online learning environment that is more supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multipleperspectives, complex understanding and reflection than face-to-face learning environment, I could say I am moving from the middle of the spectrum, where I use wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and create new knowledge through analysis and argumentation, toward the right extreme of the continuum (dynamic technologies).
- #9 In asynchronous and synchronous environments, instructional designers and subject matter experts should develop, test, and implement incipient and appropriate media and technology theories with instructional and learning theories to increase students’ interactions (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2005). The 21st century online learning environment should portray high-quality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners’ autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 2008).