Blending synchronous asynchronous

Blending Online Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Lisa C. Yamagata-lynchUniversity of Tennessee

Resources You can Access Related to this researchYamagata-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/default.aspx

Video_LiveOnline@UT. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaImS3zKMtI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Study Background

PurposeExplore 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

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).

Discussions on Synchronous Online LearningWhile 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).

Design DecisionsRely 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

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

Study Methods

Methodological StanceSelf-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)

Self-Study Design QuestionHow 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.

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.

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_self_reflction_guide_rubric.docx?attredirects=0

Also reviewed anonymous participant course evaluations

Engaged in thematic analysis of all text based data

Findings

Design LessonsParticipants 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

Design LessonsSynchronous 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

Design LessonsParticipant 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

Implications

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

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

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?

Questions?