Date post: | 14-Jun-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | lisa-yamagata-lynch |
View: | 894 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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?