Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication in Distance Learning: A Review of the Literature Free

Distance learning is no longer the exception in higher education. Students now take their classes with them on their iPads, mobile phones, and other electronic devices. Instead of being required to sit in a classroom for hours at a time, many students take distance courses because of work and social schedules and prefer the flexibility of engaging in their educational experiences in settings of their preference. A major concern of distance learning is the lack of face-to-face student-student interaction and student-instructor interaction, which has led researchers to seek effective ways to keep students engaged in the distance learning environment (Jones, Morales, & Knezek, 2005; Stein, Wanstreet, Calvin, Overtoom, & Wheaton, 2005). Factors related to engagement are students’ connections to their peers and instructors, student motivation, and course outcomes, such as grades (Griffiths & Graham, 2010; Rockinson-Szapkiw & Wendt, 2015; Strang, 2013).

Asynchronous interaction has been the traditional method for engaging students in their distance education courses, but as technology has evolved, synchronous media have become

Articles for this literature review were retrieved from Midwestern State University’s Moffett Library Databases: Academic Search Complete, Article First, CINAHL Complete, EdITLib, Education Source, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection, and PsycINFO. Articles were also retrieved from the search engine Google Scholar and by searching the reference lists of relevant articles. Articles selected were peer reviewed and not limited to a date range, though the range of selected articles was between 5 and 11 years from the time this review was written. Key word searches were distance education and dialogue, asynchronous interactions, synchronous interactions, asynchronous and synchronous interactions in online education, interactions and transactional distance, and motivation in asynchronous and synchronous interactions in higher education. Approximately 70 articles were reviewed, with 24 being chosen because they related to the overall topic of the review and/or provided considerations for future research.

Historically, asynchronous interaction made up the majority of contact students had with their peers and instructors in distance education (Hrastinski, 2008). Asynchronous communication is defined as communication occurring through the use of email and discussion boards, with the instructor playing a larger role as facilitator between students (Hrastinski, 2008; Pan & Sullivan, 2005). The primary benefit of asynchronous dialogue is the flexibility it provides for anytime-anywhere elearning, which is the main convenience of online learning (Buxton, 2014; Hrastinski, 2008; Stein, Wanstreet, & Calvin, 2009). In addition, prerecorded video allowing students to view media on their own time has recently been included as another component of asynchronous interaction (Griffiths & Graham, 2010). To the contrary, synchronous technology is defined as live streaming video and/or audio with instantaneous feedback (Giesbers, Rienties, Tempelaar, & Gijselaers, 2014; McBrien, Jones, & Cheng, 2009). The goal of either type of interaction is to ensure students are engaged with the learning process so they perceive they are part of the learning process and, as a result, retain the material and feel engaged in the distance learning environment. Table 1 presents a summary of the major studies presented in this review.

Moore’s (1973) theory of transactional distance is based on the premise students experience a psychological and communications gap in the online environment. Moore posited students must interact with their peers, instructors, and the content to decrease that distance. Moore (1989) described when students interact with the content, they are having an internal dialogue where they think, discuss, and examine the content with themselves. He also noted the interaction students have with instructors is important because students gain the experience from the instructor who is the content expert. Finally, student-to-student interaction is vital because, as students interact with each other, they not only better learn the content, they learn how to navigate group dynamics. Although Moore (1989) did not address whether the interactions had to be synchronous or asynchronous, his main stipulation was any interaction must support student learning. Several studies have been conducted describing how online interactions influence students’ perceptions of transactional distance (Benton, Li, & Brown, 2014; Dammers, 2009; Falloon, 2011; Griffiths & Graham, 2010; Hutti, 2007; Pan & Sullivan, 2005; Schullo, Hibelink, Venable, & Barron, 2007).

Asynchronous Interaction. While it is clear synchronous interaction is playing a larger role in the online learning environment, asynchronous interaction still has its place in distance education. Research indicated asynchronous interactions allow students to take time to consider their thoughts, engage with the content more deeply, feel a part of the learning community, and post more reflective comments in discussion boards (Hrastinski, 2008; Stein et al., 2009). Hrastinski (2008) reported being able to contemplate the content before responding in discussion boards increased cognitive engagement with the content, especially when the content was difficult. However, many respondents did not feel as though they were completely part of the learning community. Stein et al. (2009) also reported participants believed taking the time to reflect on their own ideas as well as their peers’ allowed them to interact more deeply with the content.

Buxton (2014) conducted a study of two groups of 41 pharmacy students: one group was enrolled in an asynchronous online course, and the other was enrolled in a synchronous live webinar course. He reported statistically significant findings relating satisfaction of the participants in the asynchronous course to the course meeting their needs (4.8, p < 0.05). Although participants were not specifically asked if they missed the live interaction, participants clearly indicated they did learn the material and were very satisfied with the asynchronous nature of the course. The results of these studies indicate the interaction experienced by the learners led to learning and, subsequently, a decrease in transactional distance and feeling more connected to the course; these findings provide support for Moore’s (1973) theory.

Griffiths and Graham (2010) conducted three different case studies among instructors and students in two different online courses using asynchronous video to determine perceptions of immediacy and closeness using this format. The researchers interviewed students during each of the semesters the courses were offered and concluded the asynchronous format of the videos allowed students to feel very connected to the instructors. Students reported satisfaction with the feedback provided and believed the instructor offering the feedback cared about them. Instructors perceived students to engage with the content more deeply when students were able to take time to reflect before recording their video submission. One instructor reported s/he could even perceive the level of students’ understanding of the material by examining students’ facial cues and voice inflections. These results seem to provide support for Moore’s (1973) theory: when students believe they have learned the material, transactional distance decreases.

Synchronous Interaction. Synchronous interaction is becoming a more integral part of communication among students and between students and their instructors. Through the advancement of technology, asynchronous communication is no longer the only method of linking students in an online classroom. Researchers have continued to investigate the use of synchronous technology to determine if these types of interaction are more beneficial than asynchronous interactions in the online learning environment (Giesbers et al., 2014; McBrien et al., 2009; Rockinson-Szapkiw & Wendt, 2015). Research in distance learning has suggested students view synchronous interactions positively because of instantaneous feedback, being able to see their classmates, and because they report feeling more engaged in the online experience (Falloon, 2011; Hrastinski, 2008; Stein et al., 2009; Strang, 2013). No matter what technology is used, one particular issue with synchronous interactions is potential student scheduling conflicts with the live meeting times. These conflicts could lead to frustration with the online environment and, therefore, lead to less satisfaction and feeling disconnected from the learning environment (Chundur & Prakash, 2009; Falloon, 2011; Hrastinski, 2008).

Hrastinski (2008) conducted a study of 27 students to examine differences in perception about asynchronous and synchronous interactions. Participants offered insight that the synchronous interactions felt more like talking, and students engaged more with their peers. In addition to improved social interactions with their peers, students also reported an advantage of synchronous interactions was the ability to monitor classmates’ reactions during discussions, which led to psychological arousal (motivation) to continue engaging with their peers.

As has been demonstrated through various research studies, results suggest students appreciate the synchronous interaction of online learning and feel a connection to peers and instructors. Students appreciate receiving instantaneous feedback, are able to observe visual cues from peers, and report they feel a very social connection in their online courses. All of these positive results lead to students feeling a decrease in transactional distance; in other words, they do not necessarily need to be in the physical presence of other students to learn and feel a sense of accomplishment, again providing support for Moore’s (1973) theory.

Combining Synchronous and Asynchronous Interaction. Asynchronous and synchronous interactions can be used concurrently, but students have not always reported positive outcomes. McBrien et al. (2009) reported 9% of participants (n = 62) became frustrated when trying to listen to the audio, type responses, and view the PowerPoint presentations. The researchers concluded the frustrated students did not feel as connected to the course, and their sense of transactional distance increased. Participants also reported feelings of frustration when they experienced technical difficulties and recommended instructors in online learning consider offering training with the synchronous platform before the class started. Pan and Sullivan (2005) also suggested providing technical training with an added caution to instructors not to make the assumption all students are proficient, or even familiar, with online learning platforms and other live streaming programs. These findings are important, as students’ feelings of becoming overwhelmed and frustrated may lead to an increase in transactional distance in online learning. As discussed, both asynchronous and synchronous interactions keep students engaged in the online setting. When students are engaged, course outcomes, such as learning, grades, and satisfaction, tend to also improve.

Course outcomes may be described in terms of perceived learning, grades, and satisfaction with the learning experience. These factors have all been examined in the literature as related to distance learning, and these findings, while not always statistically significant, can provide educators who teach online courses with important information about using each form to enhance course outcomes. Some researchers have specifically examined asynchronous and synchronous interactions in terms of connectedness and how this connectedness translates to final group project grades, final exam grades, and final course grades.

Final Project Grades. Two different studies reported on graduate students’ interactions and their relation to final course grades. Strang (2013) studied a total of 81 students in two different groups (n = 38 in the control group [asynchronous] and n = 42 in the test group [synchronous]). After controlling for such influences as course content, instructor, course requirements, prior ability, identical meeting times, team abilities, and randomized treatment groups, Strang (2013) concluded the synchronous group collaborated more in-depth and achieved a higher final project grade. The result was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Final Exam Grades.Strang’s (2013) study strengthened the results presented by Duncan, Kenworthy, and McNamara (2012), who studied 272 graduate students enrolled in an online accounting program to determine if participation in synchronous and asynchronous forums led to higher final exam scores and higher overall course grades. Overall, when quality increased in both synchronous and asynchronous forums, final exam score increased; alternately, Duncan et al. (2012) reported higher numbers of interaction between students led to decreases in the final exam scores because many of the discussions were not related to course content. Analysis of synchronous and asynchronous interactions separately on overall course grade revealed a statistical significance (at the 5% and 10% confidence levels, respectively), with a higher statistical significance with synchronous interaction. Finally, the quality of both synchronous and asynchronous interactions was positively related to final exam and overall course scores but significantly related only to the final course scores (p < 0.05; p = 0.029).

Final Course Grades.Rockinson-Szapkiw and Wendt (2015) conducted a study of 109 graduate students to determine if either synchronous or asynchronous interaction had an effect on assignment points. Following statistical testing, the researchers concluded synchronous interaction resulted in more collaboration and a higher final grade than asynchronous interaction. Although they reached similar conclusions as Strang (2013), their findings were not statistically significant, as they reported only a small effect size, as defined by Cohen’s threshold (small effect size is .01; partial η² = 0.04).

Perceived Satisfaction With Interaction Formats. A few assumptions were presented relating to why synchronous interaction led to higher final course grades. Rockinson-Szapkiw and Wendt (2015) concluded the richness of synchronous technologies enhance the learning environment by decreasing cognitive load and lessening ambiguity. Pan and Sullivan (2005) reported similar positive outcomes with Skype as a learning platform; even though this study was conducted when the concept of Skype was relatively new, students reported this type of interaction enhanced interaction and allowed students to receive immediate feedback, receive reinforcement for important concepts, and develop a working relationship with members of the class through what the authors deemed a high-tech, high touch learning platform.

Although previous studies suggested the richness of synchronous interactions, other studies discussed problems related to synchronous interactions in the online classroom. Chundur and Prakash (2009) conducted a case study of 22 students to compare asynchronous and synchronous forms of interaction, and their findings contradicted previous research. Chundur and Prakash (2009) reported approximately 23% of respondents felt asynchronous interaction such as e-mail and discussion boards were useful and increased their learning outcomes. Only 42% felt the same way about the synchronous meetings because scheduling issues prevented many students from attending the live sessions. These findings were similar to Mabrito (2006), who reported synchronous interactions were more unfocused and did not relate as much to course content while asynchronous interactions typically revealed deeper content discussions. Surprisingly, 16 participants felt their asynchronous discussions were valued more in terms of content participation (75%), students preferred the synchronous interactions (100%), and results suggest students interacted more with each other through those interactions.

Much research has been conducted suggesting the importance of considering motivation as a characteristic of successful distance education students, but few recent studies exist related to how motivation for one interacting synchronously may drive the motivation for interacting asynchronously and vice versa. The consideration of motivation may be an area for further exploration because of the plethora of asynchronous and synchronous interacting methods available to students. Hrastinski (2008) analyzed 27 participants’ synchronous and asynchronous communications from two different online courses and interviewed 12 participants about their experiences with the two types of communication. He reported psychological effects students experienced during synchronous interactions provide motivation to continuously be engaged with peers, providing a more social aspect to the learning experience.

Giesebers et al. (2014) took the notion of this psychological need to engage one step further to determine if participation in synchronous interaction led to increased engagement in asynchronous interaction. They conducted a study of 110 undergraduates and hypothesized self-motivated students who participated in synchronous discussion with peers would also post more in the asynchronous forums. The researchers determined academic motivation, and students were categorized as either autonomy motivated or control motivated. Autonomy motivated is characterized by intrinsic (pure enjoyment) and extrinsic (the right thing to do) factors while control oriented is characterized by introjection (avoiding negative consequences) and external regulation (receiving a reward) factors. Results demonstrated autonomy-motivated students participated in synchronous web-conferencing and contributed higher quality and quantity of asynchronous posts. Although Hrastinski (2008) and Giseber et al. (2013) approached their studies quite differently, the results indicate student motivation drives both forms of interaction in online courses.

Creating methods for quality interactions leading to learning, satisfaction, and a sense of community has been a concern of distance education for decades. Although asynchronous has been the primary method for interacting in the online setting, technological advancements have made it possible for students and instructors to interact in a more face-to-face like setting. This is not to assume asynchronous learning is no longer important or undesirable as a method of interacting; the research indicates both formats play a part in keeping students connected, learning the content, and providing satisfaction in the online classroom. Educators must keep in mind student motivation, especially in interacting with peers and instructors, as an important element in deciding when and how to use both forms of interacting.

Because the findings regarding how and when to implement asynchronous and synchronous interactions were mixed, as well as the methods used to gather, collect, and interpret the data, researchers find it difficult to state whether either interaction is best in the online setting. Several researchers argued asynchronous interactions should be used for group work, especially when content is difficult and requires reflection before posting (Griffith & Graham, 2014; Hrastinski, 2008; Mabrito, 2006). Additionally, Overbaugh and Casiello (2008), Strang (2013), and Rockinson-Szapkiw and Wendt (2015) recommended using synchronous interactions for group projects, because they found the media richness of synchronous tools assisted in the deeper learning process. Other researchers posited synchronous interactions should be used for socializing, planning of activities, and discussing less complex tasks (Duncan et al., 2012; Hrastinski, 2008). These findings can be summarized into the following conclusions: instructors must examine course content, learner motivation and needs, and learning outcomes before deciding on the types of interaction to be woven into course work.

Before making recommendations for how and when to use each type of interaction, however, technical support for online students should be briefly addressed. Ustati and Hassan (2013) noted that just as important as instructor-student support is university support to address issues arising with the technology because of the frustration technical issues can cause. Pan and Sullivan (2005) cautioned instructors not to make the assumption all students are proficient, or even familiar, with online learning platforms. To address this issue, McBrien et al. (2009) recommended initial training with the synchronous platform be implemented before classes begin. Pan and Sullivan (2005) and Giesber et al. (2014) recommended instructors provide technical support to teach students to use the technology for interacting in their courses. If students become frustrated in trying to use the technology, they may not learn the content (Benson & Samarawickerema, 2009; Ustati & Hassan, 2013). McBrien and Jones (2009) also reported when technical issues arose, students experienced more transactional distance, and they believed they had little control over what was occurring in the classroom. These findings are important, as any type of frustration has been demonstrated to increase transactional distance in online learning.

Even though many studies have been conducted about synchronous and asynchronous interactions, areas remain for future research. As noted earlier, results of recent studies of the quality and quantity of asynchronous and synchronous discussions related to course grades have been inconclusive, and the authors found it prudent to determine how to more effectively use interaction in specifically supporting deeper learning, and subsequently higher grades. As synchronous technology advances, it also might be interesting to see if students predict synchronous interaction will replace asynchronous interaction in the future.

The importance of interactions in the online learning environment have been the subject of much research, and researchers will likely continue the discussion related to positive and negative components of asynchronous and synchronous interactions in online learning environments. Regardless of the format, students report feeling more connected to the online experience, report higher levels of satisfaction, continue to be motivated to engage, and are more successful in group and individual work. Research has provided support for both types, and instructors must take into consideration the motivation and needs of their students, the specific demands of the course content, and the available technical support before deciding what method of interaction is appropriate for their courses.