5: Synchronous or Asynchronous?

Online Week 4 Google+ Discussion Post:

If you were to teach a course online, and you had your choice of delivery modalities, would you pick synchronous (real time) or asynchronous (on demand?) Or, as we do here, would you combine them?

I would definitely choose the blended format. While asynchronous discussion can promote deeper thinking and higher-order processing, Synchronous meeting has a positive impact on social and cognitive presence, perceived learning (Rockingson-Szapkiw, 2009) and immediacy, which are vital aspects of productive learning. For me, an online course’s biggest asset that is different to a traditional one is the possibility of teaching/learning without having the constraints of space and time. However, if there were a magic door where I can go from my home and reach the classroom immediately, I would not choose to teach nor take an online course.

As a home person who does not go to coffee shops to work, I usually prefer a classroom-like quite atmosphere space in the library or study in order to concentrate; unless I am sick or feel idle, I also work on less demanding task such as listening to podcasts, emailing, reading, or editing pictures; but I definitely cannot be in a deep thought mode when am at these more “relaxed” places. Just like the physical classroom or study, the physical posture reflects a mode of being focused and deep concentration. Although the asynchronous only format gives more flexible time for both parties and allows us to conduct teaching/learning anywhere, the importance of the learning atmosphere cannot be stressed. The synchronous format corresponds to a simulation of being in a classroom that promotes an atmosphere of learning, which elevates learning quality, attention and guides students on track during a face-to-face discussion, especially for those who are not used to emailing professors when they have questions. If the students really cannot attend these meetings due to schedule clash—which should be planned/scheduled since the beginning anyway—they can still listen to the recordings in their own time.

As an artist who’s creative work is mostly done alone in a studio, and as an art teacher who facilitates students’ work-in-progress during class, the importance of the immediate facilitation of students’ work in progress can only be achieved through a synchronous meeting. In an art class, it is also important to have regular “crits” that promotes collaborative learning. A “crit” is a gathering of all faculty and student members every once in a while, generally once per month to have one student hang all of their work up onto the wall like an exhibition, and have all members read the work, reflect, discuss and give critiques. It can be a torturing experience for many due to the unrestrained and straightforwardness of faculty responses (many of which are often already established artists); It is an important practice for art students because right after graduation, the reality of the real art world is exactly like that: when one presents a show in a gallery or a space, one meet audiences from everywhere, and they respond to the work right away, sometimes the artist may not like it, but would have to get used to and bear with it. Often times, the audiences come and check out the artwork for the first and the last time, thus it is the first impression and immediate thought/response that is the most valuable.

The artist then would continue to work and strive to breakthrough the old work in order to continue to create new ones. Sometimes the artist gets a review in a magazine or a newspaper, which is more like the asynchronous response. Funnily, in the contemporary art world, sometimes it is good to have “bad” reviews if they raise controversy.

Synchronous meeting parallels improvisation in music and living life spontaneously as human beings. The elimination of it just make me think of the non-humanness that education would become: If the new technological world develops to a point where humans do not need to go anywhere nor move their fingers/bodies anymore to type or go to places, experience, or even don’t need to think in order to think or communicate, human species would end and be controlled by machinery and technology. To the point where machines become higher thinking than humans, and whether human species is superior to machines is another topic to be discussed; but synchronous meetings reflect the human aspect of teaching/learning that in turn brings back our control as humans.

Asynchronous teaching modal provides much support such as participatory and collaborative learning, production of artifacts (Cavana, 2009; Gold, 2001), more contribution on discussion (Light Colbourn & Light, 19970, and more time on homework and reflection (Mayer, 2003), which cannot be ignored. Thus a complementary of both would foster a better quality learning.