September 2005 — Features
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Promoting Synchronous Interaction in an eLearning Environment
Cyber-instructors continually
seek instructional tools that will
hold students’ attention, and
make online communications
more efficient and effective.
Skype is the latest one to test.
Communication is always a top priority in an online learning environment. A course management system (CMS) will typically promote communication and interaction by using a discussion board, chat, and course e-mail. Such synchronous and asynchronous communication tools are used in Webbased course interaction between instructors and learners for multiple purposes. Alvin Wang and Michael Newlin (“Online Lectures: Benefits for the Virtual Classroom,” T.H.E. Journal, 2001, www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3562.cfm) contend that those asynchronous tools are viewed as the backbone and muscle for the subject content, whereas synchronous media such as chat and the audio bridge are the heart and hustle of online courses. Curtis Bonk and Vanessa Dennen (“Web Advances Continue: From Best Pedagogical Practices to Evaluation and Assessment Techniques, ”Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, 2002) argued that live communication via chat is always desired by online learners who expect immediate assistance, response, and recognition. Using these features, class activities are recorded and logged, which allows for reflective teaching (Faridah Pawan, “Reflective Teaching Online,” TechTrends, 2003). When CMS access is not available, e-mail can sustain communication.
However, some concerns have risen over the use of these tools. The aforementioned communication tools have been blamed for their rigidity and inefficiency. Bonk and Dennen (2002) warned that without deliberate planning, asynchronous media can exacerbate a learner’s feeling of isolation by allowing for scattered forum postings (i.e., message postings) in lieu of a meaningful and intellectual dialog (i.e.,discussion questions). The lag time between the mail correspondences is not what most desire (Derrick Lavole and Gerald Foster, “An Inter- University Internet Exchange Project to Network Pre-Service Science Teachers,” Proceedings of the 1996 Association for the Education of Teachers in Science Conference, www.ed.psu.edu/CI/journals/96pap16.htm). Additionally, Rovy Branon and Chris Essex (“Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication Tools in Distance Education,” TechTrends, 2001) noted that some cyber-learners do not check in often enough to carry the dialog forward.
Online chat, a synchronous class activity, is likewise as prone to user criticism as its asynchronous counterpart. Two major reasons that online chat is not favored by cyber-instructors are: 1) a large class is simply unmanageable for most instructors, and 2) students believe they should be able to gather all information by accessing course materials on the course Web site (Wang and Newlin 2001). Other disadvantages include insufficient time for student reflection, scheduling students in the chat room at the same time, and slow typists (Branon and Essex 2001).
