Our class, EDUC 633, experienced both asynchronous and
synchronous discussions. This is an
important topic in the distance education field. There were plenty of scholarly articles that
discussed best practices in asynchronous and synchronous discussions (Molseed, 2011,
Wanstreet & Stein, 2011, Zha & Ottendorfer,
2011). Some key terms that appear in
these articles include Community of Inquiry, constructivism, teaching presence,
social presence, and cognitive presence.
One article found that social presence and cognitive presence were
highly positively correlated with learner-led synchronous environments. It also
found that teaching presence and social presence are moderately positively
correlated in learner-led synchronous environments (Wanstreet & Stein, 2011).
In our class, our synchronous mandatory meetings would be similar to this
research. Also, our group meetings would
definitely be an example of student-led synchronous discussions. I can see how social and cognitive presence
would be high learner-led synchronous environments.
For asynchronous studies, Ottendorfer (2011) found that
student leaders in group discussion boards scored higher on lower-order cognitive
achievement that that of student responders. In higher-order cognitive levels,
the student leaders and responders scored the same. Both groups of students did
experience positive and moderate correlations in their achievement
(Ottendorfer, 2011). This would be similar to our blogs that we have been
required to do or like discussion board posts in other classes. In fact, I have had one class (Conflict
Resolution) that required us to post in groups, and we each had to respond to all
group members each week. That brought me closer to my five group members and
increased my sense of community for that online learning environment. The
professor also posted in our group discussion. With him participating, I felt a
stronger sense of teaching presence and social presence.
One more aspect of asynchronous learning is the benefit of
peer reviews in discussion boards. This
works especially well with graduate students because they are older, more
mature, and able to critically think about content and style of writing
(Molseed, 2011). We experienced asynchronous
peer reviews in this class. I received very positive comments from several of
the group members that I did a peer review for. They appreciated my attention
to detail and critical eye. I, too,
appreciated my peer review reports that I received. Another one of my classes had us do two peer
reviews. I learned just as much doing
their peer reviews as I learned in writing my personal paper. I had to do some major critical thinking. When I went back to my personal paper, I was
able to critique it at a higher level than when I wrote it the first time. My experience is very similar to the results that
Molseed (2011) found in her research.
Each of these best practices in asynchronous and synchronous learning environments promote my personal theory of learning which aligns well with Malcolm Knowles' (1970) theory for adult learners called andragogy. He discovered that when designing learning for adult learners, the course needs to be self-directed and allow for higher levels of learner control (Knowles, 1970). What I have described above definitely falls under this category.
Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice
of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Regents.
Molseed, T. (2011). An analysis of peer review response
types in threaded discussions of an online graduate class. American
Journal of Distance Education, 25(4), 254-267.
Wanstreet, C. E., & Stein, D.S. (2011).
Presence over time in synchronous communities of inquiry. American
Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 162-177.
Zha, S., & Ottendorfer, C. L.
(2011). Effects of peer-led online asynchronous discussion on undergraduate
students' cognitive achievement. American Journal of Distance
Education, 25(4), 238-253.