I joined this class thinking that I knew a decent amount of information regarding the on-line classroom. It turns out that there is much that I never considered. I know that I am supposed to remark on what I learned, but instead, I will remark on what struck me the most. I have spent more time since the beginning of the course thing about synchronous vs. asynchronous methodology than anything else.
The articles that were posted on the topic were very interesting. Maha Bali and Bard Meier weighed in in favor of asynchronous classes and they made valid points about how synchronous learning is biased against certain time zones and is also culturally unaware. On the other hand, Glen Cochrane's article discussed the work of Ursula Franklin which, although upwards of 25 years old, raises some very important points in favor of synchronous classrooms. Franklin feels that people develop better when interacting in a live way.
So I have gone back and forth in my mind on the issue. Of course, we have been immersed in a blend of the two and that seems to have worked well for us, but it does not settle the issue to say that a compromise is the best approach. Then you have to decide the mix. Is it best to have 80% synchronous and 20% asynchronous? Would it be better to be 80 - 20 the other way? Given my own experience so far, I would estimate that we are operating at about 25% synchronous and 75% asynchronous.
Of course, Bali and Meier would opine that even 25% synchronous is biased against some groups. Where does that leave us. I like the synchronous aspect of the class. I like seeing faces and hearing voices and knowing that everybody is involved in the same way that I am right now. It is important to have that aspect in a class. It is important to have that aspect in any exchange of ideas.
Bali and Meier are just going to have to deal with that.
Thanks for the feedback Bryan - I have to say, I've been involved with synchronous for years but until Blue Jeans I never liked it this much. It always felt like a webinar unless it was 2-3 people. So glad Penn has the platform! Also it is only recently that we all truly had the affordance of broadband that would support it. As recently as 4 years ago, I started an online program at Temple and tried to incorporate synchronous. We take broadband for granted - but with streaming video conferences you really need high quality broadband or it ruins the experience for everyone. Many students didn't have it, or thought their T-Mobile hot spot was enough and it didn't seem right that we should have synchronous when it meant some students could do it and some couldn't. Now, things have changed. Also - there are lots of programs where people are getting masters degrees etc. and have jobs where they travel...asynchronous might not be optimum but it works best for them. I do think synchronous is always best, and so glad we all have access and a great platform to work with. Thanks for your thoughts and for posting Bryan!
ReplyDeleteBryan, let's talk more about the need for synchronous time. I'm selfishly interested in this topic for our students at AIM and figuring out how to best serve them in a blended format (once we accept that it is an important and necessary format for education today, if we haven't already).
ReplyDeleteBryan, I think synchronous time is key, but I think the way synchronous time is used is really important to consider too. I don't know that getting everyone together is automatically bettering the learning experience. Donna mentioned webinars... and I totally agree that some synchronous sessions can end up feeling very impersonal. That said, good synchronous sessions offer an opportunity to be social learners not necessarily available via discussion boards.
ReplyDelete