1.ASYNCHRONOUS VS SYNCHRONOUS INTERACTIONS Video Presentation Segla Kossivi, PhD Student: Educational Technology Walden University Fall Quarter 2013

2. INTRODUCTION Pre-requisite Interactions Instructional contexts Instructor-Students Students-students Students-ContentCurrent instructional applications of technologyHybrid and distance educationLearning and Human Interaction 3. OVERVIEW SynchronousAsynchronous Synchronous applications of instructional technology can be traced to the use of closed-circuit television on university campuses in the 1940s. By the 1980s, videoconferencing and interactive television connected remote classrooms, allowing students to ask questions and discuss concepts (Bernard et al, 2004). Synchronous instruction occurs in real time and requires the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). Synchronous communication and collaboration tools, such as synchronous text chat, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, and white boards, are increasingly important components of online learning" (National Center for Accessible Media, 2005).Asynchronous instruction has its roots in early forms of distance education such as correspondence schools (Keegan, 1996) Asynchronous instruction occurs in delayed time and does not require the simultaneous participation of students and teacher (Rovy & Essex, 2001; Sabau, 2005). Learning events are independently experienced by students and learning is not synchronized in time or space. Although asynchronous voice conferencing has proven useful in some instructional contexts (Mclntosh, Braul, & Chao, 2003), text-based conferencing is widely implemented in post-secondary education (Berge, 1999; Romiszowski & Mason, 2004; Tu & Corry, 2003) and is synonymous with asynchronous online discussion (Fjermestad, Hiltz, & Zhang, 2005). In a survey of educators, asynchronous 4. ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS Synchronous Useful for holding virtual office hours, team decision-making, brainstorming, community building, and dealing with technical issues"(Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Limitations with synchronous discussion include getting students online at the same time Difficulty in moderating larger scale conversations Lack of reflection time for students Intimidation of poor typists. Synchronous discussions are more difficult toAsynchronous Useful for encouraging in-depth, thoughtful discussion; communicating with diverse students; holding ongoing discussions; and allowing all students to respond to a topic (Branon & Essex, 2001, p. 36). Offer flexibility Asynchronous discussion provided richer, more inclusive types of interchange (Dede & Kremer 1999) Limitations include lack of immediate feedback. Students irregular check in, and transactional distance. Length of discussion time, and students sense of 5. Summary of Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Interactions 6. Needs For Dynamic Skills Needs For Dynamic SkillsAdaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive (transformative and reflective) learning. Adaptive learning is prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane (Driscoll, Adaptive learning is prescriptive, systematic, wholostic, and humane (Driscoll, 2005, p. 139). 2005, p. 139). Student-Instructor interaction, Student-Content interaction Student-Instructor interaction, Student-Content interaction Student-Student interaction, Feedback from peers and instructor Student-Student interaction, Feedback fro peers and instructor To provide To provide asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that asynchronous, video, audio- and text rich communication platform that simultaneously connects students to the wider affordances of the Internet (Roseth, simultaneously connected our students to the wider affordances of the Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012). internet (Roseth, Akcaoglu, & Zellner, 2013; Teras & Teras, 2012). 7. MOVING TOWARD DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGIESDYNAMIC DYNAMICSTATIC STATICTextTextWeb Webpages pagesVirtual Virtual simulations simulations Podcasts PodcastsVideo Video casts castsGaming GamingMulti-user Multi-user Environments Environments Mind tools) Mind tools) 8. REFLECTIONSinstructional designers and subject matter expertsThe 21st century online learning environment should portray highquality learning activities, meaningful cognitive engagement through learners autonomy and interaction in a complementary manner (Bernard et al., 2009), and avoid mindless activism (Anderson, 2008).appropriate media and technology theories with instructional and learning theories to increase students interactions (Borup, West, & Graham, 2013; Wenger et al., 2005).THANKS FOR WATCHING 9. References Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed studentstudent interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311-329. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723162 Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video communication on learner social presence: A narrative analysis of four cases. Distance Education, 34(1), 48-63. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.770427 Moller, L., Forshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008a). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0158-5 Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008b). The Evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0179-0 Roseth, C., Akcaoglu, M., & Zellner, A. (2013). Blending synchronous face-to-face and computer-supported cooperative learning in a hybrid doctoral seminar. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 54-59. doi: 10.1007/s11528-013-0663-z Sauter, M., Uttal, D. H., Rapp, D. N., Downing, M., & Jona, K. (2013). Getting real: The authenticity of remote labs and simulations for science learning. Distance Education, 34(1), 37-47. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.770431 Shaltry, C., Henriksen, D., Wu, M., & Dickson, W. W. (2013). Situated learning with online portfolios, classroom websites and facebook. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 57(3), 20-25. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0658-9 Shinyi, L., & Yu-Chuan, C. (2013). Distributed cognition and its antecedents in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Asian Social Science, 9(7), 107-113. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n7p107 Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Merrienboer J. V., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Strang, K. D. (2012). Empirical research: Skype synchronous interaction effectiveness in a quantitative management science course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 3-23 Terass, H. & Teras, M. (2012). Using Google tools for authentic learning and progressive inquiry in 21st century faculty development. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012. Chesapeake, VA: AACE