Synchronous online learning occurs when the student and instructor are together in "real time" but not at the “same place.” This presentation describes a systematic review of 157 synchronous online studies from two decades. This session benefits instructors, instructional designers and administrators who are considering adopting synchronous tools.
Technology has been constantly changing and this has impacted how instructors teach and students learn. Distance education has evolved over five generations (Taylor, 2001) and distance courses are now offered utilizing a variety of interactive technology. Synchronous online learning occurs when the student and instructor are together in "real time" but not at the “same place.” Synchronous online learning environments allow students and instructors to communicate synchronously using audio, video, text chat, interactive whiteboard, application sharing, instant polling, etc. as if they were face to face in a classroom. Blackboard Collaborate, Adobe Connect, Webex, and Saba, are some of the synchronous online learning environments that are prevalent in higher education. Freeware versions of the synchronous online learning environments include DimDim, Google Hangout and Wiziq. Both instructors and students are realizing the necessity of interaction in their teaching and learning experience. Adding synchronous components to online courses can enrich meaningful interactions (Repman, Zinskie & Carlson, 2005).
Though we were able to identify a number of meta-analysis and systematic review conducted in distance education (Bernard, Abrami, Borokhovski, Wade, Tamim, Surkes and Bethel, 2009; Means, Toyoma, Murphy, Bakia and Jones, 2010), there are very few studies specifically focusing on the synchronous online learning aspect of distance education (Aditomo &Reitman, 2007). The purpose of this review is to summarize current research on synchronous online learning in higher education and propose implications for practice. The year 1995 was chosen as a cutoff date because the Internet was commercialized in 1995. This study benefits all users of synchronous online learning environments.
In this review, we seek to answer the following questions:
- How many synchronous online learning studies were published in the last two decades?
- Which journals publish synchronous online learning research?
- Which countries are represented in synchronous online learning research?
- What instructional setting in which the synchronous technology was used?
- What subject areas do research studies on synchronous online learning focus on?
- What are the participant demographics for those who participate in synchronous online research?
- What research designs are used in synchronous online learning research?
- What are the independent variables used in the synchronous online learning studies?
- What are the synchronous online learning technologies that are used in these studies?
- What types of dependent measures are studied as part of research on synchronous online learning research?
- What data collection tools are used in synchronous online learning research?
Methods
The procedures that were employed in conducting this systematic review are described subsequently under the following subheadings: working definition of Synchronous Online Learning, inclusion/exclusion criteria, data sources and search strategies, coding and mapping of data. The basic unit of analysis was the individual empirical article.
Working definition of Synchronous Online Learning for inclusion of studies
Our definition of Synchronous Online Learning for the inclusion of studies is as follows:
- Permanent separation (in place) of the learner and instructor during planned learning events
- Instruction occurs in real time. Students are able to communicate with the other students and instructor through text, audio, and/or video based communication of two- way media which facilitate dialogue and interaction.
Data Sources and Search Strategies
The studies used in this systematic review were located through a comprehensive electronic search of publicly available literature from 1995 through December 2012 on several databases and hand search on several journals for 2013 and 2014. The search keywords that were used are “Synchronous” and “online learning” Search Syntax: (synchronous and online learning)
Inclusion/ Exclusion criteria
To be included in this systematic review, inclusion and exclusion screening criteria were identified.
Coding of Data
Prior to the coding process, a coding framework was established, informed by guidelines from the field of educational research. These categories were further developed during the process of coding. Two research assistants coded the articles and the interrater reliability was calculated to be 89.1%. Data was first input into Excel and then imported into SPSS 21.
Results
184 articles were located through a comprehensive search of literature from 1995 through 2014. Twenty-seven articles were excluded upon further review because they were not research (13), not original research (3), not synchronous (7), or there was not enough information (4). This resulted in a total of 157 research articles on synchronous online learning.
Research Design
Ninety (57.3%) of the 157 research articles used a qualitative design, 47 (29.9%) used an experimental design, 39 (24.8%) used a non-experimental design, and 2 (1.3%) used a single-case design. It was possible to have more than one design in a research study such as with mixed method with a quantitative and qualitative component.
Demographic Characteristics
The sample size of the studies ranged from 1 to 6321 with a median of 34 participants. Seventy-four studies reported the gender of the participants. There were a total of 2503 females and 1920 males who participated in the 157 studies. Fifty articles reported the age of the participants. Ten studies described the ethnicity of the participants.
Contextual Variables
One hundred thirty-four articles described the instructional setting. The settings included higher education (79.9%), K-12 education (14.9%), business or industry (3.0%), Health care (1.5%) and military (.7%). One hundred thirty articles reported the subject area. The subjects included English/foreign language (23.8%), education (23.1%), computer science information technology (15.4%), science (9.2%), business (6.9%), medical/health (5.4%), or math (.8%). Thirty-three countries were represented in the research studies with most of the participants coming from the United States, United Kingdom, Taiwan, and Canada.
Type of Synchronous Tool
Few studies named the specific synchronous tool used. They typically described the tool such as chat, instant messaging, or video conferencing. Most common among the tools mentioned include Elluminate (6.6%), WebCT (6.6%), and Blackboard (5.9%).
Type of Dependent variable
The dependent variables represented in the 157 studies included participant behavior (e.g. interaction, 68.8%), attitude or perception of the participant (61.1%), achievement (31.2%), or other (9.6%).
Type of Data Collection
The most common types of data collected included questionnaires (50.3%), session transcripts (45.2%), test scores (27.4%), interviews (25.5%), and observations (14.6%). It was possible to have more than one type of data collected.
Discussion
Detailed results, discussion of the findings and recommendations for future studies will be shared at the presentation.
Implications
This research on synchronous online learning has implications for researchers who wish to study synchronous online learning environments. This provides guidance on what previous research has examined and the areas that need to be focused on in future studies. This synchronous review also has implications for instructors who teach synchronously online regarding synchronous tools that are widely used and might be beneficial for them to adopt. This study finally has benefits for administrators and technology directors who are considering adopting synchronous tools for their universities to enhance interaction and engagement in their online and blended courses.
References
Aditomo, A., & Reitman, P. (2007). Learning from virtual interaction: a review of research on online synchronous groups. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y. Borokhovski, E., Wade, A. Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.
Means, B., Toyama,Y., Murphy. R., Bakia, M., and Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-analysis and Review of Online-learning Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Repman, J., Zinskie, C., & Carlson, R. (2005). Effective use of CMC tools in interactive online learning. Computers in the Schools, 22(1/2), 57-69.
Taylor, J. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. e-Journal of Instructional Science & Technology, 4(1), 1-14. Retrieved from http://eprints.usq.edu.au/136/.