University Students' Perspectives on Synchronous, Asynchronous, and Combined Virtual Learning Environments: Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Education, MehrAlborz University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Education, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly transformed higher education, shifting learning to digital platforms. This study explored university students’ perceptions of synchronous, asynchronous, and combined virtual learning during this period.
Methods: This mixed-methods study involved surveying 361 students and conducting interviews with 15 individuals from September 2020 to July 2021 to explore undergraduate students’ attitudes and perceptions of asynchronous, synchronous, and combined virtual learning. Quantitative data from questionnaires were analyzed using t-tests, while qualitative data from interviews were analyzed using an empirical phenomenological approach. The questionnaire was distributed during the second academic semester, while interviews were conducted at the end of the second semester.
Results: The findings revealed that students perceive combined communication as a more effective and high-quality method of learning compared to asynchronous and synchronous communication. The combined communication method was rated with a total mean of 3.58. In contrast, the asynchronous communication method was rated with a total mean of 3.02, and the synchronous communication method was rated with a total mean of 2.72. This could be attributed to the integration of traditional classroom learning with reflective techniques and the complementary use of both synchronous and asynchronous communication methods. Additionally, students have indicated that asynchronous communication is an effective means of compensating for missed synchronous classes and serves as a valuable backup in the event of technical issues. The combined communication also demonstrated advantages in time management, flexibility, and accelerated progress toward learning objectives. Furthermore, it helped maintain engagement by reducing repetitive content, boredom, and motivational slumps.
Conclusion: This research suggests that educators teaching online courses should adopt a multi-modal communication strategy to address the limitations of each approach. By employing a range of communication methods, professors can leverage the strengths of each approach while mitigating its weaknesses.

Highlights

Rasoul Bakhtiari (Google Scholar)

Keywords

References

  1. Hamutoglu NB, Gemikonakli O, Duman I, Kirksekiz A, Kiyici M. Evaluating students experiences using a virtual learning environment: satisfaction and preferences. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2020;68(1):437–62. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09705-z.
  2. Caprara L, Caprara C. Effects of virtual learning environments: A scoping review of literature. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022;27(3):3683-3722. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10768-w. PubMed PMID: 34629934; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8492824.
  3. Pei L, Wu H. Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ Online. 2019;24(1):1666538. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538. PubMed PMID: 31526248; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6758693.
  4. Πέλλας Ν, Kazanidis I. On the value of Second Life for students’ engagement in blended and online courses: A comparative study from the Higher Education in Greece. Educ Inf Technol. 2013;20(3):445–66. doi: 10.1007/s10639-013-9294-4.
  5. Zeng H, Luo J. Effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous online learning: A meta-analysis. Interact Learn Environ. 2023;32:4297-4313. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2197953.
  6. Dargahi H, Kooshkebaghi M, Mireshghollah M. Learner satisfaction with synchronous and asynchronous virtual learning systems during the COVID-19 pandemic in Tehran university of medical sciences: a comparative analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):886. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04872-3. PubMed PMID: 37990188; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10661977.
  7. Zhang R, Bi NC, Mercado T. Do Zoom meetings really help? A comparative analysis of synchronous and asynchronous online learning during Covid-19 pandemic. J Comput Assist Learn. 2022 Sep 4:10.1111/jcal.12740. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12740. PubMed PMID: 36247930; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9538890.
  8. Persada SF, Prasetyo YT, Suryananda XV, Apriyansyah B, Ong AKS, Nadlifatin R, Setiyati EA, Putra RAK, Purnomo A, Triangga B, Siregar NJ, CarolinaD, Maulana FI, Ardiansyahmiraja B. How the education industries react to synchronous and asynchronous learning in COVID-19: multigroup analysis insights for future online education. Sustainability. 2022;14(22):15288. doi: 10.3390/su142215288.
  9. Alzahrani HA, Shati AA, Bawahab MA, Alamri AA, Hassan B, Patel AA, Ahmad MT, El Maksoud WA, Alsaleem MA. Students' perception of asynchronous versus synchronous distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic in a medical college, southwestern region of Saudi Arabia. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04034-5. PubMed PMID: 36691003; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9870191.
  10. Dung DTH. The advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning. IOSR J Res Method Educ. 2020;10(3):45–8. doi: 10.9790/7388-1003054548
  11. Fabriz S, Mendzheritskaya J, Stehle S. Impact of Synchronous and Asynchronous Settings of Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education on Students' Learning Experience During COVID-19. Front Psychol. 2021;12:733554. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.733554. PubMed PMID: 34707542; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8542673.
  12. Xie H, Liu W, Bhairma J. Analysis of synchronous and asynchronous E-learning environments. In: 2018 3rd Joint International Information Technology, Mechanical and Electronic Engineering Conference (JIMEC 2018). Atlantis Press; 2018. p. 270–4. doi: 10.2991/jimec-18.2018.58.
  13. Branon RF, Essex C. Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends. 2001;45(1):36. doi: 10.1007/BF02763377.
  14. Yadav SK, Para S, Singh G, Gupta R, Sarin N, Singh S. Comparison of asynchronous and synchronous methods of online teaching for students of medical laboratory technology course: A cross-sectional analysis. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:232. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1022_20. PubMed PMID: 34395669; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8318143.
  15. Nieuwoudt JE. Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic success in online education. Australas J Educ Technol. 2020;36(3):15–25. doi: 10.14742/ajet.5137.
  16. Hew KF, Cheung WS. Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part I. Int J Instr Media. 2003;30(3):247-62
  17. Hrastinski S, Keller C, Carlsson SA. Design exemplars for synchronous e-learning: A design theory approach. Comput Educ. 2010;55(2):652–62. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.025.
  18. Davidson-Shivers G, Tanner E, Muilenburg L. How Do Students Participate in Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2001;25: 351-66. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/6DCH-BEN3-V7CF-QK47.
  19. Huang X, Hsiao E-L. Synchronous and asynchronous communication in an online environment: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Q Rev distance Educ. 2012;13(1):15. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/131977.
  20. Pinto-Llorente AM, Sánchez-Gómez MC, García-Peñalvo FJ, Casillas-Martín S. Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Comput Human Behav. 2017;72:632–43. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.071.
  21. Murphy E, Rodríguez‐Manzanares MA, Barbour M. Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(4):583–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01112.x.
  22. van der Keylen P, Lippert N, Kunisch R, Kühlein T, Roos M. Asynchronous, digital teaching in times of COVID-19: a teaching example from general practice. GMS J Med Educ. 2020 Dec 3;37(7):Doc98. doi: 10.3205/zma001391. PubMed PMID: 33364377; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7740025.
  23. Caspi A, Chajut E, Saporta K, Beyth-Marom R. The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learn Individ Differ. 2006;16(2):129–44. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003.
  24. Giesbers B, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, Gijselaers W. A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. J Comput Assist Learn. 2014;30(1):30–50. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12020.
  25. Villanueva ME, Camilli E, Chirillano AC, Cufré JA, de Landeta MC, Rigacci LN, Velazco VM, Pighin AF. Teaching instrumental analytical chemistry during COVID-19 times in a developing country: asynchronous versus synchronous communication. Journal of Chemical Education. 2020;97(9):2719-22. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00664.
  26. Salmon G. E-tivities: The key to active online learning. UK: Routledge; 2013.
  27. Burnett C. Learning to chat: Tutor participation in synchronous online chat. Teach High Educ. 2003;8(2):247–61. doi: 10.1080/1356251032000052474.
  28. Blau I, Weiser O, Eshet-Alkalai Y. How do medium naturalness and personality traits shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of face-to-face and synchronous e-learning. Res Learn Technol. 2017;25: doi: 10.25304/rlt.v25.1974.
  29. Yamagata-Lynch LC. Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2014;15(2):189–212. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1778.
  30. Wang J, Wang Y. Compare synchronous and asynchronous online instruction for science teacher preparation. J Sci Teacher Educ. 2021;32(3):265–85. doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2020.1817652.
  31. Moallem M. The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy and satisfaction in collaborative online learning. Online J Distance Educ e-Learning. 2015;3(3):55–77. Available from: https://www.tojdel.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v03i03/v03i03-08.pdf.
  32. Wang Q, Huang C, Quek CL. Students’ perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment. Australas J Educ Technol. 2018;34(1):1-13. doi: 10.14742/ajet.3404.
  33. Hoq MZ. E-Learning during the period of pandemic (COVID-19) in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia: an empirical study. Am J Educ Res. 2020;8(7):457–64. doi: 10.12691/education-8-7-2.
  34. Sleiwah A, Mughal M, Hachach-Haram N, Roblin P. COVID-19 lockdown learning: the uprising of virtual teaching. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2020;73(8):1575–92. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.05.032. PubMed PMID: 32565141; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7244437.
  35. Perveen A. Synchronous and Asynchronous E-language Learning: A Case Study of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Prax. 2016;8(1):21–39. Available from: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/171556.
  36. Stuart J, O’Donnell AW, Scott R, O’Donnell K, Lund R, Barber B. Asynchronous and synchronous remote teaching and academic outcomes during COVID-19. Distance Educ. 2022;43(3):408–25. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2022.2088477.
  37. Johnson G. Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends Link Res Pract to Improv Learn. 2006;50(4):46-53. doi:1007/s11528-006-0046-9.
  38. Moorhouse BL, Wong KM. Blending asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate remote learning. J Comput Educ. 2022;9(1):51–70. doi: 10.1007/s40692-021-00195-8
  39. Sunasee R. Challenges of teaching organic chemistry during COVID-19 pandemic at a primarily undergraduate institution. J Chem Educ. 2020;97(9):3176–81. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00542
  40. Amiti F. Synchronous and asynchronous E-learning. Eur J Open Educ E-Learning Stud. 2020;5(2):60-70. doi: 10.46827/ejoe.v5i2.3313.
  41. Amiri Y, Khademi N, Khafri FZ, Akbari Z, Jangjoo R. The Impact of Corona Outbreak on Virtual Education Policy in Iranian Universities. J Soc Humanit Educ. 2022;3(1):1–15. doi: 10.35912/jshe.v3i1.915.
  42. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. USA: Sage; 2016.
  43. Ivankova N V, Creswell JW, Stick SL. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods. 2006;18(1):3–20. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05282260.
  44. Krejcie R V, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970;30(3):607–10. doi: 10.1177/00131644700300030.
  45. Curtis DD, Keeves JP. The Course Experience Questionnaire as an institutional performance indicator. International Education Journal. 2000;1:73-82.
  46. Harris K-L, James R. The Course Experience Questionnaire, Graduate Destination Survey, and Learning and Teaching Performance Fund in Australia. In: Dill D, Beerkens M, editors. Public Policy for Academic Quality. Higher Education Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. P. 99-119. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3754-1_6.
  47. Poon J. Blended learning: An institutional approach for enhancing students’ learning experiences. J online Learn Teach. 2013;9(2):271-89. Available from: https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/poon_0613.pdf.
  48. Thien LM, Ong MY. The applicability of course experience questionnaire for a Malaysian university context. Qual Assur Educ. 2016;24(1):41–55. doi: 10.1108/QAE-08-2014-0041.
  49. Schwarzenberg P, Navon J, Pérez-Sanagustín M. Models to provide guidance in flipped classes using online activity. J Comput High Educ. 2020;32(2):282–306. doi: 10.1007/s12528-019-09233-y.
  50. Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. USA: Sage; 1994.
  51. Lunenburg FC, Irby BJ. Writing a successful thesis or dissertation: Tips and strategies for students in the social and behavioral sciences. New Delhi: Corwin press; 2008. doi: 10.4135/9781483329659.
  52. Vanderstoep SW, Johnson DD. Research methods for everyday life: Blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. New Jersey, U.S: Wiley; 2008.
  53. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
  54. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–8. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.
  55. Lim CL, She L, Hassan N. The impact of live lectures and pre-recorded videos on students‟ online learning satisfaction and academic achievement in a Malaysian Private University. Int J Inf Educ Technol. 2022;12(9):874–80. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.9.1696.
  56. Schwier R, Balbar S. The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Can J Learn Technol Rev Can l’apprentissage la Technol. 2002;28(2). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/43162.
  57. Peterson AT, Beymer PN, Putnam RT. Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learn. 2018;22(4):7–25. doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i4.1517.
  58. Demirtaş BK, Türk U. Student performance under asynchronous and synchronous methods in distance education: A quasi-field experiment. Int Rev Econ Educ. 2022;41(3):100244. doi: 10.1016/j.iree.2022.100244.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 July 2024
  • Revise Date: 27 February 2025
  • Accept Date: 06 March 2025
  • Publish Date: 01 March 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics