http://goanimate4schools.com/player/embed/0X1jX_j51qeQ

Annotated Bibliography

Huang, X. “., & Hsiao, E. (2012). SYNCHRONOUS AND ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION IN AN ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 15-30,49-50. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1034104731?accountid=14872

This study focuses on the instructor experience in the online environment. The study compared instructors who use only asynchronous interactions with instructors who use both synchronous and asynchronous interactions with students.

The study found that overall instructors had a positive experience in the online teaching environment. The information pointed to the use of asynchronous communication producing less confusion and more thoughtful responses from students. With email being the most common form of asynchronous communication. Instructors did perceive synchronous communications bring the students together.

Kienle, A. (2009). Intertwining synchronous and asynchronous communication to support collaborative learning–system design and evaluation. Education and Information Technologies, 14(1), 55-79. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9065-9

This paper focuses on computer driven collaborative learning and the use of synchronous and asynchronous learning to collaborate. The paper did find limitations to the use of these communication forms. The paper concludes with suggestions on how to improve the use of synchronous and asynchronous communication in the computer driven collaborative space.

Landor-Ngemi, J. (2009). Student perceptions of an effective learning environment across the dimensions of synchronous, asynchronous, and face-to-face instruction (Order No. 3367178). Available from ProQuest Central. (304998414). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304998414?accountid=14872

This study investigates the student’s perception of content delivery using synchronous and asynchronous communication. The results of this study show students prefer asynchronous interaction rather than synchronous interaction from the instructor in the online learning environment.

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2009). The impact of asynchronous and synchronous instruction and discussion on cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence, and learning (Order No. 3370135). Available from ProQuest Central. (250918726). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/250918726?accountid=14872

This study looked at online learners who used asynchronous interactions and compared it to users who used a combination of synchronous and a synchronous learning. Although student perception remained the same for both groups the study provides evidence that a combination of these two approaches increase student learning.

Sistelos, A. (2008). Human-computer interaction and cognition in e-learning environments—the effects of synchronous and asynchronous communication in knowledge development. Indiana State University, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2008. 3354429.

This study explores e-learning and the cognitive affects of human-computer interactions. It focuses on the two forms of communication, synchronous and asynchronous learning. The study also observed student attitudes toward these two communication modes.

The used two groups given the same course. Group A used asynchronous communication during the course group B used synchronous communication. The students were given pre and post tests in order to access and gauge learning in the study. It was the findings of this study suggest that the synchronous group did better than the asynchronous group. With in the findings the researchers also found that students attitudes were not affected by the group they were placed in leading the researchers to believe that either asynchronous or synchronous communication, from a student perspective both are adequate methods to deliver content.

Somenarain, L., Akkaraju, S., & Gharbaran, R. (2010). Student perceptions and learning outcomes in asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments in a biology course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 353. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1497198391?accountid=14872

This paper used three student groups to gather information: online asynchronous, online synchronous and a traditional class room group. The online synchronous group showed a slightly higher satisfaction rate with the course. The online groups showed a slightly higher but not significantly higher grade in this study than the traditional group.

Additional references:

Moodlemoot Keynotes(2015). Dr. Bart Rienties Retrieved from:

https://mootieuk15.moodlemoot.org/mod/page/view.php?id=34

Wikipedia (2015) Asynchronous Learning Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_learning

Wikipedia (2015). Synchronous Learning Retrieved from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_learning

National University(2009) National University Classroom Teaching Video Student Engagement – Part 1. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVh3Ty6nZ5M

Blogs I replied to:

Ashley Dowdy

http://alperdistanceeducation.blogspot.com.br/

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s