Synchronous v. Asynchronous

Julie Meloni published a cogent post recently (on the always useful ProfHacker blog) regarding the relative merits of various online discussion tools. Noting that instructors predominantly use asynchronous technologies for discussion--discussion boards, blogs, listservs, etc.--she goes on to sat that "asynchronous communication is by far the more popular model if for no other reason than the barriers to implementation tend to be much lower—many of these tools are free and require minimal hardware and software." The implication here, it seems to me, is that once conferencing technology reaches a certain level of sophistication and buy-in, use of older, less efficient asynchronous communication will diminish markedly if not completely go by the boards. That may be, but I would submit that asynchronous may also be popular because it is peculiarly suited to the online environment. Students are attracted to online- and distance-learning options for their flexibility. Having, perhaps, jobs, families, or other binding commitments, they gravitate to courses that allow them to make their classroom contributions on their own time. Having students show up at an appointed time for a chat or conference somewhat defeats that flexibility. This is to say nothing of the fact that, as the e-learning project matures, classes will tend to become more, not less, geographically diffuse, with students enrolled from all over the country and the world. This fact will make that 3 pm Eastern chat still more problematic.


All of this is not to suggest, certainly, that instructors must choose either asynchronous or synchronous and stick with their choice forever. It is only to point out, like Meloni, that there are a lot of options out there and the more varied instructors can be in their approaches to online discussion, the better.