Executive Overview
The debate surrounding online higher education has long centered on a false dichotomy: the perceived divide between asynchronous autonomy and synchronous engagement. This tension was brought sharply into focus this past March at the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Innovate conference, where Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant posited a provocative thesis: that fully asynchronous courses ultimately require synchronous touchpoints to truly facilitate optimal student success.
For many educators dedicated to crafting intentional, high-quality asynchronous environments, that assertion struck a nerve. It carried an underlying implication—that asynchronous learning, by its very nature, lacks a certain depth, connectedness, or quality unless supplemented by real-time interaction.
However, emerging practice-based research paints a more complex picture. A recent institutional study conducted at a regional public university in the Midwest—presented at the OLC Accelerate conference—explores how students, instructors, and program coordinators actually perceive the integration of synchronous activities within fully asynchronous graduate programs. Led by researchers including N. Weber, Corey Davis, and M. Vick, the investigation reveals that while real-time interaction can be valuable, its uncritical application often threatens the very flexibility and accessibility that draw adult learners to asynchronous education in the first place.
This article investigates the core findings of that study, analyzes where synchronous interventions break down, and outlines five foundational design principles for educators aiming to respect the complex realities of modern online learners.
Detailed Chronology: From Conference Provocation to Empirical Inquiry
The journey toward understanding the true function of synchronicity began on the conference stage and quickly transitioned into empirical investigation.
March (OLC Innovate): The Catalyst
During the OLC Innovate conference, Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant’s keynote challenged the orthodoxy of purely self-paced online education. Her argument—that asynchronous courses need synchronous opportunities to support student success—ignited discussions across the instructional design community. For educators who spend their careers tailoring online spaces for students juggling complex professional and personal lives, the claim felt dismissive of the deep, relational connections that can be fostered asynchronously.
Rather than dismissing the critique outright, the dialogue prompted a critical pedagogical question: How do we make intentional decisions about whether synchronous activities actually serve the specific learners these programs are built for?
The Institutional Study
Motivated by this question, researchers at a regional Midwestern public university initiated a practice-based institutional study in collaboration with colleagues such as Corey Davis and M. Vick. The project sought to move past administrative assumptions and faculty habits, directly examining how the three primary stakeholders—graduate students, online instructors, and program coordinators—view the injection of live elements into asynchronous spaces.
November (OLC Accelerate): Presenting the Data
The culmination of this research was formally presented at the OLC Accelerate conference in Orlando, Florida. Titled "Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think," the presentation synthesized survey data and narrative responses from across the institutional ecosystem. By gathering insights from those closest to the programs, the researchers established a baseline for evaluating when synchronous activities act as bridges to engagement—and when they serve as roadblocks to completion.
Supporting Context & Metrics: What the Study Reveals
While the findings of the institutional study are intended as practice-based insights rather than universally generalizable conclusions, they powerfully mirror the systemic questions currently facing online programs nationwide.
Research Demographics and Scope
The study gathered closed- and open-ended survey responses from three distinct stakeholder groups embedded within fully asynchronous graduate programs:
- Graduate Students: $n = 50$ (yielding a 5% response rate)
- Online Instructors: $n = 11$ (yielding a 26% response rate)
- Graduate Program/Certificate Coordinators: $n = 5$ (yielding a 22% response rate)
Despite varying response rates, the qualitative narrative data offered profound depth regarding the lived experiences of participants. Across all stakeholder groups, respondents did not reject synchronous activities outright. Instead, they drew a sharp boundary between intentional, high-value real-time interaction and mandatory, poorly aligned live meetings.
The Value of Real-Time Interaction
Participants universally acknowledged that synchronous components possess utility under specific circumstances. Real-time interaction can successfully support:
- Immediate Clarification and Feedback: Resolving complex conceptual misunderstandings on the spot.
- Connection and Engagement: Fostering community during critical program milestones, such as student orientations.
- Specialized Learning Opportunities: Hosting guest speakers, facilitating intricate collaborative projects, or conducting high-touch mentoring sessions.
However, participants were equally emphatic that these benefits are entirely conditional. When synchronous requirements are implemented without centering the realities of the student body, they cease to function as academic supports and instead transform into formidable barriers.
Official Statements and Perspectives from the Ground
The qualitative data gathered during the study exposed a profound tension between institutional assumptions of "good teaching" and the actual logistics of adult student lives.
The Administrative View: "Truth in Advertising"
Program coordinators emphasized the importance of institutional integrity and transparency. One coordinator characterized the integration of unexpected live requirements as a failure of "truth in advertising." If a degree or certificate is marketed as fully asynchronous, prospective students enroll under the explicit assumption that they can complete coursework on their own schedules. Introducing mandatory synchronous meetings mid-program violates that core promise.
The Student Perspective: Navigating Competing Demographics
Graduate students in fully asynchronous programs are rarely traditional learners. They are typically adult professionals balancing full-time careers, parenting, caregiving for aging parents, managing financial responsibilities, and serving their communities.
One student articulated the core dilemma in their survey response:
"I chose to complete my education at my time. I do not mind optional events, but mandatory synchronous activities may not be easy for me to attend due to work and family obligations."
Another student targeted the frequent redundancy of live sessions, noting pointedly:
"Something that can be shared in an email, announcement, or on Canvas does not need to be discussed synchronously."
These statements highlight a critical disconnect. When institutions add live sessions simply because they feel more like traditional, engaging teaching, they frequently overlook the severe scheduling disruptions imposed on students who selected asynchronous formats precisely because of their inflexible offline lives.
The Instructor Perspective: The Myth of "Optional" Accessibility
Online instructors participating in the study recognized that adding synchronous elements often introduces equity and access challenges. One instructor observed that live sessions disproportionately penalize students dealing with rigid work schedules, international time zone differences, and technological disparities.
As the data demonstrated, labeling an event as "optional" does not automatically render it equitable. Students who miss live sessions due to professional or familial obligations often experience subtle institutional friction or anxiety regarding missing out on peer dialogue, even when recordings are provided.
Practical Principles for Better Design
Rather than advocating for the complete elimination of synchronous tools, the research points toward a more nuanced, intentional framework for instructional design. Educators, instructional designers, and program leaders can navigate the tension between synchronous and asynchronous learning by adhering to five core principles:
1. Start with Learner Realities
Design decisions must be firmly grounded in the lived experiences of the student body rather than instructor habit, tradition, or abstract assumptions about pedagogical quality. Before incorporating any live component, instructional designers must ask:
- Who are our learners?
- What external responsibilities are they balancing?
- What did our program explicitly promise them?
- What barriers will this requirement erect?
In Practice: Conduct pre-course surveys to gauge student availability and technological constraints, using empirical data to determine whether a session should be offered live, asynchronously, or omitted entirely.
2. Use Synchronous Time Only When It Adds Irreplaceable Value
Synchronous time must be strictly reserved for activities that cannot be executed effectively through asynchronous channels. Real-time dialogue, complex collaborative problem-solving, and direct mentoring can justify live engagement; routine lectures or administrative updates do not.
In Practice: Ask the litmus test question: What can happen in this live moment that could not happen as well through a captioned recording, an announcement, a discussion board, or a collaborative shared document?
3. Protect Flexibility Through Optionality
In programs built on asynchronous foundations, live events should remain optional by default. No student should face academic penalties, implicit or explicit, for failing to attend a real-time session.
In Practice: When hosting an optional live Q&A session, ensure the alternative path—such as a captioned video recording accompanied by an alternative reflection prompt or asynchronous question submission—offers equal intellectual value.
4. Design for Access, Not Just Availability
Accessibility extends far beyond the mere scheduling of an event. Program leaders must account for time zone disparities, uneven internet reliability, and the lack of private study spaces among adult learners.
In Practice: Solicit questions prior to live events, caption recordings immediately, and maintain open, collaborative online documents so that students separated by time and space can contribute meaningfully before, during, and after the scheduled window.
5. Be Transparent About Modality
Program integrity relies heavily on clear communication. Prospective students deserve absolute clarity regarding program expectations before they commit time and financial resources.
In Practice: Embed a clear, unequivocal modality statement on program websites and student orientation portals, explicitly outlining whether live sessions are required, optional, occasional, or entirely absent.
Future Outlook: The Real Question for Online Education
The conversation sparked at OLC Innovate and deepened at OLC Accelerate ultimately transcends the mechanics of modality. True student engagement is not manufactured by forcing dispersed adults to occupy the same digital space at the exact same minute; it is cultivated through pedagogical design that respects the realities, constraints, and motivations that draw learners to online education in the first place.
Synchronous activities are neither a silver bullet for student success nor an inherent enemy of flexibility. When deployed with rigorous intent, they can clarify concepts and forge meaningful connections. When applied thoughtlessly, they compromise access, equity, and institutional trust.
As higher education continues to evolve, the central inquiry facing program directors and instructional designers must shift. We must stop asking whether asynchronous courses need synchronous sessions to succeed. Instead, we must ask the more demanding, student-centered question:
When does synchronous time add irreplaceable value that justifies the cost to our learners?
If educators can answer that question with precision, live opportunities will genuinely elevate the student experience. If they cannot, the path forward is clear: let asynchronous intentionality lead the way.
Conference Presentation Citation
Weber, N., Davis, C., & Vick, M. (2025, November). Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think. Paper presented at the Online Learning Consortium’s Accelerate Conference, Orlando, FL.
