Executive Overview
The debate surrounding online higher education has long danced around a central tension: the friction between the absolute flexibility of asynchronous learning and the perceived necessity of real-time human connection. At the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Innovate conference, this friction took center stage when Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant delivered a provocative keynote asserting that fully asynchronous courses ultimately require synchronous opportunities to truly support student success.
For educators who have spent careers architecting rigorous, high-touch asynchronous environments, the statement landed heavily. It brushed against a foundational promise of online education—that learning can happen decoupled from time and space without sacrificing depth, community, or quality.
To move past ideological debates and ground this conversation in empirical reality, an institutional study was conducted by researchers at a regional public university in the Midwest. Led by educators including N. Weber and Corey Davis, the practice-based study investigated the perceptions of students, online instructors, and program coordinators regarding synchronous activities within fully asynchronous graduate programs. The findings, presented at the OLC Accelerate conference, reveal a nuanced landscape. Participants from all stakeholder groups did not reject real-time interactions outright; rather, they emphasized that synchronous elements are entirely conditional.
When thoughtfully deployed, live sessions can foster targeted engagement, immediate feedback, and collaborative problem-solving. However, when imposed without rigorous alignment to course outcomes or learner realities, mandatory synchronous requirements transform from support mechanisms into barriers. They threaten access, amplify equity gaps, and erode the trust that adult learners place in flexible degree programs. This report explores the core findings of the study, details the breakdown points of uncoordinated synchronicity, outlines five guiding design principles, and maps out the future outlook for intentional online pedagogy.
Detailed Chronology: From Keynote Provocation to Empirical Inquiry
The trajectory leading to this pedagogical examination unfolds across several key milestones, highlighting how academic discourse shifts from conceptual theory to institutional reality.
March: The OLC Innovate Catalyst
The conversation was galvanized at OLC Innovate, where keynote speaker Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant argued that fully asynchronous courses need synchronous opportunities to truly support student success. For many online educators, this assertion reignited long-standing assumptions that real-time interaction is the gold standard of engagement—implying that purely asynchronous modalities inherently lack connection, rigor, or quality.
Developing the Practice-Based Study
Prompted by the keynote, researchers N. Weber and Corey Davis recognized an urgent need to examine how these assumptions align with the lived experiences of students and faculty in professional graduate programs. They designed a practice-based institutional study at a regional Midwestern public university to capture the perspectives of the three primary stakeholders in fully asynchronous graduate education: students, online instructors, and program coordinators.
The study gathered data through a combination of closed- and open-ended survey instruments. The goal was not to generate sweeping, universally generalizable conclusions, but to capture grounded, practice-based insights reflecting the exact dilemmas confronting online programs nationwide.
November: Presenting at OLC Accelerate
The culmination of this research phase arrived at the OLC Accelerate conference in Orlando, Florida, where the findings were formally shared with the academic community under the title "Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think" (Weber, Davis, & Vick, 2025). The presentation catalyzed broader discussions across the instructional design community, moving the dialogue away from an unhelpful binary—synchronous versus asynchronous—and toward a framework centered on alignment, intentionality, and learner realities.
Supporting Context & Metrics: What the Study Revealed
While the study’s sample sizes reflect a localized, practice-based institutional inquiry, the qualitative depth of the narrative responses provides vital windows into the operational realities of asynchronous programs.
Stakeholder Demographics and Response Rates
The research captured input from three distinct institutional constituencies:
- Graduate Students: $n = 50$ (yielding a 5% response rate)
- Online Instructors: $n = 11$ (yielding a 26% response rate)
- Graduate Program and Certificate Coordinators: $n = 5$ (yielding a 22% response rate)
Despite varying response rates, the qualitative data surfaced consistent, recurring themes across all groups regarding the conditions under which synchronous activities either elevate or undermine the student experience.
The Value Proposition of Synchronous Engagement
Participants across the board acknowledged that real-time interaction is not without merit. When asked when synchronous activities felt genuinely valuable, stakeholders pointed to specific high-impact scenarios:
- Real-Time Clarification and Feedback: Complex theoretical frameworks or ambiguous project parameters can sometimes be demystified faster through live dialogue than through asynchronous message boards or email threads.
- Targeted High-Value Learning Moments: Orientations, guest speaker lectures, complex collaborative projects, and live brainstorming sessions were cited as moments where real-time presence adds tangible value.
- Community and Connection: For students seeking professional networking, live interactions can accelerate interpersonal bonds.
However, these perceived benefits came with a significant caveat. Study participants were hyper-aware that these advantages depend entirely on execution. When live sessions are added arbitrarily—simply because they "feel" more like traditional teaching—they quickly become burdensome disruptions.
Official Statements and Perspectives from the Field
The qualitative narrative responses collected during the study offer powerful testimony from the individuals living within these pedagogical structures. Their insights underscore the delicate balance between maintaining high engagement and respecting student autonomy.
The Administrative Perspective: "Truth in Advertising"
Program coordinators participating in the study highlighted the institutional and ethical dimensions of modality design. One coordinator framed the dilemma around the concept of "truth in advertising."
If a university markets a degree program as fully asynchronous to attract working professionals, embedding mandatory synchronous requirements halfway through the curriculum breaches an unwritten social contract. Students select asynchronous pathways because their personal and professional lives demand schedule sovereignty. Surprising them with mandatory live meetings invalidates the flexibility they were promised and disrupts carefully managed schedules.
The Student Voice: Navigating Complex Realities
Graduate students in fully asynchronous programs are rarely traditional learners sitting in dorm rooms; they are working professionals, parents, caregivers, and community members. The qualitative data reflected the immense mental load these students carry.
One student articulated the core tension plainly:
"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 addressed the issue of instructional efficiency:
"Something that can be shared in an email, announcement, or on Canvas does not need to be discussed synchronously."
These statements reveal that students do not reject community; they reject inefficiency and inflexibility. When live meetings duplicate information that could easily be communicated asynchronously, students perceive it as a disregard for their time.
The Instructor Perspective: Recognizing Equity Gaps
Online instructors participating in the study were similarly reflective about the hidden costs of live sessions. One instructor noted that adding synchronous elements can inadvertently create barriers for students constrained by time zones, demanding work shifts, or domestic responsibilities, ultimately diminishing the accessibility and inclusivity that asynchronous learning aims to champion.
Where Synchronous Activities Break Down
To build more resilient online programs, institutions must examine the specific failure points where well-intentioned synchronous activities actively harm the student experience.
1. Misalignment with Learner Realities
When educators design courses based on their own schedules, preferences, or nostalgic attachments to the physical classroom, they commit a fundamental pedagogical error: designing from assumption rather than empathy. Graduate students in asynchronous programs carve out coursework late at night after putting children to sleep, during early morning hours before corporate shifts, or across packed weekend hours. Requiring them to attend a Tuesday at 2:00 PM lecture ignores the structural realities of their lives.
2. Access and Equity Challenges ("Optional" is Not Equitable)
A common compromise among instructors is making synchronous sessions "optional." However, the study’s participants noted that optionality does not automatically equate to equity.
Even when attendance is not graded, students often experience FOMO (fear of missing out) or implicit pressure to attend. Furthermore, structural barriers—such as unreliable internet access, disparate time zones, and caregiving duties—mean that live events are inherently skewed toward those with the privilege of schedule control. If an optional live session delivers core content without an equivalent asynchronous alternative, marginalized students are systematically disadvantaged.
3. Redundancy and Low-Value Execution
Many live meetings suffer from poor pedagogical conversion. Instructors frequently use synchronous hours to deliver lecture content that could be recorded, read in text format, or outlined in an announcement. When synchronous time is squandered on administrative announcements or passive listening, it fails to earn its place in the curriculum. In an asynchronous program, every request for real-time presence must justify the disruption it causes.
Practical Principles for Better Design
Rather than abandoning synchronous opportunities entirely, instructional designers, faculty, and program leaders must adopt a framework of rigorous intentionality. The study’s findings point to five practical design principles:
1. Start with Learner Realities
Ground every design decision in the lived experiences of your actual students. Before implementing a live component, survey your cohort. Ask: Who are our learners? What professional and personal responsibilities are they balancing? What did our program promise them, and what might this requirement make harder for them?
2. Use Synchronous Time Only for Irreplaceable Value
Reserve real-time engagement exclusively for activities that cannot be achieved asynchronously. Ask yourself: What can happen in this live moment that could not happen as well through a recorded lecture, an interactive discussion board, a collaborative shared document, or a personalized video feedback loop? If the answer is "nothing," move the activity to the asynchronous space.
3. Protect Flexibility Through Optionality
When synchronous sessions are offered, they should genuinely be optional, and non-attendance must never carry explicit or implicit penalties. Crucially, the asynchronous alternative must not be an inferior substitute. Provide fully captioned recordings, structured asynchronous reflection prompts, or equivalent collaborative pathways to ensure all students reach the learning outcomes equally.
4. Design for Access, Not Just Availability
Look beyond the calendar invite. If you host a live session, consider how time zones, technological dependencies, and domestic spaces affect participation. Always caption recordings, accept questions asynchronously before and after the event, and maintain collaborative digital workspaces where students unable to attend live can still contribute their insights.
5. Be Transparent About Modality
Trust is foundational in online education. If a program is marketed as asynchronous, institutional expectations regarding live components must be crystal clear before a student enrolls. Transparency ensures that learners can make informed decisions aligned with their personal schedules and preserves institutional integrity.
Future Outlook: Redefining Quality in Online Education
The ongoing evolution of online learning demands that we move past superficial debates over whether synchronous or asynchronous modalities are inherently "better." The empirical insights brought forward by Weber, Davis, and Vick at OLC Accelerate 2025 remind us that quality is not determined by whether a class meets in Zoom or works through Canvas modules at 3:00 AM.
Quality is determined by alignment, empathy, and intentionality.
As institutions look toward the future, the central question facing online educators is no longer: Do asynchronous courses need synchronous sessions to succeed?
The defining question we must ask is: When does synchronous time add value that is worth the cost to learners?
If program leaders and instructional designers can answer that question with rigorous, student-centered justification, synchronous opportunities will enrich the educational experience. If they cannot, those real-time demands have no place in an asynchronous world.
References & Citation Note
- Presentation Citation: Weber, N., Davis, C., & Vick, M. (2025, November). Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think. Online Learning Consortium’s Accelerate Conference. Orlando, FL.
