Executive Overview
The debate surrounding the architecture of online education reached a contentious crossroads at the OLC Innovate conference, where a provocative keynote presentation by Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant posited that fully asynchronous online courses require real-time, synchronous components to truly support student success. While designed to spark dialogue on student engagement, the assertion struck a discordant chord among educators who have spent years meticulously crafting asynchronous learning environments tailored to the realities of adult learners.
This tension catalyzed a practice-based institutional study conducted by researchers and educators at a regional public university in the Midwest. Seeking to move past ideological assumptions about what constitutes "real teaching," the research team—led by scholars including N. Weber, Corey Davis, and M. Vick—investigated the perceptions of students, instructors, and program coordinators regarding synchronous activities within fully asynchronous graduate programs. The findings, subsequently presented at the OLC Accelerate conference, reveal a nuanced landscape: while real-time sessions hold undeniable value when deployed with surgical precision, mandatory synchronous requirements frequently act as barriers to access, equity, and trust.
Rather than framing the issue as a binary conflict between synchronous and asynchronous modalities, this investigation explores the structural breakdowns of poorly planned live sessions and outlines five core principles for intentional course design. Ultimately, the research urges institutional leaders to shift their pedagogical inquiry away from whether asynchronous courses need live sessions, and toward a more critical evaluation: When does synchronous time actually generate value that justifies the disruption to a learner’s life?
Detailed Chronology of the Debate and Study
The discourse surrounding online modality design has evolved significantly over the past decade, shifting from a rudimentary preference for digital content delivery to sophisticated instructional design frameworks. However, the friction between live and recorded interaction came to a head during a sequence of academic conferences and institutional evaluations.
March: The OLC Innovate Catalyst
At the OLC Innovate conference, Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant argued that fully asynchronous programs leave a void in student connection that only synchronous interactions can fill. For veteran asynchronous educators, the premise felt dismissive of intentional design principles. It implied that geographical and temporal separation inherently diminishes educational quality unless bridged by real-time human contact. This perspective overlooked the daily realities of adult graduate students—professionals managing full-time careers, caregiving duties, and community responsibilities who rely entirely on the temporal flexibility of asynchronous frameworks to advance their education.
Moving from Anecdote to Empirical Inquiry
Prompted by the keynote’s challenge, researchers sought empirical grounding to understand how stakeholders actually experience synchronicity. This led to a targeted institutional study at a Midwestern regional public university, focusing specifically on fully asynchronous graduate and certificate programs. The research methodology incorporated both closed- and open-ended survey instruments distributed across three distinct campus stakeholder groups: graduate students, online instructors, and graduate program coordinators.
November: Unveiling Findings at OLC Accelerate
The culmination of this research was presented at the Online Learning Consortium’s Accelerate Conference in Orlando, Florida, under the title "Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think." The presentation synthesized survey responses from fifty students, eleven online instructors, and five program coordinators. Although framed as practice-based institutional insights rather than broadly generalizable statistical conclusions, the data accurately mirrored the urgent pedagogical dilemmas facing online program directors nationwide. The narrative feedback gathered during the study exposed a clear consensus: synchronous activities are neither universally rejected nor universally beneficial; their utility is entirely contingent upon design intentionality and alignment with student realities.
Supporting Context & Metrics: Voices from the Field
To fully grasp the implications of introducing synchronous elements into asynchronous programs, one must examine the specific data points and qualitative feedback captured during the Midwestern university study.
Stakeholder Demographics and Response Dynamics
While the absolute sample sizes reflect the specialized nature of regional graduate programs—yielding a 5% response rate among students ($n=50$), 26% among online instructors ($n=11$), and 22% among program coordinators ($n=5$)—the qualitative richness of the open-ended responses provided profound insights into the lived experiences of online education stakeholders.
The Promise of Flexibility vs. "Truth in Advertising"
A recurring theme across administrative and student feedback was the concept of institutional integrity, characterized by one program coordinator as "truth in advertising." When a university markets a degree as a fully asynchronous program, prospective students make life-altering financial, professional, and personal commitments based on that promise. Introducing mandatory live sessions mid-stream violates this contract. As one student plainly stated in the survey:
"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."
The Illusion of "Optional" Equity
A dangerous assumption in instructional design is that labeling a synchronous session "optional" solves access and equity issues. The study’s findings dismantle this assumption. Even when attendance is not graded, live sessions often introduce systemic disadvantages based on geography, technological access, and socioeconomic status. An online instructor noted that mandatory or semi-mandatory synchronous elements disproportionately penalize students managing tight professional schedules or international time zones, eroding the foundational inclusivity that asynchronous learning champions.
Furthermore, participants frequently cited the "this could have been an email" phenomenon. Many live meetings were described as redundant administrative updates or lecture recaps that failed to justify the logistical gymnastics required for students to attend in real-time. As another student bluntly observed:
"Something that can be shared in an email, announcement, or on Canvas does not need to be discussed synchronously."
Official Statements and Institutional Perspectives
The institutional study highlights a sharp divergence between pedagogical assumptions held by faculty and the practical constraints experienced by students.
Program coordinators emphasized that institutional reputation hinges on consistency. When departments fail to align course requirements with program-level marketing, student trust deteriorates. Administrators stressed that faculty members often default to synchronous teaching methods because they mirror traditional face-to-face paradigms, mistaking physical presence for instructional rigor.
Conversely, instructors who participated in the research expressed a genuine desire to forge deeper connections with their students, fearing that text-based asynchronous boards create an emotional vacuum. However, the study’s broader analytical takeaway is that connection cannot be manufactured by forcing compliance with a shared clock. Real connection emerges when instructors respect the architecture of asynchronous spaces—leveraging discussion boards, video feedback, and collaborative documents to build community without demanding temporal synchronization.
Future Outlook: Practical Principles for Better Design
Rather than advising educators to purge all live elements from online programs, the researchers propose a progressive framework for intentional design. To reconcile the benefits of real-time interaction with the non-negotiable need for asynchronous flexibility, institutions should adopt five foundational principles:
1. Ground Design in Learner Realities
Instructional decisions must stem from empirical understanding of who online learners actually are, rather than instructor nostalgia for traditional classrooms. Program planners must ask: What are our students balancing? What did our program promise them? What will a live requirement make harder for them? Prefatory surveys assessing student bandwidth can prevent the thoughtless integration of live events.
2. Reserve Synchronicity for Irreplaceable Value
Live sessions should be strictly restricted to activities that cannot be achieved asynchronously. While complex negotiations, high-stakes peer critiques, or live mentoring sessions may warrant real-time dialogue, standard content delivery must remain accessible on-demand.
3. Protect Flexibility Through Optionality
Synchronous events in asynchronous programs must remain strictly optional, carrying zero academic penalty for non-attendance. Crucially, institutions must provide equivalent asynchronous pathways—such as captioned video recordings, interactive reflection assignments, or structured discussion threads—ensuring that missing a live event never translates to missing foundational content.
4. Design for True Access
If a synchronous session is scheduled, designers must account for systemic barriers. Time zone distributions, fluctuating internet bandwidth, caregiving emergencies, and private space availability must be factored into the equation. Providing pre-session question submission portals and post-session collaborative notes ensures marginalized or time-constrained learners maintain a voice.
5. Maintain Radical Transparency Regarding Modality
Trust is the currency of online education. Program websites, syllabi, and marketing materials must explicitly state whether a program or course utilizes synchronous components. Students deserve total clarity before investing time and tuition dollars.
Conclusion
The ultimate question facing online education is not whether asynchronous courses need synchronous sessions to achieve legitimacy. The real inquiry is much more demanding: When does synchronous time add value that justifies the cost to learners? By treating real-time interaction as a deliberate, high-value design choice rather than an assumed marker of pedagogical quality, institutions can preserve the accessibility, equity, and flexibility that make adult education possible.
Reference 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.
