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 structured engagement offered by real-time, synchronous interaction. This friction came to a head at the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Innovate conference, where Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant posited a provocative thesis: fully asynchronous courses require synchronous components to genuinely support student success.
For educators who have dedicated their careers to building deep, meaningful relationships across time and space, that assertion lands with a heavy thud. It risks invalidating years of pedagogical innovation tailored specifically for adult learners—individuals juggling full-time careers, caregiving responsibilities, and complex personal lives.
However, rather than dismissing the critique, a growing body of institutional research suggests we must lean into it. A practice-based study conducted at a regional Midwestern public university—presented at OLC Accelerate 2025 by researchers N. Weber, C. Davis, and M. Vick—explores the nuanced realities of blending synchronicity into asynchronous graduate programs. Surveying students, online instructors, and program coordinators, the study reveals that while real-time interaction is not universally rejected, its implementation is fraught with challenges. When added without careful pedagogical alignment, synchronous requirements transition rapidly from supportive scaffolding to structural barriers.
This article investigates the core findings of that study, deconstructs where synchronous design breaks down, and outlines five practical principles for educators striving to honor both the flexibility and the academic rigor of asynchronous programs.
Detailed Chronology: From Conference Spark to Empirical Inquiry
The genesis of this institutional study traces back a series of professional milestones within the online education community:
- March (OLC Innovate): Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant delivers a keynote challenging the self-sufficiency of fully asynchronous courses, arguing that real-time connection is a prerequisite for student success. The claim prompts immediate reflection among asynchronous instructional designers and faculty members regarding the perceived deficits of non-real-time learning.
- Interim Research Phase: Prompted by the keynote, researchers initiate a practice-based institutional study at a regional public university in the Midwest. The objective is to capture the ground-level perspectives of the primary stakeholders in fully asynchronous graduate programs: students, online instructors, and program coordinators.
- November (OLC Accelerate): The findings of the study are officially presented in Orlando, Florida, under the title "Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think." The presentation catalyzes a broader discourse on equity, flexibility, and the true cost of mandatory attendance policies in asynchronous spaces.
Supporting Context & Metrics: What the Institutional Study Revealed
To move beyond anecdotal debates, the research team gathered qualitative and quantitative data from three distinct stakeholder groups within asynchronous graduate and certificate pathways. While the authors emphasize that the findings represent practice-based institutional insights rather than universally generalizable conclusions, the responses mirror the systemic questions currently facing online programs nationwide.
Survey Demographics and Response Rates
- Graduate Students: $n = 50$ (5% response rate)
- Online Instructors: $n = 11$ (26% response rate)
- Program/Certificate Coordinators: $n = 5$ (22% response rate)
Despite modest response rates, the open-ended narrative responses offered deep qualitative insights into how stakeholders experience the intersection of time, flexibility, and course design.
Across all three groups, participants did not outright reject synchronous activities. In fact, they identified specific scenarios where real-time engagement provides undeniable value:
- Real-time clarification and immediate feedback: Clearing up complex conceptual hurdles before moving forward with high-stakes assignments.
- Community building and connection: Establishing initial rapport during orientation or deep-diving into collaborative milestones.
- High-value touchpoints: Engaging with guest speakers or participating in interactive problem-solving sessions that genuinely benefit from collective, simultaneous brainstorming.
However, these perceived benefits are entirely conditional. When synchronous elements are introduced arbitrarily—driven by instructor habit or assumptions about what "real teaching" looks like—they quickly compromise the accessibility of the program.
Official Statements and Stakeholder Perspectives
The qualitative data collected during the study exposes a stark contrast between institutional assumptions and student realities.
The Student Reality: Flexibility as an Access Issue
For adult graduate students, asynchronous learning is rarely just a matter of convenience; it is a mechanism of survival and access. Many carve out coursework late at night after managing full-time jobs, raising children, or caring for aging parents.
One student articulated this delicate balance clearly:
"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."
When programs introduce mandatory live sessions under the banner of "increased engagement," they inadvertently penalize the exact demographic asynchronous education was built to serve. Furthermore, students noted that many required or semi-optional live meetings offered information that could have been disseminated far more efficiently through written announcements, recorded video, or discussion forums. As one student bluntly stated:
"Something that can be shared in an email, announcement, or on Canvas does not need to be discussed synchronously."
The Instructor and Coordinator Dilemma: Truth in Advertising
Program coordinators interviewed in the study emphasized the ethical dimension of modality design, framing the issue around "truth in advertising." If a degree track is marketed as fully asynchronous, prospective students enroll expecting absolute spatial and temporal independence. Surprising them later with mandatory live meetings shatters that trust.
Simultaneously, online instructors observed the equity pitfalls embedded in so-called "optional" synchronous sessions. As one instructor noted, adding live components—even when optional—creates inherent disparities for students trapped in restrictive time zones, managing inflexible work shifts, or grappling with unreliable internet infrastructure and lack of private study spaces. In essence, optional does not automatically equate to equitable.
Practical Principles for Intentional Design
Rather than forcing a false dichotomy between synchronous and asynchronous learning, educators and instructional designers must pivot toward intentional, learner-centered alignment. Based on the insights from the OLC Accelerate presentation, five core principles emerge for designing better online experiences:
1. Start with Learner Realities
Design decisions must be anchored in the lived experiences of students, not in instructor nostalgia for the traditional physical classroom. Before incorporating any live session, program leaders must ask: Who are our learners? What responsibilities are they balancing? What did this program promise them? Pre-semester surveys regarding scheduling constraints can help determine whether a session belongs live, asynchronously, or not at all.
2. Reserve Synchronous Time for Irreplaceable Value
Live interaction must earn its place in the curriculum. Synchronous time should be strictly protected for activities that cannot be replicated asynchronously—such as complex real-time mentoring, dynamic project critiques, or collaborative crisis-problem-solving. If an objective can be achieved via a recorded lecture, a collaborative Google Doc, or a threaded discussion board, the asynchronous route should take precedence.
3. Protect Flexibility Through Optionality
In asynchronous programs, live events should remain optional by default. Crucially, choosing not to attend a live session must never result in implicit or explicit academic penalty. Instructors must provide robust, high-quality alternative pathways—such as captioned recordings, interactive reflection prompts, or parallel asynchronous discussion threads—to ensure non-attending students receive an equivalent learning experience.
4. Design for Deep Access, Not Just Availability
Merely scheduling a live session at a "convenient" time fails to address systemic barriers. Designers must account for time zone distribution, digital equity, internet bandwidth, and domestic care schedules. Access strategies must extend beyond the live event itself, incorporating pre-session Q&A collection, post-session captioning, and shared digital workspaces that allow asynchronous contributors to leave their mark.
5. Maintain Radical Transparency Regarding Modality
Trust is foundational to online education. Program websites, admissions counseling materials, and course syllabi must be unequivocally clear about expectations. Students deserve to know prior to enrollment whether a program features occasional live workshops, mandatory seminar meetings, or entirely self-paced modules. Integrity requires that what is promised in the course catalog matches the pedagogical reality on the ground.
Future Outlook: Redefining Quality in Online Learning
The institutional study presented by Weber, Davis, and Vick challenges the higher education sector to mature in its understanding of online pedagogy. The push for student engagement and connection is valid, but chasing those goals through the lazy imposition of synchronous meetings fails to respect the complex realities of modern adult learners.
Connection does not stem from forcing isolated human beings to stare at one another through a webcam at a designated hour; it emerges from empathetic instructional design that respects how students live, work, and learn. Synchronous activities are powerful tools when deployed with surgical precision, but they are dangerous liabilities when treated as default benchmarks of academic rigor.
As universities look toward the future of online graduate education, the central question must shift. We should no longer ask: "Do asynchronous courses need synchronous sessions to succeed?"
Instead, the defining question of modern instructional design must be: "When does synchronous time add value that justifies the cost to our learners?"
Until higher education can answer that question with absolute clarity, synchronous opportunities should be treated as deliberate, high-stakes design choices—not lazy proxies for educational quality.
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.
