Executive Overview
The debate over the optimal structure of online education reached a provocative inflection point during the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Innovate conference. During a keynote address, Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant raised a challenging thesis: fully asynchronous courses require synchronous opportunities to truly support student success.
For many educators, instructional designers, and program directors who have spent decades defending and refining the asynchronous model, this assertion felt jarring. At its core, the argument for asynchronous education rests on a foundational promise: unmatched flexibility. It is designed for adult learners who juggle demanding careers, caregiving responsibilities, and complex personal lives. Suggesting that real-time interaction is a prerequisite for academic success implies that purely asynchronous models are inherently lacking in connection, engagement, or quality.
However, recent institutional research challenges this assumption, revealing a more nuanced reality. A practice-based study conducted at a regional public university in the Midwest—and subsequently presented at the OLC Accelerate conference—investigated the perceptions of students, instructors, and program coordinators regarding synchronous activities in fully asynchronous graduate programs. The findings demonstrate that while real-time interaction holds value under specific conditions, uncalculated synchronous requirements can transform from a support mechanism into an access barrier.
This article explores the friction between synchronous and asynchronous learning modalities, analyzes data-driven insights from institutional stakeholders, and outlines five practical design principles for educators seeking to honor the realities of modern online learners.
Detailed Chronology and Background: The Evolution of the Debate
To understand the current tension surrounding synchronous learning, it is necessary to examine how online education has evolved over the past two decades.
The Rise of Asynchronous Flexibility
Asynchronous online learning was originally pioneered to democratize higher education. By detaching coursework from rigid geographic and temporal constraints, universities opened their doors to non-traditional students: parents raising young children, professionals advancing their careers, military personnel stationed globally, and individuals living in rural or economically disadvantaged areas.
In a traditional asynchronous environment, students log into learning management systems (LMS) on their own schedules. They complete readings, contribute to threaded discussions, submit assignments, and collaborate asynchronously. Proponents of this model argue that it fosters deep, reflective learning because students have time to process information and draft considered responses rather than reacting in real time.
The Push for Real-Time "Engagement"
In recent years, however, institutional pressures—driven by concerns over student retention, feelings of isolation, and the rapid adoption of video conferencing tools—have led many programs to reintroduce synchronous elements. Live lectures, virtual office hours, mandatory seminar discussions, and real-time group projects have increasingly crept into programs originally marketed as fully flexible and self-paced.
This shift accelerated dramatically during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, as higher education rushed to adopt Zoom and Microsoft Teams. For many educators, live sessions felt like a return to "real teaching." Yet, this pivot often occurred without evaluating whether synchronous requirements aligned with the needs and logistical realities of the student body.
The dialogue came to a head at OLC Innovate, when keynote speakers and academic leaders debated whether the convenience of asynchronous learning compromises educational rigor. This tension prompted researchers to look directly at the stakeholders most affected by these modality decisions: the students, instructors, and program coordinators navigating these programs every day.
Supporting Context & Metrics: What the Institutional Study Reveals
Prompted by the ongoing debate over synchronous expectations, researchers conducted a practice-based institutional study at a regional public university in the Midwest. The study examined the role of synchronous activities within fully asynchronous graduate and certificate programs.
Methodology and Scope
The study gathered quantitative and qualitative feedback through closed- and open-ended surveys distributed to three distinct stakeholder groups:
- Graduate Students: $n = 50$ (5% response rate)
- Online Instructors: $n = 11$ (26% response rate)
- Graduate Program and Certificate Coordinators: $n = 5$ (22% response rate)
While the researchers note that these findings represent practice-based institutional insights rather than universally generalizable conclusions, the responses mirror systemic questions facing online programs across higher education. The study successfully elevated the lived experiences of students, instructors, and program leaders caught in the middle of the modality debate.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Value Versus Burden
The qualitative narrative responses offered deep insight into when synchronous activities feel helpful and when they become burdensome. Across all three groups, participants did not outright reject real-time interaction. In fact, they identified specific scenarios where synchronous components add measurable value:
- Real-time clarification and feedback: Addressing complex conceptual hurdles quickly without waiting for email turnaround.
- Targeted high-value learning moments: Engaging with guest speakers, participating in interactive orientations, or tackling intricate collaborative projects.
- Community building: Fostering personal connections and combating feelings of isolation.
However, participants were equally emphatic that these benefits are entirely conditional. When synchronous requirements are implemented without accounting for student realities, they cease to be supportive interventions and instead become structural barriers.
One graduate program coordinator described the issue as a failure of "truth in advertising." If an institution recruits adult learners by advertising a fully asynchronous, flexible program, students should not face unexpected mandatory live meetings that disrupt their livelihoods.
Official Statements and Qualitative Insights
The qualitative data collected during the study highlight the deep disconnect that can occur when course designers impose synchronous expectations onto asynchronous cohorts. The voices of students and instructors capture the core of the dilemma.
The Student Realities: Flexibility as an Access Issue
For adult graduate students, flexibility is not a luxury feature—it is the foundational mechanism that makes higher education possible. When mandatory synchronous meetings are introduced, they often conflict with rigid work schedules and family obligations.
One student articulated this frustration 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."
Another student emphasized the redundancy of forcing real-time attendance for content that could be easily consumed asynchronously:
"Something that can be shared in an email, announcement, or on Canvas does not need to be discussed synchronously."
These testimonies underscore a vital truth: requiring students to be in the same virtual room at the exact same time can induce stress rather than foster engagement, effectively undermining the primary selling point of asynchronous learning.
The Instructor Perspective: Equity and Access Challenges
Online instructors recognized that synchronous elements can inadvertently create equity gaps. Even when live sessions are labeled "optional," systemic disparities in technology, time zones, and personal responsibilities dictate who can participate.
One online instructor noted:
"Adding synchronous elements can create barriers for students with time constraints or in different time zones, ultimately diminishing the accessibility and inclusivity that asynchronous learning aims to offer."
In practice, instructors found that "optional" does not automatically equate to "equitable." Students who miss live sessions due to work shifts or time zone differences often feel marginalized, even if recordings are made available later.
Practical Principles for Intentional Course Design
Rather than completely eliminating live sessions or defaulting to mandatory real-time meetings, institutions must adopt a disciplined, learner-centered design framework. Based on the findings of the study, educators and instructional designers should adhere to five core principles:
1. Start with Learner Realities
Design decisions must be grounded in the lived experiences of students rather than instructor habits or assumptions about what "good teaching" looks like. Before adding a live component, course creators must ask:
- Who are our learners?
- What are their daily responsibilities?
- What did the program promise them regarding flexibility?
- What barriers might this requirement introduce?
Practical Application: Conduct pre-semester surveys to understand students’ scheduling constraints and use that data to determine whether live sessions should be optional, asynchronous alternatives, or removed entirely.
2. Use Synchronous Time Only for Irreplaceable Value
Synchronous sessions should be reserved exclusively for activities that cannot be executed effectively through asynchronous channels. If a learning objective can be met via a well-crafted discussion board, a video announcement, or a collaborative document, the live session should be reconsidered.
Practical Application: Reserve real-time meetings for complex project milestones, team planning, or interactive problem-solving sessions that genuinely benefit from live debate and dialogue.
3. Protect Flexibility Through Optionality
In fully asynchronous programs, synchronous activities must remain optional whenever possible. Students who cannot attend live sessions must never be penalized, either implicitly or explicitly. Furthermore, the alternative asynchronous pathway must offer an equivalent learning experience, not a diluted version.
Practical Application: Host an optional live Q&A session, but immediately publish a captioned recording alongside an asynchronous reflection prompt or question-submission board for absent students.
4. Design for Access, Not Just Availability
When synchronous events are scheduled, accessibility must extend beyond mere timing. Designers must account for time zone disparities, internet reliability, access to private spaces, and assistive technology requirements.
Practical Application: Keep shared documents open before and after live events so students across global time zones can contribute to the conversation asynchronously.
5. Be Transparent About Modality
Transparency is a matter of institutional trust. If a program is marketed as asynchronous, any expectations regarding live components must be explicitly communicated during the recruitment and enrollment phases.
Practical Application: Include clear modality statements on program websites and student orientation modules, explicitly outlining whether live sessions are required, optional, occasional, or entirely absent.
Future Outlook: Reframing the Question
The ongoing dialogue sparked at OLC Innovate and expanded at OLC Accelerate serves as a vital reminder that connection and engagement matter deeply in education. However, institutions must be careful about how they achieve those goals.
True student connection does not stem from forcing individuals to log in at the exact same hour. Instead, it arises from intentional instructional design that respects who learners are, acknowledges the responsibilities they carry, and honors the promises made to them when they enrolled.
Synchronous activities are not inherently flawed, nor are they diametrically opposed to asynchronous learning. When thoughtfully designed, they can provide timely clarification, enrich dialogue, and build community. But when overused or implemented without strategic purpose, they erode flexibility, widen equity gaps, and break student trust.
As higher education continues to adapt to the needs of non-traditional learners, the debate must shift away from a binary conflict between synchronous and asynchronous modalities. The defining question for instructional designers and academic leaders is no longer: Do asynchronous courses need synchronous sessions to succeed?
The better, more rigorous question is: When does synchronous time add value that justifies the cost to learners?
If educators can answer that question with precision, synchronous opportunities will truly strengthen online learning. If they cannot, those real-time demands have no place in an asynchronous world.
Research 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.
