Executive Overview
The debate surrounding online education modalities reached a provocative inflection point during the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Innovate conference. During a keynote address, Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant advanced an argument that challenged conventional wisdom among online instructional designers: fully asynchronous courses require synchronous opportunities to truly foster the conditions necessary for student success.
For many veteran practitioners of online pedagogy—particularly those who have spent years architecting and teaching within fully asynchronous graduate frameworks—the assertion felt abrasive. It carried the implicit suggestion that asynchronous learning, by its very nature, suffers from inherent deficiencies. The underlying narrative implied that true connection, robust engagement, and high academic quality require real-time, face-to-face interaction.
Yet, for thousands of adult learners balancing full-time careers, parenting, caregiving for aging relatives, and complex community commitments, the asynchronous model is not a compromise; it is the sole vehicle for academic advancement. When these students log into their virtual classrooms late at night, they produce thoughtful, high-caliber scholarship without ever stepping foot into a live video conference.
This friction between the pedagogical impulse toward real-time engagement and the pragmatic demand for student flexibility inspired a practice-based institutional study conducted by educators at a regional public university in the Midwest. Headed by researchers including N. Weber, Corey Davis, and M. Vick, the investigation examined the intersection of synchronous activities and fully asynchronous graduate programs. The resulting findings, presented at the OLC Accelerate conference, offer a nuanced look at a central dilemma in modern higher education: How do we design asynchronous learning intentionally, and how do we determine whether synchronous activities truly serve the populations these programs were built to support?
Detailed Chronology: The Evolution of the Debate
To understand the current tension between synchronous and asynchronous learning, it is necessary to trace how online education has evolved from correspondence courses into sophisticated digital ecosystems.
Phase One: The Promise of Flexibility
When fully asynchronous graduate programs first scaled across higher education, their primary value proposition was unambiguous: access through flexibility. Designed primarily for working professionals and non-traditional students, these programs unmoored education from geographic and temporal constraints. Students could review lectures, complete readings, and participate in discussion boards on their own schedules.
Phase Two: The Push for Real-Time "Engagement"
As video-conferencing technology matured and web bandwidth expanded, institutional pressures shifted. Educators, instructional designers, and administrators began to equate "engagement" with visibility. Influenced by traditional campus paradigms, many educators assumed that synchronous sessions—such as live lectures, real-time debates, and virtual office hours—represented the gold standard of teaching. Slowly, synchronous expectations began creeping back into asynchronous programs, sometimes mandated as core course requirements.
Phase Three: The Clash at OLC Innovate and Accelerate
The philosophical divide came to a head at OLC Innovate, where keynote remarks reignited the debate over whether asynchronous isolation harms student retention and satisfaction. This catalyst prompted Weber and Davis to launch an institutional study to gather empirical, practice-based insights from the front lines of online education. By surveying students, instructors, and program coordinators, the researchers sought to move past theoretical assumptions and document the lived experiences of those navigating mixed-modality expectations. The study culminated in a formal presentation at the OLC Accelerate conference in Orlando, Florida, titled "Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think."
Supporting Context & Metrics: What the Institutional Study Revealed
The study conducted at the Midwestern regional public university captured quantitative and qualitative feedback from three core stakeholder groups embedded within fully asynchronous graduate programs.
Methodology and Response Rates
While the researchers explicitly note that the findings reflect practice-based institutional insights rather than universally generalizable conclusions, the data mirrors conversations happening across the global online learning community. The survey captured responses from:
- Graduate Students: $n = 50$ ($5%$ response rate)
- Online Instructors: $n = 11$ ($26%$ response rate)
- Graduate Program / Certificate Coordinators: $n = 5$ ($22%$ response rate)
Despite the varied response rates, the qualitative narrative data offered profound clarity regarding when synchronous activities add genuine value and when they transform from supportive tools into exclusionary barriers.
Where Synchronous Activities Add Value
Participants across all three stakeholder groups did not reject synchronous interaction outright. When deployed with surgical precision, real-time engagement can accomplish specific pedagogical objectives:
- Real-time clarification and feedback: Untangling complex theoretical concepts that might cause prolonged confusion asynchronously.
- Targeted high-value learning moments: Hosting guest speakers, running specialized orientations, or facilitating complex, multi-person collaborative projects.
- Community building: Cultivating localized moments of camaraderie for students who actively desire real-time connection.
Where Synchronous Activities Break Down
Conversely, the data highlighted three major structural breakdowns that occur when synchronous elements are added to asynchronous programs without strategic alignment:
- Misalignment with Learner Realities: Many graduate students enroll in asynchronous programs specifically because their schedules preclude fixed-time attendance. As one student participant noted: "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." Requiring live attendance forces students to choose between professional/familial responsibilities and academic success.
- Access and Equity Challenges: Even when synchronous sessions are labeled "optional," hidden inequities persist. Time zone discrepancies, fluctuating work shifts, caregiving emergencies, and unreliable internet infrastructure dictate who can participate. As one instructor observed, adding unvetted synchronous elements diminishes the fundamental accessibility and inclusivity that asynchronous learning champions.
- Redundancy and Low Value: Participants frequently reported that mandatory live sessions often devolved into administrative updates or lectures that could have easily been delivered via email, announcement, or a recorded video. As another student bluntly stated: "Something that can be shared in an email, announcement, or on Canvas does not need to be discussed synchronously."
Official Statements & Stakeholder Perspectives
The qualitative insights gathered during the study illuminate the deep philosophical divide between administrative ideals and student realities.
One graduate program coordinator framed the issue as a matter of institutional ethics and "truth in advertising." According to this perspective, if an institution markets a degree program as fully asynchronous, prospective students make life-altering financial and personal commitments based on that promise. Introducing mandatory synchronous requirements mid-program breaches that trust, blindsiding students who cannot reorganize their professional or domestic lives to accommodate live meetings.
Online instructors echoed these concerns, noting that educators often default to synchronous teaching methods simply because it is how they were trained. Teaching asynchronously requires a distinct instructional design philosophy—one centered on proactive course architecture, rich written feedback, and community-building via asynchronous discussion boards. When instructors lack training in intentional asynchronous design, they may lean on synchronous video calls as a crutch, mistaking synchronous presence for effective pedagogy.
Practical Principles for Better Design
Rather than advising educators to purge all synchronous elements from online programs, the study’s findings point toward a framework of intentional, learner-centered design. Educators and program leaders can utilize five core principles to evaluate whether real-time engagement is truly warranted:
1. Start with Learner Realities
Design decisions must be anchored in the lived experiences of students rather than faculty preference or academic tradition. Before implementing a live session, course designers must ask: Who are our learners? What are their daily obligations? What did our program promise them, and will this requirement make their lives harder? Surveying students prior to scheduling live components ensures leadership understands the parameters of student availability.
2. Use Synchronous Time Only for Irreplaceable Value
Synchronous time must earn its place in the curriculum. If a learning outcome can be achieved just as effectively through an asynchronous discussion board, a collaborative Google Doc, or a recorded feedback video, the asynchronous option should take precedence. Live sessions should be strictly reserved for activities that genuinely require real-time synergy, such as complex team problem-solving or interactive project critiques.
3. Protect Flexibility Through Optionality
In fully asynchronous programs, live activities should remain optional by default. Students must never be penalized, either directly through grading rubrics or indirectly through participation points, for missing a live event. When synchronous sessions are held, alternative equivalent pathways—such as captioned recordings paired with guided reflection prompts—must be provided to ensure equal access to the core learning experience.
4. Design for Access, Not Just Availability
Labeling an event "optional" does not automatically make it accessible. Institutions must account for global time zones, variable work schedules, and technological disparities. Furthermore, access involves post-event equity: are recordings captioned quickly? Can non-attending students submit questions in advance? Are collaborative digital spaces left open for asynchronous contributions?
5. Maintain Transparency Regarding Modality
Trust is foundational to higher education. Programs marketed as asynchronous must clearly communicate any synchronous expectations upfront. Prospective students deserve to know during the recruitment and onboarding phases whether specific courses feature live components, whether those components are mandatory, and what alternative options exist.
Future Outlook
As higher education continues to experiment with hybrid, online, and HyFlex modalities, the conversation surrounding synchronicity must mature. The false dichotomy that pits asynchronous flexibility against synchronous engagement serves neither institutions nor learners.
The insights articulated by Weber, Davis, and Vick at OLC Accelerate signal a necessary pivot in instructional design. The ultimate question for online educators is no longer whether asynchronous courses need synchronous sessions to be legitimate. Instead, the guiding inquiry must be: When does synchronous time add irreplaceable value that justifies the operational and personal cost to the learner?
By anchoring design choices in empathy, transparency, and rigorous pedagogical alignment, institutions can honor the unique realities of adult learners—ensuring that flexibility remains the gateway to educational access rather than a casualty of academic tradition.
Reference 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.
