Executive Overview
The rapid expansion of online higher education has long positioned asynchronous learning as the ultimate equalizer for adult learners, working professionals, and non-traditional students. By removing geographical barriers and decoupling education from rigid hourly schedules, asynchronous programs promise unprecedented access to higher learning. However, a persistent pedagogical debate continues to polarize instructional designers, faculty members, and program administrators: Do fully asynchronous courses ultimately undermine student success by lacking real-time, human connection?
This central tension was brought to the forefront this past March at the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Innovate conference, where a provocative keynote address by Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant suggested that fully asynchronous courses require synchronous opportunities to truly support student success. While well-intentioned, the assertion triggered significant professional pushback from educators who have spent years successfully fostering deep, meaningful student engagement entirely across time zones.
To move past ideological debates and ground the discussion in empirical reality, a team of researchers—including faculty and institutional researchers at a regional public university in the Midwest—conducted a practice-based institutional study examining the role of synchronous activities in fully asynchronous graduate programs. The study’s findings, recently showcased at the OLC Accelerate 2025 conference, capture the nuanced perspectives of students, online instructors, and program coordinators.
The investigation reveals that synchronous elements are not universally rejected by stakeholders; rather, their perceived value is highly conditional. When live sessions are purposefully deployed to foster complex collaboration or targeted mentoring, they can enhance the learning experience. Conversely, when mandated without regard for students’ lived realities, synchronous requirements transform from academic supports into administrative barriers. This comprehensive report explores the study’s core findings, details where synchronous breakdowns occur, and outlines five practical design principles for building more equitable online programs.
Detailed Chronology: From Conference Provocation to Institutional Research
The intellectual trajectory of this study follows a clear path from high-level academic debate to grounded institutional investigation.
March 2025: The OLC Innovate Catalyst
The conversation crystallized at OLC Innovate, where Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant’s keynote challenged the orthodoxy of entirely asynchronous instructional models. For many veteran online educators, the proposition landed as an implicit critique of asynchronous integrity—suggesting that asynchronous instruction inherently lacks the quality, connection, or rigor found in real-time interactions.
However, practitioners working directly with graduate students quickly recognized that this critique failed to account for the lived realities of adult learners. Students in these programs frequently navigate complex daily responsibilities: working full-time jobs, caring for children and aging partners, managing community obligations, and completing coursework late into the night. For these learners, the flexibility of asynchronous study is not a convenience feature; it is an absolute prerequisite for enrollment.
The Institutional Study Takes Shape
Prompted by the keynote’s challenge, researchers launched a practice-based institutional study at a regional public university in the Midwest. Led by educators deeply invested in asynchronous program design, the project sought to answer a fundamental, learner-centered question: How do we make intentional decisions about whether synchronous activities actually serve the learners these programs are built for?
Partnering with colleagues like Corey Davis, the research team examined the convergence of expectations across three core institutional stakeholder groups in fully asynchronous graduate and certificate programs:
- Graduate Students: The primary consumers of the educational product, balancing professional and personal lives.
- Online Instructors: The faculty members tasked with designing and facilitating asynchronous environments.
- Program Coordinators: The institutional leaders responsible for curriculum coherence, marketing, and program integrity.
November 2025: Presenting at OLC Accelerate
The culmination of this research was formally presented in November 2025 at the Online Learning Consortium’s Accelerate Conference in Orlando, Florida. Titled "Synchronicity in an asynchronous world: What students, instructors, and administrators really think," the presentation synthesized qualitative and quantitative survey data to provide a rare, multi-stakeholder perspective on the synchronous-asynchronous divide in modern higher education.
Supporting Context & Metrics: What the Data Reveals
While the institutional study was designed to generate practice-based insights rather than broad generalizability across all higher education institutions, its metrics mirror the exact tensions currently confronting online program directors nationwide.
Study Demographics and Response Rates
The investigation gathered closed- and open-ended survey responses from three distinct cohorts within fully asynchronous graduate programs at a Midwestern regional public university:
- Graduate Students: $n = 50$ (representing a 5% response rate).
- Online Instructors: $n = 11$ (representing a 26% response rate).
- Graduate Program and Certificate Coordinators: $n = 5$ (representing a 22% response rate).
Despite the modest student response rate, the qualitative narrative data gathered from open-ended responses proved exceptionally rich, exposing deep insights into the fault lines of mandatory versus optional synchronous events.
Stakeholder Consensus: When Synchronosity Works
Across all surveyed groups, participants did not outright dismiss live interaction. In fact, students, instructors, and coordinators readily identified specific scenarios where real-time engagement adds distinct value:
- Real-Time Clarification and Feedback: Immediate back-and-forth dialogue to clear up complex theoretical or methodological confusions.
- Connection and Community Building: Humanizing the virtual classroom and establishing professional peer networks.
- Targeted High-Value Moments: Hosting external guest speakers, conducting comprehensive program orientations, or tackling complex, multi-layered collaborative team projects.
The Conditions of Value
Crucially, study participants emphasized that these benefits are entirely conditional. When synchronous activities are injected into a course without rigorous pedagogical justification, they disrupt the delicate ecosystem of asynchronous learning. As one program coordinator astutely framed the issue, it is fundamentally a matter of "truth in advertising." If a university markets a degree path as a fully asynchronous program, students have a reasonable expectation that they will not face mandatory real-time attendance requirements that disrupt their professional and personal schedules.
Official Perspectives & Stakeholder Testimonies
The qualitative depth of the study is best understood through the direct voices of those navigating these virtual spaces daily. Their statements highlight the stark contrast between institutional assumptions and student realities.
The Student Voice: Flexibility as Access
For graduate students, asynchronous programs represent a calculated strategy to advance their education without sacrificing their livelihoods. When instructors impose mandatory synchronous sessions, it directly violates the foundational promise of the program.
One survey respondent summarized the student sentiment 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."
This perspective underscores that flexibility is not merely a pedagogical preference; it is an equity issue. Forcing adult learners to adhere to fixed meeting times introduces friction into an educational model explicitly designed to eliminate it.
The Instructor Voice: Equity and the Myth of "Optional"
Faculty members participating in the study also recognized the hidden traps of adding synchronous components. One online instructor noted that haphazardly integrating live elements creates severe access barriers for students managing tight time constraints or residing in different geographic time zones.
Furthermore, the data challenged the common assumption that labeling an event "optional" automatically resolves equity concerns. In practice, students often experience implicit pressure to attend live sessions, and those who cannot attend due to work conflicts or caregiving duties frequently feel marginalized or disconnected from the core learning community.
The Coordinator Voice: Administrative Integrity
Program coordinators focused heavily on institutional trust and curricular alignment. When courses are approved and marketed as asynchronous, altering expectations mid-stream via unannounced synchronous requirements breaches the contract between the institution and the student. Coordinators argued that program growth and student retention depend on transparent communication regarding course modalities from day one.
Where Synchronous Activities Break Down
The core conflict in modern instructional design is rarely a simple binary choice between synchronous and asynchronous learning. Rather, it is a failure of alignment between course outcomes, teaching methods, and student realities.
The study isolated three major operational breakdowns that occur when synchronous activities are poorly integrated into asynchronous programs:
[Instructor Assumption]
│
▼
(Adds Live Session for "Engagement")
│
▼
[Learner Reality] ──► Conflicts with Work/Caregiving/Time Zones
│
▼
[The Breakdown] ──► Decreased Accessibility, Increased Stress, & Loss of Trust1. Misalignment with Learner Realities
Instructors frequently design courses based on their own professional ideals of what "real teaching" looks like—often picturing an interactive seminar room. However, imposing this model onto asynchronous graduate students ignores the reality that these learners are typically juggling full-time careers, parenting, and eldercare. Requiring attendance at a fixed hour converts a flexible educational tool into an administrative burden.
2. Access and Equity Challenges
Labeling a synchronous session "optional" does not guarantee equitable access. Disparities in internet reliability, access to private workspace, conflicting work shifts, and international or domestic time zone differences heavily influence who can participate. When synchronous events feature core content or valuable peer discussions, non-attendees are penalized through exclusion, undermining the core mission of inclusive online education.
3. Redundancy and Low-Value Meetings
Study participants frequently pointed out that many live meetings offered little pedagogical advantage over asynchronous alternatives. As one student bluntly stated:
"Something that can be shared in an email, announcement, or on Canvas does not need to be discussed synchronously."
When synchronous time is wasted on administrative updates, syllabus reviews, or lecture recaps that could easily be delivered via video recordings or discussion posts, students rightly question the return on investment for their time.
Practical Principles for Better Design
Rather than advising educators to purge all live interactions from online education, the study’s findings point toward a framework of intentional, restrained, and learner-centric design. Instructional designers and faculty leaders can apply five core principles to optimize synchronous elements within asynchronous programs:
Principle 1: Start with Learner Realities
Design decisions must be firmly anchored in the lived experiences of the enrolled students. Faculty must resist the urge to add live sessions simply out of habit, tradition, or personal preference.
- Actionable Strategy: Survey students at the start of a term or program to understand their work schedules, time zones, and caregiving responsibilities. Use this data to determine whether a proposed live session is genuinely feasible or if an asynchronous format better serves the cohort.
Principle 2: Use Synchronous Time Only When It Adds Irreplaceable Value
Live interaction must earn its place in the curriculum. Synchronous time should be strictly reserved for complex, high-touch activities that cannot be executed effectively through asynchronous channels.
- Actionable Strategy: Before scheduling a synchronous meeting, ask: What can happen in this live moment that could not happen as well through a recording, announcement, discussion board, collaborative document, or video feedback? Reserve live events exclusively for milestones like team project planning, complex peer critiques, or interactive mentoring.
Principle 3: Protect Flexibility Through Optionality
In fully asynchronous programs, live activities should remain optional by default. Students must never be penalized—either explicitly through grading or implicitly through lost learning opportunities—for failing to attend a synchronous session.
- Actionable Strategy: When hosting an optional live Q&A or workshop, provide an equivalent asynchronous pathway. Pair a captioned recording of the session with alternative reflection prompts or an open asynchronous question-submission thread.
Principle 4: Design for Access, Not Just Availability
Making a session optional is insufficient if the event itself is inaccessible. Program leaders must proactively evaluate the logistical barriers surrounding any live activity.
- Actionable Strategy: Ensure all live sessions are recorded, professionally captioned, and supplemented with shared collaborative documents that allow students to contribute before, during, or after the scheduled time. Factor in global time zones when scheduling live touchpoints.
Principle 5: Be Transparent About Modality
Institutional integrity requires absolute clarity regarding course and program expectations. Students must know the exact structural makeup of their coursework prior to enrollment.
- Actionable Strategy: Incorporate explicit modality statements on program websites, syllabi, and orientation portals. Clearly outline whether specific courses require occasional synchronous meetings, offer optional live sessions, or operate entirely asynchronously.
Future Outlook: The Paradigm Shift in Online Pedagogy
As higher education continues to evolve in a post-pandemic digital landscape, the debate surrounding synchronicity highlights a maturing industry. The initial rush to digitize physical classrooms relied heavily on replicating traditional face-to-face structures—such as mandatory Zoom lectures—within online spaces. However, the institutional study presented at OLC Accelerate 2025 demonstrates that graduate education is moving past crude assumptions of what constitutes "engagement."
The future of online program design is not about choosing a dogmatic allegiance to either 100% asynchronous isolation or mandatory real-time connection. Instead, the path forward rests on intentionality, empathy, and respect for student autonomy.
By shifting the guiding question from "Do asynchronous courses need synchronous sessions to succeed?" to "When does synchronous time add value that is worth the cost to learners?", higher education institutions can build online programs that genuinely respect adult learners’ lives while maintaining the highest standards of academic excellence.
Reference Citation
For academic and institutional researchers wishing to cite the foundational study referenced in this report:
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.
