See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268262655

Exploring synchronous learning management systems: A conceptual design

and development model

Article · January 2006

CITATION READS

1 3,048

1 author:

Mahnaz Moallem
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
72 PUBLICATIONS   634 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahnaz Moallem on 05 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006)

EXPLORING SYNCHRONOUS LEARNING

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AND DEVELOPMENT MODEL

Mahnaz Moallem, Ph.D.

University of North Carolina, Wilmington & National Science Foundation, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how new synchronous learning management systems can be integrated with
asynchronous communication tools in online learning environments in order to increase level of cognitive activity, social
presence and collaborative learning process. It will provide an exploratory design model for convergence of synchronous
and asynchronous communication tools in online courses. The model will show how and in what ways designers can use
multiple communication tools to promote social interaction, cognition and collaborative learning. The paper will also
report the results of an evaluation study on how the convergence model makes it possible to provide richer, more social
and interactive learning experiences. The evaluation results suggests that integrating use of new synchronous or real time
learning management systems with existing learning management tools for online learning provide more opportunities for
social interaction, immediate feedback and sense of social presence. Students’ higher satisfaction and low drop out rate
along with stronger sense of community and more complex cognitive abilities show promises for quality of online
learning environments.

KEYWORDS
Synchronous distance education, instructional design, emerging internet technologies

1. INTRODUCTION
Interactions in earlier online courses were almost exclusively asynchronous and depended largely on email
and asynchronous communication tools. Synchronous interactions in early generation of online courses were
limited to text chat tools which mainly used for informal communication, and, in particular, for "office
hours". There is now a variety of synchronous tools ranging from the old reliable chat to tools like
Elluminate Live, HorizonWimba, Centra, and Macromedia Breeze with two ways audio, the ability to push
slides and URLs, share applications, poll participation in instant quizzes and more, all over 56K connection.
These new and more dynamic tools by using voice can make it possible to provide richer, more interactive
synchronous, real-time experiences, where everyone connects simultaneously and interacts immediately.
New synchronous or real time platforms enable immediate feedback from students through live audio and
chat, virtual hand-raising, and instant polling offer a feature that enables the instructor to ask different types
of questions and provide immediate feedback. Furthermore, break out rooms can provide a real-time
collaborative learning environment that is closer to face-to-face learning experiences.
The growth of synchronous interactions continues to be one of the significant trends in e-learning.
However, as with other technological tools, research shows that pedagogy directly impact the results of
learning in technology-mediated learning and in distance education (Conard, 2002, Harasim, Hiltz, Teles &
Turoff, 1995; MacDonald, Stodel, Farres, Breithaupt, & Gabriel, 2001). Studies show that it is difficult to
separate the effectiveness of a program from the theoretical grounding of the instructional design. Empirical
studies are needed to examine how new technological tools can be utilized within the theoretically-based
instructional design principles. Simply adding new synchronous/real-time technology tools to distance
education programs does not guarantee the effectiveness of these tools for teaching and learning processes
(Jung, 2001). While using new technology-based tools in practice is essential in understanding how the tools
function and what their limitations are, it is equally important to understand how to effectively use the tools
to meet the goal of providing effective distance education instruction.

167
ISBN: 972-8924-22-4 © 2006 IADIS

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how synchronous and asynchronous learning management
systems might be used in an online learning environment to enhance learning and to promote collaboration
and sense of community. The presentation will address the following questions: (1) What are some of the
characteristics and limitations of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools and how can they be
used in online learning in order to increase student cognitive, collaboration and social engagements; (2) What
are the comparative effects of synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication on the quality of
student learning and their collaborative and social interactions and (3) What are the subjective impressions of
students concerning the communication modes?

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Interaction
Interaction is at the heart of the online learning experience (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Harasim,
1990; Northrup, 2001; Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999). One of the foundational theories in distance education is
Moore’s transactional distance theory (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). According to transactional distance
education, what is important in mediated learning environment is communication and construction of
knowledge. Moore identified three distinct types of interactions in distance education: learner-content,
learner-instructor, and learner-learner (Moore, 1989). Leaner-content interaction is the process in which
students examine, consider, and process the course information presented during the educational experience.
According to Moore and Kearsley (1996) every learner has “to construct knowledge through a process of
personally accommodating information into previously formed cognitive structures” (p. 1). Moore further
(2001) emphasizes that interacting with content helps learners achieve intellectual growth or change in
perspective. Learner-instructor interaction is communication between the instructor and the student in a
course. In online courses, such interaction usually occurs in asynchronous computer-mediated
communication during the educational experience. Learner-instructor interaction highlights the important
role of the instructor in defining the objectives, activities, and materials as well as taking the responsibility of
revising teaching methods and providing feedback as students would progress in their learning process.
Finally, learner-learner interaction is communication between two or more students in a course. In online
courses, such interaction also occurs through asynchronous computer-mediated communication or other
forms of interpersonal and small group communication (online and off line). This “inter-learner interaction”
can foster learning through student collaboration and knowledge sharing. Although the strategies used to
increase learner-learner interaction vary from course to course, research suggests that this type of interaction
promote development of student expertise in the subject area.
Moore’s threefold interaction construct has been extended by Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) in
the area of distance and web-based learning. Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) added learner-
interface interaction to include the growing role of technology in distance learning process. They defined
learner-interface interaction as a “process of manipulating tools to accomplish a task” (P. 34). They
emphasize the importance of this type of interaction because the learner must interact with technological
medium in online learning in order to interact with the content, instructor, and other learners.
To further elaborate on the nature of interaction rather than which entities are interacting, Wagner (1994,
1997) distinguishes between interaction and interactivity in online learning or distance education. She states
that interactions are reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. From her perspective,
interactions occur when “these objects and events mutually influence one another” (p. 8). In online courses,
Wagner argues, such interactions are interpersonal and occur within instructional context, which
distinguishes them from interactivity which is a characteristic of the technology itself. Thus, interactivity can
be considered as a machine attribute, while interaction may be perceived as an outcome of using interactive
instructional tools (Wagner, 1994). Given this definition of interaction the assumption is that promoting
interaction will lead to positive communication behaviors or immediacy that reduces perceived distance
between people. This two-way or dialogical definition of interaction leads Woods and Baker to propose that
limited dyadic communication (limited engagement to meet a specific need) should be distinguished from
qualitatively substantive communication (an active engagement) or interaction. Such a distinction helps us
classify a purely lecture or instructor note-based online course with no discussion or question and answer

168
 IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006)

dialog as a high level of learner-content interaction. While learner-interface and learner-content types of
interaction are necessary in online courses they are the lower level of interaction. In other words, there must
be learner-interface interaction to allow the learner to access and sense the information. Once learners access
the online materials, there must be learner-content interaction to process information. It is during learner-
content interaction that learners find the need for support, which could take the form of learner-to-learner and
learner-to-instructor and learner-to-expert interactions (Moore, 1989; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer,
2001; Thiessen, 2001). In other words, the social benefit of interaction is achieved when learner-instructor
and learner-learner interaction can be produced in online learning. Figure 1 shows the level of interaction in
online learning.

Learner-Learner Learner-Instructor Learner-Expert

Interaction Interaction Interaction

Learner-Content
Interaction

Learner-Interface
Interaction

Figure 1. The level of interaction in online learning

2.2 The Social constructivist notion of interactivity

The type of interaction that was described above is consistent with the social constructivist notion of
learning. Social constructivist notion of learning assumes that knowledge, understanding, and meaning
gradually emerge through interaction (social discourse) and become distributed among those who are
interacting (construction of shared knowledge). Moreover, it is argued that knowledge is often distributed
among participants and situated in a specific activity context (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno,
1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this situative approach, social knowledge construction develops distributed
knowledge, skills, and understanding around the target activity. However, as Salomon and Perkins (1998)
noted, even though knowledge and learning are socially situated, the learner still exists as an individual
within the learning situation. Thus, even when learning is fostered through processes of social
communication, individual activity and reflection still play a critical role (Perkins, 1993). As such, social
constructivists assume that both forms of interaction (individual and social) are part of the same process of
knowledge construction and are essential to the construction and assimilation of knowledge.

2.3 Interactivity Tools: Asynchronous and synchronous learning management

systems
A high degree of interactivity (human interaction) and participation are ensured in online courses via
synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated tools. However, online interactions, either through
synchronous or asynchronous means, assist learners to interact and collaborate with content, peers and

169
ISBN: 972-8924-22-4 © 2006 IADIS

experts for the purpose of knowledge construction. Although synchronous and asynchronous
communications are of equal importance in the curriculum, each tool has different pace, features and
functions. Table 1 summarizes features and functions of synchronous and asynchronous communication
tools.
Table 1. Characteristics of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools
Interactive Features
Tools
Asynchronous • Are in forms of multiple
Interactive forums, chat rooms,
Tools whiteboards, and e-mail
services
• Are highly flexible:
anytime, anyplace
• Allow reflective and
thoughtful thinking before
responding
• Allow records of message
to be kept for a long time
• Require more time and
effort
Synchronous • Are in forms of audio and
Interactive video conferencing and
Tools enhanced virtual
classroom.
• Are less flexible: Any
place, but same time
• Render Immediate
feedback
• Allow multi modality
communication
• Have potential for
removing information
overload
• Require less time and
effort to maintain social
interaction
Functions Limitations
• Used for text-based web- • Are primarily text-
conferencing (forums) based
• Used for text-based whole class • Require extensive
discussion (text-based chat, forms) time and effort to
• Used for guest speaker maintain social
conferencing (text-based chat with interaction.
or without whiteboard, forum) • Have potential to
• Used for small group work and create information
interaction (text-based chat with or overload
without whiteboard) • Provide delayed
• Used for person-to-person form of feedback
interaction (through e-mail or chat)
• Used for small group interaction
with the instructor (text-based chat
or e-mail)
• Used for shared whiteboard (shared
graphical bit-mapped area where to
draw and type)
• Used for collaborative authoring
through e-mail attachment (file
transfer)
• Used for whole class discussion • Do not provide
(through real time audio-video time for thinking
interaction) and reflection
• Used for whole class instruction • Are time-limited
(through real time audio-video • Have potential to
interaction) become a lecture
• Used for guest speaker and tool
conferencing (through real time
audio-video interaction)
• Used for group work and
discussion (through break out
rooms)
• Used for small group discussion
with the instructor (through real
time audio-video interaction)
• Used for shared whiteboard (shared
graphical bit-mapped area where to
draw and type)
• Used for demonstrating
applications to multiple users (an
application is open by one of the
participants and the others can view
a bit-map image of it and even take
control and interact with it.)
• Used for collaborative authoring
(shared creation) during real time

In spite of differences in features and purposes, synchronous and asynchronous learning management
systems are of equal importance in the instruction. However, most online learning environments are based on

170
 IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006)

the old model of asynchronous learning in which students engage in online activities at a time of their
choosing. Even though many online instructors and designers support the inclusion of synchronous
interactions in online learning environment, there are not guidelines and models on what types of
synchronous interaction tools should be included, and how they might be used to improve interaction and to
enhance learning.

3.4 Convergence of synchronous and asynchronous learning management systems: A

Design & Development Model
In order to benefit from both communication systems and to improve all forms of interactions in online
learning designers of online courses need new models that take into account various computer-mediated
communication systems. Ill-designed synchronous communication can result in chaotic, unfocused, and
unproductive activities. Furthermore, new instructional guidelines should be based on the new and more
advanced learning theories in addition to emerging technology tools.
The social constructivist notion of learning and the classification of online interaction in conjunction with
characteristics and limitations of available communication tools in current and emerging online learning were
used as a theoretical framework for building a design and development model that converges synchronous
and asynchronous learning management systems in online learning environment (see Figure 3). To build the
model it was assumed that knowledge, understanding, and meaning gradually emerge through interaction and
become distributed among those interacting (construction of shared knowledge) (Moallem, 2001). However,
as Salomon and Perkins (1998) note, even though knowledge and learning are socially situated, the learner
still exists as an individual within the learning situation. Thus, even when learning is fostered through
processes of social communication, individual activity and reflection still play a critical role (Perkins, 1993).
As such, it was assumed that both forms of interaction (individual and social) are part of the same process of
knowledge construction and are essential to the construction and assimilation of knowledge (see Figure 3).
Moreover, in order to promote social construction within an online learning environment, knowledge is
distributed among participants and situated in a specific activity context (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;
Greeno, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The activity is a complex problem that intends to promote students to
accomplish the task in teams and is designed to encourage students to apply their knowledge and to integrate
and use the information in creative way to solve the problem. The activity or learning task should encourage
group members to engage in certain types of interaction such as argumentation or problem analysis and
problem solving.
However, in order to be able to participate in the collaborative learning task that is situated in an activity
context learners first have to interact with the content (readings and other instructional materials) through the
computer interface and to establish social bonds with other learners or participants. Ambiguity and need for
immediate feedback and intimacy (social presence) are characteristics of this earlier stage of individual
construction of knowledge. In other words, as the learner tries to understand the complexity of the course
content, to interact with conflicting information, and to establish social bonds, he/she needs quick interaction
with experts and/or peers that provides immediate feedback, clarification and guidance. Synchronous
learning management systems (SLMS) with their immediacy (reduced perceived distance) and intimacy
(social presence) features provide a much better learning environment for this initial construction of the
knowledge and for resolving ambiguities and unforeseen needs. The role of the expert and peers during this
stage is leading by examples and directing the discussion.
It is further assumed that as the learner advances in his/her interaction with the materials and becomes
ready to work with his/her peers on applying his/her knowledge through collaborative learning activity
(problem) he/she progresses from individual and initial construction of knowing to social construction of
knowing. This stage of learning helps the learner to deepen his/her understanding by not only applying
knowledge but also by considering multiple views and alternative ways of solving a problem. Without time
and understanding, students may rely on implicit social norms (status, equality) to manage the team
interaction. Therefore, initial individual construction plays an important role for the productive social
interaction. During this stage, asynchronous learning management systems (ALMS) with their flexibility of
time and opportunity for reflection provide better learning environments. SLMS can also supplement the
process of social construction by providing opportunity to the teams to establish group norms or criteria for
interaction and later during the discussion to resolve conflicts if occurred and to come to a collective

171
ISBN: 972-8924-22-4 © 2006 IADIS

conclusion (see Figure 3) more effectively and efficiently. Research shows that establishing group norms and
resolving conflict is much more difficult and time demanding in asynchronous learning environments.
Therefore, ideally, an initial synchronous group meeting to establish the norms and to begin the discussion
followed by asynchronous group discussion and a final synchronous meeting create the best collaborative and
social learning environment for student learning with high level of interactivity. The role of the experts and
peers at this stage is of coaching and self regulation.

Online Learning Environment with Multiple Learning Management Systems

Learner-Instructor Learner-Expert
Interaction Interaction

Learner-Learner
Interaction

Learning
Task/Collaborative
Activity

Learner-Content
Interaction

Learner-Interface
Interaction

Figure 3. A conceptual framework for converging synchronous and asynchronous learning management tools.

Course Design and Evaluation

Two graduate online courses (30 students) were designed to incorporate the conceptual model described
earlier. One of the courses was designed, developed, and delivered using WebCT vista while the second
course was designed, developed and delivered using 4.1 version of WebCT campus edition of course

172
 IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006)

management system. Although user and designer interfaces were somewhat different in WebCT vista
compared with the campus edition both delivery systems incorporated similar learning management tools.
For both courses Horizon Wimba Synchronous Learning Management System (SLMS) was used. Both
courses required learners to manipulate technological tools to accomplish learning tasks. In addition to text-
based chat system and white board within both versions of WebCT course management system, a virtual
Horizon Wimba classroom was created for each course to provide real time, live-broadcast /synchronous
learning environment. The Horizon Wimba virtual classroom is a synchronous environment consisting of the
following capabilities: (1) two-way audio between the instructor and students (everyone can hear everyone
else); (2) a presentation window in which PowerPoint presentations can be imported and used in real time, a
whiteboard, and other presentation tools; (3) text messaging between all participants during the presentation;
(4) real-time question and answer polling; (5) “pushing” web pages to users; and (6) live sharing of a separate
instructor window with students or student with student, useful when the instructors or students want to
demonstrate software applications. Separate “break-out” rooms are also available to set up for participants
that include all of the Horizon Wimba features, allowing participants to go and meet online in real-time to
complete activities determined by them or the instructor.
Figure 4 summarizes the design specifications for the courses. Each course was divided into thirteen units
or modules of instruction. As Figure 4 shows, at the beginning of the course when students had to interact
with the course interface in order to be able to learn how to access the course content and its space for
interaction, a real time virtual orientation to the online learning session was provided using Horizon Wimba
virtual room. Virtual synchronous or real time orientation provided quick and immediate overview of the
course and offered feedback to resolve ambiguities and unforeseen student needs particularly at the beginning
of the course. The real time virtual orientation was scheduled after all students had a chance to log on to the
course and interact with the course interface. The real time orientation was supplemented by an interactive
online tutorial for further individual exploration. Students also participated in an optional real time open
“Questions and Answers” session. The purpose of the final synchronous interaction was to help students
resolve any uncertainty and ambiguities that they had with regard to student-interface interaction. Each
module then began with student-content interaction. Reading and other instructional materials were made
available for each module before scheduling a synchronous discussion. The pre-synchronous discussion
session was focused on domain specific knowledge for the unit or module. The instructor led the discussion
by asking questions using the polling system and providing explanations and examples as needed. Students
then were directed to review the assigned collaborative team activity for the unit and work with their team
members. Students had an option of using asynchronous discussion area or meet real time in their chat room
or virtual Horizon Wimba room. A large group asynchronous discussion was also created in the discussion
board area for large group discussion in which the instructor was also a participant. At the end of the unit or
module and upon publication of team products in public area, a synchronous discussion session was held in
which students shared their views, solutions or discoveries, as a result of working in teams. For both of these
discussions the role of the instructor was more of a facilitator and a coach. All real time synchronous
discussions and session were archived and made available to students within 24 hours.
The course design specifications were evaluated using several sources of data. Students completed a
survey three times during the semester. One at the beginning of the semester, one after completing five
modules and one at the end of the semester. Students’ postings in the asynchronous discussion board were
also analyzed for their quality and depth of understanding of the materials. Students’ team discussions and
their end products were also analyzed using a list of criteria. Students’ preferred communication tools for
their team discussions were examined in relationship with their final products or solutions.

173
ISBN: 972-8924-22-4 © 2006 IADIS

Online Learning Environment with Multiple Learning Management Systems

Large Group
Interaction

Peer/Small Instructor-
Group
Learning by students-
Interaction Interacting Interaction

State of deep learning and construction of new meaning

Task/Activity
Applying Knowledge to
Real World Situation

State of applying knowledge in real world situation

Reading/Exploring Expert View

Interaction with Domain Learner-Content Pre-and-Post
Specific Knowledge Interaction Synchronous
(Content) Discussion on Domain
Specific knowledge

On line Tutorials Student-Interface Synchronous

Interaction Questions &
Answers Session

Synchronous/Live
Orientation
State of initial construction of knowledge (uncertainty, ambiguity and
need for immediacy and intimacy or social bonds

Figure 4. Course design specifications using synchronous and asynchronous learning management systems

174
 IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006)

Evaluation Results and Recommendations

The following paragraphs summarize the evaluation results.
Comparative analysis of student perception and attitude survey showed the following results. When asked
to rate three types of interactions used in the course units (Moore, 1989) for their contributions to student
learning: (a) student-content interaction, (b) student-instructor interaction, and (c) student-student interaction,
students consistently rated all three types of interaction as “very contributing” or “contributing” (M = 3.4)
with student-instructor interaction receiving the highest rate (M =3.8) followed by student-student interaction
(M = 3.6). Another survey item asked students to select from a list of instructional strategies (e.g., team
activity, synchronous/real time discussion, readings, asynchronous online discussion, individual assignments,
etc.) the strategies that were found most contributing to student learning. 82% of students selected real time
or synchronous discussion as their first choice followed by collaborative team discussion (67%) as their
second choice. This result was also confirmed by students’ comments in which they thought combination of
collaborative team activities and real time discussion made the course content easier to understand and to
apply. Students’ responses to the open-ended questions that asked them to comment on their experiences and
suggest changes indicated that they had enjoyed the course activities and found it as a surprise that they were
able to learn by interacting with other students and the instructor as much as they did in an online course.
Students’ responses for the first and second survey included a few suggestions for change. These changes
were mainly related to asynchronous large group discussions and adding more assessment questions in
synchronous discussions. The majority of students (87%) found real time or synchronous orientation sessions
very helpful and critical to their level of comfort in the course.
Analysis of student products and synchronous forum postings showed better application of the content
compared with previous semester. Students’ team products scored “good” to “excellent” using an analytical
scoring rubric. Team products showed improvement in understanding of the content, as compared to previous
semester for similar activities. In addition, students asked higher level thinking questions (compared with
previous semester), participated more in interacting with their peers both through synchronous and
asynchronous discussions and visited more content related pages in the course. Although students’
backgrounds and experiences were somewhat different from one semester to another, students who enrolled
in both graduate courses were generally nontraditional students who either worked full time or had work
experiences. Both courses are in the area of instructional design and development with one focusing on
theory and research in addition to design principles and procedures while the other emphasizes the process of
design and development. Generally speaking, students who enrolled in these courses did not have courses in
this area. All students who took one of the graduate courses were either practicing teachers or had some
teaching experiences.
Students’ perception of the course was also measured by a university wide survey. The results showed
higher rating for “organization of the course”, “course as learning experience”, and “feedback on assignments
from the instructor” across both courses compared with previous semesters.
Analysis of teams’ preferred communication tools showed that out of eight teams in both courses two
teams selected to use virtual rooms (real time) as their main means of communication, three teams used chat
rooms, two teams met face-to-face and one team used team’s asynchronous discussion area. This result
shows that the majority of the teams preferred media-rich environment with higher level of social presence
for their collaborative team activities. However, all teams used their asynchronous discussion areas to share
files and to develop their final products.

Summary and implications

This article proposed a conceptual design model for converging synchronous and asynchronous learning
management systems in online learning environments in order to improve interaction, sense of social
presence and immediacy. The evaluation results showed that using the proposed design model made it
possible to carefully map out when and how different interactive communication tools should be used.
Integrating new real time, synchronous learning management system with asynchronous communication
tools and chat rooms seemed to reduce perceived distance among students and between students and the
instructor resulting in students’ perception of sufficient interaction with the instructor and other students.
Although more focused research is needed to explore the connection between interaction and student

175
ISBN: 972-8924-22-4 © 2006 IADIS

satisfaction and learning the evaluation results indicated that student satisfaction and their positive learning
experience might be positively correlated with the course multiple opportunities for interpersonal interactions
(Boettcher, 1999; Clow, 1999; Roblyer, 1999) and instructional immediacy. In addition, it appeared that
spending enough time at the beginning of the course to help students become comfortable with
communication interface design was very important.
Drawing from the evaluation results the following issues are central to the design of a highly interactive
online course that uses both synchronous and asynchronous learning management systems in its design.
• It is important to start with the design of pedagogically sound activities before looking for using the
communication systems to facilitate learning process. Socio-cultural theories with their emphasis on
collaboration, knowledge construction and community building are central to creating interactive
online courses.
• Today, a number of SLMS are available that can easily be incorporated in online course
management systems without requiring students to be technologically sophisticated or have access
to high end technology. The quality of audio and video in the majority of these SLM systems are
becoming increasingly better. Built-in functions such as interactive whiteboard, polling systems,
application sharing are ideal tools to facilitate online conversation. However, using the tools without
a theoretically sound design is likely to result in student frustration, distraction and workload.
Learning tasks, learning systems, and pedagogically-sound instructional design are three key
elements for successful convergence of synchronous and asynchronous learning systems.
• The issue of social presence seems to be a significant factor in improving instructional effectiveness
(Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) in online courses. However, student
perception of social presence depends on how social presence is created by the instructor and the
online learning community. Therefore, a conceptual design model that can guide the designers plays
a critical role.
• Designing synchronous learning environments is not as simple as a live-broadcast of the instructor
giving a speech. The preparation of the participants and providing opportunities for interaction with
content and others are critical in supporting knowledge and skill development of the learners.
Additional research is needed to understand how and when Internet technologies can be used to enhance
social interaction and learning in online learning environments.

REFERENCES
Bates, A.W. (1991). ‘Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education’. Never Too Far, 16: 5-9.
Boettcher, J. V. (1999). Cyber course size: pedagogy and politics, Syllabus, 12(8), 42-44.
Burge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology,
35(1), 22-30.
Curtis, D. & Lawson, M. (1999). Collaborative online learning: An exploratory case study. Paper presented at the
HERDSA annual International Conference, July 12-15, 1999, Melbourne, Australia.
Clow, K. E. (1999). Interactive distance learning: Impact on student course evaluation, Journal of Marketing Education,
21(2), 97-105.
Ganeva, I. (1999). Native and non-native speakers’ participation in educational asynchronous computer conferencing: a
case study. Unpublished Master thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in
distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated
conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
Harasim, L. (1989). On-line education as a new domain. In R. D. Mason & A. R. Kay (Eds.), Mindweave:
Communication, Computers and Distance Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989.
Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525–534.
MacDonald, C. J., Stodel, E. J., Farres, L. G., Breithaupt, K., & Gabriel, M. A. (2001). The demand-driven model, a
framework for Web-based learning. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 9–30.

176
 IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006)

McReary, E. (1989). Eliciting more rigorous cognitive outcomes through analysis of computer-mediated discussion.
Fifteenth International Conference on Improving University Teaching, Vancouver.
Moore, G. S., Winograd, K. & Lange, D. (2001) You Can Teach Online. Boston: Mc Graw Hill.
Moore, M. G. (1998). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
358-368.
Newman, D.R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported
cooperative learning. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48, 484-495.
Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity in web-based instruction. Educational
Technology, 41(2), 31–39.
Roblyer, M. D. (1999). Student motives for taking Internet-based courses at the high school and community college
levels, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 157-171.
Romiszowski, A.J. & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of
Research for Educational Communications and Technology. 438-56.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based
computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2).
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes.
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education,
8(2), 30-42.\
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W.. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design.
Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
Thiessen, L. (2001). Faculty attitude in delivering undergraduate distance education. Unpublished master’s thesis.
Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta.
Wagner, E. D. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 2(1).
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance:
What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8
(2), 6-29.
Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, ISSN: 1492-3831.
Woolley, D. (1998). The future of web conferencing. Retrieved Sept. 2005, from
[http://www.thinkofit.com/webconf/wcfuture.htm].

177

View publication stats