Real-time vs asynchronous instruction in pandemic-related remote learning
(This post uses the term “remote learning” to describe distance learning being implemented as a response to school closures, and “online learning” to describe the practices of schools and programs that were online prior to the pandemic.)
Real-time vs asynchronous instruction is one of the key distinctions involved in the shift to remote learning, for at least two reasons. First, many educators, policymakers, and parents who are new to remote learning don’t fully understand the nuances between real-time and asynchronous instruction. Real-time (synchronous) instruction is typically live video. Although live video can be used for tutoring, discussion, or small-group instruction, it is often used to replicate an in-class lecture. Asynchronous instruction is built around digital content, online discussions, and other tools and materials that students access at the time and pace that they choose.
The second reason that this distinction is important is that the extent to which mainstream districts have relied on real-time video—much more than in most pre-pandemic online instruction—may lead to some longer-term changes in the use of video in future online learning.
When schools closed this past spring, and instruction shifted to remote, most teaching was done via real-time video. The main reason for this approach was that live video is conceptually similar to most activity in a physical classroom, particularly for high school classes built around lectures. If a teacher already had a lecture planned, delivering that lecture via video required much less time and expertise than shifting some of the content to delivery via asynchronous digital materials.
Over the ensuing months, mainstream school leaders and teachers gained an increased understanding that pre-pandemic online instruction was heavily asynchronous, relying on digital content, discussion boards, recorded videos, etc. Still, as we look at the plans for schools continuing with remote instruction in the fall semester, we see more real-time video in these cases than in experienced online schools and courses. Why is this? We don’t have data, but my guess is that the use of video remains substantially easier for most teachers to conceptualize and implement. Even if a school has a learning management system and high-quality digital content available, using those assets well requires a significant shift in instructional strategies, which in turn requires teacher professional development and ongoing support.
Video lectures and discussions can be recorded—and often are—for use by students who can’t attend the live lesson, or wish to revisit the video later. A real-time video recorded by a teacher, therefore, serves both synchronous and asynchronous objectives. Videos can also be transcribed automatically and close-captioned, to address accessibility issues. (However, we are hearing that some districts are not allowing video sessions to be recorded because of concerns related to student privacy.)
In most cases, over-reliance on real-time video instruction is a poor strategy for creating positive student outcomes, compared to using a mix of real-time and asynchronous tools and methods. This is especially true if video is being used as a tool primarily for delivering an online lecture. Although undoubtedly many mainstream schools were relying too much on real-time video this past spring, it’s still an open question as to the best mix of live lessons and asynchronous content. It’s also almost certainly the case that the ideal combination varies by student age, and for different subject areas. It’s clear, however, that the best use of live video isn’t for lectures. Better uses include SEL checks and activities, small group discussions after a short lesson, practice, student presentations, eating lunch together, questions/answers, coaching, and pulling together small groups of students to focus on a difficult concept, among others. Most online schools use live video for these types of activities—not to attempt to replicate lectures in a physical classroom.
Although most online schools and courses used live video less, pre-pandemic, than mainstream districts used video this past spring, it’s worth watching to see if the use of live video is increasing among these online schools and courses. The stories we’re hearing suggests that it is, and in fact it was increasing before COVID-19 hit. If the widespread use of live video among mainstream districts in their shift to remote learning persists—and every sign is that it will—this usage may lead to a shift in more live instruction in online schools.
Is this shift good or bad? The answer probably varies by student. But if mainstream schools going remote can learn more from experienced online schools about how to reach students at a distance, and online schools can learn from mainstream schools how to better connect with a wider variety of students in real-time, that will be a win for all students.