Mabrito, Mark. “A Study of Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Collaboration in an Online Business Writing Class.” The American Journal of Distance Education 20.2 (2006): 93-107. ERIC. Web. 20 May 2010.
Online writing instructors have numerous questions to answer before they begin teaching their courses, one of the key questions being whether the communication and collaboration of the course will be synchronous, asynchronous, or a combination of both. After his study, Mark Mabrito concludes that we should consider using both methods. And while this may seem a little indecisive, Mabrito does offer some interesting findings that should make distance-writing instructors consider the methods of communication they rely on more fully.
After noting that learner-learner interaction generally receives less attention in the scholarship, especially regarding how the learners evaluate their own interactions and after a brief review of some of the literature and the benefits and flaws of each method of communication, Mabrito points to the four issues he wants to explore in his research: differences in the amount of interaction between students, in the focus of conversations, in the patterns of conversation, and in the students’ perceptions of the methods. For his study, he used his online business writing class of sixteen juniors and seniors (eight men and eight women). The class was in four groups (which had the same members throughout), and each group worked on two separate collaborative writing projects. For the first project, two groups used asynchronous communication and two used synchronous; the groups’ methods of communication were switched for the final project. He analyzed the exchanges based on four categories of communication: “text planned” (writing plans), “text written” (revision), “group procedures,” “group general.” He then also categorized communication as either a topic (a new point or line of inquiry) or a comment (a response to a topic or another comment).
Some of his findings were predictable. For instance, the synchronous communications produced a greater number of exchanges than the asynchronous ones. Additionally, the synchronous conversations produced many more new topics than follow-up comments (which was significantly reversed in asynchronous discussions), suggesting that the synchronous discussions tended to be somewhat “shallow.” A little more surprising was that almost two-thirds of the synchronous conversations focused on procedural and general matters, while almost 85% of the asynchronous conversations focused on the writing project. But most interesting were students’ perceptions of the methods. Three-fourths found the synchronous meetings productive and only half felt the same about the asynchronous meetings. But the majority (88%) also realized that the asynchronous meetings better helped them complete their projects.
Mabrito’s study may be rather narrow in focus (one small class over one semester), but I find it valuable for teachers who might be quick to favor one method of communication over another. While I do not think that a combination of methods is necessarily the best for every assignment, I agree with Mabrito that we should consider the values of each method in relation to the goals and needs of the students, especially the need to develop a sense of community, and not just the practical end of completing a particular task.
3 comments:
That is the question . . . I was just chatting with Kevin today about collaboration and whether asych could match the student-driven knowledge building that seems to flow so easily from synch. I'm reading this one already; thanks for the analysis.
What was so interesting about this study was that most of what happened in the synch conversations focused more on team-building, while most of the knowledge-building seemed to happen in the asynch meetings. Yet students seemed to perceive this in somewhat conflicting ways. I know my online teaching has tended more toward the asynch methods (with synch conferences with me), but I think I will plan on incorporating more synch work for my students to complete with each other this fall.
Nathan,
Good article choice! I really liked the methodology, it seemed well thought out and had some built in features to balance personality and team dynamic issues. Although Mabrito seems to suggest that the synch meetings were more shallow, it was mentioned that there was a frequent topic change. Isn't this what we want at the initial stages of the project: Brainstorming, lots of ideas, lots of alternatives? Perhaps I am starting to see a pattern emerge, where synch communication might be advisable at the beginning of projects (for generating ideas, taking care of organizational issues, and building relationships) whereas once the project has started, asynch might be the right way to go, because here is where we want depth.
Post a Comment