A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Synchronous Online Learning on Cognitive and Affective Educational Outcomes

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5263

Keywords:

synchronous, online learning, meta-analysis, face-to-face, asynchronous, affective, cognitive, outcome

Abstract

Synchronous online learning (SOL) provides an opportunity for instructors to connect in real-time with their students though separated by geographical distance. This meta-analysis examines the overall effect of SOL on cognitive and affective educational outcomes, while using asynchronous online learning or face-to-face learning as control groups. The effects are also examined for several moderating methodological, pedagogical, and demographical factors. Following a systematic identification and screening procedure, we identified 19 publications with 27 independent effect sizes published between 2000 and 2019. Overall, there was a statistically significant small effect in favor of synchronous online learning versus asynchronous online learning for cognitive outcomes. However, the other models were not statistically significant in this meta-analysis. The effect size data were normally distributed and significantly moderated by course duration, instructional method, student equivalence, learner level, and discipline. Implications for educational practice and research are included.

Author Biographies

Florence Martin, University of North Carolina Charlotte

Florence Martin is a Professor in the Learning, Design and Technology at University of North Carolina Charlotte. She teaches 100% online and engages in research focusing on the effective design of instruction and integration of digital technology to improve learning and performance. Dr. Martin served as the President of the Multimedia Production Division and Division of Distance Learning for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. She serves as an Associate Editor for the Online Learning Journal, on the advisory council for North Carolina Virtual Public Schools and on the board for International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. For her detailed bio visit, https://www.florencemartin.net  She may be reached at Florence.Martin@uncc.edu

 

Ting Sun, University of North Carolina Charlotte

Ting Sun is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Searle Center for Advancing Learning and Teaching at Northwestern University. Her research interests include online learning, meta-analysis and writing self-efficacy. Dr. Sun has been serving as a reviewer for journals and conferences. Her dissertation is on examining the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing achievement in an empirical study and a meta-analysis. She may be reached at ting.sun1@northwestern.edu. 

Murat Turk, University of Oklahoma

Murat Turk is a Ph.D. candidate in Learning Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. He teaches fully asynchronous online courses in educational psychology including motivation and classroom management for preservice teachers. He engages in research focusing on the relationships between online presences, student motivation, basic psychological needs, and student engagement in online learning environments. He served for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) within different divisions and roles. He has also been serving as a reviewer for journals and conferences in the field. His dissertation research is on developing and validating a new self-report survey scale of online student engagement in higher education. Murat Turk can be reached at murat.turk@ou.edu.

Albert Ritzhaupt, University of Florida

Albert D. Ritzhaupt is a professor of educational technology and associate director for graduate studies in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. His primary research areas focus on the design and development of technology-enhanced learning environments, and operationalizing and measuring technology integration in education.  Dr. Ritzhaupt serves as the Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Research on Technology in Education, the flagship research journal for the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

References

*indicates articles that were included in the meta-analysis.

Ahn, S., Ames, A. J., & Myers, N. D. (2012). A review of meta-analyses in education: Methodological strengths and weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 436–476. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312458162

Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta‐analysis. Journal of Communication, 54(3), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02636.x

Banna, J., Grace Lin, M. F., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249–261. https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Banna_0615.pdf

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3) [Computer software]. Biostat. https://www.meta-analysis.com/

Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v13i3.1657

*Buxton, E. C. (2014). Pharmacists’ perception of synchronous versus asynchronous distance learning for continuing education programs. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(1). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7818

*Chen, C. C., & Shaw, R. S. (2006). Online synchronous vs. asynchronous software training through the behavioral modeling approach: A longitudinal field experiment. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 4(4), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-964-9.ch004

Chou, C. C. (2002). A comparative content analysis of student interaction in synchronous and asynchronous learning networks. In R. H. Sprague, Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1795–1803). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2002.994093

*Cleveland-Innes, M., & Ally, M. (2004). Affective learning outcomes in workplace training: A test of synchronous vs. asynchronous online learning environments. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 30(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.21225/d5259v

Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008). Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 300(10), 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.10.1181

*Dyment, J. E., & Downing, J. (2018). Online initial teacher education students’ perceptions of using web conferences to support professional conversations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(4), 68. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n4.5

Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.6.2.161

*Francescucci, A., & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318818864

*Gable, K. (2012). Creating a village: The impact of the opportunity to participate in synchronous web conferencing on adult learner sense of community [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.

Garratt, M. (2014). Face-to-face versus remote synchronous instruction for the teaching of single-interrupted suturing to a group of undergraduate paramedic students: A randomised controlled trial. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 2(1). http://journals.staffs.ac.uk/index.php/ipihe/article/view/60/121

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12020

*Gilkey, M. B., Moss, J. L., Roberts, A. J., Dayton, A. M., Grimshaw, A. H., & Brewer, N. T. (2014). Comparing in-person and webinar delivery of an immunization quality improvement program: A process evaluation of the adolescent AFIX trial. Implementation Science, 9(1), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-21

Haney, M., Silvestri, S., Van Dillen, C., Ralls, G., Cohen, E., & Papa, L. (2012). A comparison of tele-education versus conventional lectures in wound care knowledge and skill acquisition. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 18(2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2011.110811

Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-synchronous-elearning

Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online distance education compared to face-to-face education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 10(1). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/24065525.pdf

*Kizzier, D. L. M. (2010). Empirical comparison of the effectiveness of six meeting venues on bottom line and organizational constructs. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 10(4), 76–103. http://www.m.www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/Jabe104/KizzierWeb.pdf

Kunin, M., Julliard, K. N., & Rodriguez, T. E. (2014). Comparing face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous learning: Postgraduate dental resident preferences. Journal of Dental Education, 78(6), 856–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2014.78.6.tb05739.x

*Kyger, J. W. (2008). A study of synchronous and asynchronous learning environments in an online course and their effect on retention rates [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

*Leiss, D. P. (2010). Does synchronous communication technology influence classroom community? A study on the use of a live Web conferencing system within an online classroom [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.

Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_4

Martin, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Budhrani, K. (2017). Systematic review of two decades (1995 to 2014) of research on synchronous online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 3–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1264807

Martin, F., & Parker, M.A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who and how? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192–210. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no2/martin_0614.pdf

Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 228–261. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1174

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Bakia, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-11078-005

*Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy and satisfaction in collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 3(3), 55–77. https://www.tojdel.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v03i03/v03i03-08.pdf

Moeyaert, M., Ugille, M., Beretvas, S. N., Ferron, J., Bunuan, R., & den Noortgate, W. V. (2017). Methods for dealing with multiple outcomes in meta-analysis: A comparison between averaging effect sizes, robust variance estimation and multilevel meta-analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1252189

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

Molnar, A. L., & Kearney, R. C. (2017). A comparison of cognitive presence in asynchronous and synchronous discussions in an online dental hygiene course. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 91(3), 14–21. https://jdh.adha.org/content/91/3/14.short

Moore, M. J. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education: New perspectives (pp. 19–24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315003429

*Nelson, L. (2010). Learning outcomes of webinar versus classroom instruction among baccalaureate nursing students: A randomized controlled trial [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas Woman’s University.

Oliver, M. (2014). Fostering relevant research on educational communications and technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 909–918). Springer.

Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164923

*Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N., & Putnam, R. T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1517

Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113–124.

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., & Walker, V. L. (2009). Web 2.0 technologies: Facilitating interaction in an online human services counseling skills course. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 27(3), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228830903093031

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638

Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183

Rothstein, H.R., Sutton, A.J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168

*Rowe, J. A. (2019). Synchronous and asynchronous learning: How online supplemental instruction influences academic performance and predicts persistence [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.

*Scharf, M. T. (2015). Comparing student cumulative course grades, attrition, and satisfaction in traditional and virtual classroom environments [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northcentral University.

Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf

Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend examination. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 318–334. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/shachar_0610.pdf

*Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317

Siler, S. A., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Learning, interactional, and motivational outcomes in one-to-one synchronous computer-mediated versus face-to-face tutoring. I. J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 73–102. http://www.public.asu.edu/~kvanlehn/Stringent/PDF/Siler_VanLehn_2009_ijaied.pdf

*Spalla, T. L. (2012). Building the ARC in nursing education: Cross-cultural experiential learning enabled by the technology of video or web conferencing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.

*Stover, S., & Miura, Y. (2015). The effects of Web conferencing on the community of inquiry in online classes. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 26(3), 121–143.

*Strang, K. D. (2012). Skype synchronous interaction effectiveness in a quantitative management science course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00333.x

Tanner-Smith, E., & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations and a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1091

Todd, E. M., Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Torrence, B. S., Turner, M. R., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2017). A meta-analytic comparison of face-to-face and online delivery in ethics instruction: The case for a hybrid approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1719–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9869-3

Williams, S. L. (2006). The effectiveness of distance education in allied health science programs: A meta-analysis of outcomes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(3), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2003_2

Wilson, L.C. (2014, September 30). Introduction to meta-analysis: A guide for the novice. Observer. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/introduction-to-meta-analysis-a-guide-for-the-novice

Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x

Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302

Downloads

Published

2021-05-04

How to Cite

Martin, F., Sun, T., Turk, M., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2021). A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Synchronous Online Learning on Cognitive and Affective Educational Outcomes . The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(3), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5263

Issue

Vol. 22 No. 3 (2021)

Section

Literature Reviews

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.

This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.

You are free to

  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:

  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.