Through an investigative study, O’Brien and Fuller (2018) identified tools and techniques used in an online synchronous environment for engagement, assessment, and classroom management. Data were obtained through interviews and observations. Students and the instructor used various tools in a learning management system (LMS). The use of the whiteboard tool included writing, drawing, pointing, and application sharing. Discussion and collaboration tools included the chat box, polling, audio, and breakout sessions. In addition, students used emoticons, nonverbal communication using faces, thumbs up or down, step away, speed up, slow down, and hand-raising.
O’Brien and Fuller (2018) found that “the tools and the techniques used engaged the students throughout the sessions providing meaningful real-time interactions and opportunities to communicate, verbally and nonverbally, building on teaching, cognitive, and social presence” (p. 62). Whiteboard presentation slides were the foundation and structure of the online class sessions to drive discussions and generate interaction with and among students. The breakout session tool was used for engagement among students in small collaborative groups. Students used the microphone and the whiteboard to exchange ideas and complete tasks. The instructor moved from one room to another to observe the student interactions and to assess students. In the synchronous environment, the instructor’s role shifted from leader to facilitator. Students were active participants in their learning./p>
Similarly, Pineda, Cano, and Peralta (2021) suggested that the online synchronous environment should foster the three presences (social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence) from the Community of Inquiry (Col) model to ensure an effective online learning experience. The Col model is a theoretical framework to explain the processes and dynamics of learning and teaching in online environments (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Using the Col model, Pineda, Cano, and Peralta (2021) proposed a framework for teaching English in synchronous environments.
The framework provided a practical guide through three phases: introduction, development, and closure that helped instructors plan, carry out and finish synchronous sessions. The introduction phase took place before the start of the synchronous session. Some logistical strategies included setting up the video conference room and establishing the date and time of the session. Pedagogical strategies involved defining the session’s objectives according to the course learning outcomes, searching for and preparing learning materials, and determining student interactions (i.e., pre-, while- and post-activity structure). The development phase took place once the instructor and students were online in the synchronous session. The instructor entered the session at least 20 minutes before the start time to welcome students, fix any last-minute issues, and record the session. Some pedagogical strategies included guided discussions of the topic and promotion of interaction among students. Lastly, the closure phrase took place after the synchronous session. Instructors provided a summary of the session, linked the session topics with pending topics and activities from the course, made the session recording available, and announced the date, time, and topic for the next session.
In summary, the synchronous environment offers similarities to the traditional face-to-face environment through active learning and incorporation of the Community of Inquiry model. Active learning involves students in their learning with instructors as facilitators of students’ learning. Learning takes place through the interaction of three elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. The previous blog article explored three pedagogical principles and frameworks for the design, development, and delivery of online courses. In the next blog article, we will discuss the online asynchronous environment.
Check out some best practices for teaching synchronous courses on the Center for Teaching Excellence website at the University of South Carolina.
References
Garrison, D. R.,
Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
O’Brien, A., & Fuller, R. (2018). Synchronous Teaching Techniques from the Perspective and Observation of Virtual High School Teachers: An Investigative Study. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(3), 55–67.
Pineda, J. E., Cano, L. H. T., & Peralta, M. A. (2021). An Inquiry-Based Framework for Teaching English in Synchronous Environments: Perceptions from Teachers and Learners. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching11(1), 38–58.
Cite this blog: Washington, G. (2021, May 31). Teaching in the online
synchronous environment [Blog post]. Retrieved
from https://pedagogybeforetechnology.blogspot.com/
Hatice EROL from Pixabay
