The Impact of Synchronous and Asynchronous Preference on the Performance of Distance Learning Students

Distance learning is a growing part of education. The transition to distance learning was underway at higher education institutions, but the COVID-19 pandemic forced institutions of all types to rapidly transition to distance learning. The technology that was adapted during this emergency distance learning remained in the classroom once normal instruction resumed. This quantitative study examined two aspects of distance learning technology in education. The study examined student preference for either synchronous or asynchronous instruction through the framework of expectancy theory. Students who were more familiar with the course material were hypothesized to have a higher expectation of success and would therefore have a greater preference for the flexibility of asynchronous instruction. Students with less comfort would then have a greater preference for the greater structure and interaction of synchronous instruction. The study examined the preferences and learning of a volunteer sample of 23 high school students. The study measured the students’ preference for synchronous instruction with a modified version of the Learning-Habit Inclinations Questionnaire and had them rate their comfort by testing on science material on a 10-point scale. A larger number of students than expected showed preference for synchronous instruction. Analysis showed a weak relationship (r = -0.21), indicating that the more comfortable a student was with testing in science, the lower their preference for synchronous instruction. Students were randomly assigned to synchronous and asynchronous instruction groups. They were sorted in batches of synchronous preference and asynchronous preference to ensure a roughly equal number of students would receive instruction that matched their preference as to mismatched preference. Students took a pretest, then received four instructional sessions and took a posttest. Students in the synchronous group attended a live video conference, and students in the asynchronous group had access to recordings of the synchronous sessions. Analysis showed a significant difference between pre- and posttest scores (t(18) = -5.08; p > .01). Analysis found no significant difference between the scores for synchronous and asynchronous groups (t(21) = -0.14; p = .45) or between the scores of the matched and mismatched groups (t(21) = -0.29; p = .39).