Why we need both live and self-paced communication

Recently we have seen the release of two annual reports - the ASTD's 2007 State of the Industry Report and Training Magazine's 2007 Industry Report. Both show similar growth in the use of e-learning in the USA. As a share of total formal training hours, the ASTD shows e-learning at approximately 25% (up from 11% five years ago), while Training Magazine shows e-learning at 30%. What caught my attention was how this 25-30% was made up, with about 2/3 asynchronous (self-paced) and 1/3 synchronous (live/real-time), although the majority of the non-e-learning elements are synchronous as well, using the traditional classroom. I wondered why it was that we continue to value both synchronous and asynchronous communication and how it came to be this way. I started at the beginnings of human existence.

On the synchronous side, our ancestors would have started out making gestures and grunts, gradually evolving this into speech. Asynchronously, they would have started with few options, but developed the ability to communicate more permanently using signs and symbols, paintings and inscriptions.

Moving forward to the options available post-war through to the 1980s, technology made possible a wide variety of new communication methods. Synchronously we could now talk with each other at a distance using the telephone, and receive broadcast transmissions on our televisions and radios. Asynchronously, we had the post, telex and telegrams; the ability to leave recorded phone messages on tape; books, magazines, newspapers and other printed media; as well as a variety of new recorded media, including vinyl records, tapes and CDs.

And finally, as we enter the 21st century, and with the benefit of mobile phones and computers, we see more dramatic changes in the communication media at our disposal. On the synchronous side we have the ability to talk with each other while on the move; online, we have chat rooms, instant messaging, the ability to make voice calls using the VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol), as well as the fully-featured capabilities of web conferencing, including virtual classrooms. Asynchronously there’s been similar progress, with email, forums and newsgroups; the World Wide Web; social networking using blogs, wikis and podcasts; as well as the ability to send simple text messages to each other using our mobile phones.

So why throughout history have we maintained this balance between synchronous and asynchronous communication? Why hasn’t one form deposed the other? The answer, I believe, is that each has its own special characteristics. Synchronous communication is speedy and responsive; it gets things done right away. It’s also more conducive to the everyday social interaction that is a vital part of our daily rituals. It also adds a more personal touch, particularly when conducted face-to-face.

And because asynchronous communication is generally recorded in some way – whether on paper, tape, disc or digitally – it lends itself to repeated use. It also provides the receiver with the ability to pace their own reading, watching or listening, to suit their own preferences and abilities. Finally, it lends itself to more reflective communication – communication that is considered, drafted and edited before it’s delivered.

These capabilities are not just relevant to our everyday work and social activities; they would seem to be vital to a well-balanced, blended learning solution. Learning designers would do well to ensure a mix of synchronous and asynchronous media, each used when it is most appropriate to the learning objectives and the audience.

*

This exploration of synchronous and asynchronous communication formed the introduction to a webinar I ran this week on virtual classrooms for TrainingZone. I've subsequently made a recording of this presentation, which you're welcome to view on YouTube.