British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 1 2008 166–169

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00739.x

Colloquium

The relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous

text-based discussion

Genevieve Johnson

Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada, T6J 4S2; email: johnsong@macewan.ca

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) permits two distinct modes of text-based

discussion—synchronous (real time) and asynchronous (delayed time). Both synchro-
nous and asynchronous forms of online discussion have perceived advantages and
there is evidence that both contribute to student cognitive and affective outcomes.
Pérez (2003), for instance, required 1st-year university students (n = 24) to engage in
both synchronous online chat and asynchronous email dialog journals to facilitate
Spanish language learning. While a higher number of words were produced in chat
rooms, there was no significant difference in new vocabulary across the two groups.
Similarly, Abrams (2003) assigned students in three sections of a German language
course to one of three instructional conditions: (1) synchronous WebCT chat; (2)
asynchronous WebCT discussion postings; and (3) face-to-face small group collabo-
rative assignments. ‘Analyses of the quality of language indicted no significant differ-
ence among the 3 groups either lexically or syntactically’ (p. 157). Controversy
surrounds the relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous text-based
discussion (Johnson, 2006a).

Methods
Students in an educational psychology course (n = 120) were required to use two WebCT
communication tools (synchronous chat and asynchronous discussion) to analyse four
case studies. The four case studies complimented course content which was organised
into four units of study. Each unit ended with an in-class examination that included three
multiple-choice items related to the case study associated with that unit.

To discuss the four case studies, students were randomly assigned to Condition I (ie,
discussion-chat-discussion-chat) or Condition II (ie, chat-discussion-chat-discussion).
Alternating CMC mode resulted in half of the students in chat and half of the students
in discussion for each case study. This alleviated some of the challenges of scheduling
real-time chat as well as providing students with equivalent learning experiences across
the academic term (ie, two synchronous and two asynchronous text-based case study
discussions).
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 Colloquium 167

At the end of the academic term, having discussed two case studies synchronously and
two case studies asynchronously, students (n = 93) completed a brief questionnaire
that assessed perception of the learning advantage of real-time versus delayed-time
text-based communication. The questionnaire included a forced-choice item (ie, I
learned the case studies best when using) in which students selected from two response
options (ie, synchronous chat or asynchronous discussion). Having selected one response
option, the questionnaire asked why and included space for students to provide a
written reason for their perception of CMC mode learning advantage.

Results
Figure 1 provides a visual summary of student achievement under the two conditions
(ie, discussion-chat-discussion-chat and chat-discussion-chat-discussion). As illus-
trated, there were no significant differences in student achievement across communi-
cation modes. Students who discussed the first case study synchronously, on average,
correctly answered 2.6 of the three multiple-choice examination items that assessed
mastery of case study content. Students who discussed the first case study asynchro-
nously, on average, correctly answered 2.8 of the same three multiple-choice items.
Such a small difference was insignificant and likely the result of random factors.

In response to the forced-choice questionnaire item I learned the case studies best when
using, 39 students selected synchronous chat and 51 students selected asynchronous
discussion (three students did not select either response option). When asked the reason

Figure 1: Student achievement across four examinations under two experimental conditions

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
168 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 1 2008

Figure 2: Student reasons for perceived learning advantage of computer-mediated communication mode

for the learning advantage of chat or discussion, most students provided brief written
comments. Such comments were thematically organised into seven categories. As pre-
sented in Figure 2, student justification for perception of learning advantage was not
unique to CMC mode; students provided the same reason for their perception of the
learning advantage of both CMC modes.

Perception of CMC mode learning advantage was not significantly related to student
mastery of case study content when cases were discussed asynchronously. However,
when cases were discussed synchronously, a significant achievement difference
emerged between students who reported a synchronous chat advantage and those who
expressed the alternate perception. Students who indicated that they learned the case
studies best when using synchronous chat scored, on average, 3.9 on the six examina-
tion items that assessed mastery of case studies discussed synchronously; students who
reported that they learned the case studies best when using asynchronous discussion
scored, on average, 4.5 on the six examination items that assessed mastery of case
studies discussed synchronously. It is unlikely that such a difference occurred by chance
(t = -2.24, df = 88, p = 0.027).

Discussion
Results of the current investigation provide no evidence of the instructional superiority
of synchronous or asynchronous text-based CMC. In every contrast of synchronous

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Colloquium 169

chat and asynchronous discussion, student achievement was equivalent. In this regard,
neither communication mode can be categorically dismissed or recommended in terms
of impact on student learning. It is likely that CMC mode, in and of itself, does not
mitigate the impact of other influences on achievement (eg, motivation, self-regulation,
study behaviour).

Reasons provided by students for their perception of CMC mode learning advantage are
difficult to interpret. For example, seven students reported that they learned best when
discussing the cases synchronously because that mode forced them to be prepared for
the online discussion; the same reason was provided by 15 students who reported that
they learned best when discussing the cases asynchronously. While students should be
prepared for all course assignments, perception of the need and opportunity for prepa-
ration may have differed across students. Further, six of 39 students (ie, 15%) who
expressed the perception that they learned the case studies best when using synchro-
nous chat and nine of 51 students (ie, 18%) who expressed the perception that they
learned the case studies best when using asynchronous discussion attributed their
learning advantage to the interactive nature of the CMC mode. While real-time CMC is
often assumed to be more interactive than delayed-time CMC, students may interpret
interaction differently.

Students who expressed the perception that they learned the case studies best when
using synchronous chat were at a learning disadvantage when using that CMC mode.
It may be that self-report learning advantage reflects student personal preference. Stu-
dents who prefer synchronous over asynchronous text-based CMC may be more social
than students who express the reverse preference. ‘Since evaluation in higher education
is largely cognitive as opposed to social, it is not surprising that highly social students
are often at an achievement disadvantage. This may be equally true in both traditional
and online learning environments’ (Johnson, 2006b, p. 11). Students who prefer the
fast and personal nature of chat may have learning characteristics (eg, motivation,
self-regulation, study behaviour) that sabotage academic achievement under some con-
ditions. Asynchronous text-based CMC may have forced such students to discuss the
case studies in a manner that compensated for less-than-ideal learning behaviour.
Conversely, it may be that synchronous text-based CMC, while enjoyable, provided a
context that exacerbated less than optimal learning behaviour.

References
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in
German. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.
Johnson, G. M. (2006a). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational con-
texts: a review of recent research. TechTrends, 50, 46–53.
Johnson, G. M. (2006b). College student psycho-educational functioning and satisfaction with
online study groups. Educational Psychology, 26, 1–12.
Pérez, L. C. (2003). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous
computer-medicated communication. CAICO Journal, 21, 89–104.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.