&

A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-

learning methods discovered that each supports
different purposes
By Stefan Hrastinski

T oday’s
highly ally improve
workforce
educated skills
is
and
expected
and to continu- acquire
to be

new ones by engaging in lifelong learn- ing. E-learning, here defined as learning and teaching online through network
technologies, is arguably one of the most powerful responses to the growing need for education. 1 Some researchers have
expressed concern about the learning outcomes for e-learners, but a review of 355 comparative studies reveals no significant
difference in learning out- comes, commonly measured as grades or exam results, between traditional and e-learning modes of
delivery.2
For e-learning initiatives to succeed, organizations and educational insti- tutions must understand the benefits
and limitations of different e-learning techniques and methods. Research can support practitioners by study- ing the impact of
different factors on e-learning ’s effectiveness. Two basic types of e-learning are commonly com- pared, asynchronous and
synchronous. Until recently, e-learning initiatives mainly relied on asynchronous means for teaching and learning. 3 However,
recent improvements in technology and increasing bandwidth capabilities have led to the growing popularity of synchronous e-
learning.4
My work has focused on the benefits and limitations of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning and addresses questions such
as when, why, and how to use these two modes of delivery.
Many organizations and educational institutions are interested in using and developing both asynchronous and syn- chronous e-
learning, but have a limited understanding of the benefits and limi- tations of the two. I began with a view of learning as
participation in the social world,5 which implies that learning is a dialogue carried out through both internal and social
negotiation.6

Defining Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning An ongoing debate addresses the usefulness
of asynchronous versus synchronous e-learning. Asynchronous e-learning, commonly facilitated by media such as e-mail and
discussion boards, supports work relations among

Number 4 2008 • EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY 51 © 2008 Stefan Hrastinski

Asynchronous Synchronous E-
Learning
learners and with teachers, even when participants cannot be online at the same time. It is thus a key component of flexible e-
learning. In fact, many people take online courses because of their asynchronous nature, combin- ing education with work,
family, and other commitments. Asynchronous e- learning makes it possible for learners to log on to an e-learning environment at
any time and download documents or send messages to teachers or peers. Students may spend more time refining their
contributions, which are generally considered more thoughtful compared to synchronous communication. 7
Synchronous e-learning, commonly supported by media such as videocon- ferencing and chat, has the potential to support e-
learners in the develop- ment of learning communities. Learners and teachers experience synchronous e-learning as more social
and avoid frustration by asking and answering questions in real time. 8 Synchronous sessions help e-learners feel like partici- pants
rather than isolates:
Isolation can be overcome by more continued contact, particularly synchronously, and by becoming aware of themselves as
members of a community rather than as isolated individuals communicating with the computer. 9
The debate about the benefits and limitations of asynchronous and syn- chronous e-learning seems to have left the initial stage, in
which researchers tried to determine the medium that works “better”—such studies generally yielded no significant differences.10
Consequently, instead of trying to deter- mine the best medium, the e-learning community needs an understanding of when, why,
and how to use different types of e-learning. Note also that the users decide how to use a medium. For example, in some
instances e-mail is used near-synchronously when users remain logged in and monitor their e-mail continuously.11 Thus, the
differ- ence between asynchronous and syn- chronous e-learning is often a matter of degree.

EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY • Number 4 2008 52

Research Background
In my PhD thesis,13 I compared asyn- chronous and synchronous e-learning. In this article, I focus on the analysis of
asynchronous and synchronous online seminars held as part of two e-learning classes. The first class included 3 females and 5
males with a mean age of 38 years. The second class included 14 females and 5 males with a mean age of 43 years. Both classes
studied knowledge man- agement at the master’s level. Potential differences might arise because of the different group sizes (8
versus 19), but only a few such differences were evident in the data from this study.

To understand student opinions of Three Types of asynchronous and synchronous e- Communication

learning, I also conducted 12 half-hour Haythornthwaite12 argues that three
telephone interviews. Four of the inter- types of communication in particular
viewees were enrolled in the first class and are important for building and sustain-
eight were enrolled in the second class. ing e-learning communities: content-
The interviews, which I recorded and related communication, planning of
transcribed, were conducted within one tasks, and social support (see Table 1).
month after the seminars concluded. Firstly, communication related to the
In the online seminars, I suggested course content is essential for learn-
questions for the class to discuss and ing. Just as in traditional education, e-
also asked learners to submit questions learners need to be able to ask ques-
about the course literature for discus- tions and share information and ideas.
sion. The synchronous discussions were Secondly, support for planning tasks is
conducted by chat and scheduled for essential, especially when learners pro-
three hours. The asynchronous discus- duce some kind of product, such as an
sions used a discussion board and were assignment, in collaboration with peers.
scheduled over a week. I chose two asyn- Finally, social support relations are desir-
chronous and two synchronous discus- able for creating an atmosphere that
sions from the middle of each course for fosters collaborative learning.
further analysis. The classes used the
Table 1 Three Types of Communication*
Type of Exchange Examples
Content-related n Ask or answer a content-related question n Share information n Express an idea or thought
Planning of tasks n Plan work, allocate tasks, coordinate joint efforts, or
review drafts n Negotiate and resolve conflicts
Social support n Express companionship, emotional support, or advice n Use emoticons (such as ☺, ☹) n Provide
support when problems arise (such as when
having technical difficulties) n Talk about things other than class work
* Adapted from Haythornthwaite.
cess same literature and the suggested ques-
information. The receiver has more tions were of similar character, designed
time to comprehend a message because to stimulate reflection and sharing of
an immediate answer is not expected. personal experiences relating to the lit-
My interviews support this argument, as erature in both the asynchronous and
illustrated by the following quote: synchronous settings. After the online discussions concluded, I classified every
In the [asynchronous discussions] written sentence according to the three
it is easier to find some more facts, types of exchanges described in Table 1.
maybe have a look in a book and Some sentences included more than one
do more thorough postings. type of exchange and were counted in more than one category.
In fact, according to Kock’s estimate,18 The studies reported here were con-
an exchange of 600 words requires about ducted in a specific context and with
6 minutes for complex group tasks in a small sample size. However, the key
face-to-face settings, while exchanging arguments are also supported by theory,
the same number of words over e-mail as will become evident. I did not use
would take approximately one hour. learning outcome measures because only two pass/no pass grades were given in Benefits
and Limitations of the courses, making it difficult to iden-

Synchronous e-Learning tify statistically significant differences

When studying Table 2, it becomes given the small populations. Instead,
apparent that synchronous e-learning this article relies on measures and per-
supports other types of communication ceptions of communication, which have
more often than does asynchronous been shown to have a positive effect on
e-learning. Almost 60 percent of the sen- perceived learning, grades, and quality
tences related to content, while a third assessment of assignments.14
of the sentences related to planning of tasks. This can be explained by the fact Benefits and Limitations of that these
discussions were limited by Asynchronous E-Learning
time—the participants had to make sure The classification of sentences from
they did what was expected during the the seminar discussions is presented
scheduled three hours. In synchronous in Table 2. Almost every sentence in
discussions, participants also discussed the asynchronous discussions of the
things other than course work. This was smaller group, and a vast majority of
especially evident at the beginning and sentences in the larger group, were
end of each discussion. No apparent classified as content-related. This is a
difference could be discerned in the syn- remarkable result—imagine if learners
chronous discussions when comparing on campus spent more than 90 percent
the smaller and larger classes. of their time discussing issues related to
Kock’s media naturalness hypothesis19 course content. These results can also be
predicts that synchronous communi- interpreted as troublesome, however. If
cation increases psychological arousal. e-learners seldom meet face-to-face and
Similarly, Robert and Dennis’s20 cogni- teachers mainly rely on asynchronous
tive model of media choice predicts that
Table 2 Sentences Categorized by Type of Communication and E-Learning
Type of Communication Smaller Class (n=8) Larger Class (n=19)
Synchronous Asynchronous Synchronous Asynchronous
Content-related 876 (58%) 369 (99%) 1,816 (57%) 2,438 (93%)
Planning of tasks 507 (34%) 5 (1%) 935 (29%) 131 (5%)
Social support 198 (13%) 2 (1%) 572 (18%) 124 (2%)
All sentences 1,507 (100%) 375 (100%) 3,173 (100%) 2,608 (100%)
e-learning, students might feel isolated and not part of learning communities, which is essential for collaboration and learning. 15
When comparing the smaller to the larger class, it seems difficult to get asynchronous discussions going with few participants, a
finding sup- ported by previous research.16
The cognitive model of media choice proposed by Robert and Dennis17 theo- rizes that asynchronous communica- tion increases a
person’s ability to pro-

Number 4 2008 • EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY 53

Figure 1 Cognitive and Personal Dimensions of E-Learning
Table 3
When, Why, and How to Use Asynchronous vs. Synchronous E-Learning
Asynchronous E-Learning Synchronous E-Learning
When? n Reflecting on complex issues
n When synchronous meetings cannot be scheduled because of work, family, and other commitments
conversation. A downside revealed in the interviews is that the focus is often on quantity rather than quality—that
Asynchronous E-Learning Synchronous E-Learning
is, trying to write something quickly because “someone else will say what I was going to say.”
Cognitive Participation increased reflection and ability Personal Participation
Increased arousal, motivation

Cognitive and Personal Dimensions of E-Learning to process information and convergence on

meaning
In the previous section, I suggested that synchronous communication makes it possible to monitor the synchronous
communication increases
bles face-to-face communication. This
receiver’s reaction to a message, mak- motivation. Kock argues that each ele-
finding was especially evident in the
ing the receiver feel more committed ment that characterizes “natural” media
smaller class.
and motivated to read it. When commu- (for example, the ability to convey and
Synchronous communication enables
nicating asynchronously, however, the observe facial expressions and body
monitoring the receiver’s reaction to a
receiver has more time to comprehend language) contributes to psychological
message, which makes the receiver more
the message, since the sender does not arousal. If these elements are suppressed,
committed and motivated to read and
expect an immediate answer. Thus, syn- however, a decrease in psychological
answer the message.21 The interviews
chronous e-learning increases arousal arousal can be expected.
conducted as part of my empirical stud-
and motivation, while asynchronous The interviews revealed that many
ies supported this argument:
e-learning increases the ability to pro- e-learners felt that synchronous com-
cess information. munication was “more like talking”
Even if I cannot see the person,
The concepts of personal participa- compared with asynchronous commu-
I write so to speak to the person
tion and cognitive participation describe nication. It seemed more acceptable to
 directly and get an immediate
the dimensions of learning supported exchange social support and discuss
answer.
by asynchronous and synchronous less “complex” issues. Consequently,
e-learning (see Figure 1). Personal partici- the higher sentence counts when com-
It can also be expected that the sender
pation describes a more arousing type of municating synchronously (see Table
becomes more psychologically aroused
participation appropriate for less com- 2) can be explained by the fact that
and motivated because he or she knows
plex information exchanges, including the e-learners felt more psychologically
a response is likely. In synchronous
the planning of tasks and social support. aroused and motivated, since this type
e-learning, learners respond quickly
Cognitive participation describes a more of communication more closely resem-
because they do not want to disrupt the
reflective type of participation appropri-
n Discussing less complex issues n Getting acquainted n Planning tasks
Why? n Students have more time to reflect because the
sender does not expect an immediate answer.
n Students become more committed and motivated
because a quick response is expected.
How? n Use asynchronous means such as e-mail, discussion
boards, and blogs.
n Use synchronous means such as videoconferencing,
instant messaging and chat, and complement with face-to-face meetings.
Examples n Students expected to reflect individually on course
topics may be asked to maintain a blog. n Students expected to share reflections regarding
course topics and critically assess their peers’ ideas may be asked to participate in online discussions on a
discussion board.
n Students expected to work in groups may be advised
to use instant messaging as support for getting to know each other, exchanging ideas, and planning tasks. n A
teacher who wants to present concepts from the literature in a simplified way might give an online lecture by
videoconferencing.

EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY • Number 4 2008 54

ate for discussions of complex issues. I work, and get to know each other.22 As
suggest that, other things being equal, stated earlier, many learners enroll in online
synchronous e-learning better supports courses because of their asynchronous
personal participation and asynchro- nous e- nature, which needs to be taken into account.
learning better supports cogni- tive For the discussion of complex issues,
participation. synchronous e-learning, by media such as
The research discussed here videoconferencing, instant messaging and
demon- strates that asynchronous and chat, and arrang- ing face-to-face meetings
synchro- nous e-learning complement each as a comple- ment, may be essential as
other. An implication for instructors is to support for students to get to know each
pro- vide several types of asynchronous and other and for planning the tasks at hand.
synchronous communication so that How- ever, when discussing complex issues,
appropriate means are available for dif- in which time for reflection is needed, it
ferent learning activities. The combina- tion seems preferable to switch to asyn- chronous
of these two types of e-learning supports e-learning and use media such as e-mail,
several ways for learners and teachers to discussion boards, and blogs. Table 3
exchange information, col- laborate on summarizes when, why, and how to use
 asynchronous versus syn- chronous e- Montreal, Canada, December 9–12, 2007. 8. Ibid. 9.
learning. Caroline Haythornthwaite and Michelle M. Kazmer,
“Bringing the Internet Home: Adult Distance
Learners and Their Inter- net, Home, and Work
Conclusion Worlds,” in The Internet in Everyday Life, ed. Barry
Well- man and Caroline Haythornthwaite (Malden,
The media investigated in this MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), pp. 431–463
article have been key in transforming the [quote p. 459]. 10. Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena
focus on e-learners as individuals to e- and Marina Stock McIsaac, “Distance Educa- tion,”
learners as social participants. A parallel in Handbook of Research on Educa- tional
Communications and Technology, ed. David H.
move has occurred toward Web 2.0, which
Jonassen, (Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum, 2004),
emphasizes the increasing use of the web to pp. 355–395.
support social relations. This shift will 11. M. Lynne Markus, “Electronic Mail as the
surely lead to new ways of col- laborating in Medium of Managerial Choice,” Orga- nization
online education. Initial efforts include the Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (1994), pp. 502–527. 12.
Caroline Haythornthwaite, “Building Social
adoption in educa- tional settings of
Networks via Computer Net- works: Creating and
emerging media such as virtual worlds, Sustaining Distrib- uted Learning Communities,” in
blogs, wikis, and video sharing, and Build- ing Virtual Communities: Learning and
synchronous software that supports audio Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and
and video. Wesley Schumar, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), pp. 159–190. 13. Stefan
An essential challenge is to Hrastinski, “Participating in Syn- chronous Online
critically study the benefits and limitations Education,” PhD dis- ser tation, Lund University,
of emerging types of asynchronous, syn- 2007, avail- able from http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=
us, and hybrid e-learning. This will 12588&postid=599311. 14. Eric Fredericksen,
Alexandra Picket, Peter Shea, William Pelz, and
e understanding of the com- plex
Karen Swan, “Stu- dent Satisfaction and Perceived
ead—taking advantage of emerging Learn- ing with On-line Courses: Principles and
n ways that benefit learning. e Examples from the SUNY Learning Net- work,”
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 4,
no. 2 (September 2000), pp. 7–41; and Starr Roxanne
Hiltz, Nancy Coppola, Naomi Rotter, Murray Turoff,
otes and Raquel Benbunan-Fich, “Measuring the
ong Zhang, J. Leon Zhao, Lina Zhou, and Importance of Collaborative Learn- ing for the
unamaker Jr., “Can E-Learning Replace Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi- Measure, Multi-
m Learn- ing?” Communications of the Method Approach,” Jour- nal of Asynchronous
l. 47, no. 5 (May 2004), pp. 75–79. 2. Learning Networks, vol. 4, no. 2 (2000), pp. 103–25.
L. Russell, The No Significant Dif- ference 15. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bring- ing the
non, 5th ed. (Montgom- ery, AL: Internet Home”; and Haythorn- thwaite, “Building
onal Distance Educa- tion Certification Social Networks.” 16. Rena M. Palloff and Keith
001). 3. Alexander Romiszowski and Robin Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace:
Computer-Mediated Commu- nication,” in Effec- tive Strategies for the Online Classroom (San
k of Research for Educational Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 17. Lionel P. Robert
ications and Technol- ogy, ed. David H. and Alan R. Dennis, “Par- adox of Richness: A
(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004), Cognitive Model of Media Choice,” IEEE
431; and Stefan Hrastinski and Christina Transactions on Pro- fessional Communication, vol.
Computer-Mediated Communi- cation in 48, no. 1 (March 2005), pp. 10–21. 18. Ned Kock,
n: A Review of Recent Research,” “Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The
nal Media Interna- tional, vol. 4, no. 1 Evolution of Our Bio- logical Communication
007), pp. 61–77. 4. Kinshuk and Nian-Shing Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward
yn- chronous Methods and Applications in E-Communication Tools,” IEEE Transac- tions on
ng,” Campus-Wide Information Systems, Professional Communication, vol. 48, no. 2 (June
o. 3 (2006). 5. Etienne Wenger, 2005), pp. 117–30. 19. Ibid. 20. Robert and Dennis,
ities of Prac- tice: Learning, Meaning, and “Paradox of
Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 11. M. Lynne Markus, “Electronic Mail as the
David H. Jonassen and Susan M. Land, Medium of Managerial Choice,” Orga- nization
o Theoretical Foundations of Learn- ing Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (1994), pp. 502–527. 12.
ments, ed. David H. Jonassen and Susan M. Caroline Haythornthwaite, “Building Social
ahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum, 2000), pp. Networks via Computer Net- works: Creating and
Stefan Hrastinski, “The Potential of Syn- Sustaining Distrib- uted Learning Communities,” in
Communication to Enhance Participation in Build- ing Virtual Communities: Learning and
iscussions,” paper presented at the 28th Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and
ional Conference on Information Sys- tems, Wesley Schumar, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), pp. 159–190. 13. Stefan Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 17. Lionel P. Robert
Hrastinski, “Participating in Syn- chronous Online and Alan R. Dennis, “Par- adox of Richness: A
Education,” PhD dis- ser tation, Lund University, Cognitive Model of Media Choice,” IEEE
2007, avail- able from http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id= Transactions on Pro- fessional Communication, vol.
12588&postid=599311. 14. Eric Fredericksen, 48, no. 1 (March 2005), pp. 10–21. 18. Ned Kock,
Alexandra Picket, Peter Shea, William Pelz, and “Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The
Karen Swan, “Stu- dent Satisfaction and Perceived Evolution of Our Bio- logical Communication
Learn- ing with On-line Courses: Principles and Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward
Examples from the SUNY Learning Net- work,” E-Communication Tools,” IEEE Transac- tions on
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 4, Professional Communication, vol. 48, no. 2 (June
no. 2 (September 2000), pp. 7–41; and Starr Roxanne 2005), pp. 117–30. 19. Ibid. 20. Robert and Dennis,
Hiltz, Nancy Coppola, Naomi Rotter, Murray Turoff, “Paradox of
and Raquel Benbunan-Fich, “Measuring the 11. M. Lynne Markus, “Electronic Mail as the
Importance of Collaborative Learn- ing for the Medium of Managerial Choice,” Orga- nization
Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi- Measure, Multi- Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (1994), pp. 502–527. 12.
Method Approach,” Jour- nal of Asynchronous Caroline Haythornthwaite, “Building Social
Learning Networks, vol. 4, no. 2 (2000), pp. 103–25. Networks via Computer Net- works: Creating and
15. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bring- ing the Sustaining Distrib- uted Learning Communities,” in
Internet Home”; and Haythorn- thwaite, “Building Build- ing Virtual Communities: Learning and
Social Networks.” 16. Rena M. Palloff and Keith Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and
Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Wesley Schumar, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge
Effec- tive Strategies for the Online Classroom (San University Press, 2002), pp. 159–190. 13. Stefan
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 17. Lionel P. Robert Hrastinski, “Participating in Syn- chronous Online
and Alan R. Dennis, “Par- adox of Richness: A Education,” PhD dis- ser tation, Lund University,
Cognitive Model of Media Choice,” IEEE 2007, avail- able from http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=
Transactions on Pro- fessional Communication, vol. 12588&postid=599311. 14. Eric Fredericksen,
48, no. 1 (March 2005), pp. 10–21. 18. Ned Kock, Alexandra Picket, Peter Shea, William Pelz, and
“Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The Karen Swan, “Stu- dent Satisfaction and Perceived
Evolution of Our Bio- logical Communication Learn- ing with On-line Courses: Principles and
Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward Examples from the SUNY Learning Net- work,”
E-Communication Tools,” IEEE Transac- tions on Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 4,
Professional Communication, vol. 48, no. 2 (June no. 2 (September 2000), pp. 7–41; and Starr Roxanne
2005), pp. 117–30. 19. Ibid. 20. Robert and Dennis, Hiltz, Nancy Coppola, Naomi Rotter, Murray Turoff,
“Paradox of and Raquel Benbunan-Fich, “Measuring the
11. M. Lynne Markus, “Electronic Mail as the Importance of Collaborative Learn- ing for the
Medium of Managerial Choice,” Orga- nization Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi- Measure, Multi-
Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (1994), pp. 502–527. 12. Method Approach,” Jour- nal of Asynchronous
Caroline Haythornthwaite, “Building Social Learning Networks, vol. 4, no. 2 (2000), pp. 103–25.
Networks via Computer Net- works: Creating and 15. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bring- ing the
Sustaining Distrib- uted Learning Communities,” in Internet Home”; and Haythorn- thwaite, “Building
Build- ing Virtual Communities: Learning and Social Networks.” 16. Rena M. Palloff and Keith
Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace:
Wesley Schumar, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge Effec- tive Strategies for the Online Classroom (San
University Press, 2002), pp. 159–190. 13. Stefan Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 17. Lionel P. Robert
Hrastinski, “Participating in Syn- chronous Online and Alan R. Dennis, “Par- adox of Richness: A
Education,” PhD dis- ser tation, Lund University, Cognitive Model of Media Choice,” IEEE
2007, avail- able from http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id= Transactions on Pro- fessional Communication, vol.
12588&postid=599311. 14. Eric Fredericksen, 48, no. 1 (March 2005), pp. 10–21. 18. Ned Kock,
Alexandra Picket, Peter Shea, William Pelz, and “Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The
Karen Swan, “Stu- dent Satisfaction and Perceived Evolution of Our Bio- logical Communication
Learn- ing with On-line Courses: Principles and Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward
Examples from the SUNY Learning Net- work,” E-Communication Tools,” IEEE Transac- tions on
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 4, Professional Communication, vol. 48, no. 2 (June
no. 2 (September 2000), pp. 7–41; and Starr Roxanne 2005), pp. 117–30. 19. Ibid. 20. Robert and Dennis,
Hiltz, Nancy Coppola, Naomi Rotter, Murray Turoff, “Paradox of
and Raquel Benbunan-Fich, “Measuring the 11. M. Lynne Markus, “Electronic Mail as the
Importance of Collaborative Learn- ing for the Medium of Managerial Choice,” Orga- nization
Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi- Measure, Multi- Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (1994), pp. 502–527. 12.
Method Approach,” Jour- nal of Asynchronous Caroline Haythornthwaite, “Building Social
Learning Networks, vol. 4, no. 2 (2000), pp. 103–25. Networks via Computer Net- works: Creating and
15. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bring- ing the Sustaining Distrib- uted Learning Communities,” in
Internet Home”; and Haythorn- thwaite, “Building Build- ing Virtual Communities: Learning and
Social Networks.” 16. Rena M. Palloff and Keith Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and
Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Wesley Schumar, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge
Effec- tive Strategies for the Online Classroom (San University Press, 2002), pp. 159–190. 13. Stefan
Hrastinski, “Participating in Syn- chronous Online and Alan R. Dennis, “Par- adox of Richness: A
Education,” PhD dis- ser tation, Lund University, Cognitive Model of Media Choice,” IEEE
2007, avail- able from http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id= Transactions on Pro- fessional Communication, vol.
12588&postid=599311. 14. Eric Fredericksen, 48, no. 1 (March 2005), pp. 10–21. 18. Ned Kock,
Alexandra Picket, Peter Shea, William Pelz, and “Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The
Karen Swan, “Stu- dent Satisfaction and Perceived Evolution of Our Bio- logical Communication
Learn- ing with On-line Courses: Principles and Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward
Examples from the SUNY Learning Net- work,” E-Communication Tools,” IEEE Transac- tions on
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 4, Professional Communication, vol. 48, no. 2 (June
no. 2 (September 2000), pp. 7–41; and Starr Roxanne 2005), pp. 117–30. 19. Ibid. 20. Robert and Dennis,
Hiltz, Nancy Coppola, Naomi Rotter, Murray Turoff, “Paradox of
and Raquel Benbunan-Fich, “Measuring the 11. M. Lynne Markus, “Electronic Mail as the
Importance of Collaborative Learn- ing for the Medium of Managerial Choice,” Orga- nization
Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi- Measure, Multi- Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (1994), pp. 502–527. 12.
Method Approach,” Jour- nal of Asynchronous Caroline Haythornthwaite, “Building Social
Learning Networks, vol. 4, no. 2 (2000), pp. 103–25. Networks via Computer Net- works: Creating and
15. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bring- ing the Sustaining Distrib- uted Learning Communities,” in
Internet Home”; and Haythorn- thwaite, “Building Build- ing Virtual Communities: Learning and
Social Networks.” 16. Rena M. Palloff and Keith Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and
Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Wesley Schumar, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge
Effec- tive Strategies for the Online Classroom (San University Press, 2002), pp. 159–190. 13. Stefan
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 17. Lionel P. Robert Hrastinski, “Participating in Syn- chronous Online
and Alan R. Dennis, “Par- adox of Richness: A Education,” PhD dis- ser tation, Lund University,
Cognitive Model of Media Choice,” IEEE 2007, avail- able from http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=
Transactions on Pro- fessional Communication, vol. 12588&postid=599311. 14. Eric Fredericksen,
48, no. 1 (March 2005), pp. 10–21. 18. Ned Kock, Alexandra Picket, Peter Shea, William Pelz, and
“Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The Karen Swan, “Stu- dent Satisfaction and Perceived
Evolution of Our Bio- logical Communication Learn- ing with On-line Courses: Principles and
Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward Examples from the SUNY Learning Net- work,”
E-Communication Tools,” IEEE Transac- tions on Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 4,
Professional Communication, vol. 48, no. 2 (June no. 2 (September 2000), pp. 7–41; and Starr Roxanne
2005), pp. 117–30. 19. Ibid. 20. Robert and Dennis, Hiltz, Nancy Coppola, Naomi Rotter, Murray Turoff,
“Paradox of and Raquel Benbunan-Fich, “Measuring the
11. M. Lynne Markus, “Electronic Mail as the Importance of Collaborative Learn- ing for the
Medium of Managerial Choice,” Orga- nization Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi- Measure, Multi-
Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (1994), pp. 502–527. 12. Method Approach,” Jour- nal of Asynchronous
Caroline Haythornthwaite, “Building Social Learning Networks, vol. 4, no. 2 (2000), pp. 103–25.
Networks via Computer Net- works: Creating and 15. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bring- ing the
Sustaining Distrib- uted Learning Communities,” in Internet Home”; and Haythorn- thwaite, “Building
Build- ing Virtual Communities: Learning and Social Networks.” 16. Rena M. Palloff and Keith
Change in Cyberspace, K. Ann Renninger and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace:
Wesley Schumar, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge Effec- tive Strategies for the Online Classroom (San
University Press, 2002), pp. 159–190. 13. Stefan Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 17. Lionel P. Robert
Hrastinski, “Participating in Syn- chronous Online and Alan R. Dennis, “Par- adox of Richness: A
Education,” PhD dis- ser tation, Lund University, Cognitive Model of Media Choice,” IEEE
2007, avail- able from http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id= Transactions on Pro- fessional Communication, vol.
12588&postid=599311. 14. Eric Fredericksen, 48, no. 1 (March 2005), pp. 10–21. 18. Ned Kock,
Alexandra Picket, Peter Shea, William Pelz, and “Media Richness or Media Naturalness? The
Karen Swan, “Stu- dent Satisfaction and Perceived Evolution of Our Bio- logical Communication
Learn- ing with On-line Courses: Principles and Apparatus and Its Influence on Our Behavior Toward
Examples from the SUNY Learning Net- work,” E-Communication Tools,” IEEE Transac- tions on
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 4, Professional Communication, vol. 48, no. 2 (June
no. 2 (September 2000), pp. 7–41; and Starr Roxanne 2005), pp. 117–30. 19. Ibid. 20. Robert and Dennis,
Hiltz, Nancy Coppola, Naomi Rotter, Murray Turoff, “Paradox of
and Raquel Benbunan-Fich, “Measuring the Richness.” 21. Ibid. 22. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bringing
Importance of Collaborative Learn- ing for the Richness.” 21. Ibid. 22. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bringing
Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi- Measure, Multi-
the Internet Home.”
Method Approach,” Jour- nal of Asynchronous
the Internet Home.”
Learning Networks, vol. 4, no. 2 (2000), pp. 103–25.
15. Haythornthwaite and Kazmer, “Bring- ing the
Internet Home”; and Haythorn- thwaite, “Building
Social Networks.” 16. Rena M. Palloff and Keith Stefan Hrastinski (stefan.hrastinski@dis
Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: .uu.se) is a Research Fellow and Director of
Effec- tive Strategies for the Online Classroom (San Master Studies in Computer and Systems Sci-
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999). 17. Lionel P. Robert ence at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Stefan Hrastinski (stefan.hrastinski@dis
.uu.se) is a Research Fellow and Director of
Master Studies in Computer and Systems Sci-
ence at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Stefan Hrastinski (stefan.hrastinski@dis
.uu.se) is a Research Fellow and Director of
Master Studies in Computer and Systems Sci-
ence at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Number 4 2008 • EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY 55