A Comparison of Asynchronous Online Text-Based Lectures and

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

A Comparison of Asynchronous

Online Text-Based Lectures

and Synchronous Interactive

Web Conferencing Lectures

Ashley Ann Skylar

California State University, Northridge

Issues in Teacher Education, Fall 2009

Introduction

Online learning environments are more prevalent in teacher edu-

cation than ever before. In 2009, many instructors are attempting to

emulate traditional instructional methods in the online learning environ-

ment as much as possible (Shi & Morrow, 2006). Fewer than ten years

ago, the use of video-conferencing or instructional television to provide

a seemingly traditional classroom for distant learners was common.

However, this technology required the student and instructor to attend

sessions in designated rooms and therefore lacked exibility (Rowe, El-

lis, & Bao, 2006). Today’s technology has evolved so that a student can

access instruction from a desktop computer via web conferencing tools

that simulate the traditional classroom experience. The use of audio

and video in synchronous learning environments to provide interactive

learning experiences for learners who participate in a variety of online

classes has increased because of these easy-access web tools (Stephens

& Mottet, 2008).

Online courses may be separated into two categories, asynchronous

and synchronous, depending on the nature of the online tool. Instructors

use these types of online tools to create a hybrid course (combination

Ashley Ann Skylar is an assistant professor in the Department of Special

Education of the Michael D. Eisner College of Education at California

State University, Northridge. Her email is [email protected]

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

of online and traditional) or to develop a stand-alone online course. Few

studies compare asynchronous online learning (text-based, using discussion

boards) with the newer web synchronous conferencing tools (e.g., Elumi-

nate Live, Wimba Live, Saba Centre, and Adobe Acrobat Connect).

Asynchronous Online Courses

Asynchronous courses provide learners with a exible environment

that is self-paced with learners accessing course content using a vari-

ety of tools such as CD-ROMs, streamed prerecorded audio/video web

recordings, and audio podcasts. Communication and collaboration are

enhanced via asynchronous discussions. Learners are not restricted to

a set day/time for communicating, and it allows students more time

to prepare a response to a set of directions or questions. Examples

include the use of discussion groups (e.g., through discussion boards

via WebCT/Blackboard or other learning management system), wikis,

blogs, and e-mail. Asynchronous class sessions can provide the primary

delivery format, be used in an online course along with synchronous

class sessions, or serve as a supplement to traditional classes (Knap-

czyk, Frey, & Wall-Marencik, 2005). Instruction for online courses is

typically asynchronous. Among the institutions offering online courses

during 2006-2007, 92 percent reported that they offered courses using

an asynchronous format (National Center for Educational Statistics,

2008). Nineteen percent used one-way prerecorded video, while sixteen

percent used correspondence only (e.g., e-mail), and twelve percent used

one-way audio transmissions (e.g., podcasting).

In a study comparing asynchronous lecture notes on CD-ROMs with

asynchronous lecture notes on WebCT, Skylar et al. (2005) found that

both conditions were effective in delivering instruction. No signicant

differences between the groups for achievement and satisfaction were

found. In another study, Chen, Klein, and Minor (2008) found the use

of a hybrid design using asynchronous discussions (twice a week) to be

effective in discussing modeling, communication needs, and interventions

in online early childhood courses. Knapczyk, Frey, and Wall-Marencik

(2005) evaluated the use of asynchronous discussions/forums in a be-

havioral disorder method course. Feedback from students indicated that

this asynchronous format provided a sense of community and increased

collaboration with classmates.

Synchronous Online Courses

Many instructors attempt to emulate traditional instructional meth-

ods in the online learning environment through the use of synchronous

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

web conferencing lectures. In real-time synchronous courses, the instruc-

tor leads the learning, and all learners are logged on simultaneously and

communicate directly with each other (Shi & Morrow, 2006). In the past,

classroom video-conferencing equipment could only be housed in designated

classrooms, and students and the instructor had to travel to designated

sites. Today, software can be accessed from a server, and an individual

can join a synchronous interactive environment from a desktop or laptop

computer. Examples of synchronous online formats include chat rooms,

audio/video conferencing, and two-way live satellite broadcast lectures.

Among the institutions offering online courses in 2006-2007, 31% percent

reported that they offered the courses in a synchronous format; nineteen

percent used two-way video and audio (NCES, 2008).

Synchronous courses provide online learning environments that are

very interactive and use web conferencing products such as Elluminate

Live, Interwise, Wimba Live Classroom, Adobe Acrobat Connect Profes-

sional, and Saba Centra. Advantages of using a synchronous learning

environment include real time sharing of knowledge and learning and

immediate access to the instructor to ask questions and receive answers.

However, this type of environment requires a set date and time for meet-

ing, and this contradicts the promise of “anytime, anywhere” learning that

online courses have traditionally promoted. Synchronous online sessions

are often called web-based training, Webinar, virtual meetings, and web

conferencing (Stephens & Mottet, 2008). Usually, an audio broadcast and

visual presentation, similar to slides, is accessed using an Internet browser

pointed to a designated web address; sometimes web tours, break-out

rooms, and application sharing are also provided (2008).

Through this format, students participate using the text chat func-

tion, voice communication using a microphone, whiteboard tools, and

real time surveys called polling. In Shi and Morrow’s 2006 study, instruc-

tors described polling as an essential synchronous online component to

gauge student comprehension and increase student involvement in a

web conferencing environment. Recently, Ofr, Lev, and Bezalel (2008)

found the interaction level in a synchronous class to be a signicant

factor in the effectiveness of the class. Reushle & Loch (2008) suggest

that staff training in the technical aspects of the synchronous tools, as

well as pedagogical approaches to using them, is vital for successful use

of web conferencing software for online learning.

The Problem

Despite the growth in the use of synchronous tools to facilitate on-

line instruction, little is known about how people use synchronous web

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

conferencing technology. The role of interactivity in web conferencing

is important, particularly as it relates to its effect on student learning

and satisfaction (Stephens & Mottet, 2008). Research suggests that

interaction in a synchronous environment should result in increased

learning. However, these arguments are more theoretical than empiri-

cally supported (Allen et al., 2004). Therefore, this research was needed

to compare asynchronous online environments and synchronous web

conferencing environments and their effect on the achievement and

satisfaction of students.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to compare preservice general edu-

cation and special education students’ performance and satisfaction in

a course that used two types of online instruction. Two courses were

designed to use asynchronous text-based lectures and synchronous in-

teractive web conferencing lectures; both groups received both types of

online instruction. In setting up this study in this manner, all students

were exposed to both conditions, and their preferences for one condition

over another were felt to be an important aspect of the study. Addition-

ally, with both groups participating in both conditions, it was felt that

this would impact their perception of computer literacy skills over the

duration of the semester.

The study asked the following questions:

1. Are there differences in performance between students ac-

cessing content presented in a synchronous interactive web

conferencing lecture format compared to students that access

content in an asynchronous text-based lecture format?

2. Would students prefer to take an online course that uses syn-

chronous interactive web conferencing lectures or asynchronous

text-based lectures?

3. Do students perceive an increased level of technology skills

when taking an online course?

Method

Participants

Forty-four preservice general education and special education stu-

dents enrolled in two sections of a special education course on inclusion

participated in this study. The course was advertised as a hybrid course,

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

so students could expect to have online components with few face-to-face

sessions. The course centered on an overview of disabilities, collabora-

tion and inclusion models, and strategies for adapting and modifying

general education curriculum/materials for students with special needs.

The students enrolled in these course sections during the fall of 2006.

All students received both conditions: synchronous interactive web

conferencing lectures and asynchronous text-based lectures. Of the 44

students in this study, 36 (82%) were female and eight (18%) were male.

All students had used computers for three years or more: six students

12 years or more, 14 students 9-11 years, 15 students 6-8 years, and

seven students 3-5 years. All students except one had indicated that

they had access to a computer outside of school and ve students indi-

cated that they did not like completing assignments that require them

to access the computer/Internet. The average age of all the students was

27.4. The youngest student was 20 and the oldest student was 53. Most

students enrolled in the class sections were graduate students working

on their teaching credential. See Table 1 for a summary of the student

demographics.

Setting

In the study, all students received both conditions. The same in-

structor taught both sections with each group alternating conditions

for coverage of the content based on ten chapters in the textbook. Two

settings conditions were used for this study:

Table 1:

Summary of Student Demographics

Characteristic Fall 2006

Gender

Male 36

Female 8

Age

Mean 27.4

Range 20-53

Use of Computer in Years

12 yrs or more 6

9-11 years 14

6-8 years 15

3-5 years 5

n=44

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

Asynchronous text-based lectures. The course presentation of content

was asynchronous and used the course management system WebCT. A

typical class week included the students downloading text-based lecture

notes (e.g., PowerPoint, html, Word), reading a chapter in the textbook

to correspond with the lecture notes, and taking a 10-item quiz at the

end of the week. All content was available for students in an asynchro-

nous format and organized by weeks 1-10 and by textbook chapter. See

Figure 1 for a sample of how the asynchronous text-based lecture notes

were organized on WebCT. Students were encouraged to download the

lecture notes and read the corresponding chapter to prepare for weekly

quizzes. In this environment, the students did not need to be present

at a set day/time in order to access online lecture notes.

Students communicated with the instructor and peers in the class

via e-mail and threaded discussions. This setting was a typical format

for an online course. The students were required to adhere to due dates

for completion of weekly quizzes which were only available Monday 8:00

a.m. through Sunday 11:00 p.m. Quiz time limits were constrained to 15

minutes for each 10-item quiz. This condition was used for ve lecture

sessions for each group of students. The instructor previously taught

Figure 1:

Sample of Text-Based Lecture Materials Organized on WebCT

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

this course in this asynchronous format for the past six semesters; thus,

she was very comfortable with the content of the course and conditions

of this setting.

Synchronous web conferencing lectures via Elluminate Live. The

second learning environment consisted of real time synchronous web

conferencing lectures using Elluminate Live. Students accessed lecture

note materials in the same manner as the other condition, and they were

encouraged to print these out before a synchronous web conferencing

lecture. Web conferencing lectures were structured to mirror a face-to-

face classroom. Every other week the groups alternated this condition.

The interactive nature of this environment provided a real time virtual

classroom with a variety of tools such as: two-way audio, a webcam,

break-out rooms, chat window, application sharing, web tours, and

students’ raising hands to be called upon in the chat window.

Included in the learning environment were polling features for ques-

tioning students similar to a “traditional classroom clicker.” Students

selected “yes/no, True/False, A-D” responses to questions posed by the

instructor, and the instructor was able to view and compile the results,

as well as use this tool to review content and cue students who weren’t

interactive and participating. Another tool available was a whiteboard

similar to a chalkboard that was commonly used to load a PowerPoint

presentation; this included interactive word processing tools for writ-

ing/drawing/highlighting, etc. on the whiteboard. Finally, post-session

recordings of the lectures were provided; a URL for accessing the lec-

ture at a later time was available for students who were absent or who

wanted to review the lecture again.

Web conferences were scheduled early in the week (e.g., Monday @

4:00 p.m.-5:50 p.m.). Students had the week to review the recorded El-

luminate Live lectures before taking a quiz by the end of the week (e.g.,

Sunday @ 11:00 p.m.). See Figure 2 for a sample of the web conferenc-

ing environment with the interactive features: chat window, polling,

participant window, and whiteboard.

Instruments

The instruments used in this study included a pretest, posttests,

student satisfaction survey, and a pre/post computer literacy survey.

These instruments were administered during the fall of 2006.

Student performance pretest. A 100-item pretest covering material

contained in the course was administered to the students enrolled in the

two sections of the course during the rst class session. The 100-item

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

multiple-choice and true/false test was taken from the test bank that

corresponds to the course textbook, Including Students with Special

Needs: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers by Marilyn Friend

and William Bursuck (2009), as well as from course lecture materials.

Ten questions were identied per textbook chapter.

Student performance posttests. The students in both conditions were

administered ten 10-item posttests/quizzes throughout the semester via

WebCT with a time constraint of 15 minutes for each quiz. Each quiz

corresponded to a chapter from the textbook and lecture notes. These

same quiz questions were used for the pretest. The time frame of 15

minutes per quiz was tested in a previous study using ten 10-item quizzes

(8 minutes, 10 minutes, 12 minutes, 15 minutes) to identify what time

frame would give students sufcient time to answer all 10 questions,

Figure 2:

Sample of Web Conferencing Environment with Interactive Features

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

but not enough time to look up every answer if a student did not prepare

for a quiz. Feedback from students indicated that they were able to

review their lecture notes for 1-2 quiz items, but never the entire quiz.

Due to taking the quiz in the online environment, the instructor could

not control for the testing conditions of students using their notes and

textbook, but could control for the time frame in accessing the quiz.

Student satisfaction survey. A student satisfaction survey was

completed at the end of the semester. The survey consisted of 13 ques-

tions on a Likert scale of 1-5 with 1 “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly

agree.” Three questions asked students about their preferences with

asynchronous and synchronous methods: (1) students’ preference in

taking a class using synchronous web conferencing lectures or asyn-

chronous text-based lectures, (2) whether students felt they performed

better on weekly quizzes/posttests when synchronous web conferencing

lectures were used, rather than asynchronous text-based lectures, and

(3) whether students felt that using synchronous web conferencing lec-

tures increased their understanding of the course material in addition

to using the text-based materials. The other ten questions focused on

student satisfaction with various features of the synchronous web con-

ferencing environment (audio, chat window, polling questions for review

of content, and whiteboard tools). These items are not reported here as

these were meant to inform the researcher of the students’ perception

of the functionality of the tools in the web conferencing environment.

Pre/post computer literacy survey. The survey consisted of 13 items

accessing students’ perceptions of their computer literacy skills in the

following areas: (a) level of technology, (b) use of word processing, (c)

downloading information, (d) use of e-mail for communication, and (e)

use of computer software. The questions used a Likert scale of 1-5 with

1 indicating “no experience” and 5 indicating “advanced.” There were

also ve additional open-ended questions inquiring whether students

had access to computers outside of school, the number of years using a

computer, and whether they like to use a computer/Internet to complete

school assignments, etc. The survey was administered at the beginning

of the semester and at the end of the semester.

Procedures

Forty-four students enrolled in two sections of an online special

education course in the fall of 2006. The course catalog identied dates

of synchronous online meetings and two on-campus meetings (rst and

last class session). All students were asked to participate in the study

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

during the rst class session. During this session students signed an

informed consent form, took a 100-item pretest, and completed a computer

literacy survey. They also learned how to access course content/quizzes

online, turn in assignments electronically, communicate in a threaded

discussion, viewed how to access and load the synchronous web confer-

encing lectures, and were made aware of the hardware requirements

(speakers, microphone) needed to participate in the web conferences.

Throughout the online sessions in the semester, each group alter-

nated conditions while covering the ten chapters in the textbook. For

example, Group 1 had an asynchronous text-based lecture for Chapter

1, while Group 2 had a synchronous web conference lecture for Chapter

1. The following week Group 2 had an asynchronous text-based lecture

for Chapter 2, while Group 1 had a synchronous web conference lecture

for Chapter 2. Each student took ve posttests under each condition.

Regardless of the condition, students had a maximum of seven days for

accessing each posttest/quiz.

The organization of the bi-weekly synchronous web conferencing

lectures allowed for 15 minutes of organizational business that included

previewing previously learned material, answering questions about as-

signments, and taking attendance. These are all common strategies that

are commonly used in a traditional face-to-face lecture. New content was

presented for approximately one hour and 35 minutes and recorded. The

instructor logged into the web conference 15 minutes before the start

of each session to test audio, load the PowerPoint presentation, and

answer questions about assignments. It important to note that in the

preparation of the PowerPoint slides for each web conference lecture,

the instructor embedded M/C, Yes/No, or open-ended questions every 3-4

slides (every 10 minutes) in order to increase the interactivity/engage

students in the session. Research has shown that increased interactivity

enhances students’ satisfaction with the learning environment (Stephens

& Mottet, 2008). The interactivity of the students in a synchronous web

conference lecture is critical to employ strategies that encourage inter-

action to allow students to feel socially present in the lecture (2008). In

setting up this alternating treatment design study, each student had

the experience of asynchronous text-based lectures and synchronous

web conferencing lectures.

Results

In this study, 44 students enrolled in two sections of an online class

in the fall of 2006. All students participated in both conditions in this

alternating treatment design. Data were collected in the form of a pre-

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

test, posttests, a student satisfaction survey, and a computer literacy

survey.

Student Performance Tests

Research question one examined differences in performance among

students accessing content presented in a synchronous interactive web

conferencing lecture format and an asynchronous text-based lecture

format. A 100-item pretest was given to all students at the beginning

of the study. Throughout the study all students took weekly 10-item

quizzes covering the 10 chapters in the textbook. A Scantron machine

scored the pretest, and the 10 posttests were scored in the WebCT envi-

ronment. Twenty-ve percent of the pretests and posttests were selected

randomly and scored manually to ensure scoring reliability.

The overall mean for both groups who accessed synchronous web con-

ferencing lectures was 40.19 (Group 1=39.95, Group 2=40.42), as compared

to asynchronous text-based lectures which was 38.45 (Group1=39.65,

Group 2=37.25). The maximum points students could have received

for each condition was 50 points (ve 10-item quizzes). Results from

the means for group 2 suggest that students’ performance was slightly

improved when provided with synchronous web conferencing lectures

vs. only asynchronous text-based lectures by 3.17 points (See Table 2).

Group 1 did not show improvement across both conditions (.3). However,

neither condition showed signicance to indicate that one condition was

more effective than the other. The results of this analysis suggest that

both types of lectures (asynchronous text-based and synchronous web

conferencing) were effective in delivering online instruction.

Student Satisfaction Survey

Research question two focused on whether students would prefer to

Table 2:

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for the Posttest Items

for Both Conditions

Synchronous Asynchronous

Web Conferencing Text-Based

Group n SD Mean n SD Mean

Group 1 20 3.634 39.95 20 6.226 39.65

Group 2 24 5.602 40.42 24 6.002 37.25

Total 44 4.618 40.19 44 6.114 38.45

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

take an online course that uses synchronous interactive web conferenc-

ing lectures or asynchronous text-based lectures. Descriptive statistics

were calculated for each survey item (13) on a 5-point Likert scale with

1 indicating “strongly disagree” to 5 indicating “strongly agree.” Forty-

one of the 44 students completed the survey. Of the 13 survey items,

three items were used to answer this research question.

Results for these three items were: (a) 73.2% (30) of the students

would prefer to take an online course which uses synchronous web con-

ferencing lectures rather than an online course which uses asynchronous

text-based lectures, (b) 87.8% (36) of the students felt that participating

in synchronous web conferencing lectures increased their understand-

ing of the course material, in addition to using the text-based lecture

materials, and (c) 80.5% (33) of the students felt that they performed

better on weekly quizzes when synchronous web conferencing lectures

were used to present the material rather than using asynchronous

text-based materials only to prepare for quizzes (See Table 3). Some

additional insight into their satisfaction was provided by qualitative

comments on the survey: for example, “I enjoyed the web conferences;

the web conferences helped me tremendously for both understanding

of the text and taking the tests”; “WebCT lectures were very exible,

and it was my rst time in an online class, it showed me that I can still

effectively learn materials outside of a traditional lecture.”

Table 3:

Detailed Analysis of Three Satisfaction Survey Items

on a 5-Point Likert Scale

Satisfaction survey 1-SD 2-D 3-N 4-A 5-SA Mean

items involving web

conferencing (WC)

1. Preference to take a 7.3 % 4.9 % 14.6 % 17.1% 56.1 % 4.10

class using synchronous

WC lectures rather than

text-based lectures

2. Use of WC lectures 0% 2.4% 9.8% 58.5% 29.3% 4.15

increased understanding

of the material

3. Performed better 2.4% 4.9% 12.2% 26.8% 53.7% 4.24

on quizzes when WC

lectures were used

Note: The 5-point Likert scale was used. 1-SD (Strongly Disagree, 2-D (Disagree), 3-N (Neu-

tral), 4-A (Agree), 5-(Strongly Agree). Percentages of students are reported on the scale.

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

Computer Literacy Survey

Research question three examined students’ perceptions on whether

they felt an increased level of technology skills over the semester (16

weeks) while enrolled in the online course. Throughout the author’s

seven years of experience in teaching classes using a variety of online

formats, students have articulated an improvement in their technology

skills while enrolled in the online classes. To answer this question, sur-

vey items were developed on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 indicating “no

experience” to 5 indicating “advanced.” Of the 13 survey items, one item

asked students to rate their level of technology skills at the beginning

and at the end of the semester. Thirty-nine of the 44 students lled out

the pre/post literacy survey. A paired samples analysis of the test item

indicated that there was a signicant difference in the students’ percep-

tion of their technology skills over the course of the semester (p=.000).

The pretest mean score of the students in both groups was 3.14 and the

posttest mean score of the students in both groups was 3.69 (See Table

4). Twelve survey items addressed specic technology skills (e.g., down-

loading materials, use of word processing, use of e-mail, use of computer

software, etc.). The overall pre/post means for these twelve items showed

an improvement in students’ perception of these specic technology skills

over the course of the semester (Pre=3.29, Post=3.75).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether asynchronous

and synchronous online instruction resulted in differences in student

performance, student satisfaction, or student perception of their technol-

ogy skills. Forty-four preservice general education and special education

Table 4:

Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for the Pre/Post

Item for Both Conditions Measuring Students’ Perception

of their Level of Technology Skills

Pre Post

Item n SD Mean n SD Mean

Perception of level 39 .644 3.14 39 .655 3.69

of technology skills

over the course

of the semester

Note: A 5-point Likert scale was used. 1-“No Experience” to 5-“Advanced”

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

students received instruction in two different types of online learning

environments (asynchronous text-based lectures using WebCT and syn-

chronous web conferencing lectures using Elluminate Live). The results

of this analysis suggested that both types of lectures are effective in

delivering online instruction. In addition, almost three-fourths (30 of the

41 students) of the students indicated that they would rather take an

online course that uses synchronous web conferencing lectures than an

online asynchronous text-based lecture course. This nding suggests the

importance of interactivity on student satisfaction in a course. Lastly,

the research study supports the nding that students participating in

an online course perceive an increased level of their technology skills.

Limitations

Several limitations to this study should be noted. First, the study

only assessed a limited sample size (44 students) across two instructional

environments. Second, students in the online sections were required

to attend class on-campus at the beginning and end of the semester;

therefore, the courses were not completely online and this may have

inuenced the results. Third, while every effort was made to ensure that

both course sections received the same quality of instruction, they did

not participate in identical sections, and this may have inadvertently

inuenced the data. Fourth, instrumentation in this study relied heavily

on self-reported data, a measure which has been shown to have inherent

aws of participant bias and within-group variability. Finally, between

group differences were not analyzed as both groups were exposed to

both conditions. Nonetheless, the data indicated a comparison between

two types of online instruction (asynchronous text-based materials and

synchronous web conferencing lectures) and provides research to sup-

port educating students using online instruction with newer multimedia

technologies that are interactive using an array of tools and conducting

more exacting research on its effectiveness.

Implications for Further Research

Research concerning online instruction has focused on areas taught

via instructional television, CD-ROMs, digital video, and online formats

(WebCT, communication tools). However, research concerning the use of

newer multimedia technologies, such as interactive synchronous web con-

ferencing tools, is in its infancy and needs further and continued study.

Second Life, Eluminate Live, Wimba Live, Saba Centre, and Adobe

Acrobat Connect are examples of synchronous online environments.

Various research components of these environments might include mea-

Ashley Ann Skylar

Volume 18, Number 2, Fall 2009

suring: (a) the performance and satisfaction of students in these newer

environments; (b) the level of interactions and strategies used between

the students and peers; (c) the variety of activities; (d) qualitative data in

the form of interviewing students and instructors and chronicling their

experiences over time; and (e) the level of technological support/barri-

ers instructors and students encounter. As instructors use these newer

online environments, it is important that research continues to explore

the overall effectiveness of these environments as an instructional tool

in education. The results from this study may indicate a paradigm shift

in the way online courses should be taught and provide support in using

synchronous web conferencing interactive lectures to emulate traditional

face-to-face lectures.

References

Allen, M., Mabry, E., Bourhis, J., Tittsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating

the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using a meta-analysis.

Journal of Communication, 54, 402-420.

Chen, D., Klein, D., & Minor, L. (2008). Online professional development for

early interventionists: Learning a systematic approach to promote caregiver

interactions with infants who have multiple disabilities.

Infants and Young

Children, 21(2), 120-133.

Knapczyk, D. R., Frey, T. J., & Wal-Marencik, W. (2005). An evaluation of web

conferencing in online teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 28(2), 114-124.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2008, December). Distance education

at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. Retrieved July 9,

2009, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf

Ofr, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in

distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers

and Education, 51(3), 1172-1183.

Reushle, S., & Loch, B. (2008). Conducting a trial of web conferencing software:

Why, how, and perceptions from the Coalface. Turkish Online Journal of

Distance Education, 9(3), 19-28.

Rowe, S., Ellis, A., & Bao, T. Z. (2006). The evolution of audiographics: A case

study of audiographics teaching in a business facility. Proceedings of the

Annual ASCILITE conference: Who’s Learning? Whose technology?

Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/syd-

ney06/proceedings/pd_papers/p194.pdf

Shi, S., & Morrow, B., V. (2006). E-Conferencing for instruction: What works?

EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4), 42-49.

Skylar, A., Higgins, K., Boone, R., Jones, P., Pierce, T., & Gelfer, J. (2005).

Distance education: An exploration of alternative methods and types of

instructional media in teacher education. Journal of Special Education,

20(3), 25-33.

A Comparison of Lectures

Issues in Teacher Education

Stephens, K. K., & Mottet, T. P. (2008). Interactivity in a web conference train-

ing context: Effects on trainers and trainees. Communication Education,

57(1), 88-104.