EPALE - Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe

6 min read – like, share, comment!

First published in Polish by Sławomir Łais

The topic of so-called learning modes often comes up at the beginning of workshops on the architecture of remote training. I usually ask if anything needs clarification, and I often notice from participants' reactions that it is not necessarily the case. After all, this is nothing new – everyone seems to know the differences between synchronous, asynchronous, and self-directed learning (also known as self-paced learning). While the definitions of these modes typically do not pose a problem, I later observe that consciously leveraging their specific features and advantages is a revelation for many.   

The division into modes might seem basic and uninteresting; however, I believe it is incredibly useful in training design. This, however, is on one condition – we must go beyond definitions and truly understand the advantages, disadvantages, and implications of decisions in this area.

SynchronousSynchronous

In the synchronous mode, learning takes place in real-time, with all participants present simultaneously. Examples include live classes, video conferences, webinars, and interactive online workshops.

This mode is particularly familiar to those transitioning to remote education from in-person training environments. Often, for such persons, the term "e-training" equates to an online workshop conducted on platforms like Zoom or Teams. 

Let us start with the advantages. 

First and foremost, there is group dynamics – people can see, hear, and interact with one another, fostering a sense of collaborative effort. There is a sense of cooperation. It is possible to work in teams (in breakout rooms), which usually adds extra motivation. There is space for creativity, group work, brainstorming, and similar activities.

Communication is direct, so participants can receive answers or feedback almost instantly. The trainer, in turn, can observe what is happening in the group and respond in real time to the needs of the group and the participants.

However, there are also disadvantages. Everyone must participate at the same time. It is necessary to gather the group and synchronise calendars. Everyone has to work in the same way. This can be particularly difficult in heterogeneous groups. One person might be bored while another struggles to keep up. There is an overwhelming effect, as the work is very intense – everything must be packed into the group session hours. Participants lack support after the event. Often, the process ends with the final minute of the workshop.

In my opinion, synchronous methods are applicable where there are clear benefits from collaborative creative work, sharing experiences and thoughts (although this can also be achieved asynchronously). They are also important where the integration of participants can make a difference. This mode enables us to provide team-working experiences and build creativity, but with certain limitations. Often, tasks that usually take many hours are shortened to just a few minutes due to time constraints. 

Self-Directed Learning

In the self-directed mode, learning is entirely up to the learner, without direct supervision from a trainer. Learners use educational materials, books, videos, language-learning apps, and complete tasks, quizzes, etc., on their own.

The self-directed learning mode is largely the opposite of synchronous activities. The main advantage is the enormous flexibility and availability anytime and anywhere – the famous just-in-time. Skills are often needed now, not after the group gathers. We might also have specific expectations (for example, we want to create a pivot table in Excel) and will not wait for a group training, spending eight hours to learn just a single topic.

In this mode, we learn whenever we want, however we want, and we can revisit interesting parts or skip those that are uninteresting. We do not have to wait for others to grasp what is already obvious to us.

One of the most interesting forms is micro-learning – creating short, easily consumable "learning nuggets" covering a single topic. This helps the recipient to select the topics they need consciously.

However, there are also disadvantages. There is no trainer – no one to ask questions. There is no one to give proper feedback. A strong internal motivation is necessary because no one will motivate us with their presence. The loneliness of learning might become a challenge. AI tools may address some of these issues, but nothing replaces human interaction.

Incidentally, this absence of a human presence is often compensated by including videos of the trainer in the materials – we can catch their passion, understand their perspective, and want to imitate them. But, after all, it is just a recording.

Self-directed learning forms are primarily useful where easy accessibility and practicality are important. A conscious learner wants to choose what they currently need without wasting time on unnecessary training. 

These forms are incredibly easy to scale. Well-designed forms can serve hundreds or even thousands of learners with the same resources. For this reason, they are often an idea for educators seeking passive income. 

Asynchronous

In the asynchronous mode, learners study independently, working at their own pace, but remain in asynchronous contact with the trainer – they send assignments, questions, and receive responses and feedback. The training has its own pace but does not require strict synchronisation.

If we wanted to mitigate the biggest disadvantages of synchronous and self-directed modes, asynchronous forms would seem like a natural solution. There is no need for synchronisation, yet the trainer's presence is maintained. This is all incredibly efficient because everyone (both the participant and the trainer) can work at their own pace and on their own schedule. 

The asynchronous mode can sometimes offer even more trainer involvement than the synchronous mode. 

Imagine that you want to teach people how to formulate training objectives. In synchronous training, you will let them formulate these objectives as an exercise. You will likely give them a few dozen minutes. However, formulating these objectives may take more time, so they will do it hastily. And here is the challenge: how to give feedback, because you will likely allocate just a few minutes per participant, so your feedback will be brief. Each workshop participant spends 5 minutes on themselves and a few dozen minutes listening to feedback for others.

In the asynchronous version, the participant can carefully formulate the training objectives, taking as much time as they need without rushing. One person might need an hour, another might need four. They will send you their work, and you will have time to read it calmly. You will provide precise feedback. One person's feedback might take you 15 minutes, another's 40 minutes. However, the result will be incomparable to the synchronous training. Furthermore, if necessary, you can take individual actions. For example, you can send someone additional materials that might help them, even though they are unnecessary for the rest of the group. 

In my opinion, asynchronous forms are greatly underestimated by training designers. 

Are We Forced to Choose?

Sometimes, boundary conditions force us to choose one mode over another. However, the most benefits can be gained by consciously mixing modes, i.e. using so-called blended learning. In the past, this term referred to combining in-person and remote activities, but today, such an understanding of the concept does not add much value. 

It is useful to learn how to effectively blend different modes to harness the advantages of each and mitigate their disadvantages. As a seasoned player would say, it is worth learning a few good "combos" for different occasions. More on this in the following article.