Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hajd20

Download by: [University of North Carolina Charlotte] Date: 31 January 2017, At: 07:39

American Journal of Distance Education

ISSN: 0892-3647 (Print) 1538-9286 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Systematic Review of Two Decades (1995 to 2014)of Research on Synchronous Online Learning

Florence Martin, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell & Kiran Budhrani

To cite this article: Florence Martin, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell & Kiran Budhrani (2017): SystematicReview of Two Decades (1995 to 2014) of Research on Synchronous Online Learning, AmericanJournal of Distance Education, DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2017.1264807

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1264807

Published online: 31 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Systematic Review of Two Decades (1995 to 2014) of Research onSynchronous Online LearningFlorence Martin, Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Kiran Budhrani

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

ABSTRACTSystematic reviews of literature are studies that strategically search forpublished research on a specific topic in order to synthesize what isknown about the topic. This systematic review describes 157 articles onsynchronous online learning (SOL) from thirty-four different countries oninstructional setting, content areas, participant demographics, researchdesigns, independent and dependent variables, SOL technologies, anddata-collection tools.

Introduction

Review studies on distance education and online learning

Review studies offer a way to synthesize research studies in a growing area (McIsaac 1990).Numerous studies have been conducted to study the impact of distance education and this hasresulted in a number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the research on distance education(see Table 1). However, there are review studies conducted specifically on synchronous onlinelearning.

Purpose of this systematic reviewAlthough we were able to identify a number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews con-ducted in distance education and online learning, there are no meta-analyses or systematicreviews that specifically examine synchronous online learning. Systematic reviews help todescribe the rise and fall of paradigms, theories, and research specializations—and describethe current state of research in a field, a precursor to meta-analytic studies that measure theeffectiveness of interventions. Individual synchronous online learning studies have examined avariety of synchronous online tools in various context areas examining different dependent andindependent variables. Hence there is a need to synthesize this existing research.

The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize current research on synchronousonline learning from 1995 to 2014. The year 1995 was chosen as a cutoff date because theInternet was commercialized in 1995, when it became widely available to everyone and had adrastic impact on education. Every technology has a fixed life span, after which use of thetechnology begins to weaken and individuals must adapt to the new context. Although use ofsynchronous tools has not weakened yet, we chose 2014 as the cutoff date for this study tofocus on two decades of research. This review also describes the gaps in the context ofsynchronous online learning research and provides directions for future research.

CONTACT Florence Martin florence.martin@uncc.edu The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University CityBlvd., Charlotte, NC 28223.Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hajd.© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATIONhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1264807

In this review, we posed the following questions:

(1) How many synchronous online learning articles were published between 1995 and 2014?(2) Which journals publish synchronous online learning research?(3) Which countries are represented in synchronous online learning research?(4) What are the instructional settings in which the synchronous technology was used?(5) What content areas are represented in the research articles on synchronous online

learning?(6) What are the demographics for those who participate in synchronous online research?(7) What research designs are used in synchronous online learning research?(8) What are the synchronous online learning technologies that are used in these articles?(9) What are the independent variables used in the synchronous online learning articles?

(10) What types of dependent measures are studied as part of research on synchronous onlinelearning research?

(11) What data-collection tools are used in synchronous online learning research?

Method

This review of research on synchronous online learning (SOL) used the systematic review processdescribed in the U.S. Department of Education (2014) Institute of Education Sciences, What WorksClearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 and the approach outlined in Oliver(2014). The steps included (a) identify area for review, (b) formulate the inclusion/exclusion criteria,(c) develop the review protocol, (d) develop the search strategy and identify relevant literature, (e)screen and review articles, (f) extract the data, and (g) analyze and report the findings. Theprocedures employed in conducting this systematic review are described in the following paragraphs.The basic unit of analysis was the individual empirical article.

Table 1. Review studies on distance education.

Author ResearchAsynchronous or

synchronous online

Cavanaugh (2001) Effectiveness of interactive distance education using videoconferencingand telecommunications for K–12 academic achievement

Asynchronous

Allen et al. (2002) Compared student satisfaction of distance education with traditionalclassrooms

Asynchronous

Wallace (2003) Reviewed research on interactions between student and teacher onlinelearning in higher education

Asynchronous

Shachar and Neumann(2003)

Meta-analysis research estimated and compared the differences betweenthe academic performance of students enrolled in distance educationcourses versus traditional courses

Asynchronous

Allen et al. (2004) Meta-analysis summarized the quantitative literature comparing theperformance of students in distance education versus traditional classes

Asynchronous

Bernard et al. (2004) Conducted a meta-analysis on comparing distance education withclassroom instruction

Asynchronous

Zhao et al. (2005) Meta-analysis identified factors that affect the effectiveness of distanceeducation

Asynchronous

Cavanaugh et al. (2004) Meta-analysis of online education outcomes focused entirely on K–12education

Asynchronous

Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) Reviewed research on online teaching and learning based on four topics:course environment, learners’ outcomes, learners’ characteristics, andinstitutional and administrative factors

Asynchronous

Means et al. (2010) Evaluated evidence-based practices of research in online learning AsynchronousBernard et al. (2009) Meta-analysis on the interaction types within distance education Asynchronous and

synchronous

2 F. MARTIN ET AL.

Working definition of synchronous online learning for inclusion of articles

Our definition of synchronous online learning for the inclusion of articles was (a) permanent separation (ofplace) of the learner and instructor during planned learning events where (b) instruction occurred in realtime such that (c) students were able to communicate with other students and the instructor through text-,audio-, and/or video-based communication of two-way media that facilitated dialogue and interaction.

Data sources and search strategies

The research articles used in this systematic review were located through a comprehensive electronicsearch of publicly available literature from 1995 through December 2014 using the followingdatabases: WorldCat.org, ArticleFirst, ScienceDirect, Academic Search Complete, and ERIC. Thesearch terms used were “synchronous” and “online learning” using the “all text” search function.

Hand search was performed on twenty instructional technology and distance education journalswith publication dates of 2013 and 2014 in case they were not yet available electronically. The articlesof each issue of the journal were screened for terms “synchronous” and “online learning” in the titleor body of the article.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

To be included in this systematic review, each study had to meet the screening criteria as describedin Table 2. A research study was excluded if it did not meet one or more of the criteria to beincluded.

Coding of data and interrater reliability

A coding review form was developed by the researchers to identify and record the key parameters. Theseelements were selected based on the purpose of this systematic review to identify the contexts andapplications and examine the homogeneity (or heterogeneity) of these contexts and applications. Table 3provides a description of each of the coded elements. Research articles were coded and entered into adatabase by two graduate students. The researchers and graduate students met biweekly to address codingquestions. In order to establish interrater reliability (IRR) of coding that is subjective, the first two authors ofthis review then independently coded thirty-five articles (22.3%) and compared themwith the initial codingdone by the graduate student for interrater reliability. IRR was calculated by counting the number of codedagreements divided by the total number of coded elements multiplied by 100. When there was adiscrepancy, the first two authors reread the original article and came to an agreement on the assigned code.

Table 2. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Criteria Inclusion Exclusion

Technology Any use of synchronous online technology. Asynchronous technology, virtual reality, gaming.Publication date 1995 to 2014. Prior to 1995 and after 2014.Publication type Scholarly articles of original research from peer-

reviewed journals.Book chapters, technical reports, dissertations, orproceedings.

Focus of the article The research focused primarily on synchronousonline learning for instruction or professionaldevelopment but not necessarily as theindependent variable.

Articles that did not include synchronous onlinelearning for instruction or professionaldevelopment.

Research method andresults

There was an identifiable method and resultssection describing how the study was conductedand the findings. All quantitative and qualitativemethods were included.

Reviews of other articles, opinion, or discussionpapers that do not include a discussion of theprocedures of the study or analysis of data such asproduct reviews or conceptual articles.

Language Journal article was written in English. Other languages were not included.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 3

Data analysis

Data were entered into SPSS 21 for analysis. Data were cleaned for data-entry errors by the secondauthor. Articles that did not contain information on all coded elements were retained in the databaseand used for analysis by coding that element as “not reported.” Frequency tables were generated foreach of the variables so that outliers could be examined and narrative data could be collapsed intocategories. Collapsing data into categories is described in the Results section. Once cleaned andcollapsed into a reasonable number of categories, descriptive statistics were used to describe each ofthe coded elements.

Results

Search result

Based on the electronic search, 986 articles were located from the five databases: WorldCat (619),Article First (157), Academic Search Complete (57), Science Direct (40), and ERIC (113). From thetotal of 986 articles, 166 met the inclusion criteria for this review. Eighteen additional articles werefound that met the inclusion criteria through the hand search for a total of 184 articles. Twenty-seven articles were excluded upon further review because they were not original research (16), thelearning was not synchronous (7), or there was not enough information (4). This resulted in a totalof 157 research articles that were included in this review. A list of the 157 articles is available onrequest from the author. The mean IRR of the original coding was 89.1%, with a range of 66.6% to100% for each individually recoded article.

Journals and countries published

Table 4 provides the most common journals in which the selected articles were published andthe year of publication of all of the selected articles. The top four journals that publishedoriginal research on synchronous online learning were Computers & Education (n = 17, 10.8%),

Table 3. Description of the coded elements for each research study.

Element Description

Article information Full reference including author(s), year of publication, article title, journal name, and pagenumbers.

Research design All research can be categorized into the four major types of research designs. These includegroup experimental, group nonexperimental, single-case experimental, and qualitative. Astudy could have more than one method such as mixed-methods studies with a quantitativeand a qualitative component.

Participant demographics Number of participants in the study, gender, age, ethnicity, country.Context Instructional setting coded as K–12, higher education, government, health care, military, or

business and industry. Subject area coded as business, English/foreign language, science,engineering/computer science/information technology, education, mathematics, medical/health, other, no specific subject area mentioned.

Type of synchronous onlinetechnology

Diaglo, Skype, Adobe Connect, Blackboard Collaborate, Elluminate, Centra/Saba, HorizonWimba, JoinNet, WebCT chat, nonspecific instant messaging, other tool not specified.

Independent variable (IV) if notthe technology tool

The technology played a major role in the study if it was the IV. If the IV wassomething other than the technology tool (minor role), it was recorded as a string(narrative) variable. These entries were then qualitatively coded to combine similarinterventions.

Dependent variable Coded as affective/perception, achievement, behavior (retention, motivation, interaction,other), other.

Data collection Coded as interview/focus group, observation, survey, task/project/portfolio, e-mail, chatsession transcripts, test data, other.

4 F. MARTIN ET AL.

British Journal of Educational Technology (n = 11, 8.3%), The International Review of Researchin Open and Distributed Learning (n = 11, 8.3%), and Journal of Assisted Learning (n = 11,7.0%). There were fifty-four additional journals that published either one or two articles onsynchronous online learning.

There were no published research articles on synchronous online learning prior to the year 2000,and most of the articles were published after 2002. In 2012, twenty-four articles on SOL werepublished, the most of any year in the study.

Table 5 displays the frequency and percentage of the studies and the countries from which theparticipants were located when there was more than one study with a participant from that country.A total of thirty-four countries were represented in the 157 articles. Countries and territoriesrepresented in one study and not listed in Table 5 include Algeria, Belgium, Brazil, Finland,France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Macedonia, Norway, Panama,Spain, and Togo. It was possible for a study to include participants from more than one country. Thepercentage in Table 5 was based on the 157 articles in this review. Five articles did not report thecountries from which the participants were located.

Table 4. Frequency and percentage of journal name and year of publication.

Journal name F % Publication year F %

Computers & Education 17 10.8 2000 1 .6British Journal of Educational Technology 13 8.3 2001 1 .6The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 13 8.3 2002 2 1.3Journal of Assisted Learning 11 7.0 2003 11 7.0ReCALL 6 3.8 2004 7 4.5Campus-Wide Information Systems 4 2.5 2005 10 6.4Computers in Human Behavior 4 2.5 2006 10 6.4The Internet and Higher Education 4 2.5 2007 10 6.4Educational Technology & Society 3 1.9 2008 13 8.3Foreign Language Annals 3 1.9 2009 13 8.3Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3 1.9 2010 14 8.9The Modern Language Journal 3 1.9 2011 15 9.6Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 3 1.9 2012 24 15.3

2013 14 8.92014 12 7.6

Table 5. Frequency and percentage of the countries from which the participants were located.

Country F %

United States 42 26.8United Kingdom 18 11.5Taiwan 15 9.6Canada 11 7.0Sweden 6 3.8Australia 5 3.2Argentina 4 2.5Greece 4 2.5New Zealand 4 2.5Turkey 4 2.5Japan 3 1.9South Africa 3 1.9China 2 1.3India 2 1.3Netherlands 2 1.3Singapore 2 1.3Thailand 2 1.3Did not report 5 3.2

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 5

Instructional setting and content areas

Table 6 shows the frequency and percentage of the instructional settings represented in the 157articles. Twenty-three articles did not report the instructional setting. One study included twosettings with teachers earning a graduate degree and their students in K–12; thus, the totalpercentage was slightly larger than 100%. A majority of the articles occurred in higher education,followed by K–12 schools.

When examining the most common instructional settings by country, higher education was themost common instructional setting among the top four countries represented in the 157 researcharticles (United States 90.0%, United Kingdom 86.7%, Taiwan 86.7%, and Canada 77.0%).

Table 7 shows the frequency and percentage of the content areas represented in the 157 articles.Thirty-three articles did not report the content area. English/foreign language and education werethe most frequent content areas. Examples of articles coded as “other” content areas include music,military training, and social work.

When examining the most common content areas by the top four countries, the United States wasthe only country to have research articles in each of the seven specified content areas. The mostcommon content area for American research articles included education (10 of the 42 articles,23.8%), English/foreign language (5 of 42, 11.9%), and science (5 of 42, 11.9%). The United Kingdomhad the highest frequency of English/foreign language research articles across the top four countries(6 of 18, 33.3%). Medical/health was the second most common content area for research from theUnited Kingdom (3 of 18, 16.7%). The most common content areas for Taiwan were English/foreignlanguage (5 of15, 33.3%), education (3 of 15, 20.0%), and engineering/computer science/informationtechnology (3 of 15, 20.0%). Half of the research from Canada did not specify a content area (6 of 11,54.5%). Education (3 of /11, 27.3%) and English/foreign language (2 of 11, 18.2%) accounted for theremaining research articles.

Demographics

The sample size of the articles ranged from 1 to 6,321 participants with a median of 34 participants.Eighteen articles did not report the sample size. Figure 1 reflects the distribution of the sample sizes

Table 6. Frequency and percentage of the instructional settings.

Instructional setting F %

Higher education 108 68.8K–12 schools 20 12.7Business and industry 4 2.5Health care 2 1.3Military 1 .6Did not report 23 14.6

Table 7. Frequency and percentage of the content areas.

Content area F %

English/Foreign language 31 19.7Education 30 19.1Engineering/Computer science /Information technology 21 13.4Science 12 7.6Business 9 5.7Medical/Health 7 4.5Other 7 4.5Multiple subject areas 6 3.8Mathematics 1 .6Did not report 33 21.0

6 F. MARTIN ET AL.

across the 157 studies. Seventy-four articles reported the gender of the participants—a total of 2,503females and 1,920 males. Fifty-one articles reported the age of the participants. Age was reported in anumber of different ways such as frequency of age groupings, mean, range from minimum tomaximum age, or other descriptors (e.g., grade level or early childhood). To provide some consis-tency across articles, when possible, age of the participants was categorized into age groups. Somearticles included more than one age category. Age of participants ranged from children under twelve(n = 3, 6.0%), teenagers thirteen to nineteen (n = 19, 36.0%), young adults twenty to thirty (n = 35,70.0%), and middle-aged adults thirty-one to sixty (n = 22, 44.0%). Only ten articles described theethnicity of the participants.

Research design

Because it was one of the inclusion criteria that these articles were original research, all of the articleshad at least one research design. Many articles did not specifically state the type of research designused, so the coder used the description of the procedures described in each of these studies in orderto identify the type of design. It was possible to have more than one design in a research study, suchas with mixed-methods studies with a quantitative and a qualitative component. There were twenty-one mixed-methods studies. The qualitative and quantitative components of each of the 157 articleswere coded separately for a total of 178 designs. Ninety (57.3%) of the 157 articles used a qualitativedesign, 47 (29.9%) used a group experimental design, 39 (24.8%) used a group nonexperimentaldesign, and 2 (1.3%) used a single-case experimental design.

Synchronous tool

Seventy-two articles (45.6%) named the specific synchronous tool used. There were thirty-fivedifferent specifically named synchronous tools. The most common tools were Instant Messenger

Figure 1. Sample sizes of the 157 studies.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 7

(n = 13), Elluminate (n = 12), Blackboard Collaborate (n = 8), WebCT Chat (n = 8), AdobeConnect (n = 6), JoinNet (n = 4), Horizon Wimba (n = 4), and Skype (n = 4). The articles that didnot name the specific technology tool used simply described the tool such as synchronous chat orvideoconferencing.

Independent and dependent variables

The independent variable in the 157 articles was most often the synchronous tool (n = 109,69.4%) even though the specific tool may not have been identified. For example, a study may haveexamined the impact of using the tool such as student perceptions and/or student outcomes,compared the synchronous tool with face-to-face instruction, or compared two different syn-chronous tools. In the remaining articles, the synchronous tool was used to deliver the instructionwhere there was a separate independent variable. The most common independent variables, otherthan the synchronous online tool (n = 48), were computer-mediated communication (n = 8,16.7%), collaboration (n = 6, 12.5%), feedback type (n = 3, 6.3%), task type (n = 3, 6.3%), role play(n = 2, 4.2%), and text-to-speech recognition (n = 2, 4.2%). Examples of other independentvariables included in a single study were assessment design, discussion moderation, dyslexia, andscientific argumentation.

The synchronous tool was the independent variable of interest across all seven specificcontent areas with the highest rates in English/foreign language (23 of 31, 74.2%), medical/health (5 of 7, 71.4%), education (18 of 30, 60.0%), engineering/computer science/informationtechnology (12 of 21, 57.1%), and science (7 of 12, 58.3%). When the synchronous tool was theindependent variable of interest, the most common research design was qualitative (66 of 109,60.6%), followed by nonexperimental (33 of 109, 30.3%), and then experimental (23 of 109,21.1%). When the synchronous tool was not the independent variable of interest, the mostcommon type of research design was experimental (24 of 48, 50.0%) and qualitative (24 of48, 50.0%).

The types of dependent measures represented in the 157 articles are provided in Table 8. It waspossible to have more than one dependent variable in a single study. The most common types ofdependent variables were perception/attitude of the synchronous tool or course, interaction, achieve-ment, and other behavior. Examples of other behaviors included engagement, willingness to com-municate, and level of argumentation. Examples of other types of dependent variables were pulse,geographic usage, and features of dyslexia. Motivation included motivation to learn and participatein activities.

The most common dependent variable among the articles where the synchronous tool was theindependent variable were attitude (69 of 109, 63.3%), interaction (47 of 109, 43.1%), achievement(25 of 109, 22.9%), and other behavior (18 of 109, 16.5%). The most common dependent variableamong the articles where the synchronous tool was not the independent variable were attitude (27 of48, 56.3%), achievement (24 of 48, 50.0%), interaction (24 of 48, 50%), and other behavior (12 of48, 25%).

Table 8. Frequency and percentage of the dependent variables.

Dependent variable F %

Perception/Attitude 96 61.1Interaction 71 45.2Achievement 50 31.8Other behavior 32 20.4Other 12 7.6Motivation 6 3.8

8 F. MARTIN ET AL.

Data-collection tools

Table 9 displays the types of data-collection tools used in the 157 articles. It was possible to use morethan one data-collection tool. The most common types were questionnaires, session transcripts, tests,and interview/focus groups. Examples of other types of data-collection tools were e-mails, atten-dance, and frequency and amount of time materials were accessed.

Discussion

The results from this systematic review generalizes findings in the large landscape of synchronousonline learning from two decades (1995 to 2014) to inform educational researchers, instructors,facilitators, administrators, or learning leaders in their future online learning efforts. In response toOliver’s (2014) notion of relevant research on educational communications and technology, thissystematic review can serve the field of synchronous online instruction by describing the currentstatus of research in order to identify (a) gaps and inconsistencies and (b) similarities (homogeneity)and dissimilarities (heterogeneity) across studies in research contexts and applications. This sys-tematic review can lead to a common understanding of the state of research on synchronous onlineresearch and be used to improve future research in understanding the contextual factors and theapplications of SOL.

Variables studied in synchronous online learning research

Our review found that the most common variable studied in synchronous online learning researchwas perception or attitude followed by interaction. Motivation was the least studied variable. Theseresults are similar to other meta-analyses and systematic reviews in blended learning, technology-based learning, e-learning, and distance education. Halverson et al. (2014), in their thematic analysisof the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research, found that thetopic of interaction was part of a research question or purpose statement in 14.1% of the top-citedpublications. Nearly one-third (31.8%) of the top-cited publications had focused on perceptions,attitudes, preferences, expectations, and learning styles. Halverson et al. explained that perceptiondata are “fairly easy to collect” and that could be the reason for the large number of studies (23). Hsuet al. (2012), in their examination of research trends in technology-based learning from 2000 to 2009through a content analysis of selected journals, found that topics on motivation, perceptions, andattitudes drew more attention from 2004 to 2009. Karatas (2008) studied distance education from2003 to 2005 in three journals (The American Journal of Distance Education, Quarterly Review ofDistance Education, and Distance Education) and found that publications on interaction were mostfrequently conducted in the years 2003 and 2004. Zawacki-Richter, Bäcker, and Vogt (2009)examined research trends in distance education from 2000 to 2008 and found that studies focusedmostly on interaction and communication patterns in computer-mediated communication, instruc-tional design issues, learner characteristics, and educational technology.

Table 9. Data-collection tools.

Data-collection tool F %

Questionnaires 79 50.3Session transcripts 71 45.2Tests 43 27.4Interviews/Focus groups 40 25.5Observations 23 14.6Task/Product 15 9.5Other 11 7.0

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 9

Representation of countries

A total of thirty-four countries were represented in our research, with representation from the majorregions of the world. The top four countries where SOL research was conducted were the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, and Canada, comprising more than 50% of the 157 articles. Itshould be recognized that these four countries have high e-readiness rankings, which could havebeen a factor in the prevalence of research in online learning. The Economist Intelligence Unit(2010) annually benchmarks seventy countries’ digital development, known as the e-readinessrankings. This captures the state of e-readiness of countries by measuring the availability andadoption of information and communications technology, connectivity and technology infrastruc-ture, the quality of broadband and mobile connections, broadband affordability, Internet penetra-tion, and education level of the population. In 2010, the e-readiness rankings showed that the UnitedStates (3rd) was in the world top ten. Canada (11th), Taiwan (12th), and the United Kingdom (14th)were not far from the top-ten ranks. It was noted that some Asian economies including Taiwan(12th), South Korea (13th), and Japan (16th) invested heavily in the next generation of Internetinfrastructure and saw an increase in their rankings; Taiwan ranked 16th in 2009. Several othercountries represented in our study like Sweden (1st), Australia (9th), and New Zealand (10th) arealso in the world top-ten ranking for e-readiness. Comparatively, fewer publications on synchronousonline learning came from lower-ranking countries such as China (56th), India (58th), and Thailand(49th).

To further understand the representation of countries in this research, we reflect on the searchterminology and databases used to narrow down the 157 articles. We used the terminologysynchronous and online learning to perform full text search from WorldCat, Article First,Academic Search Complete, Science Direct, and ERIC. As most of our articles came from theUnited States, we can assume that synchronous online learning is a common terminology in thecountry. However, research outside the United States may be using other related terminology(e.g., virtual learning environments, virtual classroom, and web conferencing). Using search termsrelated to synchronous online learning may have revealed additional articles from other coun-tries. It is also possible that international studies on synchronous online learning are notpublished in peer-reviewed journals. A blended learning meta-analysis by Halverson et al.(2014) pointed out that although there is a significant amount of blended learning researchbeing conducted in international settings, many of these are not published in the most widelycited international journals—and this might be the case with research on synchronous onlinelearning.

Missing demographics

Demographic information is not clearly and routinely reported in synchronous online research.Although some studies described the student participants, none reported the instructor demographiccharacteristics. Many articles lacked information on sample size, gender, and ethnicity. This is animportant element for research in the ability to discern what interventions are effective for whom(age, gender, ethnicity) and under what conditions (setting, content area, country). There was not auniform understanding between race, ethnicity, and country. For example, it was not always clear if“Taiwanese” referred to ethnicity and/or country. For countries with racial and ethnic diversity,providing clear demographics in future studies by researchers will benefit the audience who uses theresearch.

Content areas

Synchronous technologies (e.g., chat rooms, instant messaging, and videoconferencing) add a humanfeel or real-life experience to the online experience. In our research, the top three content areas using

10 F. MARTIN ET AL.

or studying synchronous online learning are in English/foreign language acquisition, education, andengineering/computer science/information technology. The application of technology in languagecourses is not new. Various types of computer-assisted language learning or computer-mediatedcommunication have been in place since the 1980s, finding ways to enhance teaching and learning ofEnglish and support foreign language learning (Liu et al. 2002). Blake (2000) suggested thatsynchronous computer-mediated communication is effective in instruction concerning communica-tion skills because it offers a real-time environment similar to that in face-to-face communication.Technology has potential for developing vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing skills, and oraland listening skills (Liu et al. 2002); it is not surprising that in the span of twenty years, a bulk ofsynchronous online learning research surfaced in the English/foreign language content area.

Our research also showed that there are a large number of synchronous online learning support-ing education courses; this content area encapsulated students enrolled in various education coursessuch as online teaching, adult education, blended learning, educational technology, distance educa-tion, e-learning, educational psychology, and special education. This is evident because the field ofeducation has been at the forefront of advances in online communication (Kear et al. 2012). In fact,leading international education organizations (such as International Society for Technology inEducation [ISTE] and Partnership for 21st Century Skills) emphasize the need to develop studentsand teachers who can use technology as tools for collaboration, communication, creativity, research,and productivity (Bower 2011). Research in synchronous online learning shows that courses applycomputer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) or computer-supported cooperative work(CSCW) models.

Another prominent content area supported by synchronous online learning is in engineering,computer science, and information technology. The teaching of these content areas lags given the factthat they often require laboratory exercises to provide effective skill acquisition and hands-on experi-ence (Potkonjak et al. 2016). Until the mid-2000s, there were few completely online courses inengineering; most are offered at the master’s or certificate level (Bourne, Harris, and Mayadas 2005).However, with the possibility of interaction and live demonstrations in synchronous online learningenvironments, we see an increase in the number of research studies in the context of engineering. Thereis potential for future innovations in online learning for computing areas reflecting the new concept ofimmersive education, integrating ideas from distance learning, e-learning, virtual laboratories, virtualreality and virtual worlds, avatars, and dynamics-based virtual systems (Potkonjak et al. 2016).

Research designs in synchronous online learning

Our research showed that more than half of the studies in synchronous online learning werequalitative research designs. This is important given the types of inferences that can be made fromthe studies. Qualitative studies are well suited for questions of process such as answering questionsregarding how or why. They are also useful for new ideas, constructs, or developing theories whenlittle is known about the topic. In order to better understand the impact of synchronous onlinelearning, its components, or the different synchronous tools on student learning and behavior,quantitative studies are needed. Given the relatively new field of synchronous online learning, it isexpected that many studies would be qualitative. As the future of synchronous online learningdevelops, the knowledge gained from qualitative studies that explored these new ideas, constructs,and theories can be used to support quantitative research.

Technology as the most common independent variable

The most common independent variable of SOL was the tools themselves. This systematic reviewidentified numerous specific synchronous tools that were used in the research, such as InstantMessenger, Elluminate, Blackboard Collaborate, WebCT Chat, and Adobe Connect. Some researcharticles did not name any specific tool but simply described their tools as synchronous chat or

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 11

videoconferencing. It was not clearly distinguishable whether the SOL technology was the avenueused for disseminating the content to be delivered or whether it was used to allow students tointeract with each other or the material. It was difficult to distinguish between content delivery andinteraction because in many cases the interaction between students could also be the contentdelivery. For example, conversations among students could be interactive, but when the conversa-tions were being moderated by a third party, the interactive conversations were also used to delivercontent. Another example was the frequent use of SOL for English/foreign language instruction.Interactions between students were often used to practice/learn a different language (i.e., content).

This is not surprising. Research in synchronous instruction indicates this modality has a positiveimpact on online student learning because of the similarity in the interactions found in face-to-faceinstruction such as text messaging, chat, and real-time audio or videoconferencing (Murphy andLaferriére 2007; Park and Bonk 2007; Teng, Chen, and Leo 2012). Murphy and Laferriére (2007)discussed that text-based forms of synchronous communication, videoconferencing, and audiocon-ferencing have been the focus of numerous studies. The newer synchronous tools allow students andinstructors to communicate synchronously using audio, video, text chat, interactive whiteboard,application sharing, instant polling, webcams, emoticons, and working together in breakout rooms.These enable communication, collaboration, and critical discussion. Small-group collaborative learn-ing with opportunities for critical discussion is a key element of effective teaching and learning inhigher education (Pilkington and Walker 2003). Online synchronous discussion builds a sense ofsocial presence and a heightened sense of involvement and participation while providing immediateongoing feedback (Chen et al. 2005).

Instant Messenger (IM) is a synchronous tool used to maintain a list of “friends” who can becontacted by text messages, chat, audioconferencing, or videoconferencing (Hrastinski 2006).Because many students are adept at using IM, these systems have strong potential to be used ineducational settings. Hrastinski’s (2006) study—which compared two groups that adopted IM withtwo groups that did not—found that IM adopters had a higher sense of participation, spent moretime working with the content, and increased time communicating with their peers.

Implications

This research has implications for those wishing to study synchronous online learning environments.It provides guidance on what previous research has examined and the areas that need to beaddressed in future studies. This review also has implications for online instructors regarding widelyused synchronous tools that might be beneficial for them to adopt. This review found that thesynchronous technology was widely used in English, foreign language teaching, education, andengineering. Faculty in these areas might benefit by including a synchronous component in theironline teaching. Most common independent variables in this review included computer-mediatedcommunication, collaboration, feedback type, task type, role play, and text-to-speech recognition.These are different aspects for which faculty could use the synchronous technology. Finally, thisstudy has benefits for administrators and technology directors who are considering adoptingsynchronous tools for their universities to enhance interaction and engagement in their onlineand blended courses. Most common dependent variables in this review included perception/attitude,interaction, and achievement. These are the different areas in which administrators could adopt thistool in their organizations to bring about a change in faculty/student perception and attitude,enhance interaction, and increase achievement.

Limitation

One limitation of this study may have been in identifying the articles using the search term“synchronous online learning.” This search term excluded research articles from other countriesthat might have used different terms for online synchronous learning. Including additional search

12 F. MARTIN ET AL.

terms such as “webconferencing” and “synchronous virtual classrooms” might have uncoveredadditional studies. This study was a systematic review of online synchronous learning and not ameta-analysis. This systematic review provided a big-picture view of online synchronous learning byincluding all of the studies that could be located on the topic. A meta-analysis would have providedadditional information by combining studies with similar independent and dependent variables toevaluate the effect of the independent variables in the context of synchronous online learning, but itwould have significantly narrowed the number of studies that could have been included and wouldhave excluded all of the qualitative studies.

Recommendations for future synchronous online learning review studies

Break down findings further into granular-year segments

Although it is evident that there are overlapping dependent variables being studied betweensynchronous online learning and its related areas of study, future studies should consider breakingdown the findings into smaller-year segments to make granular variable comparisons or identifytrends in synchronous online learning within shorter five-year or ten-year ranges.

Explore dependent variables focusing on faculty or administrators to examine researchtrends beyond student perspectives

Halverson et al. (2014) highlighted that student perception received much greater attention thanfaculty (2.4%) or administrator (1.2%) perception. Wallace (2003) recommended looking at teacheroutcomes whereas Picciano, Seaman, and Allen (2010) highlighted examining faculty attitudes toonline learning. Even with faculty members who have developed, taught, and continue to teachonline, the quality of online learning is perceived to be of a lesser caliber than face-to-faceinstruction (Picciano, Seaman, and Allen 2010). Future studies should continue to examine facultyand administrator perception.

Explore variables on attitudes, participation, interaction, and motivation in depth

This systematic review explored all the various independent variables in synchronous online learningresearch. Future review studies can focus more specifically on studies with specific independentvariables such as attitudes, participation, interaction, or motivation and examine them more in depth.

Conduct meta-analyses

This first systematic review of SOL can be used to plan future meta-analyses. Given the informationabout the different types of independent and dependent variables, researchers can begin to plan whatmeta-analyses are possible. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of SOL uses and strategies is a reasonablenext step. Meta-analysis combines individual studies with similar independent and quantitative depen-dent variables in order to estimate the effectiveness of the independent variable. It requires a determi-nation of the quality of the study in meeting quality guidelines prior to be included in the analysis. TheProcedures and Standards Handbook (3.0, What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education2014) provides guidance in determining quality research of the different types of quantitative designs. Insome research, use of SOL was not the target of the study but simply the tool used to study somethingelse. These studies will need to be reviewed to determine if they would fit into a meta-analysis.Additionally, future studies could also use the information from this systematic review to examineresearch effectiveness within specific contexts and SOL applications as encouraged by Oliver (2014).

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 13

Review research from open access sources

This systematic review did not include a search of research published in open access sources. Futureresearch could include these sources disseminated in these outlets by first identifying open sourceproviders of SOL research.

References

Allen, M., J. Bourhis, N. Burrell, and E. Mabry. 2002. Comparing student satisfaction with distance education totraditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education 16 (2):83–97. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3

Allen,M., E.Mabry,M.Mattrey, J. Bourhis, S. Titsworth, andN. Burrell. 2004. Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning:A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication 54 (3):402–20. doi:10.1111/jcom.2004.54.issue-3

Bernard, R. M., P. C. Abrami, E. Borokhovski, C. A. Wade, R. M. Tamin, M. A. Surkes, and E. C. Bethel. 2009. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Education Research 79 (3):1243–89.doi:10.3102/0034654309333844

Bernard, R. M., P. C. Abrami, Y. Lou, E. Borokhovski, A. Wade, L. Wozney, P. A. Wallet, M. Fiset, and B. Huang.2004. How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empiricalliterature. Review of Educational Research 74 (3):379–439. doi:10.3102/00346543074003379

Blake, R. 2000. Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning &Technology 4 (1):120–36.

Bourne, J., D. Harris, and F. Mayadas. 2005. Online engineering education: Learning anywhere, anytime. Journal ofEngineering Education 94 (1):131–46. doi:10.1002/jee.2005.94.issue-1

Bower, M. 2011. Synchronous collaboration competencies in web-conferencing environments: Their impact on thelearning process. Distance Education 32 (1):63–83. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.565502

Cavanaugh, C. 2001. The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K–12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7 (1):73–88.

Cavanaugh, C., K. Gillan, J. Kromrey, M. Hess, and R. Blomeyer. 2004. The effects of distance education on K–12student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/distance/index.html (accessed August 28, 2015).

Chen, N. S., H. C. Ko, Kinshuk, and T. Lin. 2005. A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations inEducation and Teaching International 42 (2):181–94. doi:10.1080/14703290500062599

Economist Intelligence Unit. 2010. Digital economy rankings 2010: Beyond E-readiness. A report from the economistintelligence unit. Retrieved from http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/EIU_Digital_economy_rankings_2010_FINAL_WEB.pdf (accessed March 29, 2015).

Halverson, L. R., C. R. Graham, K. J. Spring, J. S. Drysdale, and C. R. Henrie. 2014. A thematic analysis of the mosthighly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education 20:20–34. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004

Hrastinski, S. 2006. The relationship between adopting a synchronous medium and participation in online groupwork: An explorative study. Interactive Learning Environments 14 (2):137–52. doi:10.1080/10494820600800240

Hsu, Y.-C., H. N. J. Ho, -C.-C. Tsai, G.-J. Hwang, H.-C. Chu, C.-Y. Wang, and N.-S. Chen. 2012. Research trends intechnology-based learning from 2000 to 2009: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. EducationalTechnology & Society 15 (2):354–70.

Karatas, S. 2008. Interaction in the Internet-based distance learning researches: Results of a trend analysis. The TurkishOnline Journal of Educational Technology 7 (2):11–19.

Kear, K., F. Chetwynd, J. Williams, and H. Donelan. 2012. Web conferencing for synchronous online tutorials:Perspectives of tutors using a new medium. Computers & Education 58 (3):953–63. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.015

Liu, M., Z. Moore, L. Graham, and S. Lee. 2002. A look at the research on computer-based technology use in secondlanguage learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34 (3):250–73. doi:10.1080/15391523.2002.10782348

McIsaac, M. 1990. Problems affecting evaluation of distance education in developing countries. Research in DistanceEducation 37:12–16.

Means, B., Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, M. Bakia, and K. Jones. 2010. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in onlinelearning: A meta-analysis and review of online-learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Murphy, E., and T. Laferriére. 2007. Adopting tools for online synchronous communications: Issues and strategies. InMakingthe transition to E-learning: Strategies and issues, ed. M. Bullen and D. Janes, 313–34. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Oliver, M. 2014. Fostering relevant research on educational communications and technology. In Handbook of researchon educational communications and technology, ed. J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, and M. J. Bishop, 909–18.New York, NY: Springer.

14 F. MARTIN ET AL.

Park, Y. J., and C. J. Bonk. 2007. Is online life a breeze? A case study for promoting synchronous learning in a blendedgraduate course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 3 (3):307–23.

Picciano, A. G., J. Seaman, and I. E. Allen. 2010. Educational transformation through online learning: To be or not tobe. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 14 (4):17–35.

Pilkington, R. M., and S. A. Walker. 2003. Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronousdiscussion in higher education. Instructional Science 31 (1/2):41–63. doi:10.1023/A:1022556401959

Potkonjak, V., M. Gardner, V. Callaghan, P. Mattila, C. Guetl, V. M. Petrović, and K. Jovanović. 2016. Virtuallaboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education 95:309–27.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002

Shachar, M., and Y. Neumann. 2003. Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances:A meta-analytical approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education 4 (2):1–20.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., J. A. Thomas, W. Y. Lan, S. Cooper, T. C. Ahern, S. M. Shaw, and X. Liu. 2006. Teachingcourses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research 76 (1):93–135. doi:10.3102/00346543076001093

Teng, D. C. E., N. S. Chen, and T. Leo. 2012. Exploring students’ learning experience in an international onlineresearch seminar in the Synchronous Cyber Classroom. Computers & Education 58 (3):918–30. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.018

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. 2014. What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standardshandbook, version 3.0.Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf (accessed January 21, 2015).

Wallace, R. 2003. Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers andstudents. Education, Communication & Information 3:241–80. doi:10.1080/14636310303143

Zawacki-Richter, O., E. M. Bäcker, and S. Vogt. 2009. Review of distance education research (2000 to 2008): Analysisof research areas, methods, and authorship patterns. International Review of Research in Open and DistanceLearning 10 (6):21–50.

Zhao, Y., J. Lei, B. Yan, C. Lai, and H. S. Tan. 2005. What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on theeffectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record 107 (8):1836–84. doi:10.1111/tcre.2005.107.issue-8

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 15