Synchronous and Asynchronous Teaching

In a review of key ideas and recommendations for practice, DeLozier and Rhodes (2017) found asynchronous lectures are more advantageous when used in combination with synchronous active learning class interactions. The challenge, as highlighted by Vaughn and colleagues (2013), is to find a proper balance between both synchronous and asynchronous instruction while encouraging students’ active learning, developing reciprocity and cooperation among students, giving prompt feedback, emphasizing time on task, communicating high expectations, and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning.

Moore (1989) identified three interactions important to consider in distance education, and these three roles are still important to scholars of online education (Hartnett, 2016). According to these scholars, your role is to facilitate 3 types of interactions:

1. Student to content
2. Student to instructor
3. Student to student

These three types of interactions can be synchronous (real time or 'live') using tools such as Zoom, the centrally supported web-conferencing system, OR asynchronous using tools like eClass, Google docs, discussion forums, chat, or email.

Synchronous teaching and learning takes place when all participants are engaging with the course content at the same time and in the same learning space. For remote teaching, the ‘same learning space’ could be a Zoom meeting room or a Google Meet. It could also be less complex such as a group phone call or a text-only conversation using eClass chat. Meeting your students during scheduled class time is a good example of synchronous teaching.

Synchronous teaching should be used for student interaction with their peers and the instructor, we do not recommend using synchronous communication for traditional lectures, especially if you have students located across a number of time zones. (There are also considerations for exams which you may find in the Assessment section).

Some Recommended Uses of Synchronous Teaching

• Initial discussions with a class;
• Office hours;
• Brainstorming sessions for class or group projects;
• Delivering an interactive presentation;
• Guest speakers;
• Informal study sessions or pre-exam Q&A sessions;
• Student presentations.

Advantages of Synchronous Teaching

• Learners can get immediate feedback from others; (Lim, 2017)
• Builds a sense of social presence and community, particularly if software such as Zoom is being used which allows for video and/or audio and thus allows participants to see/hear the session leader and/or other participants; (Clark et al., 2015)
• Issues or problems can often be overcome quickly and easily; (Molnar & Kearney, 2017;)
• Allows for efficient decision-making; (Wylie et al., 2014)
• The speed of interaction can lead to dynamic collaboration and promotes active engagement. (Kay & LeSage, 2009)

Disadvantages of Synchronous Teaching

• Everyone must be online at the same time and this may not always be possible or practical;
• The window of time to respond is often quite small, leaving little time for processing (Dahlstrom-Hakki et al., 2020);
• When using text-chat, the speed at which learners can type can impact on their engagement (i.e., the slower the typist, the more reluctant they may be to type and the less willing to engage with in-depth issues/discussions) (Chen & Liu, 2020);
• If there are large numbers of students, the number of discussions/chats can be overwhelming (Kim, 2013).

Questions are commonly used to help point students’ to important information and ideas presented through lecture, reading, or other media, and encourage recall, synthesis, and development of understanding. When effectively used, questions can engage students and improve learning (Hokanson, 2015). However, for questioning to be effective, teachers need to plan for structured, higher level interactions (Nappi, 2017; Tofade et al., 2013).

Plan Your Questions in Advance

How often do you ask your students a question in your online synchronous class and this question is either met by silence or only the same few students answer? If you were in class, you might see students shifting uncomfortably in their seats and avoiding eye-contact with you. In a virtual real-time learning environment, your question could not only be met by silence but, potentially, also by muted microphones or video cameras on black out.

Instructors seldom write down their questions while planning the lesson or lecture. It is more common to generate them on their feet during the class. Hokanson (2015) found that this approach can lead to a narrow or focused use of questions such as those used to check learning, control conversations, deliver information, or demand attention. If you don’t plan the questions in advance, you are more likely to ask basic recall questions, yes/no questions, or questions that are really too difficult for the level for the students.

Hokanson found (2015) that a skilled use of questions is evidenced by a) increased planning and organization of classroom questions, b) a diverse range of question types, using both recall and higher-order questions, and by c) increased skill in the delivery and pacing of questions.

A more advanced use of questions is more achievable when questions are used to design instructional materials (2015). For example, some of your planned questions can go directly into the slides for the lecture, and some of the questions can be kept as a list in your teaching notes.

Planning Questions: What do I need to know?

Since effective questioning requires advance preparation, Goodwin and colleagues (1983) suggested following these steps:

1. Decide on the goal or purpose for asking questions to determine what levels of questions to ask.
2. Select the content for questioning, decide on what important material should be emphasized.
3. Phrase your questions carefully.
   1. Ask questions which require an extended response or at least a “content” answer;
   2. Phrase your questions so that the task is clear to students;
   3. Be sure the questions allow enough flexibility to avoid a guessing game;
   4. Avoid implied response questions, your questions should not contain the answers.
4. When planning, try to anticipate possible student responses by considering:
   1. Typical misconceptions which might lead to incorrect answers;
   2. Whether you are asking open or closed questions;
   3. What type of response do you expect from students (e.g. definition, example, solution);
   4. Whether you expect responses that use textbook terms or student’s own language;
   5. How will you handle incorrect answers;
   6. What will you do if students do not answer?
5. Arrange your list of questions in some logical sequence.

If you’d like an applied example, Eleanor Vale’s (2019) examination of her own teaching questioning practice provides a good practical example enriched with an analysis of student responses.

Planning for Higher Level Questioning

With better planned questions, you can guide your students towards higher levels of thinking such as application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis; and you will encourage your students to engage in critical thinking (Nappi, 2017).

Richard Paul, former National Chair of the Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, argued (2005) that teaching based on a robust concept of critical thinking should encourage students to discover as well as process information, and to engage in forms of thinking that enable them to deeply master content.

Critical thinking, the ability to analyze and evaluate information, can be effectively promoted (Duron et al., 2006) during instruction if you: 1. determine the learning objectives, 2. teach through questioning, 3. allow students to practice before you assess, 4. allow students to review, refine, and improve, and 5. provide feedback and assessment of learning.

How do you know whether your questions promote critical thinking? Paul and Elder (2007, 2008; Elder & Paul, 2007; Paul, 1995) proposed a taxonomy of questions that may be used to cultivate and assess quality thinking. The goal of good questioning is to model these types of questions to allow students to internalize and apply self-directed, disciplined questioning themselves (Nappi, 2017):

Questioning clarity/Conceptual clarification questions—questions that get students to think about concepts behind their arguments, for example, why are you saying that? What exactly does this mean? How does this relate to what we have been talking about? Can you give me an example?

Questioning precision/Probing assumptions—questions that get students to think about the beliefs that they base their arguments on, for example, what else could we assume? How did you choose those assumptions? How can you verify or disprove that assumption? What would happen if …?

Questioning accuracy and relevance/Probing rationale, reasons, and evidence—questions that get students to think about the support for their arguments, for example, why is that happening? How do you know this? What do you think causes …? On what authority are you basing your argument?

Questioning depth/Questioning viewpoints and perspectives—questions that get students to consider other viewpoints, for example, what are some alternate ways of looking at this? Who benefits from this? How are x and y similar? Probe implications and consequences—questions that get students to think about what follows from their arguments, for example, then what would happen? What are the consequences of that assumption?

Questioning metacognition/Questions About the Question—Questions that turn the question in on itself, for example, what was the point of asking that question? Why do you think I asked this question?

• Which of these questions resonate with the kind of teaching you do?
• What kinds of questions are you commonly asking now?
• What kinds of questions could you ask?
  
  

Planning for Effective Delivery and Pacing of Questions: Rethink the Role of Silence

How long do you wait for your question to be answered before you start feeling stressed?

How long do you wait before you answer the questions yourself?

Instead of considering this as waiting time, reconsider this as thinking or processing time for your students to learn.

Studies (Buchanan Hill, 2016; Tofade et al., 2013; Rowe, 1972) have shown that when students are given 3 or more seconds of undisturbed "thinking time," there are certain positive outcomes:

• The length and correctness of their responses increase.
• The number of their "I don't know" and no answer responses decreases.
• The number of volunteered, appropriate answers by larger numbers of students greatly increases.

Tobin (1987) and Stahl (1994) among others, explain that students must take four mental steps before answering a question:

1. Hear the question and interpret it
2. Recall information from memory as related to the question
3. Consider the response to the question
4. Predict whether their response will lead to praise, embarrassment, or rebuke by the instructor, and more importantly, one’s peers.
   
   

Directly Encourage Students to Answer

In addition to giving students time to think, scholars such as Watkins and Mazur (2013) have found that having students commit to and give an answer to questions improves engagement and learning. Consider the following methods to encourage students to commit to an answer:

1. Create a Zoom poll prior to class.
2. Ask students to put their responses in the chat and allow a few minutes for you and the students to read the reply. Then, as the instructor, speak to the range of responses and debrief with the students (not on individual comments).
3. Create a word cloud with student responses. You can use Mentimeter, PollEverywhere or other similar 3rd party software to collaboratively build a word cloud.
4. Consider giving the students a few key questions before class to give them time to prepare their thoughts.
5. For more complex questions, send students into breakout rooms to work in teams and ask a few teams to report back to the larger group.
6. Actively manage over-participators by asking for answers from students who have not contributed yet.

The Information and Privacy Office's Best Practices for Recording of Lectures and Other Teaching Materials is now online. According to this statement, if you decide to record your classes and share them through the University-approved LMS, the instructor does not need to collect consent from individual students. However, instructors should include a statement on their course outline and eClass page that reflects the purposes, voluntary participation, and the duration and location of the stored file. An example statement aligned with the recommended best practices has been provided below:

Please note that class times for this course will be recorded. Recordings of this course will be used for the purposes of [add purposes, e.g. asynchronous learning, documenting conversation, etc.] and will be disclosed to other students enrolled in this section of the class [and add other people if these will be shared beyond students in class e.g., Teaching Assistants, other instructors, etc.].

Students have the right to not participate in the recording and are advised to turn off their cameras and audio prior to recording; they can still participate through text-based chat. It is recommended that students remove all identifiable and personal belongings from the space in which they will be participating.

Recordings will be made available until [add the date by which you will delete these recordings, e.g., the end of term, Dec. 30, 2020, etc.] and accessible by [indicate where recordings are stored, e.g., zoom cloud storage, Google drive, etc.]. Please direct any questions about this collection to the professor of this course [include name and email].

While “traditional” online education relies on asynchronous experiences, there are specific contexts in which synchronous online learning is best for students. In this episode, titled Designing for Synchronous Online Learning, hosts Tom and Kelvin discuss how and when to make the most of real time options.

Asynchronous teaching takes place when participants are engaging with the course content at different times and, potentially, from different locations. For remote teaching, this usually means the instructor provides students with tasks which can be done independently.

Instructors teaching in an asynchronous environment have various tools at their disposal:

1. Email, which can be used as one-to-one or one-to many communication;
2. Discussion Forums (eClass) which can involve interactive exchanges between members of the whole class or smaller groups.
   1. Threaded discussions (groupings of messages within topics) have been a staple in online courses for more than a decade (you can learn more about online eClass forums here).
   2. If you are looking to send an email or get important information to your students, the best tool to do this in eClass is the Announcements forum (you can learn more here).
3. Collaboration Tools such as Google Docs, wikis, and mind mapping software.
4. Other tools that allow students to demonstrate their learning such as creating videos using their smartphone, using third party software (podcasting, blogging, webpage creation, etc.).
   
   

Some Recommended Uses of Asynchronous Teaching

• Exploring arguments and issues raised in course materials;
• Engaging with concepts raised by course materials;
• Student-to-student mentoring;
• Small group work;
• Collaborative activities.

Advantages of Asynchronous Online Teaching

• Asynchronous classroom instructional strategies promote significantly higher cognitive student learning outcomes than non-asynchronous instructional strategies (Cheng et al., 2019).
• Students have time to process ideas and concepts and to develop their own in-depth thinking (Cheng et al., 2019);
• Pacing of this type of learning is flexible and students can work more at their own pace and in their own timeframe (i.e., not a specific 'class time') (Velegol et al., 2015);
• Discussions can take place with students in different locations and time-zones (Sorensen & Bayley, 2004).
  
  

Disadvantages of Asynchronous Online Teaching

• Students may have mixed, polarized feelings about asynchronous instruction, and may require stronger motivation, self-regulatory and time management skills (Arkorful & Abaidoo, 2015)
• Students may struggle initially to adjust to the asynchronous classroom, to perceive the value of interactive asynchronous learning approaches, and might have difficulty staying organised without regular faculty contact (Betihavas et al., 2016).
• Lack of non-verbal cues and social context cues (Hassini, 2004);
• Asynchronous discussions can be time-consuming for instructors (Tiene, 2000):
• Responses to comments/questions are not immediate and impetus may wane if there is too much time between responses (Arkorful & Abaidoo, 2015).

As Erika Sanborne nicely describes in her blog post “Teaching synchronously? Asynchronously? Which is really better?” (2020, April), in this unprecedented time of suddenly teaching courses online that were designed to be taught on campus, and as we look ahead to the upcoming semester, we are now solidly in the realm of online teaching and learning.

In their podcast (2018, October), Thomas Cavanagh and Kelvin Thompson discuss how and when to make the most of real time options. They discuss how online education provides both temporal and spatial (place) flexibility. Since we get the most flexibility with different time and place, when we teach synchronously online we have spatial but not temporal flexibility. Although synchronous interactions might provide a higher degree of authenticity, these interactions should be designed and done well to promote learning. Their general recommendation is to “let the content dictate the treatment,” that is, “if a particular objective must be accomplished by having that synchronous element, then consider whether it’s worth that lack of flexibility” (2018, 5:30).

According to Sanborne, the benefits of teaching “live” (synchronously) include improved communication efficiency and clarity, increased sense of community, fostering solidarity with and among your students who might deeply value the peer support and shared experience of being together for your class. The benefits of asynchronous teaching are flexibility regarding when work is done, pedagogical benefits such as students being able to “pause” your class and go at a pace set by them, lower technology requirements, and being able to close caption recorded lectures for accessibility.

As Sanborne states, neither you nor your students signed up for this. So, no matter what you chose to do in the response to COVID-19, what are you going to do looking ahead? What have you learned that can help you decide? Are you going to teach synchronously or asynchronously? What’s better for your students? What’s better for you? (continue reading in Teaching ASP).

References

Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 793-824. 
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7

DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: a review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9 

Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC medical education, 18(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z 

Vaughn, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press. https://read.aupress.ca/projects/teaching-in-blended-learning-environments 

According to Cheng and colleagues (2019), asynchronous classroom instructional strategies may promote significantly higher cognitive student learning outcomes than non-asynchronous instructional strategies. Hew and Lo found (2018) the asynchronous approach was more effective when instructors used quizzes at the start of each in-class synchronous session (2018). However, DeLozier and Rhodes (2017) found that any advantage of providing lectures outside the classroom should come from releasing class time for active learning. This was also observed previously by Jensen and colleagues (2015) who did not find higher learning gains or better attitudes with an asynchronous flipped classroom compared with a non flipped classroom when both utilized an active-learning, constructivist approach. Instead, learning gains in either condition are most likely a result of the active-learning style of instruction rather than the order in which the instructor participated in the learning process.

McNally and colleagues found (2017) that although all types of students may find the flipped classroom more difficult, student outcomes and active participation in class activities do improve when course instructors use a theoretical perspective to inform their flipped teaching strategy, integrate assessment into the design of their asynchronous classroom, and flip the entire course (vs only one or two modules). According to He and colleagues (2016), success of asynchronous instruction critically hinges on the success and effectiveness of students’ pre-class study and in-class active learning activities. In their study, students were non-compliant with pre-class study because they could not see the critical importance of pre-class study and regarded it as“extra work” they were forced to do; because students had to decide when to study on their own and some simply lacked the self-discipline to do so in a timely manner; and they also found (2016) non-compliance to disproportionately affect students with low motivation, poor self-discipline, and weak time-management and academic skills.

It's difficult to provide a one-size-fits-all answer, but here are some points worth considering. Warning: some of these will challenge what you're used to!

1. You don't have to choose one or the other. You can do both.
   1. However, avoid simply trying to duplicate what you do face-to-face.
   2. An online environment is different and having everyone watch you lecture in a live environment probably won't go down very well.
   3. If you have international students learning from home, consider if the time difference have an impact on them? (also see more EDI recommendations here).
   4. Flipped classrooms go beyond the traditional lecture format, allowing students to spend their classroom time applying the knowledge acquired through learning experiences which occur outside of class time. To learn more about this style of blended learning, watch the interview with University of Alberta Law professor Peter Sankoff.
   5. If you have international students learning from home, consider if the time difference have an impact on them? (also see more EDI recommendations here).
2. Have knowledge-based learning (lecturing) done asynchronously as much as possible;
   1. Plan time to record your traditional knowledge-based lectures (you can do this very easily using Zoom) and populate your eClass with them (this is discussed later here).
   2. You may need to create or find resources (videos, PDFs, presentations, quizzes, polls, 3rd party software (e.g., Biteable, GoFormative, Kialo, papers, etc.).
   3. Give participants key questions/aspects to look for when viewing/reading.
   4. Provide a quick self-check (such as a practice quiz) to gauge their comprehension.
      
      
3. Skills-based learning may be done asynchronously (e.g., a walkthrough step-by-step video).
   1. If you wanted to learn how to tie a bow-tie, chances are you aren't going to ask someone to show you. You'll probably look for the answer on a YouTube™ video. Similarly, think about whether it is really necessary to have your learners face-to-face (synchronously) in order for them to learn the intended skill.
      
      
4. Synchronous learning should make the best use of learners' and instructors’ time together.
   1. Use synchronous 'class time' as an opportunity to build relationships with your students and to support them (Q&As, challenges, etc.).
   2. Consider using synchronous ‘class time’ for discussions, Q&As, sharing learning, live demos, guidance for projects/assignments, etc.
   3. Avoid just watching a video or just listening to 'a lecture', etc. If the participants are able to say, "I could have done that on my own time," it's not the best use of ‘class’ time.
      
      
5. Divide your class cohort to maximize student-instructor and student peer interactions.
   1. For example, if you have two 3-hour periods allocated to your course, you could divide the number of your students by 6 and see each smaller cohort for one hour each week.
   2. You could have students then sign up for whichever cohort suits their schedule--use eClass to have them sign up each week for one of the 6 slots which suits the best. Or have the same people in the same groups for a longer period of time to allow them to know each other--perhaps to work on group tasks.

Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29-42. https://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_15/Jan15.pdf#page=33 

Betihavas, V., Bridgman, H., Kornhaber, R., & Cross, M. (2016). The evidence for ‘flipping out’: A systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse education today, 38, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.12.010 

Buchanan Hill, H. (2016) Questioning Techniques: A Study of Instructional Practice. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(5), 660-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1227190 

Chen, L. & Liu, L. (2020). Social Presence in Multidimensional Online Discussion: The Roles of Group Size and Requirements for Discussions. Computers in the Schools, 37(2), 116-140, https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1756648 

Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 793-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7 

Clark, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video vs. text based discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning, 19(3), 48-69. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1067484 

Dahlstrom-Hakki, I., Alstad, Z., & Banerjee, M. (2020). Comparing synchronous and asynchronous online discussions for students with disabilities: the impact of social presence. Computers & Education, 150, 103842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103842 

DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: a review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9 

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(2), 32-33. https://search.proquest.com/docview/228480838 

Goodwin, S., Sharp, G., Cloutier, E., Diamond, N., & Dalgaard, K. (1983). Effective classroom questioning. University of Illionois, Urbana-Champaign. Center for Teaching Excellence. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED285497.pdf 

Hartnett, M. (2016). Motivation in online education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0700-2 

Hassini, E. (2004). Student-instructor communication: The role of email. Computer & Education, 47, 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.014 

He, W., Holton, A., Farkas, G., & Warschauer, M. (2016). The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance, and student perceptions. Learning and Instruction, 45, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.07.001 

Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC medical education, 18(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z 

Hokanson, B. (2015). The Technology of the Question: Structure and Use of Questions in Educational Technology. Educational Technology, 55, 14-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430420 

Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. D. M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129 

Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001 

Kim, J. (2013). Influence of group size on students’ participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 62, 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.025 

Lim, F. P. (2017). An analysis of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in e-learning. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 143(46), 230-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/astl.2017.143.46

McNally, B., Chipperfield, J., Dorsett, P., Del Fabbro, L., Frommolt, V., Goetz, S., ... & Roiko, A. (2017). Flipped classroom experiences: student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context. Higher Education, 73(2), 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0014-z 

Molnar, A. L., & Kearney, R. C. (2017). A comparison of cognitive presence in asynchronous and synchronous discussions in an online dental hygiene course. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 91(3), 14-21. https://jdh.adha.org/content/91/3/14.short 

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction, American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659

Nappi, J. S. (2017). The importance of questioning in developing critical thinking skills. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 84(1), 30-41. https://www.dkg.is/static/files/skjol_landsamband/bulletin_grein_jona.pdf#page=30 

Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 

Paul, R. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. New directions for community colleges, 130, 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.193 

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of developmental education, 31(1), 36-37. https://search.proquest.com/docview/228487383 

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part III. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(3), 34-35. https://search.proquest.com/docview/228524820 

Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables: Their influence on language, logic, and fate control: Part one - Wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (11), 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660110202 

Sorensen, C. K. & Baylen, D. M. (2004). Patterns of communicative and interactive behaviour online--Case studies in higher education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 5(2), 117-126. 

Stahl, R. (1994). Using “Think-Time” and “Wait-Time” Skillfully in the Classroom. ERIC Digest. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED370885.pdf 

Tiene, D. (2000). Online Discussions: A Survey of Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Face-to-Face Discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 369-382. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/9551/ 

Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of educational research, 57(1), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543057001069 

Tofade, T., Elsner, J., & Haines, S. T. (2013). Best practice strategies for effective use of questions as a teaching tool. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 77(7), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe777155 

Vale, E. (2019). An examination of teacher questioning in a Year 8 Classics class. Journal of Classics Teaching, 20(39), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2058631019000047 

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Athabasca University Press. https://read.aupress.ca/projects/teaching-in-blended-learning-environments 

Velegol, S. B., Zappe, S. E., & Mahoney, E. M. I. L. Y. (2015). The Evolution of a Flipped Classroom: Evidence-Based Recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(3), n3. https://advances.asee.org/publication/the-evolution-of-a-flipped-classroom-evidence-based-recommendations/ 

Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36 - 41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631580 

Wylie, R., Chi, M. T., Talbot, R., Dutilly, E., Trickett, S., Helding, B., & Nielsen, R. D. (2014). Comprehension SEEDING: Providing real-time formative assessment to enhance classroom discussion. International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/1019