Asynchronous Teaching and Learning in IB English A: Literature

Background

My definitions of synchronous and asynchronous learning derive from Hrastinski (2008): “Asynchronous e-learning, commonly facilitated by media such as e-mail and discussion boards, supports work relations among learners and with teachers, even when participants cannot be online at the same time” (para. 4); while “[s]ynchronous e-learning, commonly supported by media such as videoconferencing and chat, has the potential to support e-learners in the development of learning communities” (para. 5). My previous experience with asynchronous teaching/ learning derived from the implementation of the i²Flex learning methodology. While teaching the previous IB English A: Literature syllabus, I included many guided research activities that led to F2F interactive oral presentations as well as forums that further expanded on F2F class discussions. Following the definition of the i²Flex teaching methodology by Avgerinou and Gialamas (2016), these asynchronous components provided multiple opportunities for inquiry-based, independent learning as well as for student-content, student-student, and student-teacher interactivity. Moreover, by enabling flexible e-learning, these activities helped me appreciate the benefits of low-bandwidth and low-immediacy edtech tools (like forums), whose potential has been eloquently examined by Stanford (2020). Reflecting on my practice, I came to the conclusion that flexible, low-immediacy asynchronous learning can effectively complement the F2F teaching of literature in innovative ways. However, although guided research and reflective forum posts after major assessments and after finishing the study of an author enabled independent, inquiry-based, and interactive learning, I now realize that these asynchronous activities could be removed without significantly affecting the structure of the course. In other words, they were conceived and employed in a more decorative than organic manner.