The learning design dilemma

Have you ever sat through a two-hour Zoom webinar thinking, I could have just read a summary of this? Or conversely, tried to complete an online self-paced module on a topic that really needed a good conversation to make sense of it? If so, you’ve already identified one of the practical design decisions we face as enablers of change. Our dilemma is whether this learning happens together in real time, or should people engage with it in their own time and space? So in this episode we’re exploring synchronous and asynchronous learning.

While this sounds like a logistics question, it’s actually a learning design question. Getting it right can make a difference to whether our program lands well or not. So let’s start with understanding two different learning modes, synchronous and asynchronous learning. Synchronous learning happens when everyone is present at the same time, whether that’s in person at a field day, on a group video call, or in a live webinar. Synchronous simply means at the same time, and the key feature is that interaction happens in the moment. Questions get asked and answered in real time and the experience and energy of the group shapes the discussion. 

Asynchronous learning happens at any time, depending on each learner’s schedule. Think of a recorded video series, a self-paced online module, a podcast, a written guide, or even an email exchange. People engage when it suits them, at their own pace, and without needing others to be online at the same time. Both modes have strengths. Neither is better. We should always be asking ourselves which is right for our learning goal, our audience, and our context.

Synchronous learning is important when the learning goal involves relationship, discussion, or needs collective experience to make sense of a change. If we’re facilitating a workshop where participants are working through the implications of a new practice change together, the shared nature of that conversation is the point. The learning emerges from the interaction, not just from the content.

It also works well for building trust and community. Early in a project or program, getting people together, whether physically or virtually, can establish connections in ways that asynchronous formats can’t replicate. Two useful New Zealand examples come to mind. The first is the Extension 350 programme in Northland, which worked alongside nearly 400 farmers over five and a half years using a farmer-to-farmer mentoring model. The second example are the Action Groups that formed the Action Network developed by Red Meat Profit Partnership. In both of these programs success was built on sustained, face-to-face relationships between farmers. That kind of trust and long-term connection is where synchronous engagement is so effective and we can’t replicate that with a self-paced module or a pre-recorded video.

On the other hand, asynchronous formats are useful when geographic spread, time pressure, or the nature of the content calls for flexibility. We often work with people spread across regions, and sometimes in different countries and time zones. Asking a grower in Western Australia and an adviser in Southland to join the same live session at a mutually convenient time is difficult. Asynchronous delivery removes that barrier entirely. 

Research by Morgan et al. (2023) explored how farmers engage with a range of asynchronous formats during and after the COVID pandemic. They found farmers tended to turn to videos for credible, practical, how-to content, and to podcasts more for inspiration, storytelling, and connection with other farmers’ perspectives, rather than for deep technical learning. One farmer in their study described farming podcasts as uplifting rather than instructional, and noted they weren’t the right format for detailed technical information. We thought this was a useful signal for us. The mode of delivery can shape the kind of learning that’s likely to occur, so we need to match our content type to our chosen format. Asynchronous content also scales well. Once a quality video or module is made, it can reach hundreds or thousands of learners over many years, as long as the information is still current! 

Nettle et al.’s (2022) useful review examined a wide range of extension methods used in Australian agriculture, including group learning, e-extension, training workshops, and one-on-one coaching. Their review reinforced that no single method is universally superior, and that the most effective extension programs tend to combine approaches to match different stages of the change process. We’ve talked a few times about Frank Vanclay’s “the best method of extension is multiple methods” (Vanclay, 2004, p. 121) and that fits neatly into the synchronous versus asynchronous decision. Different modes serve different moments in a participant’s learning journey, so we need both modes in our toolkit, and we need to know when to reach for which one.

In practice, the most effective extension programs we’ve seen don’t choose one or the other. They use a blended approach. There’s lots of examples from education where they do this well. For example, a course might be delivered via online content such as a series of videos. Then practical training and follow-up is provided with tutors afterwards. This is a great blend of synchronous and asynchronous learning. A common pattern in extension is to use asynchronous content to build a shared foundation, such as everyone reads the same article or watches the same short video before the session. Then when people are together this is discussed and applied and any questions can be answered. This is flipped learning at its best, something we’ve covered in an earlier episode.

We do need to highlight a constraint and that’s internet connectivity in rural and remote areas. Both synchronous and asynchronous online content assumes reliable internet access, and that assumption doesn’t always hold. If we’re designing programs for farmers in low-connectivity regions, we may need to think creatively about offline-accessible content, downloadable resources, or other formats rather than data-heavy video streaming. 

So, before defaulting to running a webinar or building an eLearning module, let’s pause and ask what’s actually required. Is others experience and discussion needed or is building a foundation with self-paced content and reflection more helpful. Is time an issue? Are people spread across regions and time zones? Being deliberate about that choice, rather than defaulting to what we know, means we will design a more effective program. And it shows respect for our learners’ time.

We’re curious about how you’re navigating this in your work. Are you finding that your audiences are asking for more flexibility and self-paced options? Or do you find that nothing beats getting people in the same room, whether that be virtual or physical? Have you tried blended approaches, and if so, what’s worked and what hasn’t? We’d love to hear your experiences in the comments below. As an aside, this blog is an asynchronous conversation, and that’s enabled us and others to learn from your experiences and thoughts no matter where in the world you’re located!

Thanks folks for reading this Enablers of change episode. Remember to subscribe to our newsletter if you’d like to know when new episodes are available. And if you liked what you heard, please tell your friends so they too can join the conversation!

Resources

Morgan, S., Gillespie, J., Grieve, B., Ingram, J., Mills, J., and Townsend, A. (2023). Videos and podcasts for delivering agricultural extension: achieving credibility, relevance, legitimacy and accessibility. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 28(3), 349-365. Available online 

Nettle, R., Major, J., Turner, L., & Harris, J. (2022). Selecting methods of agricultural extension to support diverse adoption pathways: a review and case studies. Animal Production Science, 64(1).

RMPP Action Network final report. (2020). Positive change using small group learning. Available online

Scarlatti, (2022). Extension 350 programme. Summative evaluation report. Available online 

Vanclay, F. (2004). Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian journal of experimental agriculture, 44(3), 213-222. Available online