Asynchronous Audio Discussion



Almost all existing research studies on asynchronous online discussion focus on text-based forums. The use of text-based discussion could pose a significant challenge for participants who are weak in reading or writing. Participants may also run a higher risk of being misunderstood in text discussion due to the lack of verbal cues. In this chapter, we present two studies that examined the use of asynchronous voice or audio discussion. The overall findings suggest that asynchronous audio discussion has six distinct advantages over text discussion. However, despite the reported advantages, more than half the participants reported that they preferred to use a text discussion if given a choice. The reasons for such a preference are discussed in this chapter. We also found a significant association between the levels of knowledge construction (Gunawardena et al. J Educ Comput Res 17(4):397–431, 1997) and the mode of discussions.


Asynchronous online discussion  Audio  Voice  Knowledge construction  Discussion mode  Text discussion  Verbal cues  Forums  Misunderstanding  Writing  Reading  


  1. Akasha, O. (2011) Voicethread as a good tool to motivate ells and much more. In Koehler, M. and Mishra, P. (ed.) Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, pp 3123–3127, Virginia: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  2. An, Y.-J., & Frick, T. (2006). Student perceptions of asynchronous computer-mediated communication in face-to-face courses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelova, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). If you don’t tell me, how can I know?: A case study of four international students learning to write the U.S. way. Written Communication, 16(4), 491–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1). Retrieved on February 15, 2012 from
  5. Bowe, F. G. (2002). Deaf and hard of hearing Americans’ instant messaging and e-mail use: A national survey. American Annals of the Deaf, 147(4), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brick, J., & Louie, G. (1984). Language and culture—Vietnam: Background notes for teachers in the adult migrant education program. Sydney: Adult Migrant Education Service.Google Scholar
  7. Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using voice thread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28–37.Google Scholar
  8. Chiu,Y-C. J. (2009). Facilitating Asian students’ critical thinking in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 42–57.Google Scholar
  9. Cho, S. P., & Carey, S. (2001). Increasing Korean oral fluency using an electronic bulletin board and Wimba-based voiced chat. The Korean Language in America, 6, 115–128.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, D., & Walsh, S. (2004). iPod-learning. [White paper]. Brighton, UK: Epic Group.Google Scholar
  11. Durbridge, N. (1984). Media in course design, No. 9, audio cassettes. The role of technology in distance education. Kent, UK: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  12. Eastmond, D. V. (1995). Alone but together: Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Cresskill: Hampton.Google Scholar
  13. Girasoli, A. J., & Hannafin, R. D. (2008). Using asynchronous AV communication tools to increase academic self-efficacy. Computers and Education, 51, 1676–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gleason, J., & Suvorov, R. (2011). Learner perceptions of asynchronous oral computer-mediated communication tasks using Wimba Voice for developing their L2 oral proficiency. In S. Huffman & V. Hegelheimer (Eds.), The role of CALL in hybrid and online language courses. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. Retrieved on January 18, 2012 from
  15. Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in on line forums—the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4(4), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hew, K. F. (2009). Use of audio podcast in k-12 and higher education: a review of research topics and methodologies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques. Instructional Science, 39(3), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007a). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007b). Knowledge sharing in online environments: A qualitative case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(14), 2310–2324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207–221.Google Scholar
  22. Junor, L. (1992). Teaching by tape: Some benefits, problems, and solutions. Distance Education, 13(1), 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Liu, X., Doore, B. & Li, L. (2008). Scaffolding knowledge co-construction in web-based discussions through message labeling. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3041–3046). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  25. Mandernach, B. J. and Taylor, S. S. (2011) Web 2.0 applications to foster student engagement. In Miller, R. L. et al. (ed.) Promoting student engagement. Volume 1: Programs, Techniques and Opportunities (pp. 220–229), Society for the teaching of psychology: Division 2, American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  26. Marriott, P. & Hiscock, J. (2002). Voice vs Text-based Discussion Forums: an implementation of Wimba Voice Boards. In Driscoll, M. & Reeves, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2002 (pp. 640–646). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  27. McIntosh, S., Braul, B., & Chao, T. (2003). A case study in asynchronous voice conferencing for language instruction. Educational Media International, 40(1), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Poza, M. S. C. (2011). The effects of asynchronous computer voicevoice conferencing on L2 learners’ speaking anxiety. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 41(1), 33–63.Google Scholar
  30. Schellens, T., Keer, H. V., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups. Small Group Research, 36(6), 704–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, S. W., Watkins, K., Daly, B., & Courtney, B. (2001). Facilitating cross-cultural online discussion groups: Implications for practice. ETAL Distance Education, 22(1), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yaneske, E., & Oates, B. (2010). Using voice boards: Pedagogical design, technological implementation, evaluation and reflections. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 18(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Education, Learning Sciences, and TechnologiesNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations