You are here:

Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Language Learning: A Case Study of Virtual University of Pakistan

, Virtual University of Pakistan

Open Praxis Volume 8, Number 1, ISSN 1369-9997 e-ISSN 1369-9997 Publisher: International Council for Open and Distance Education


This case study evaluated the impact of synchronous and asynchronous E-Language Learning activities (ELL-tivities) in an E-Language Learning Environment (ELLE) at Virtual University of Pakistan. The purpose of the study was to assess e-language learning analytics based on the constructivist approach of collaborative construction of knowledge. The courses selected for random sampling were English Comprehension (Eng101), Business & Technical English (Eng201) and Business Communication (Eng301). Three methods were employed to collect the data: observation of the communication and performance on given channels, students’ opinions on Graded Discussion Board (GDB), and a survey questionnaire. Out of a total population of 9919, 1025 responses were received for the survey questionnaire. The findings revealed that asynchronous e-language learning was quite beneficial for second language (L2) learners, but with some limitations which could be scaffolded by synchronous sessions. Based on the findings, the researcher suggested a blend of both synchronous and asynchronous paradigms to create an ideal environment for e-language learning in Pakistan.


Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Language Learning: A Case Study of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Praxis, 8(1), 21-39. International Council for Open and Distance Education. Retrieved February 18, 2019 from .

This record was imported from OpenPraxis on March 7, 2016. [Original Record]


View References & Citations Map


  1. AbuSeileek, A.F. & Qatawneh, K. (2013). Effects of synchronous and asynchronous computermediated communication (CMC) oral conversations on English language learners’ discourse functions. Computers& Education, 62, 181–190. Http://,M.,Atai,M.R.,Vaezi,S., & Marandi, S.S. (2014). Examining effectiveness of communities of practice in online English for academic purposes (EAP) assessment in virtual classes. Computers& Education, 70, 291–300. Http://
  2. Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis, 161–181.
  3. Borg, S. & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 66(3), 283–292. Http://,F.(1980).Are-evaluationof needs analysis in ESP. The ESP Journal, 1(1), 25–33.
  4. Chen, C.M., & Lee, T.H. (2011). Emotion recognition and communication for reducing secondlanguage speaking anxiety in a web-based one-to-one synchronous learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 417–440.
  5. Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Dudley-Evans, T. & St John, M.J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.
  8. Garrison, D.R. & Anderson T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century. A Framework for Research and Practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  9. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
  10. Ge, Z.G. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75–91.
  11. Greller, W. & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology& Society, 15(3), 42–57.
  12. Guichon, N. (2010). Preparatory study for the design of a desktop videoconferencing platform for synchronous language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 169–182.
  13. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause quarterly, 31(4), 51–55. Retrieved from Huang, X. & Hsiao, E.L. (2012). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in an online environment: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 15–30.
  14. Johns, A.M. (1991). English for specific purposes (ESP): Its history and contributions. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 67–75.
  15. Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihók, G., Bíró, M., Nix, J. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: synchronous e-learning systems for European institutions. FernUniversität ZIFF Papiere, 126.
  17. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of educational computing research, 32(2), 131–152.
  18. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers& Education, 49(3), 740–762. Http://,S.D.(1982).Principlesand practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  19. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (3rd edition). Oxford University Press.
  20. Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms of mobile learning: framing research questions. London: Institute of Education.
  21. Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge. 38 Ayesha Perveen
  22. Lin, H.S., Hong, Z.R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers& Education, 59(2), 378–384. Http://
  23. MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
  24. Martín-Blas, T. & Serrano-Fernández, A. (2009). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics. Computers& Education, 52(1), 35–44. Http://,J.L.,Cheng,R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing asynchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from
  25. McLuhan, M. (1995). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  26. Mellow, J.D. (2002). Towards principled eclecticism in language teaching: The two-dimensional model and the centering principle. TESL-EJ, 5(4), 1–18.
  27. Murphy, E., Rodríguez-Manzanares, M.A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583–591.
  28. Parsad, B. & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–07 (NCES 2009–044). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
  29. Pérez, L.C. (2013). Foreign language productivity in synchronous versus asynchronous computermediated communication. CALICO journal, 21(1), 89–104.
  30. Pfister, H.R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives (pp. 39–57). Springer US.
  31. Polkinghorne, D.E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 137.
  32. Reynolds, D., Wang, X., & Poor, H.V. (2002). Blind adaptive space-time multiuser detection with multiple transmitter and receiver antennas. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50(6), 1261–1276. Http://,G.(2013).E-tivities:Thekey to active online learning. Routledge.
  33. Somenarain, L., Akkaraju, S., & Gharbaran, R. (2010). Student perceptions and learning outcomes in asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments in a biology course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 353–356. Retrieved from
  34. Stein, P. & Newfield, D. (2006). Multiliteracies and multimodality in English in education in Africa: Mapping the terrain. English Studies in Africa, 49(1), 1–21.
  35. Sun, S.Y.H. (2011). Online language teaching: the pedagogical challenges. Knowledge Management& E-learning: An International Journal (KM & EL), 3(3), 428–447. Retrieved from
  36. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306–331. Http://
  37. Wang, Y. & Chen, N.S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning management systems: arguments from the distance language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 1–18. Http://,C.,Carnell,E.,Lodge,C.& Whalley, C. (1996). Effective learning. The School Improvement Network, Research Matters, No. 5. Institute of Education, University of London.
  38. Watson, J., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of State-Level Policy and Practice, 2009. Evergreen Education Group. Retrieved from West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language teaching, 27(01), 1–19.
  39. Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. (2014). Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2). Retrieved from Yang, Y.F. (2011). Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(2), 181–198. Http://

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact