Opening Doors in ODFL with “Video Chat” – Adding Synchronous Academic Support to Asynchronous ODFL Delivery

Bichronous Pedagogy

Brice (2023) follows others (Martin et al., 2023) in finding bichronous pedagogy can combine the strengths of asynchronous and synchronous delivery components with an aim to provide a more cohesive and personalised ODFL experience. The development of bichronous pedagogy is seen to have emerged largely in response to Emergency Remote Teaching practices (ERT) (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Greenhow et al., 2022; Wilson, 2023) labelled a “mass experiment” (Tate & Warschauer, 2022, p. 194) and born as a practical response to enforced restrictions on face-to-face learning imposed by Covid-19, which brought with it fears of loss of relational/social presence of facilitators and potential decline in engagement by learners (Martin et al., 2020; Mohammadi, 2023; Wilson, 2023).

Relational connections and social presence between academics and learners are experienced differently in ODFL from an on-campus environment (Bernard et al., 2009; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Jaggars, 2014). Notably, in ODFL there is a physical separation between learners and course facilitators which can be experienced as a psychological and communication separation (Cung et al., 2018). Adding synchronous elements to an asynchronous delivery model can mitigate some of these differences. Martin et al., (2020) describe this movement towards combining elements of both modes as a way of maximising advantages while minimising the known challenges of asynchronous ODFL learning.

As an emergent pedagogy, literature is currently dominated by studies focussed on fully synchronous delivery examples adding asynchronous elements to mitigate changing needs and environmental challenges (Alblooshi, 2021; Brzezinska, 2022; Mohammadi, 2023). As yet, limited literature explores adding synchronous elements to a pre-existing (pre-Covid) asynchronous delivery model. This research extends an earlier small-scale study (Brice, 2023) setting out an example of a developing bichronous pedagogy in an established ODFL environment.

Social Presence in ODFL

Although online learning is often positioned as self-directed (Martin & Borup, 2022), the reduced access to in-person facilitation can require learners to exercise higher levels of autonomy and self-regulation (Tate & Warschauer, 2022). Within this context, social presence is consistently identified as a key factor in learner success in digital learning environments (Dikkers et al., 2017; Gunawardena, 2023; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Reio & Crim, 2006; Richardson et al., 2017; Shehzad & Charles, 2023; Widjaja & Chen, 2017). Building on the foundational definition of social presence as the “degree of salience” of another person in mediated communication (Short et al., 1976), Gunawardena & Zittle (1997) define social presence in online education as the extent to which another person is perceived as “real” in digital interaction. Subsequent scholarship has expanded this construct to encompass affective connectedness (Swan & Shih, 2005), instructors’ relational and facilitative capabilities (including those supported through professional development; Shehzad & Charles, 2023), and, importantly for this study, an individual’s capacity to signal availability for interpersonal engagement in virtual environments (Kehrwald, 2008).

Short et al.’s (1976) early model provides a foundational framework for analysing social presence by emphasising how communication media shape the experience of social connection through the dimensions of intimacy and immediacy (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Because intimacy and immediacy are conveyed substantially through verbal and non-verbal cues, distance-based online and digital flexible learning (ODFL) environments may constrain the expression of social presence if interaction is limited to low-cue channels. However, as Gunawardena & Zittle (1997) argue, social presence is not only a function of the medium; it is also shaped by communicators and how they participate across sequences of interaction. For ODFL contexts, this implies that enhancing social presence requires intentional, coherent design across course materials, learning management system (LMS) communication spaces, and facilitators’ communication practices, including their professional development and technology use.

(Richardson et al., 2017) frame social presence as a complex, evolving, and multifaceted construct that is central to learners’ engagement, satisfaction, and perceived learning in online environments. Drawing on its origins in telecommunications research, they note that subsequent studies have challenged interpretations of social presence as a property of the communication medium alone, emphasising instead the role of participants’ perceptions and communicative behaviours (Gunawardena, 1995). In online learning, social presence has been linked to interaction, motivation, satisfaction, perceived learning, course design, and retention (Richardson et al., 2017). Other perspectives conceptualise social presence as a form of digital literacy, positioning it as a dynamic construct shaped by instructors, learners, technologies, pedagogical strategies, and social norms within online learning ecosystems (Whiteside et al., 2017).

Social presence is communicated through verbal and non-verbal cues such as humour, smiling, gesture, stance, posture, and dress (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), as well as through online discourse practices such as welcoming messages, audio and visual communication, and (in text-based channels) the use of emoticons (Dikkers et al., 2017). When instructors are experienced as insufficiently “real” in online environments, learners may report uneasiness associated with not hearing instructors’ voices or seeing facial expressions and other affective signals. Teaching behaviours such as questioning, offering encouragement and praise, using names, and providing timely feedback are well recognised as central to teaching and learning (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) yet may be harder to enact in ODFL settings when interaction is minimal or delayed. Consistent with this, human presence in virtual environments has been linked to engagement and motivation (Widjaja & Chen, 2017), and social experience in fully online learning has been identified as an important influence on success (Dow et al., 2025). While much of the social presence literature focuses on learners’ perceptions and outcomes, Reio and Crim (2006) suggest that this need for social connection is also relevant for instructors’ satisfaction, aligning with sociocultural perspectives on learning (Vygotsky, 1986). Accordingly, interaction should be intentionally designed into online courses (Northrup, 2001).

In an overview of how digital transformation is impacting higher education institutions, Alenezi (2023) argues that educators need to reinvent pedagogical approaches in ways that better support learners to “communicate, collaborate and co-create” (p. 13). Although digital tools can increase flexibility and autonomy, instructors also take on new responsibilities, including developing competencies for using technologies in ways that support interpersonal connection. In relation to building social presence through intimacy and immediacy, Dow et al., (2025) recommend that instructors present themselves as “real persons” through increased use of audio and visual instruction, which Aragon, (2003) similarly identifies as ways to convey warmth and project personality. Although social presence is often measured through learners’ subjective perceptions, it is also a robust predictor of satisfaction in digital learning experiences (Widjaja & Chen, 2017). Notably, Dikkers et al., (2017) found that establishing and maintaining social presence in online environments is challenging but can be rewarding for both instructors and learners.

Social Presence and Video Communication Practices in Online Learning

The incorporation of video communication technologies into online learning environments brings renewed attention to social presence, highlighting the dynamic interaction between technologies, pedagogical design, and participant behaviour (Lowenthal & Snelson, 2017). This is particularly relevant for research introducing live video chat into online classes, where design decisions about when, how, and for what purposes synchronous video is used can shape whether participants experience others as psychologically present.

The literature indicates that the inclusion or use of video itself does not automatically produce social presence. Rather, particular video communication practices may align differently with distinct dimensions of social presence, including perceptions of being “real,” being “there,” projecting oneself, emotional connection, and belonging. Clarifying these relationships helps support more intentional decisions about how live video chat is integrated into online course design (Lowenthal & Snelson, 2017). Asynchronous video, such as recorded instructor introductions, weekly announcements, or personalised feedback, is most strongly associated with dimensions of social presence related to being “real” and projecting oneself. Lowenthal and Snelson (2017) identify these dimensions as central in educational contexts, particularly where social presence is understood as the capacity to express identity, personality, and affect within mediated environments.

Instructor-produced video supports social presence by making the instructor perceptible as a distinctive individual rather than an abstract entity. Visual and vocal cues allow learners to infer tone, enthusiasm, and authenticity, thereby reducing psychological distance. This aligns with definitions of social presence that emphasise identity projection rather than interpersonal reciprocity (Gunawardena, 1995; Rourke et al., 1999). However, because asynchronous instructor video is typically unidirectional, it supports social presence indirectly and does not, on its own, generate strong feelings of connection or belonging among learners.

Synchronous video practices, including live video chat for tutorials, office hours, and real-time classes, most closely align with dimensions of social presence related to salience, co-presence, and psychological immediacy (Lowenthal & Snelson 2017). When designed for interaction (rather than broadcast), live video enables rapid feedback, spontaneous dialogue, and affective signalling, which can reduce psychological distance between instructors and learners.

While camera-on expectations are often implemented with the assumption that visual exposure enhances social presence by increasing salience and accountability, social presence research challenges this assumption. Lowenthal and Snelson (2017) highlight that social presence is a perceptual and psychological phenomenon, going far beyond the simple function of visibility. Being seen does not guarantee that one is experienced as authentic, connected, or engaged. For some learners, mandated camera use may undermine willingness to project oneself, thereby diminishing social presence rather than enhancing it. This finding reinforces the importance of learner agency and psychological safety in presence development.

Taken together, these understandings suggest that different video practices support different dimensions of social presence, and no single practice addresses the construct in its entirety. Video is most effective when it enables learners and instructors to project identity, engage reciprocally, and experience others as psychologically present. Consequently, social presence should be understood not as an automatic outcome of video use, but as an emergent aspect of how video is pedagogically and socially enacted within online learning environments (Lowenthal & Snelson, 2017).

Focus on Equity

According to Tate & Warschauer (2022, p. 192) “equitable learning occurs when every learner belongs, contributes, and thrives, regardless of race/ethnicity or socio-economic status.” While ODFL is considered to be learner-centred, championing learner agency through asynchronous access that enables learners to choose their own time, place, and pace of learning, there are systemic equity concerns to be considered (Greenhow et al., 2022). Tate & Warschauer (2022), highlight how patterns of achievement gaps seen in face-to-face delivery are further exacerbated in on-line learning.

Warschauer (2003) provides a framework of necessary resources for examining equity in on-line learning spaces; physical resources, human resources, and social resources. While all are important, this study is focused on social resources which include the importance of skilled facilitators whose teaching methods are underpinned by inclusive principles. According to Jaggars (2014), the more difficult the course, and, the more important or high-stakes the course, the greater the need for person-to-person interaction. For Tate & Warschauer (2022) intentionally increasing interaction improves student learning and for Cung et al., (2018) methods for intentionally increasing interaction known to influence learner outcomes include providing optional in-person meeting hours and frequent in-course posts.

Notably, in a recent study, Gunawardena (2023) explore the connections between culture and social presence. Their findings suggest that those who experience unequal power relationships in life see on-line learning as an equalising medium where their societal status difference is not seen or known by others. Social presence from this perspective is experienced differently; learners who have experienced previous disadvantages in education may choose the anonymity of on-line learning and the associated low social presence as a preferred state.

Research Question

This study was framed by the question: “Does synchronous academic support in the form of “video chat” improve experience in asynchronous ODFL delivery?” This study has three aims: firstly, to contribute to research on innovative bichronous pedagogy by examining the addition of a synchronous support element to an established asynchronous ODFL model; secondly to extend understandings of evolving online pedagogy by examining academic facilitators’ experiences of implementation; and thirdly, to maintain focus on human-centred connectedness and equity in ODFL.

Research Method

Following on from an earlier single discipline small-scale case-study (Brice, 2023), this pilot study utilised qualitative methodology in the form of recorded focus group sessions with the participant course facilitators. Data collection and evaluation occur at the mid-point and end point of the pilot. Only qualitative narrative drawn from mid-point focus group data was available for this paper at the time of writing. Focus questions were generated by the researcher to guide the sessions and participants responded verbally with their reflections to each question. Two focus group sessions were recorded and transcribed.

Research Group

Participants in the study were volunteer academic course facilitators (n = 11). As academic course facilitators interact directly with our learners, their voice is critical in determining whether the intervention is extended across all delivery, their view in how it impacts on their workload and sense of satisfaction, and their experiences of engagement through VC with learners, form the basis of this data. The pilot project was presented to academic staff with a call for expressions of interest to participate. Selection criteria for participation included those with courses with greater than 20 students per offering. The intervention ran across 6 monthly offerings of 32 courses (n = 192). While the full data set was not complete at the time of writing, the data and findings presented here provide insight for the practice implementation of VC in on-line delivery.

Data Analysis

This data was analysed thematically by the researcher using a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) where researcher subjectivity is acknowledged. In this research, participant subjectivity and assumptions made during the set-up of the research process are also acknowledged. The data analysed here has been specifically collected for this paper with no pre-existing coding mechanisms. This form of analysis allows for thorough explorations of a narrow subject within a known context, providing an opportunity to deeply explore perceptions of reality within that context.

Take-up

In the first weeks of the pilot, there were some courses (n = 3) where learners did not make use of the booking calendar. In these courses facilitators stated that learners were phoning them directly, these learners being well advanced in their programme of study and had established expectations of being able access assistance through this method. Some of the participant academic facilitators generally made themselves available by phone and had posted their direct dial numbers into the course talk channels. In the focus group discussions, it became clear that the provision of VC should be introduced with first courses in a programme, enabling expectations to be established with learners at the outset of their studies, and reducing the advertising of and availability of direct calling. In other courses where there was low or no take up of VC appointments, academics surmised various reasons for this: that learners were able to access the help they needed through the universal supports available, such as positing questions in the open or private talk channels on the LMS, communicating with academic facilitators through email, or by calling student services freephone line and asking to be put through to their facilitator. As one academic suggested “lack of uptake suggests that students feel they have other avenues that they can find information and that this isn’t something that is really needed.” This finding is important in suggesting that ODFL support systems are largely effective and do meet the needs of most learners, however it also highlights variable practices of communication access between academic facilitators and learners.

Perceptions of Learners’ Needs

Academics also surmised that many learners were perhaps ‘shy,’ or ‘apologetic,’ this being an aspect of why they might choose ODFL rather than an on-campus environment, and why they held back from the option of face-to-face interaction. Although experiencing low take- up of VC, one academic noted that he had several positive comments regarding its availability, should it be needed: “…feedback I got was that they appreciated that they had the chance to book. They might not need it but it’s there.” Academics also noted that where they were able to detect anxiety or stress from learners, often observed through the frequency and tone of questions asked in the talk channels, they could then direct that learner to make a VC booking “so they could get to know them.” Academics noted the positive experiences of being able to ameliorate learners’ anxiety through this personalised interaction: “they start off quite nervous but throughout the call you can see the anxiety melt away and they leave smiling, some even say, ‘it was such a relief to talk to you’.”

Optimising Times and Availability of Video Chat

Participants noted some difficulty with the time allocation of the video call, initially set at 20 minutes, and with identifying the optimum hours of booking availability across the week, initially set at three per week, with two different lunchtime booking hours and one late afternoon. For some, the 20-minute booking time was too short, their learners needed longer to resolve a problem or gain clarification on content. This was resolved by allowing the VC to take longer where needed (where no other booking was in place directly following) or encouraging the learner to review what had been discussed and book a follow up VC if needed. Academics also reported that they used much of the time in a first VC to establish relational connections with a learner “… probably first 5 or 10 minutes just getting to know them, building the bridge as they are a virtual stranger in that sense.” Finding the optimum times of availability was also variable, some found their lunchtime availability the busiest, while others found early evenings to be more popular. It seems that the suitability of the time slots is sensitive to the cohorts of learners and their needs and circumstances, and that a range of available booking times over the week is preferrable.

Perceptions of the Value and Benefits of Video Chat

Participants reported that their interaction with the learners during VCs was positive, learners appreciated the opportunity to engage with their facilitator, some “…have said why weren’t we doing it beforehand.” Facilitators found that many of their bookings were from learners who “just wanted reassurance” particularly those in first courses, “I get the impression the sessions have gone well, I’ve enjoyed them. And maybe helped them to feel more confident to contact me in other ways afterwards.” Participants also noted that the use of VC was better preparing students for the realities of practices common in the industries they were qualifying for. Participant academics found VC “… a way being able to share our own experiences from industry” in ways that were not generally accommodated in on-line learning. Another advantage described as “invaluable” was the ability to screen share in a video call. Academics quickly learned they could use this feature to provide drawings or images of difficult concepts as a way of responding to diverse learning needs “…what’s really practical is being able to share my screen, I was able to put an old assessment up on screen, offering visuals really does help.” These advantages, giving reassurance, sharing personal experience and industry knowledge, preparing students for the reality of practices used in industry, providing different ways of presenting materials, all added a dimension of satisfaction to the academic role.

Academics also suggested that the use of VC appealed to some students more than others, and that their use of the camera in the video call was variable “… it seems to attract diligent students who want to do well. I give them the option of putting the camera on or off, I’ve had both.” “The learners find out I’m a real person. I leave my camera on, even if they have theirs off.” Another perceived advantage identified was the booking calendar requirement that learners state the reason for their call or the nature of their question when making their booking. This information allowed academics to prepare for the VC in advance. Academics also suggested the VC booking system served as a gate-keeping strategy, effective where some learners over-used the expectation of being able to phone their facilitator on-demand.

The focus group participants revealed increased feelings of satisfaction in their role as course facilitators through this opportunity to engage face-to-face with learners. Some mentioned that they had missed interacting with learners as they had done in previous academic roles and found the opportunity to do so with VC invigorating and satisfying: “having the opportunity to talk with students face to face has been amazing” “…has been a bit of an icebreaker, they can put a face to a name. I thought it would be a bit of a hassle, but actually I have found it quite fun, a lot more positive than I expected.”

Recommendations for Practice

• Introduce with first courses in programme of study and continue as learners progress

• Include information about VC in orientation messaging

• Reduce/eliminate availability of direct dial calling and email, redirect communications through LMS talk channels and VC

• Provide regular posts in LMS talk channels that include the link to the booking calendar

• Canvas optimum times and availability across programme, courses and cohorts

• Use camera on and share screen where appropriate

Provide professional development for facilitators in establishing social presence through use of VC including being aware of facial cues and micro-communications such as smiling, voice, nodding, encouraging etc.