Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2025 / Insight into Students’ Perceptions on Synchronous and Asynchronous English Grammar Class

Insight into Students’ Perceptions on Synchronous and Asynchronous English Grammar Class

Paper · 2025 · Dafirah Dwi Putri Daswan, Amra Ariyani and Ryan Rayhana Sofyan

Summary

This qualitative education study asks how Indonesian university students experienced English grammar courses taught synchronously (real-time sessions), asynchronously (self-paced materials), and through a mix of the two. The authors interviewed 18 English Education students from the 2022 cohort at Universitas Negeri Makassar, chosen by purposive sampling, in September 2023. The 19-question interview guide was organised by perception indicator (knowledge and feelings, evaluation), by aspect (platforms, activities), and by mode. Answers were analysed with the Miles et al. (2013) cycle of condensation, display, and conclusion drawing. Students judged each mode on its own mostly negatively. For live classes they named unstable internet, weak content delivery, unreliable live assessment, and chaotic WhatsApp discussions. For self-paced study they cited missing clarification, low participation, misunderstandings, procrastination, and slow progress. A blended design was viewed favourably because each mode covers the other's gaps. For course designers, the study suggests combining live and self-paced components rather than choosing one.

Key points

  • Sample and method: 18 participants, purposive sampling, descriptive qualitative design, and semi-structured interviews. The guide had three sections: A (synchronous), B (asynchronous), C (blended).
  • Synchronous tools and activities: Google Meet/Zoom was rated well for its classroom feel, low cost, and instant lecturer feedback. Quizziz was seen as fun and made progress visible. WhatsApp discussion was disliked, although WhatsApp practice tasks were liked.
  • Live activities compared: peer group presentations were seen as tedious and of doubtful accuracy. Live lectures by the lecturer were preferred as clearer and more trustworthy.
  • Asynchronous tools: self-paced work ran on five platforms: the Syam-OK system, YouTube videos, files shared through Google Drive, Google Forms, and WhatsApp messaging. Activities included individual assignments, online reading, and group collaboration.
  • Overall verdict: each mode alone was viewed negatively, while blended synchronous/asynchronous was viewed positively.
  • Data inconsistency: the text says seven classes were selected but describes only six (3 by video call, 3 by WhatsApp).

Interesting ideas

  • I1. The overall verdict on a mode can differ from verdicts on its parts: synchronous was rated negative overall, yet Google Meet and live lectures were rated positive, so a single aggregate score can hide which components work.
  • I2. The interview guide is built as a grid (indicator × aspect × mode), with every cell covered by numbered questions, which makes gaps in coverage visible by design.
  • I3. Students trusted the lecturer's explanation more than peer presentations, treating source reliability as part of how much to believe the content.
  • I4. Fast, unstructured group chat led to skipped messages and unanswered questions, a concrete failure mode of multi-party dialogue.
  • I5. The two weak modes were judged strong in combination because their failures are complementary (immediacy versus flexibility).

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (learn): Evaluation reports should break scores down per component (tokenizer, parser, frames, reader) rather than give one pass rate, so a weak overall result still shows which stages are sound.
  • I2 (answer): School-course and QA test suites could be laid out as a similar grid (skill × text genre × question type) to make sure no combination goes untested.
  • I3 (learn): When building silver data from several witness parsers or LLM teacher tiers, weight each source by its measured reliability instead of counting votes equally.
  • I4 (frames): Speech-act tracking could explicitly pair questions with answers in a conversation and flag questions that never got a reply, a useful check on chat or forum texts.
  • I5 (tree): Combining the perceptron parser and gparse may pay off most on sentences where their error profiles differ, so measure where they disagree before deciding how to merge them.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

Also on the byline: State University of Makassar.

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 16,667 worksSocial Sciences · 1,772 worksInformation Systems · 1,437 worksEducation · 203 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,263 works

Cite

Cite as Dafirah Dwi Putri Daswan, Amra Ariyani and Ryan Rayhana Sofyan. 2025. Insight into Students’ Perceptions on Synchronous and Asynchronous English Grammar Class. ELT Worldwide: Journal of English Language Teaching 12.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.26858/eltww.v12i2.76813

@article{daswan2025insight,
  title = {{Insight into Students’ Perceptions on Synchronous and Asynchronous English Grammar Class}},
  author = {Dafirah Dwi Putri Daswan, Amra Ariyani and Ryan Rayhana Sofyan},
  journal = {ELT Worldwide: Journal of English Language Teaching 12},
  year = {2025},
  doi = {10.26858/eltww.v12i2.76813},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v12i2.76813}
}

References

26 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Al Faruq, A. Z., Ngadiso, N., & Supriyadi, S. (2022). Students’ Perceptions of Synchronous Online Learning using Google Meet in a Reading Class. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan,Vol. 14, 3 (September 2022): 4053-4066 4064 of 4066 ↗
  2. Amiti, D. (2020). Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Learning. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, Vol. 5, 2, 60-70 ↗
  3. Anjaniputra, A. G. & Rukmini, D. (2020). Synchronous And Asynchronous Learning in Grammar Classes: Tertiary Level EFL Students’ Attitude. ELTLT 2020, November 14-15, Semarang, Indonesia Apriana, A., & Anggraini, L. (2023). Students’ Perception of The Implementation of Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Modes. Atthiflah: Journal of Early Childhood Islamic Education, 10(2), 257–265. Retrieved from https://jurnal.insida.ac.id/index.php/atthiflah/article/view/567 ↗
  4. Azzahra, A., & Suryaman, M. (2021). Students’ Perception Regarding Learning Method: Synchronous and Asynchronous for Online Learning. Journal of English Language and Education, 6(2), 83–92. ↗
  5. Fadhilah, M., Sutrisna, S., Muslimah, S. N., & Ihsan, M. T. (2021). An Exploring Methods in Online Learning: Synchronous and Asynchronous. ETDC: Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review , 1(1), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v1i1.55 ↗
  6. Fitriah, N. A. (2020). Students’ Perception on the Use of Google Form in English Online Quizzes at MA At-Thohiriyah Ngantru Tulungagung. Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training State Islamic Institute (IAN) of Tulungagung Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous & synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55. find
  7. Irmayanti, Nappu, S., & Burhanuddin, W. (2021). Students’ Perceptions on The Use of Whatsapp as A Mobile Learning Platform in Learning English : A Descriptive Research at MA Swasta DDI CITTA, Soppeng Regency. Journal of Computer Interaction in Education, 4(1). Retrieved from https://jurnal.fkip.unismuh.ac.id/index.php/jcie/article/view/966 ↗
  8. Ironsi, C.S. (2022), "Google Meet as a synchronous language learning tool for emergency online distant learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: perceptions of language instructors and preservice teachers", Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 640-659. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0085 ↗
  9. Jensen, Bearman, M, & Boud, D. (2021). Understanding feedback in online learning – A critical review and metaphor analysis, Computers & Education, Volume 173, 1-12 ISSN 2303 – 3037 (Print) ISSN 2503 – 2291 (Online) find
  10. Kumar, P., Kumar, N, & Ting, H. (2021). An impact of content delivery, equity, support and self-efficacy on student’s learning during the COVID-19. ↗
  11. Megayanti, W. (2021). Analysis of Student Satisfaction in the Learning Process through Online Chat Applications. INTELEKTIUM, 2(1), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.37010/int.v2i1.285 ↗
  12. Memari, M. (2020). Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies (IJALS) Synchronous and Asynchronous Electronic Learning and EFL Learners’ Learning of Grammar. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(2), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.22111/IJALS.2020.6043 ↗
  13. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc,. find
  14. 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 (Vol. 42, Issue 4, pp. 583–591) ↗
  15. Nieuwenhuyse, K. V. (2020). Synchronous interactive live lectures versus asynchronous individual online modules. A comparative analysis of students’ perceptions and performances. Yesterday & Today, 24, 55-70 find
  16. Oktaviani, A. (2023). Online Grammar Learning: How the Learners Perceive Its Effectiveness. IJET (Indonesian Journal of English Teaching), 12(1), 83-93 ↗
  17. Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–07 (NCES 2009–044 find
  18. Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N. & Putnam, R. T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effect on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7-25 find
  19. Petrus, I. (2013). College Students’ Perceptions on The Use of Oral Presentation ass a Teaching and Learning Technique in the Classroom. In the 6th International Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 6) on “Shaping and Reshaping Linguistic Identity in Multilingual and Multicultural Environment”. University of Education, Bandung, 15-23 find
  20. Safitri, H. U., Tyas, P. A. (2022). Students’ Perception Using Video Conferencing Platform in Learning English during Online Learning. Journal of English Language Learning, Vol. 6 (2), 119-132 ↗
  21. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning. Routledge. find
  22. Selvaraj, A., Vishnu, R., KA, N., Benson, N. & Mathew, A. J. (2021). Effect of pandemic based online education on teaching and learning system. International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 85 ↗
  23. Serdyukov, P. (2019). Asynchronous/Synchronous Learning Chasm. In C. M. Sistek-Chandler (Ed.), Exploring Online Learning Through Synchronous and Asynchronous Instructional Methods (pp. 1–33). IGI Global. ↗
  24. Smith, D., and Smith, K. (2014). Case for ‘passive’ learning – the ‘silent’ community of online learners. Eurro. J. Open Distance E-Learn. 17, 86–99. doi: 10.2478/eurodl-2014-0021 ↗
  25. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, Vol. 15 (3), p. 398-405 ISSN 2303 – 3037 (Print) ISSN 2503 – 2291 (Online) ↗
  26. Wahyuni, N., Nurpahmi, S., & Awaliah, I. M. (2020, October). The Students’ Perception toward Using WhatsApp in Learning Reading. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on English Language Education (ICONELE) 2020 (pp. 310-323). Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Alauddin Zuhriyah, M., & Fajarina, M. (2022) . The Effectiveness of Blended Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning for Teaching Reading Comprehension. Vol.14, 1 (April, 2022), pp. 795-802 ISSN 2303 – 3037 (Print) ISSN 2503 – 2291 (Online) find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/daswan-2025-insight-students-perceptions-synchronous-asynchronous/