Synchronizing Online Asynchronous Modules with Synchronous Peer Interaction: A Systematic Review of Blended Learning Designs in Science Teacher Education

Dwi Susanti; Hartono; Woro Sumarni; Bambang Subali; Wiyanto; Arif Widiyatmoko; Nikki Faith A. Bantillo

doi:10.21009/1.12111

Authors

Dwi Susanti Science Education Program Study, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia.
Hartono Physics Education Program Study, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia.
Woro Sumarni Chemistry Education Program Study, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Bambang Subali Physics Education Program Study, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia.
Wiyanto Science Education Program Study, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Arif Widiyatmoko Science Education Program Study, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Nikki Faith A. Bantillo Dr. Emilio B. Espinosa Sr. Memorial State College of Agriculture and Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21009/1.12111

Keywords:

Blended learning, Asynchronous-synchronous synchronization, Science teacher education, Peer microteaching, Systematic review

Abstract

Blended learning integrating asynchronous online modules with synchronous peer interaction shows promise for science teacher education, yet optimal synchronization patterns remain understudied. This systematic review synthesized empirical evidence on blended learning designs in science teacher education, examining synchronization models, learning outcomes, and implementation factors. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, five databases (ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Education Source) were searched, yielding 38 empirical studies published between 2013 and 2024. Quality appraisal used ROBINS-I and CASP tools; findings were organized through narrative synthesis by synchronization model, discipline, and geographic context. Three synchronization patterns emerged: sequential (42%), parallel (37%), and integrated (21%). Sequential models, where asynchronous foundational content preceded synchronous peer microteaching, demonstrated the strongest gains in reflective competency, collaborative skills, and digital literacy. Critical success factors included structured peer-feedback rubrics, facilitator modeling during synchronous sessions, and explicit learning pathways that connect both modalities. Programs in resource-constrained contexts achieved comparable outcomes when offline-accessible asynchronous content and strategically scheduled synchronous sessions were implemented. Physics education particularly benefited from simulation-based asynchronous instruction paired with synchronous pedagogical discussion. This review concludes that intentional synchronization, supported by sound theoretical design, structured feedback systems, and attention to infrastructure constraints, significantly enhances science teachers' reflective competency, collaborative skills, and digital literacy. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies tracking competency transfer to classroom practice, head-to-head model comparisons, and cost-effectiveness analyses.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45–74). Athabasca University Press.

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, M. R. (2015). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. Jossey-Bass.

Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. Routledge.

CASP. (2020). CASP qualitative checklist. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2015). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 101–111). Springer.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. AERA.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., ... & Duffy, S. (2006). Narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. University of Lancaster.

Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from grades K–12. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 784–802.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Shah, D. (2020). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2020. Class Central. Retrieved from https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2020/

Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., ... & Higgins, J. P. (2019). ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 355, i4919.

Suhirman, S. (2020). Teacher agency and professional learning opportunities in Indonesian schools. Journal of In-Service Education, 46(2), 234–248.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

Thinley, P., & Tshering, K. (2021). Blended learning amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: A case of Bhutan's education system. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(2), 191–207.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.