By Kevin McFarland
During the Coronavirus pandemic, the rapid shift to virtual learning has exposed a central challenge in education: equity of access. While funding is necessary to connect communities with devices and reliable Internet, a significant portion of the problem can be addressed by changing how we teach. Adapting instructional methods—especially the balance between synchronous and asynchronous approaches—can broaden access and improve learning for students who lack consistent broadband or dedicated devices.
Many educators rely on whole-class, synchronous lessons that mirror traditional in-person instruction. In a classroom, live interaction between teacher and student drives timely feedback and immediate clarification. But when that same model is applied to remote learning, it often excludes learners who cannot be online at scheduled times. Low-income students are disproportionately affected: they may share devices with siblings, accompany parents to work, juggle caretaking responsibilities, or depend on limited public Wi-Fi. For these students, requiring participation at fixed times can shut them out entirely.
Estimates suggest that a substantial percentage of students in the United States have limited access to devices or high-speed Internet at home, which makes live, synchronous instruction difficult or impossible for many families. For those students, asynchronous learning—where materials, instructions, and feedback are available on the student’s schedule—can provide a practical and equitable alternative.
Effective in the right environment
Synchronous instruction remains essential in many contexts. Live interaction allows teachers to observe student thinking, adjust lessons in real time, and provide immediate formative feedback. My research experience as a graduate student at UCLA, where I observed hundreds of classroom hours and thousands of feedback exchanges, reinforced the importance of timely intervention: feedback given during or immediately after a learning moment is far more effective than feedback delivered days later.
That said, the cognitive rhythm of students has changed. Remote learners are no longer following the same rigid daily schedule they had in school. They now face different home environments, competing responsibilities, and varying access to technology. Because of this, it is worth reevaluating which instructional practices should carry over unchanged from brick-and-mortar classrooms to online settings. Rather than insisting on live, synchronous lessons for all, educators can blend approaches to meet students where they are.
Reaching children where they live
Asynchronous instruction offers benefits beyond scheduling flexibility. When learning can happen on a student’s timetable, learners can develop independence, critical research skills, creativity, and stronger decision-making. They gain the opportunity to personalize assignments, choose resources that resonate with their lives, and work at a pace that supports deeper understanding. These skills are valuable in themselves and build long-term academic resilience.
Most importantly, asynchronous learning increases access. The classic debate over asynchronous versus synchronous pedagogy becomes less relevant when infrastructure and access are uneven. In the present moment, the priority should be ensuring that the largest possible number of students can engage with instruction. Removing strict time-based attendance requirements makes lessons reachable for students who otherwise would be excluded.
That is not to say synchronous learning should be abandoned. Rather, educators should intentionally design blended models that leverage the strengths of both approaches. Use synchronous sessions for targeted intervention, discussion, and formative checks, while providing recorded lessons, clear step-by-step assignments, and accessible feedback channels for asynchronous study. This hybrid approach supports equitable access, maintains opportunities for live feedback, and allows students to manage learning around their real-life circumstances.
Failing to adapt risks losing educational opportunities for millions of children. We should prioritize adjustments that increase participation now while continuing to advocate for the infrastructure and funding needed to make broadband and devices universally available. In the short term, shifting toward more asynchronous, flexible models of virtual learning is a concrete, practical step that educators and districts can take to reduce disparities and keep more students engaged.
About the Author
Kevin McFarland is Co-Founder and CFO/COO at Formative, a web-based platform for real-time assessment and a free student response system for digital or hybrid classrooms. Formative is used in thousands of school districts across the U.S. to provide live data analysis for homework, classwork, and assessments—helping teachers, parents, and schools track and support student growth when timely feedback matters most. GoFormative.com
This article was originally published by The Learning Counsel, a research institute and news media organization focused on the shift to digital curriculum.