Researchers also note that many synchronous instructors likely tend to engage in lecture-based, instructor-oriented strategies, which often do not apply well to distance education classroom environments. In fact, they could be the reason why they observed substantially higher dropout rates in asynchronous as opposed to synchronous distance education courses. However, utilizing strategies and tools for asynchronous communication between the instructor, learner, and between peers can be a huge benefit to distance education \cite{Bernard_2004,Tallent_Runnels_2006,garrison2010first}.
Additionally, it is often assumed that written and text communication are secondary to direct, face-to-face verbal communication. However, \citet{garrison2010first} argues that this is not the case, and in fact both have their strengths and weaknesses. This means that while they are different ways of communicating, one is not less than the other. We agree with this assertion and further argue that since both written and verbal communication have their merits, both synchronous and asynchronous methods of communication can be incorporated into good pedagogical practices, regardless of the classroom environment. 

Why do we need a new framework?

Most instructors have good intentions when creating online courses, however the strategies that should be utilized to make them effective are not easy to identify \cite{duffy2000}. One such concern is that utilizing some strategies that work during in-person synchronous instruction don’t translate well to the online environment (such as peer-to-peer interaction) and can cause both the instructor and students to spend too much time managing it, thus adding additional stressors to the course \cite{duffy2000}.