[IFETS] Pre-discussion paper: Transactional distance theory as a foundation for developing innovative and reactive instruction

About this list	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Kinshuk (kinshuk@ieee.org)
Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:46:54 +1300

Next message: Mireille de Moura: "Invisible College"
Previous message: lyn.ambrose@detir.qld.gov.au: "Online Learning"
Next in thread: Wendy Lowe: "Re: [IFETS] Pre-discussion paper: Transactional distance theory as afoundation for developing innovative and reactive instruction"
Reply: Wendy Lowe: "Re: [IFETS] Pre-discussion paper: Transactional distance theory as afoundation for developing innovative and reactive instruction"
Reply: Clark Quinn: "Re: [IFETS] Pre-discussion paper: Transactional distance theory as a foundation for developing innovative and reactive instruction"

From: Kinshuk <kinshuk@ieee.org> Subject: [IFETS] Pre-discussion paper: Transactional distance theory as a foundation for developing innovative and reactive instruction Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:46:54 +1300

List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear colleagues

Please find below the pre-discussion paper on the theme 'Transactional
distance theory as a foundation for developing innovative and reactive
instruction' by Wendy Lowe, our moderator and summariser for the
discussion. The discussion will formally end on 12th November 99.

Please send your comments on the paper to IFETS list at
ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM

Regards.

Kinshuk.
IFETS Coordinator

-----
Pre-discussion paper:

While researching texts for a distance education course I became interested
in the notion of transactional distance as outlined in Moore and Kearsley's
"Distance Education: A Systems View" and developed previously by Moore in
the early 1970's. Moore thought of transactional distance in terms of
dialogue, or communication between teacher and student, and structure, or
the design of the instructional material.

In 1995 I was involved in research with computer-mediated communication at
Concordia University. SoftArc's FirstClass was used to enrich a course in
Instructional Design with great success, despite the fact that the students
had regular face-to-face lectures and saw each other often outside of class.
The conferencing system and the instructional strategies developed to
accompany the class material allowed students to build a learning community
that formerly had never existed. Deborah Stirling
(http://www.stirlinglaw.com/deborah/stir4.htm) proposes that Moore's theory
should encourage the development of more innovative instructional models.
These models could prove as relevant in the classroom as in a distance system.

In traditional distance education, where the learner is separated from
the instructor and other students in time and physical space, the only
method of communication was often by regular post and occasional meetings.
Practitioners recognized the need to provide strategies of communication,
though no one tried to make believe that this type of education was the
same as face-to-face. (I sometimes think that the original idea behind
distance education, fact the learners might not otherwise have access to
instruction, has been lost in some of the comparisons we try to draw today
between distance and traditional teaching). In fact, in the classroom,
dialogue is often pitifully absent and students are tightly bound to the
instructional structure.

For distance education, the use of email and computer-mediated conferencing
have seemed an obvious solution to the improvement in teacher/student and
student/student communication, though early research found that logistical
problems and reluctance to try and persevere with the new technologies
stood in the way of students' genuine appreciation of the way in which
they could become drawn in to a discussion with fellow learners and the
instructor as well (for one example see Hiltz online:
http://eies.njit.edu/~hiltz/workingpapers/philly/philly.htm).

Technology changes and improvements have fostered new approaches to
distance education which in turn are leading to innovative classroom
applications. When I tutor the distance course for which I am responsible
at McGill University, I realise that I give more written (online) feedback
to students per assignment than I ever received (in either verbal or
written form) from most of my teachers in the Masters' program I completed
two years ago.

One issue that occurs to me while pondering collaborative online
strategies is the following: if, in decreasing transactional distance,
we provide strategies to increase dialogue and adapt or decrease the
structure of the instructional material, is there a point at which the
dialogue takes over and the original learning objectives are
compromised? Are we back to discussing whether constructed learning
is of first importance? What about content that must be learned in
order to satisfy some criteria: do strategies to increase dialogue
move the student away from the instructional design of the material,
or is it the job of a skilled facilitator to carefully control the
dialogue to serve the ends designated by the curriculum?