Subject: Transactional distance theory
david.m.kennedy@talk21.com
Date: Mon 01 Nov 1999 - 21:16:46 MET
From: david.m.kennedy@talk21.com Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:16:46 GMT Subject: Transactional distance theory
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me seek to express some thoughts about transactional distance, derived from Ania Lian's contribution on 31 October 99.
Transactional distance is posited to be a function of dialogue (interaction), structure (instructional design) and learner autonomy.
From the points that Ania has made, I would hazard the following:
Course design and course goals will have a major influence on transactional distance. For example, if a course goal is that all participants (teachers and students) interact with each other (because, let's say, the course planners believe that valid and valued knowledge is constructed through dialogue), then the course will be designed to incorporate multiple opportunities for interaction. In face-to-face teaching, this will include lectures, collaborative small group work, seminars and tutorials. In a distance learning environment, this will include synchronous and asynchronous group discussions, collaborative tasks (such as collaborative literature searches or reviews) and individual messages.
If, on the other hand, a course goal is that students should be able to seek and find resources independently, then the course design will reduce interactive dialogue and depend more on written instructions.
This puts 'structure' and 'dialogue' in a mutually reciprocal relationship. The thing that intrigues me about that idea is that usually these two elements of transactional distance are assumed to be in an INVERSE relationship: the more emphasis on dialogue in a course, the less, supposedly, on structure.
Ania raises a point about the other element in determining transactional distance: learner autonomy. Ania asks: Should participation in on-line discussions be compulsory? Again, the focus for an answer lies in the course aims. If an aim is participative discussion by all, participation will be compulsory. And participation will be assessed. If participative discussion is not an aim, it will not be compulsory; it will be no more compulsory than attendance at a lecture may be in face-to-face instructional methods.
My thoughts, in summary then, are that course design - not dialogue - is the major factor in creating or reducing transactional distance. This is because the function of course design is to create the conditions in which dialogue and learner autonomy may flourish.
David Kennedy
--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 02 Nov 1999 - 09:29:58 MET