Subject: Re: Transactional distance theory
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Tue 02 Nov 1999 - 06:23:54 MET
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:23:54 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, David Kennedy wrote:
> Transactional distance is posited to be a function of dialogue
> (interaction), structure (instructional design) and learner autonomy.
Interestingly though, the goal of the course is missing from the equation.
What in fact happens, the goal is interpretted as the structure of teh
course and hence no wonder that correlation emerged between the structure
and a course design. I know that David feels like saying that the goal is
there. However, I cannot see a difference between the structure of the
course suggested as dialogue based and the goal of the course which is to
encourage dialague-based knowledge:
> 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.
What seems missing in all this is our autonomous learner with the right to
affect the design rather than being subjected to predetermined structures
which is supposingly good for him/her on the grounds that teachers,
experts (like the diat experts) know what is good *for you*. How does this
framework conceptualise its task to educate learners to think critically
rather when the learner walks in into a ready structure suposed to
faciliate thinking? What is missing in the formula of
transactional distance is context which mediates comprehensions and hence
ways for going about defining and resolving problems. I am talking about
defining problems because nobody so far has mentioned it. Formulas IRRRR
IRF have been mentioned but where do Is come from? And does it matter for
an autonomous critical learner where questions come from? What actually is
the learners' task?
If learning is about meaning management and meaning is contextually
mediated, why look for formulas (like dialogue) which are supposed to
transcend the social in their potential to offer access to knowledge in
ways that are universally good for all (cf A. Lian 'Classroom interaction
and second language pedagogy, www below)? The point I wished to make is
that it is not the course's design that determines the quality of
learning. Course design is only a product of something else. And that else
are the ways in which we envisage the goal of the course and the place of
learners in relation to this goal.
> 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
This is an example where the aim is confused with the methodology. The aim
is not methodology. The aim is to enable critical thinking, always.
Methodology is the product of one's understanding of what the goal means.
Whatever view one has, the goal cannot ever be done in isolation because
thinking is historically grounded and hence socially mediated. So our
learners will always have work in a social context. The question is why
limit the contexts of their sources? So rather than interpretting the task
of interaction (my worry is that *interaction* is not very explanatory) as
meaning this and that: why not leave the meaning to the learner and see
how we can facilitate this process best.
>, 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.
if participation is a means toward reaching the goal of thinking
critically and it is assessed, we should assess learners on the
task of each and every interaction that they perform in the
process of thinking about the goals of the course. So it seems.
It is this sense of seeing participation as a goal is a bit strange.
Participation will always be there whether they read a book or talk
together. Participation at some specific activity is unfair as there is no
way one can show that this very activity either enables learners
more than others or that it can illustrate learners' critical abilities.
I believe we can achieve all the goals of collaboration, participation,
interaction, and many more important ones in ways that need not reduce
learners' forms of exploration to the structures designed and conceived as
exploratory and explanatory.
Ania Lian
---------------------------------------------------------
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 - 09:31:06 MET