Subject: (no subject)
From: Farhad Saba, Ph. D. (saba@cts.com)
Date: Wed 03 Nov 1999 - 18:25:59 MET
From: "Farhad Saba, Ph. D." <saba@cts.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:25:59 -0800
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Freeman, PhD wrote:
"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?"
This is a very good point. In one study to verify theoretical integrity of
transactional distance, we ran 30 subjects. One subject took over the
conversation, and turned it into a monolog. So, there must be enough
corrective "auxiliaries" in the design of the instructional system to
optimize transactional distance via negative feedback loops. Optimal
transactional distance differs for each student, subject matter, and
instructional situation. It also changes at every moment of instruction. So,
the aim here is to optimize it, and keep it within a certain range.
Ultimately, in self-adaptive "complex" and non-linear learning systems,
learners and instructors provide such self-correcting negative feedback
loops, and keep the instructional/learning session useful and productive.
Farhad Saba, Ph. D.
Editor
Distance Education Report
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Thu 04 Nov 1999 - 00:20:03 MET