Subject: RE: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 4 Nov 1999 to 5 Nov 1999
From: Farhad Saba, Ph. D. (saba@cts.com)
Date: Sat 06 Nov 1999 - 01:46:26 MET
From: "Farhad Saba, Ph. D." <saba@cts.com> Subject: RE: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 4 Nov 1999 to 5 Nov 1999 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:46:26 -0800
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Kennedy: You wrote:
"I think that the validity of the concept of 'transactional distance' can be
questioned on at least two grounds:
Firstly, I think the concept of 'transactional distance' lacks construct
validity.
There is an inherent incompatibility in juxtaposing 'transaction' (with its
inherent connotation of connection) with 'distance' (with its inherent
connotation of separation). 'Transactions', are in fact 'interactions'.
Interactions are communicative acts and are, in essence, bridges across
distance. The term 'transactional distance' lacks internal logic. Secondly,
I think the concept lacks predictive validity."
===> Construct validity of concepts are not based on the literal meaning of
the words used to define them, but on their technical meaning. In this case
"transactional distance" is a system "level." The behavior of this system
level depends on two rates of "dialogue," and "structure." That is, the
meaning of the term, and its validity should be tested in data-based
research and not through semantic arguments. You can find the equations
defining the relationships of these constructs in
Saba, F. , & Shearer, R. L. (1993). Verifying key constructs in the
dynamic theory of distance education. In Gibson, C. C. (ed.), Proceedings
of The Ninth Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. (pp.
139-146). Madison, WI.: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
As far as logic of the term, again, we are not playing semantic games here,
but trying to clarify phenomena that are real. Transactional distance is as
logical as space-time, for example, in physics. One of the primary
contributions of Michael Moore to the theory of distance education is
grounding it in the new science. Transactional distance may not be logical
in Newtonian science, but it is as logical as anything can be in the
American Pragmatic school of psychology, and its Whiteheadian
interpretation.
As far as predictive validity of the term is concerned, in system science
the objective is not prediction and control, but understanding myriad
relationships in complex systems. The best we can do is to optimize the
conditions for the instructor, and the learner. No one, not even the student
and the instructor, can predict the outcome of their encounter, given the
fact that the brain among other things, is a complex adaptive system, and a
non-linear data cruncher. Probable outcomes can be guessed, but with no
certainty. That explains for creativity, and free will of the system as a
whole, and the individuals participating in it. The construct itself,
however, can be tested and verified. Please see:
Saba, F. , & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a
dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 8 (1), 36-59.
David further Wrote:
"Here is the evidence I'll cite. Wendy provided a link to Deborah
Stirling's paper at http://www.stirlinglaw.com/deborah/stir4.htm. In her
paper, Stirling refers to Bunker, Gayol and Hti (1996). Their small study
of transactional distance in an audioconferencing course indicates that the
hypothesis that increased dialogue means decreased structure is not
consistently supported. Steve's analysis proposes the opposite: that
appropriately designed structure promotes dialogue. My own experience, and
that of my colleague in this field, is that decreased structure results in
decreased dialogue. (I'll qualify that by admitting that part of that
'decreased structure' could also be due to some educational incompetence at
times on our part! And failure of technical support on our department's
part! There are some pretty obvious ways in which we can inadvertently make
'distance' so much worse. Maybe even more obvious than a concept like
'transactional distance'!)."
===> There are several problems with this analysis:
1- The relationships among dialogue, structure and transactional distance
should be subjected to many studies, but not only one. That's how science
works. One study, plus a few conjectural statements is no way to accept or
refute any theory that is only 30 years old, and only now is going under
public discussion, perhaps for the first time.
2- There is no inherent face value for structure, dialogue, and
transactional distance. These vary for different learners, instructors, and
subject matters as teaching and learning progresses AT EACH MOMENT IN TIME.
Dynamic systems, in other words, are time-based. What is of importance here
is finding consistent PATTERNS of behavior over time.
3- The judgment, for example, that "My own experience, and that of my
colleague in this field, is that decreased structure results in decreased
dialogue" could be true, useful and appropriate at a particular moment of
instruction. However, what we observe in dynamic systems is not reality as
frozen in time, but a general pattern of behavior over a relatively long
period of time. Following a drop of rain in a rain storm tells us little
about the behavior of storm itself. At time, given other conditions, a
single drop of rain may go up instead of down toward the earth. That,
however, does not invalidate the law of gravity, and the eventual behavior
of the rain drop that has to hit the ground sooner or later. All rain drops
finally hit the ground, some, however, go up, side ways, and diagonally,
before they do so during a rain storm.
4- Finally; I don't think there is any dogmatism here. Those of us who have
been studying the concept of transactional distance for the past 10 years or
so, have been doing so because of the dead end we had encountered in
explaining distance education in a flat, two dimensional cause and effect
world of Newtonian science. Transactional theory draws its theoretical
validity from the American school of Pragmatic psychology. I'd be, however,
the first to consider alternative models of explaining distance in education
the moment a reasonable alternate model is presented to me. Geographic
determinism has not resolved the problemetique of "distance" in education;
and comparative studies explaining cause and effect of two variables frozen
in a moment of time have only brought us "no significant difference"
results. I, for one am open to new suggestions; in the meantime,
transactional distance is what my students will learn and in which they will
conduct their empirical, data-based studies, using system dynamics as a
methodology.
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 : Sun 07 Nov 1999 - 07:09:16 MET