Subject: Re: Concerns about the concept of 'transactional distance'
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Sun 07 Nov 1999 - 12:53:51 MET
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 21:53:51 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: Concerns about the concept of 'transactional distance'
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Wendy Lowe wrote:
> There is always a distance between teacher and learner. Teachers and
> instructional designers design courses to attain objectives set by
> learning institutions. From a practical point of view, as teachers or
> instructional designers we try to reduce the transactional distance,
> using a variety of strategies.
Can anyone provide a definitional difference between transactional
distance and the distance between teachers and learners in relation to
the educational goal of facilitating critical thinking?
In other words, to undensen the request, does the goal of reduction of
transactional distance mean that critical thinking is a function of
reduction of some distance between the reference frameworks of those
involved? In other words, tehgoal is for learners to be/know/undrestand
what the tecahers are/know/understand? How does this goal ensure critical
thinking?
> As Steve points out, a well-orchestrated
> session
what does that mean? That in spite of our beliefs in differences, we still
die to find out the formula for all to result in what may be seen as a
well orchestrated session, or as it is called in L2-teaching, a
"well-ballanced lesson"? What would be the criteria that would
characterise such a ballance as a goal?
> A good teacher manages the
> content and the dialogue while keeping objectives in sight and still
> permitting students freedom to explore ideas.
I am not really sure whether being a good teacher is a matter of some
inherent capacity of an individual to do whatever is considered good. I
think that in the culture - where a search continually goes on for a
single individual, in a form of a president of one kind or another, who is
a superbeing, beyond that which is common and hence nonpresidential, -
-that education, although a social affair, is continually viewed as a
function of some mysterious capacities of some mysterious individual who
does not (and cannot) exist but whose picture we seem to always have in
mind. Are we good teachers??? If yes, what does it mean? That we have an
understanding of ballance? If we do, then it maybe we can list the
criteria of ballanced sessions/lessons? (for ballanced people??)
> As an instructional designer and also a teacher I would be tempted to
> ask: is it the teacher who provides structure (whatever that is) or is
> it the course design?
well, I guess that the structure is provided by the criteria of ballance
that we seem to think that are attainable in a form of well orchestrated,
and ballanced lessons or sessions. So, we have a key, I am just intrigued
what these ballance criteria are.
Ania Lian
ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au
http://education.canberra.edu.au/~andrewl/mlal2
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Mon 08 Nov 1999 - 00:51:19 MET