Subject: Responding to Ania Lian concerning transactional distance
From: Farhad Saba, Ph. D. (saba@cts.com)
Date: Mon 08 Nov 1999 - 23:23:24 MET
From: "Farhad Saba, Ph. D." <saba@cts.com> Subject: Responding to Ania Lian concerning transactional distance Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:23:24 -0800
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is in response to comments made by Ania in relation to some of my
earlier postings. Unlike Molly, who was clear about the theoretical
underpinnings of her concerns, Ania does not make hers known. So, it is
difficult for me to understand some of her questions or objections in
relation to what I had to say. But, I will give it a shot, since I fine this
discussion extremely useful for my work in the field. My original comments
are followed by >. New responses to Ania's comments will follow ===> to keep
the thread of discussion clear.
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Farhad Saba, Ph. D. wrote:
> 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,
I can predict the outcome of such encounters inasmuch as defined in the
criteria you mentioned in the first sentence of this paragraph. I
understand the variables in terms of the contexts of their production and
can predict when the learner will be given a chance to think critically
and when this chance will be removed from them. Is there anything else
that I should predict, assess or know?
===> I am not sure what method you are using. It would be nice if you can
share your approach with us.
> Probable outcomes can be guessed, but with no certainty.
depends where we look for certainty. However, here a more interesting
issue emerges. If we need to know more than I already know about the
conditions appropriate for development of critical thinking, how can then
the question of conditions be tied to the question of structure? If
structure is about designing a path, how can anyone claim to have found
the optimal path for all and to be applied to teaching? Dialogue the way
this notion is used seems like such a path.
===> No one can, and no one does. In dynamic systems, the act of
instructional design becomes part of teaching and learning process. The
lesson, depending on requisite structure is designed as the dialogue
progresses.
> 1- The relationships among dialogue, structure and transactional distance
> should be subjected to many studies,
I would think that assessment of this relationship even if tested will be
a function of the beliefs which underlie the assessment procedures. So
maybe, the quality of this relationship is not a matter of experiments but
a matter of analysis of the premises on which it sits.
===> Experimental studies are needed to test the validity of the
relationship between the rates of dialogue, and structure, and the level of
transactional distance. To my knowledge, there have been only a few
experimental studies on the subject. That is hardly enough to speak of these
constructs with any certainty. So, there is a need for their empirical
verification. Simply believing in these constructs is not enough. When it
comes to the quality of the structure, and the dialogue, I can agree with
the above statement, that it is primarily a subjective judgment, or as
Whitehead has demonstrated an "internal" judgment within a negative feedback
loop to an "external" judgment. But let's see if these concepts hold true
under scrutiny first.
> 2- There is no inherent face value for structure, dialogue, and
> transactional distance.
But one thing is certain: structure is a product of the conditions which
designed it. My question here will always be: who is the designer and by
virtue of what mechanism?
===> As I mentioned before, in dynamic systems, the act of instructional
design becomes part of the teaching and learning process. It is a negotiated
event between the teacher and the learner. The lesson, depending on
requisite structure is designed as the dialogue progresses. The linear
instructional design model which prescribes assessing the learner's needs
prior to the instructional session, and designing instruction based on that,
just is not functional in "net speed," when most dynamic functions are
approaching real time.
> 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.
why? to push students to those statistically derived model of processing?
Isn't so doing, to paraphrase Bourdieu like that of those who when they
find the logic in things they make it the logic of things? WHat is it that
teachers really need to know and what is it that is predictable and
what is not?
===> I am not sure what is meant by pushing "students to those statistically
derived model of processing." In system dynamics, there is no agent who
pushes independently of all the other system components. Also, there is no
statistics involved here for assessing learners. Transactional distance is a
descriptive model of an event in space-time, it is not a method of
assessment of learning objectives. There is a hierarchy involved here, which
no one has mentioned yet. I think Ania is mixing different system levels
here, unless I am not reading her correctly.
> 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.
I would disagree. I think that always what we see is not reality but
reality as we seem to put it together at any time and for any length of
time in question. Judgments as to quality are a product of a process which
is not different of that of vision: we see what we construct. Eyes are not
a window to reality for us to witness it. The conclusions thus obtained
from any experiment are as true as the logic behind them.
===> Again, I am not sure what is Ania's point of disagreement. Systems
describing relationships of components are not making any qualitative
judgments for those components involved (in this case teachers and
learners). These models (e.g. transactional distance) are mere depictions of
a set of relationships. What I have set to verify in my studies is not the
quality of the structure, or the dialogue, but that beyond a chance
probability, when students and teachers are involved in a teaching and
learning session there as in inverse relationship between dialoged and
structure (negative feedback loop) and such inverse relationship determines
the "level" of transactional distance. What the experiment shows is the
validity of this relationship. If, in fact we had found speech acts between
the teachers and learners did not support the model, we could not have said
that Michael Moore had posited a true theory, no matter how logical his
theory would have sounded. So, logic is necessary here, but not sufficient.
In fact, as I mentioned above, even one or two studies are not enough to say
anything about a set of relationships. Many more studies are needed to
verify the relationship. This according to Kuhn (1962) will be an ongoing
process.
> 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
If you do think it is a 10 years well spent, what do you think is the
most important realisation so far?
===> The most important realizations are that
1- geographic separation of the learner and the teacher does not determine
"distance" in education.
2- "Distance" in education is determined by the rate of structure and
dialogue in the communicative "transaction" between the teacher and the
learner.
3- Both structure and dialog are determined by the principles involved
(teacher and learner) based on the background of the learner (e.g. novice
learners demand more structure,) and other factors such as the course
content (e.g. Irish history MIGHT require more dialoged, than a course on
principles of thermodynamics in high school).
3- These rates, and levels are set in real time, or as close to real time as
possible, questioning the validity of the linear "instructional design model
(ISD)."
4- Comparing "face-to-face," "traditional," or "residential" education with
distance education is a waste of time. They are only of the same class, when
paradoxically, distance would NOT be defined in terms of miles or
kilometers. In a biology 101 course, with 200 students in a large lecture
hall, there is more "transactional distance" between the learner and the
instructor than in a computer mediated course on the same topic.
> 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.
why will your students do this rather than that which makes sense to them?
===> Why do you assume that running experiments in transactional theory does
not make sense to my students? I have been publishing research results
obtained with the help of graduate assistants, as second authors, since
1987. Some of them have obtained their Ph. Ds. in the field and are doing
fine.
Sincerely,
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 : Tue 09 Nov 1999 - 00:17:31 MET