Subject: Summary #2 Transactional distance theory
From: Wendy Lowe (wlowe@ca.oracle.com)
Date: Wed 10 Nov 1999 - 04:26:16 MET
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 22:26:16 -0500 From: Wendy Lowe <wlowe@ca.oracle.com> Subject: Summary #2 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must confess to feeling slightly breathless at the exchange that has
taken place over the weekend. My initial curiosity about transactional
distance was related to the argument that says that distance students
might not learn or persevere as well because of the separation of
teacher and learner, and that this might be due to lack of communication
strategies.
It hadn't occurred to me initally that transactional distance exists all
the time in classrooms.
Roger Goodson mentioned that he felt there was little interest in
constructivism in higher education: that is not the feeling I get from
this list (or others): would anyone care to respond?
Rick Parkany drew a good metaphor when he compared teacher and course
design to a director and a script.
Ania Lian invited list members to differentiate between transactional
distance and the teacher/learner distance as regards developing critical
thinking (can I interject that I thought transactional distance was the
distance between teacher and learner?)
Dennis Nelson, in response to Ania Lian, described a "good teacher",
mentioning that such a gem helps learners learn without telling them,
helps learners feel prepared for what is to come and makes them eager
for the next installment.
Martin Owen, intrigued by the discussion between Farhad and Ania, feels
that "optimisation" may be determined by the community of learners and
agrees with Ania that goals of collaboration and interaction (as well as
others) can be acheived without compromising learners' needs to explore.
Molly Freeman feels that different points of view relating to
transactional distance may be attributed to culture, gender and learning
styles. Differing methodologies may give rise to differing emphases and
values.
Dennis joins in to posit that many different styles and teaching
approaches can place responsibility with the learner, and asks whether
anyone has qualitatively studied an approach where activities/dialog
would be structured instead of course design, and the focus would be on
learner to learner dialog. Ania mentions that it is difficult to say
what makes dialogue a good thing.
David Kennedy brings us down to earth by explaining how Moore's concept
of transactional distance, social and psychological (a distance of
understandings and perceptions), differs from physical distance.
Muhammed Betz suggests that it is this difference which is most
confusing when discussing transactional distance.
In closing, does anyone have any examples of situations (classroom,
distance) where transactional distance is affected by teaching
strategies or course design? I must admit to being very pragmatic in my
approach: is there an issue of transactional distance? How can we
practically address it?
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Wed 10 Nov 1999 - 08:30:53 MET