Subject: Ania's Comments, David's Clarification, and Wendy's Question!
From: Farhad Saba, Ph. D. (saba@cts.com)
Date: Thu 11 Nov 1999 - 09:25:26 MET
From: "Farhad Saba, Ph. D." <saba@cts.com> Subject: Ania's Comments, David's Clarification, and Wendy's Question! Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:25:26 -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 Ania:
I think I am beginning to understand your views about structure and their
socio-cultural context. I am glad you posted Michael Moore's definition of
transactional distance to the discussion. When I saw his 1973 article on the
subject, my "aha" experience was what David Kennedy articulated in his
recent posting -- I suddenly realized the difference between the physical,
and metaphorical meanings of distance. No one to my knowledge until then,
had made the distinction in the professional literature of the field. The
primary contribution of Moore to the development of the theory of distance
education is that after reviewing 2000 articles on the subject he
concluded --ironically, and paradoxically-- that "distance" in its physical
meaning had nothing to do with distance education! That distance, had
something to do with what David Kennedy called "social and psychological
separation."
This simple Gestalt shift; however, could not be taken for granted. What I
set out to do was to test Michael's conclusion. Science works slowly, based
on empirical evidence. So, I took a baby step in this by testing Moore's
view. I took this step with a method, namely system dynamics, which is
capable of taking the "relationship" of variables involved into
consideration, and could handle the "process" of communication and plot it
in time. Now, this baby step, which should be replicated by others, may seem
obvious to you. Not only that, but you are concerned with much broader
issues. Well, I wish I could walk with you to that plain. But, we have just
begun to take a very small step.
The overwhelming majority of literature in the field of distance education
has a physical science interpretation of the concept of distance in
education. The literature is so clear and overwhelming that in a final exam
question this year I plan to ask my students to specify how far in miles, or
kilometers the teacher and the learner must be separated for the teaching
and learning session to be considered a distance teaching and learning
session!
A very tiny minority of the discussion and the literature in the field
revolves around the discussion of distance in the sense that matters in
teaching and learning. In fact I was very surprised to see that Wendy had
actually decided to devote this discussion to transactional distance. My
students sometimes ask me, who else is collecting data on the validity of
transactional distance, and frankly I have to say very very few people.
So, in order to get to the questions of critical thinking, etc. we need to
get past the current dearth of evidence about the concept of transactional
distance itself.
As far as Wendy's question regarding the applicability of transactional
distance to instructional design is concerned, again I must caution against
haste to transfer information gathered in research, which is of descriptive
nature, to information that instructional designers can use, which is
prescriptive. That is a giant step that I for one cannot take yet, based on
a few studies that are currently available.
There is also a philosophical issue involved here, which needs discussion;
and that is Whitehead's distinction between the subjective experience (in
this case of the learner, and the teacher), and the objectiveness of what we
can possibly see in empirical research.
My tentative conclusion about all this is that what we as instructional
designers can control is the "management of conditions" of teaching and
learning. That is why I do not think that the "quality" of learning and
teaching can ultimately be assessed by instructional designers, (or
evaluators, or researchers) first hand. First hand knowledge of the quality
of "critical thinking" to use Ania's words, or other "subjective" processes
for that matter, ought to be conveyed to us either indirectly through tests,
exams, etc., or by testimony of teachers and learners themselves. Any
comments about this impasse is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Farhad Saba
Professor
San Diego State University
---------------------------------------------------------
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 11 Nov 1999 - 10:47:43 MET