2.5 DEFICIT THEORY AND TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE THEORY
2.5.2 T RANSACTIONAL THEORY OF DISTANCE ( THEORY OF TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE )
2.5.2.2 Components of the transactional theory of distance
This subsection of the theory of transactional distance is centred on the components that constitute the transactional distance theory. Much of the discussion is drawn from Moore’s time-honoured and influential (1993) ‘theory of transactional distance’. For example, the pedagogical space that is characterised by three principal concepts of
‘dialogue’, ‘structure’ of the educational programme and the student’s ability to exercise ‘self-directness’ in learning. The discussion starts broadly with the description of distance education, drawing largely from the general discourse derived from the literature in the field of distance education.
2.5.2.2.1 Distance education
The pervasive ‘distance education’, both as a construct and field of education has received more attention from different theorists (for example, Dewey and Bantley, 1949; Moore, 1972, 1980; 1990, 1993, 2007; Keegan, 1980; Rumble, 1986; Moore and Kearsley, 2005; Garrison, 2000; Anglin and Morrison, 2000) who provided an array of descriptions in an endeavour to define and explain what it is. On aggregate, distance education is a form of education in which interactions between lecturers and students is facilitated, mostly, by technologies and it entails certain specific techniques to design structures of the courses or programmes and teaching pedagogies (Moore and Kearsley, 2005, p. 2).
2.5.2.2.2 Transactional distance
The term ‘transaction’ was first applied in the distance education discourse in 1949 by Dewey and Bantley (1949) as part of the attempts to define distance education and refers to the interaction and relationships amongst the persons in teaching and learning processes (students and lecturers), forms of their behaviours and the learning environments (Moore, 1993). It refers to the possible misunderstanding of instructions/guidance by the lecturers and students’ responses in a pedagogical lecturer-student relationship, occurring in communications and a psychological space (Moore, 1993, p. 22; Moore and Kearsley, 1996). Moore’s description of transactional distance theory put more emphasis on psychological isolation between lecturers and students rather than geographic. A similar view was also offered by Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008, p. 2) who defined the transactional distance as a form
of separation which is characterised by a dialogue within the space of relationships between the lecturers and students. Conversely, in their description of the construct
‘transactional distance’, Moore and Kearsley (2005, p. 223) argue that it refers to an interaction and understanding lacuna which is influenced by geographic separation between students and lecturers. They further posit that such a geographic distance can be curbed through persuasive dialogue and the use of specific techniques in the structure of instructional programmes. Fascinatingly, the plethora of literature encompasses congruent and divergent positions, mirroring that the concept
‘transactional distance’ is a loaded and an elusive construct to define. Captivatingly, Moore later refined his position, accentuating that the transactional distance is determined by the psychological separation as opposed to the former locus that described separation from the geographic point of view (Moore, 2007). His doctrine holds the view that the distance education transaction takes place between lecturers and students who are psychologically isolated from one another (Moore, 1993, p. 22).
Moore (1993) identified three key constructs of transactional distance – namely, the nature and the amount of the student’s autonomy, the dialogue occurring between the students and lecturers as well as the structure of instructional programmes. These key constructs are the components of theory of transactional distance (Moore, 2007, p.
24-31; Reyes, 2013, p. 44) which the ensuing subsection discusses in tandem with
‘distance education’ and ‘transactional distance’. The discussion begins with structure of the instructional programme, followed by dialogue between students and lecturers.
This section on components of transactional distance theory has been concluded with Moore’s (1993, p. 23) concept of nature and students’ autonomy.
2.5.2.2.3 Structure of instructional programme
Supportive learning contexts are central to ensuring students’ positive learning experiences. To achieve this, Moisey and Hughes (2008) propose that designers of the course structures as well as academics should consider creating an enabling learning environment. There are varied understandings of course ‘structure’ or ‘design’
in the proliferated body of literature. Theorists who contributed to the academic discourse grounded on the theory of transactional distance have offered the variety of descriptions to the ‘structure’ of instructional programme. Moore’s (1983, p. 157) description of the ‘structure’ variable argues that it is a degree to which an instructional
programme becomes responsive to the expectations of each of the enrolled student.
Moore (1993, p. 26) further describes the structure of an educational programme as the manner in which components in the course design are planned and arranged insomuch that it influences the transactional distance. How course designs are structured (Moore, 1993, p. 26) is determined by the communication to be used to deliver the distance education. For example, a course offered online may use uploaded voice messages, videos, and/or written messages transmitted through online forums to deliver an educational content. Structure as a component of the theory of transactional distance serves to express and describe the flexibility and rigour of the anticipated and contemplated learning outcomes of the educational programme (Moore, 2007, p. 26; Reyes, 2013, p. 44) as well as the degree to which it becomes responsive to students’ needs. It has been argued within the scope of the much spawned distance education-centred literature that educational programmes tend to vary in terms of the degree of rigidity and flexibility (Moore, 2007). While some programmes are highly structured, others are less structured. Distinguishing and exemplifying less and highly structured instructional programmes, Keegan (1993, p.
63) postulates that while less structured educational programmes are well-defined by open registrations that can run throughout the whole year and that the timeframe for the submission of the assignments is usually wide-ranging, those that are more highly structured usually set the starts and the ends of the course and students are required to submit assignments within a shorter timeframe. The structure of the instructional programme determines whether the dialogue can take place or not as well as the form in which it will take. This view is clearly inherent in Moore’s (1991) assertion that the structure of the instructional programme (course design) and a dialogue are inversely related and that they determine the transactional distance involved. Moore (1991) posits that a mixture of lower level of dialogue and highly structured course designs lead to higher transactional distance. A well-structured course design increases students’ chances to succeed in their studies. It is paramount to bridge the transactional distance between distance education students and lecturers through the course design in order to promote online student accomplishment (Murphy and Cifuentes, 2001, p. 298). Suggestions to reduce the transactional distance are evident in the plethora of the literature. Whereas a programme that amalgamates traditional forms of correspondence and teleconferencing bridges the transactional distance and
enhances a dialogue between students and lecturers, one that delivers traditional printed study materials to the students leads in no dialogue (Keegan, 1993, p. 63).
2.5.2.2.4 Dialogue occurring between students and lecturers
The term ‘dialogue’ is an important factor in the relationship between students and lecturers. It is the degree to which students, lecturers and the educational programme manage to exchange mutual and positive communications between each other (Moore (1983, p. 157). In the assertion of Reyes (2013, p. 43), dialogue is a two-way communication encounter which takes place when lecturers provide instructions to students who also partake in an interaction by providing responses and being in active listening immersion. It is seen as a form of communication that is constructive and purposeful and contains positive qualities (Moore, 1993). Holmberg (1989, p. 43) claims that when lecturers and students are engrossed in a friendly and didactic interaction, distance education becomes effective. In learning environments, lecturers develop the learning materials to teach the students, be it online or on face-to-face counter and a dialogue becomes a vital component in teaching and learning processes, which are directed towards an enriched positive learning experience of the student. Where students encounter hitches in understanding the content of the learning materials, a dialogue plays a critical role in enabling both students and lecturers to share meanings intended. Garrison (2000) contends that a dialogue between lecturers and students necessitates teaching and learning and must be enhanced through technological modes. In a similar vein, Gokool-Ramdoo (2008, p.
9) accedes that with the use of technological facilities, the degree of dialogue escalates when programmes are less structured, leading student to be more self- controlled and directed. Gokool-Ramdoo’s postulation compete against Moore’s (1993) understanding that transactional distance between students and lecturers can be bridged through an integration of high structured course design and a high level of dialogue. A dialogue can take numerous forms and be transmitted through the variety of conventional (for example, telephone) and modern (for example, online forums) communication modes. The transactional theory of distance holds the view that studying through distance education presents challenges for students and lecturers because dialogues (particularly, face-to-face counters) are usually limited between the students and lecturers. However, a dialogue is not an independent variable. It depends
on characters of students and lecturers, subject matter of the module, educational dogmas held by lecturers who develop the learning materials as well as environmental factors (Moore, 1993).
2.5.2.2.5 Nature and amount of student’s autonomy
Autonomy as a component of transactional theory of distance education is described as the propensity of the students to take charge of leaning processes (Moore, 2007, p. 101). It is the level of independence that students demonstrate, in a lecturer-student relationship, to determine learning involvement, goals and decisions to evaluate learning programme (Moore, 2007, p. 31). It has been proven, empirically, that low level of autonomy in learning results in many students dropping from their studies. For instance, lack of accountability, independence, impetus, flexibility, rationality and self- assurance are some of attributes that cause dropout (Spady, 1970, p. 75). This view agreed to that of Robson (1967) who are less autonomous and lack abilities to take charge of their studies often drop out of learning. Although student autonomy is an important aspect when learning through distance education institution, there are diverging perspectives towards it within the discourse on transactional distance education. In his theory of transactional distance, Moore (1993) postulates that student autonomy is essential for students receiving a distance education, and stresses on the student’s capacity to determine effective pedagogies with which to learn and to be responsible in the learning processes. In a different vein to Moore’s perspective, Keegan (1993) posits that a face-to-face contact between students and lecturers is more important than just student autonomy because they want to feel a sense of belonging and cooperation. Student’s inability to have a sense of belonging, coupled with feelings of exclusion, is a leading dropout determinant in higher education landscape (O’Keeffe, 2013). Students’ autonomous learning is largely determined by the extent of the transactional distance. The more the transactional distance is, the more students have to become self-directed in learning (Moore, 1991, p. 5).