2.5 DEFICIT THEORY AND TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE THEORY
2.5.2 T RANSACTIONAL THEORY OF DISTANCE ( THEORY OF TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE )
2.5.2.4 Critiques on the transactional theory of distance
In spite of its international acceptance and support by several salient gurus who commended it since its dawn in 1980s as an all-encompassing model of distance education (such as, Keegan, 1980 and 1993; Rumble, 1986), the influential transactional distance theory has also received some disapprovals. Literature highlights that the theory still requires advancements (Reyes, 2013, p. 49). Compatible views to that asserted by Reyes (p. 49) are inherent in the writings of Garrison (2000) and Gokool-Ramdoo (2008). Whereas Garrison (2000) proposes for an improved transactional theory that will comprise learning theories and synthesis of standpoints, Gokool-Ramdoo (2008) later suggests that elements such as, policymaking and quality assurance should feature in the model. Though not so clear in the literature, it appears that the appropriateness of the transactional distance theory in the field of education loose its strength as the technological environment advances and when new technological means of communication come into place. Reyes (2013, p. 49)
concludes that in order for the transactional distance theory to remain relevant to study future problems and challenges of distance education, the aspects of the theory require some form of advancement that would have taken the technological development and forms and nature of communications into account. Although the theory of transactional distance made a good attempt to explain significant aspects of distance education, it failed to point out how a dialogue can be easily realised between all students and lecturers where isolation is pedagogical and psychological. Instead, it explicates that environmental factors; the subject matter of the module; the educational doctrines of persons who develop the learning materials; and that the degree and the type of a dialogue is reliant upon lecturers and students’ personalities.
Its dogmas that there are environmental variables on which a dialogue can be dependent upon is largely based on untested hypothesis. It only identified the few environmental factors, but Moore (1993) makes a call for investigations into other environmental variables. Although there are assertions that the theory is not ubiquitous, as also acknowledged but its pundit - Moore, Keegan (1993, p. 73) suggests that future research should attempt to develop a comprehensive model of teaching and learning that will put ‘learning’ in the central position, as opposed to the existing theories that are centred around the ‘distance’ or ‘students’ dimensions. Since its development, the theory of transactional distance received much criticisms and spawned a vigorous debate, with views that consider it to be all-encompassing (for example, Moore, 2007; Reyes, 2013, p. 43) and others being divergent (example, Keegan, 1993; Moore, 1993; Garrison, 2000). As the discourse advances to a greater level, Moore later changed his position and argued that the theory of transactional distance is encompasses all aspects of distance education (Moore, 2007). In support of Keegan’s proposal, Garrison (2000, p. 12) made the same call that a new suitable theoretical lens must be sought for. Occupying a different stance towards the proposed general framework, Gokool-Ramdoo (2008, p. 1) disputes Keegan’s and Garrison’s recommendations and justifies his claim by arguing that the theory of transactional distance comprises all elements that are in theories on transactional distance which were established after Moore’s theory and can therefore be regarded as the global theory. Whereas Keegan and Garrison’s call for a new and all-inclusive theory in distance education indirectly suggests that there are weaknesses in the theory of transactional distance, Gokool-Ramdoo concludes that there are no such weaknesses. Further to the shortcomings of the Moore’s theory of transactional
distance, the geographical universe that is argued as not isolation between lecturers and students is also based on assumption. It is contested in the discourse on the theory of transactional distance that, although psychological and pedagogical spaces determine the transactional distance, the geographical space is also an important dimension that influences the distance transaction. For instance, Controverting Moore’s philosophical view on the theory of transactional distance that the separation in student-lecturer relationship is based on pedagogical and psychological universes, Keegan (1993. p. 63) noted that the transactional distance also embraces the geographical space. Recent studies proved that geographical isolation could negatively affect students in their studies. For instance, in the discourse on student support, Sittichai (2012, p. 286) reports that peer support, lecturers’ support and assessments as well as advisors characterise learning environments and may lead to student attrition if not provided to the needy students. Sitichai’s assertion challenges the suitability of Moore’s traditional theory of transactional distance. The theory of transactional distance further fails to identify methods with which support interventions to students that are naturally incapable to express themselves can be offered when encountering isolation that relates to the communication space in the relationship between them and lecturers. Moore’s transactional theory of distance does not specify various levels of education at which students are – namely, primary, high or tertiary;
undergraduate (first-year, second-year, third-year) and postgraduate (honours, masters or doctorate). Moore’s theory is focused on pedagogical concept that occurs when students and lecturers are isolated by time and space, unfolding the universe of lecturer-student relationships, and not on student support phenomenon. It describes the pedagogical isolation of students and lecturers within distance education context, and less so on open and distance learning (ODL) environment, although it covers certain aspects of ODL. It lacks student support element in its doctrine. Contrary to Moore’s theory of transactional distance, this study focuses on the lower-postgraduate level (honours) within the Open and distance learning institution and is based on student support. Moore realised the limitation of his theory and proposed that future models on transactional distance education should be based on, amongst other aspects, the theory of history of distance education, distance education theory of administration and a theory of distance student stimulus (Moore, 1993, p. 23).
It is important to develop theory to sustain distance education (Gokool-Ramdoo, 2008, p. 1). The purpose of this study is to develop a student support model for lower- postgraduate students studying in an ODL environment. The inference is to be drawn from perceptions and opinions of administrative officers, lecturers as well as students’
experiences. Partly, the model can be seen as a response to Moore’s suggestion that there is a need to develop a distance education theory of administration and distance student motivation.
However, the theory of transactional distance remains pertinent and essential in locating the study within a sound academic theoretical lens. It is also appropriate for this study because it approaches the student support component of teaching and learning from the communication perspective and the transactional theory recognises communication as an imperative element in supporting students.