THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2 Key concepts
2.2.5 Distance learning (DL)
Distance learning is invariably termed ‗correspondence‘, ‗off campus‘, ‗independent study‘, and ‗open learning‘ (Rowntree 1992:11). Sherry (1996:337) states that the terms ‗distance education‘ and ‗distance learning‘ have been applied interchangeably by many different researchers to various audiences and media. However, its hallmarks are the separation of teacher and learner in space and/or time (Perraton 1988), the control of learning by the student rather than the distant instructor (Jonassen 1992), and communication between student and teacher that is mediated by print or some form of technology (Keegan 1986). While Rowntree (1992) emphasizes that students can learn at home or work without going to the learning institution, Farrell (2003) stresses that teaching at a distance is done with a variety of
‗mediating processes‘ used to transmit content, to provide tuition and to conduct assessment.
It seems that those who call it distance education emphasize the education provider role of the learning institution while those calling it distance learning emphasize the education consumer role of the learner. While the process requires interaction
between the two, the customer is the ‗king‘ and their needs must be satisfied. My explored the most effective institutional and student-based support mechanisms for adults to cope with learning at a distance and ensure unimpeded completion of DL programmes.
Moore and Kearsley (1996:2) define DL as:
Planned learning that normally occurs in a different place from teaching and as a result requires special technologies of course design, special instructional techniques, and special methods of communication by electronic and other technology, as well as special organizational and administrative arrangements.
Valentine (2002) cites Greenberg (1998:36) who defines DL as, ―a planned teaching- learning experience that uses a wide spectrum of technologies to reach learners at a distance and is designed to encourage learner interaction‖. She also quotes Keegan (1995:7) who says DL results from the technological separation of teacher and learner which frees the student from travelling to, ―a fixed place, at a fixed time, to meet a fixed person, in order to be trained‖. These definitions concur that the student and teacher are separated by space, but not necessarily by time because DL can include the use of compressed video, which is delivered in real time and live video instruction is the fastest means of mediating DL today.
The fact that different authors emphasize different aspects of DL implies that DL could be understood differently in different countries. However, Ndeya-Ndereya et al. (2003) cite Keegan (1980), Jenkins (1981), Peters (1982), Matshazi (1988) and Lemmer (1994) concurring that DL is a generic term that covers many forms of study whereby students are not in continuous and immediate supervision of lecturers.
Kember (1995) cites Keegan (1986:49) who lists the main elements of DL as:
The quasi-permanent separation of teacher and learner throughout the learning process,
The influence of an educational institution in the planning and preparation of learning materials and in the provision of student support services,
The use of technical media, print, audio, video or computer, to link the teacher and the learner and to carry the content of the course,
The provision of a two-way communication so that the student may benefit from or even initiate dialogue, and
The quasi-permanent absence of the learning group throughout the learning process so that people are taught as individuals and not in groups, with occasional meetings for both didactic and socialization purposes.
The key element distinguishing DL from other forms of learning is separation of the teacher from the learner during the teaching-learning process which necessitates mediation to link them.
The use of technologies and their capacity to deliver interaction through e- conferencing has implications for what we understand by ‗distance‘ and ‗near‘. In order to provide learner support in view of geographical distance, most DL institutions develop infrastructure of study centres and regional centres in order to be
‗near‘ students (Moore and Kearsley 1996). Students that learn through DL come from a wide range of educational backgrounds that require different learning opportunities. They may be students whose employers do not have trainers. In some cases they are too few people at a time to train simultaneously. They could be geographically scattered. Learners may be people that missed out on some aspects of their education in youth. It may also be that changing times and circumstances have created a need for updating, training or academic study (Rogers 1989; Michael, Schlosser et al. 1999).
The concept of distance in DL goes beyond geographical space. It extends to the effectiveness of communication between the teacher and the learner and also between the learning material and the learner. There are various modes of
communication in DL. However, all forms of communication involve the transfer of information from one person to the other. In order for the transfer of information to qualify as communication, the recipient must understand the meaning of the information transferred to them. If the recipient does not understand the meaning of the information conveyed to them communication has not taken place. Failure of communication creates transactional distance. That distance is better explained by Moore‘s (1990) Theory of Transactional Distance in Education (Chen 1998).
Moore‘s theory of transactional distance hypothesizes that distance is also a pedagogical and not only a geographical phenomenon. It is a distance of understandings and perceptions that may lead to a communication gap or a psychological space of potential misunderstandings between people. Moore suggests that this distance has to be overcome in order for effective learning to occur (Chen 2001). Moore and Kearsley (1996) argue that, this theory is applicable to all educational relationships where there is a learner and teacher and a means of communication. They also define transactional distance in the DL environment as,
―the physical distance that leads to a communications gap, a psychological space of potential misunderstandings between the instructors and the learners‖ (Moore and Kearsley 1996: 200). More and Kearsley‘s (1996) view is echoed by McIsaac (1996:2) whom they cite arguing that, "it is not location which determines the effects of instruction, but the amount of transaction between learner and instructor".
Transactional distance is measured by the amount of dialogue which occurs between the learner and the instructor and the amount of structure which exists in the design of the course (Moore and Kearsley 1996). Young (1998) cites Moore and Kearsley (1996) indicating that transactional distance is a function of two variables called
"dialogue" and "structure." Dialogue describes the extent to which, in any educational programme, the learner and the educator are able to respond to each other. This is determined by the subject-matter which is studied. Dialogue is also
determined by the educational philosophy of the educator and the personalities of the educator and the learner. It is further determined by environmental factors like the medium of communication.
Unlike dialogue, structure is a measure of an educational programme's responsiveness to learners' individual needs. It expresses the extent to which educational objectives, teaching strategies and evaluation methods are adaptable to the learner. In a highly structured educational programme the objectives and the methods to be used are determined for the learner and are inflexible. In a programme with less structure and more dialogue, interaction between the teacher and the learner permits very personal and individual learning and teaching (Young 1998).
Saba contributed to the transactional distance theory by developing a system dynamics model to examine the relationship between dialogue and structure. His model provides "a flexible means of decreasing structure through increased dialogue" (Moore and Kearsley 1996:208). The results in Saba‘s model indicate that as learner control and dialogue increase, transactional distance decreases. As transactional distance decreases, the communications gap between the learner and the instructor also decreases and more effective instruction is achieved (Moore and Kearsley 1996). According to Young (1998), Saba also found out that consultation increases dialogue. Once dialogue flourishes, adjustments in goals, instructional materials and evaluation procedures occur. This enables the learner to achieve the desired autonomy (Moore and Kearsley 1996). The concept of transactional distance consists of four dimensions. These are: instructor-learner, learner-learner, learner- content and learner-interface transactional distance (Chen 2001). This study explored the support structures and strategies used by adults to cope with challenges of geographical and transactional distance that enabled them cope with DL at ZOU.