Transactional Distance etc.

Theory of Transactional Distance

From the two papers that focused on transactional distance I am making the following remarks:

It seemed to me that in essence two principles were important in the transactional distance theory which are:

1. Amount of dialog in a learning experience
2. Amount of structure in a learning experience

I felt that the use of the term transactional distance was unhelpful as it does not seem to mean anything in and of itself, and other terms have to be used to describe it. I would have preferred to be discussing the amount of dialog and the amount of structure rather than imposing a name on those things which does not mean anything. Other than that the theory was fairly simple to understand.

In relationship to the above two priciples, Moore makes the claim that the amount of either or both of those principles required in a learning experience is dependant particularly upon the type of learner. Moore claims that highly motivated learners need less dialogue and are happy with more structure. In effect, he is saying that motivated learners like more autonomy. He states that: "the greater the transactional distance - the more autonomy the students will exercise. (as they will make their own decisions as to what they will do, what they will leave out, and how they will negotiate the structure)."

Therefore, in Moore's view there appears to be a relationship between dialog, structure, and learner autonomy. Moore even states that it is better for highyl motivated learners to have a higher degree of transactional distance, as they want to get on with it in their own way and find their own way to fulfilling the course objectives.

While it seems fairly logical that this is true, what worries me is that it is implied that the only important part of learning is the content and skills objectives. There is no room in this theory for the value of interaction in and of itself. I would argue that a major ingredient in the growth of learning individuals (which is all of us!) is the way we change and grow based on our experiences with other (and hopefully better in some way) people.

If this is true, then it may be true that a different level of transactional distance may assist different types of learners in acheiving the stated objectives of a course, but ALL students benefit in their individual life's growth by having a high level of dialog with an expert/mentor/genrally nice person/or whatever. As long as the person who is acting in the position of instructor is not a negative influence, then it seems to me that something good is missing in any learning experience if there is no relationship between a learner and an instructor.

After discussing the theory of transactional distance, Moore eventually presented some elements of distance education that need to be considered. This was a more practical element to these papers which was refreshing:

According to Moore there are six processes that need to be structured:

Presentation
Support of the learners Motivation
Stimulate analysis and criticism
Give advice and counsel
Arrange practice, application, testing, and evaluation
Arrange for student creation of knowledge

I think this is a fairly good list that can be used to design distance learning experiences.


Three Types of Interaction

Moore outlines three types of interaction which in his view are the only forms of interaction. He may be right, as so far I cannot think of any others! But I would guess that someone will add one at some point.

Learner-Content Interaction

Moore makes the statement that "without it there cannot be learning". I think this should be an interesting debate. Do we only learn when there some explicit content in the mix? Do we learn thing from people that rub off on us and change our minds and personalities? Can that be described as learner-content interaction? Hmmm... Let the debate begin!

Learner-Instructor Interaction

According to Moore, this is regarded as essential by many educators and as highly desirable by many learners - it is interaction between the learner and the expert who prepared the subject material, or some other expert acting as instructor.

My question is: Why does it need to be an expert? Can there be any other kind of interaction except with an expert? Can there be interaction with a guide who knows nothing of the content that is nonetheless beneficial? Let another debate begin!

Learner-Learner Interaction

Moore seems to struggle to find justification for the importance of this third type of interaction as an essential element. It seems that the former two interactions are generally accepted as necessary, whearas learner-learner interaction is up for debate. He uses research by others to build the case. For example, he cites phillips, santoro, and kuehn (1988) who describe the importance of interaction among members of an undergraduate class who had to learn skills of group interaction. The rationale for collaboartive learning was that skilled committee and other group work is essential for functioning in modern society especially in business. I think this is worth discussing further, I think it could be argued many ways, which is maybe why Moore is not so insistant on this interaction.

Interestingly, this research included the use of recorded video to facilitate group discussion! This was before the internet, so it must have been on VHS or something similar. So asynchronous video is not a new concept!

Moore's final comment was about the need for multiple approaches for the different kinds of interaction that he describes. He states: "In short it is vitally important that distance educators in all media do more to plan for all three kinds of interaction, and use the expertise of educators and communication specialists in both traditional media - printed, broadcast, or recorded - and newer teleconference material."


What I appreciate about Moore

Altough I don't particularly like the theoretical decriptions of transactional distance, I do like Moore's general attitude as far I have interpreted it. In a discussion of the complaints that Peters makes against Moore's claims, Moore does not try to state that he has all the truth, but rather accepts that his theory is a detailed theory and the other theories have there place as higher level, and there is room for many other detailed theories. Thus Moore accepts that there are many ways to explain and describe distance education at various levels, and multiple theories may be valid or useful.