Theory and theorists
European Distance Education Network.
Castelldefels: October 27th 2006
Michael G. Moore
Professor of Education
The Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A.
Editor: The American Journal of Distance Education
www.ajde.com
19 Roundham Road, Paignton, Devon, UK. TQ46JA
Early publications in distance education theory
Holmberg, B. (1960). On the methods of teaching by correspondence. Lunds
Universitets Årsskrift N. F. Avd. 1 Bd 54: 2. Lund:Gleerup.
Peters, O. (1967). Das Fernstudium an Universitäten und Hochschulen. Weinheim:
Beltz.
Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent
learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76-88.
Available online at http://www.ajde.com/Documents/learner_autonomy.pdf
Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching.
Journal of Higher Education, (44), 661-679.
Available online at http://www.ajde.com/Documents/theory.pdf
Peters, O. (1973). Die didaktische Struktur des Fernunterrichts. Weinheim: Beltz.
Holmberg, B. (1977) Distance education. A survey and bibliography. London: Kogan
Page
Historical perspective.
International Council for Correspondence Education (ICCE) 1972.
.. the universe of instruction consists of two families of teaching
behaviors, … "contiguous teaching" and "distance teaching."
distance teaching:
"instructional methods in which the teaching behaviors are
executed apart from the learning behaviors,.. so that
communication …must be facilitated by print, electronic,
mechanical, or other devices."
“… we should direct resources to the macro-factors: describing
and defining the field; discriminating between the various
components of this field; … building a theoretical framework...”
Origin of the term "Distance Education“
Evolution of Theory of
Transactional Distance
(based on Stover, UMUC 2003)
First steps
Moore started by gathering a large sample of “independent
study” programs.
These included programs delivered by:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
TV and radio
Correspondence
Programmed instruction
Computer-assisted instruction
Telephone
Dial access audio tapes
Independent learning on campus
He classified them by the extent to which generally
the learning program was individualized
More individualized programs were usually:
– Correspondence
– Programmed instruction
– Independent learning on campus
Less individualized programs were:
–
–
–
–
Computer-assisted instruction
TV and radio
Telephone groups
Dial access audio tapes
He then classified whether the programs involved dialog
(“constructive interaction”) between teacher and learner
High dialog
High
individualization
Low
individualization
High
individualization
Low dialog
Low
individualization
Independent learning on
campus
Individual telephone
Individual correspondence
Group telephone
Group correspondence
Computer-assisted instruction
Programmed instruction
Dial access audio tapes
TV
Radio
Textbook study
He explained that pedagogical, or “transactional distance” is a
function of two sets of variables, dialog (D) and structure (S).
These variables indicate four types of programs:
1. Programs with no dialogue and no structure (– D – S)
2. Programs with no dialogue, but with structure (– D + S)
3. Programs with dialogue and structure (+ D + S)
4. Programs with dialogue, but no structure (+D – S)
Note:
D and S are continuous variables, i.e. every program has more
or less D and S.
more Capacity for individualization less
less
Structure
more
How the variables of dialog and structure determine
transactional distance can be shown in a simple graph.
more
Dialog
less
Typical programs by technology used (Moore, 1972, 1973)
more Capacity for individualization less
less
Structure
more
Transactional distance
11. Textbook –self-directed
independent reading
10. radio
5. GROUP correspondence
4. GROUP telephone
9. TV
8. dial access audio tapes
3. individualized
correspondence teaching
7. computer-assisted instruction
2. individualized telephone
1. independent study
on campus
personal tutorials
more
6. programmed instruction
Dialog
less
Moore’s second hypothesis focused on the learner
To better understand Moore’s
second hypothesis, we must
first rotate our 2 dimensional
diagram.
.
Autonomy and transactional distance
AUTONOMY
the level of autonomy
required of the learner
increases as transactional
distance increases.
Determinants of autonomy
Autonomy itself is a three-dimensional
concept. It shows for any program the type
of control that the learner is allowed in:
• establishing goals
• executing the learning program
• evaluating progress
6. NNA (autonomy only in
evaluation—most rare)
3. ANA (autonomy in setting
goals and in evaluation)
Programmed learning
1. AAA (fully autonomous)
EVALUATION
5. NAA (autonomy
in execution and
evaluation—
uncommon)
GOALS
8. NNN (no autonomy)
7. NAN (autonomy only in
execution--by far the most
common situation)
4. ANN (autonomy only in
setting goals--uncommon)
2. AAN (autonomy in setting
goals and execution)
External certification programs
Examples of hypothesized relationships of autonomy, structure and
dialog
When autonomy is low the need for structure is high
When structure is low the need for autonomy is high
Programs with low dialog require a high degree of learner autonomy.
Programs with low dialog and low structure require a higher degree of learner
autonomy.
Learners with high autonomy require less dialog, less structure
Etc
Highly autonomous learners may engage in auto-dialog
Course designers can develop very highly structured courses, with little room
for learner autonomy in setting goals, execution or evaluation.
Or can develop very unstructured courses, allowing learners to exercise a high
degree of autonomy.
An autonomous learner could put together a highly structured learning
program for him/herself — or could make a loosely structured program.
A 3D Model of transactional distance
Transactional
distance
Transactional distance can be
viewed as a set of tiered platforms.
As one steps away from the origin
(dialog or structure), the steps also
increase in height (autonomy).
high
more
Autonomy permitted/
required by the
teaching method
more
Structure
less
less
low
more
Dialog
less
A 3D Model of Transactional Distance
high TD
Different teaching programs can be
viewed as glasses that are stacked
on these tiers according to their
degrees of structure and dialog.
more
Autonomy
less
more
The height of the glass represents
the degree of autonomy that is
permitted in an actual program.
Structure
less
low TD
more
Dialog
less
The height of the liquid within the
glass represents the degree of
autonomy that is required of the
learner.
Thus, the manner in which a program is
designed and conducted can result in
high TD
requiring or permitting a higher or lower
overall level of autonomy.
more
Autonomy
less
more
Structure
less
low TD
more
Dialog
less
For instance, a course taught
ONLINE – technology allowing a
low degree of structure and high
dialog, permitting a low degree
of learner autonomy -- could be
designed with high structure
and/or low dialog and require a
high degree of autonomy.
high TD
The final factor to be considered is the
capacity of the learner for autonomous
learning. The learner’s capacity has a lot to
do with personality, learning styles, prior
experience, and other factors, including the
content to be learned
more
Autonomy
less
more
Structure
less
low TD
more
Dialog
less
This determines how high the
learner can “reach”— and lets us
see what teaching strategies are
appropriate.
Conclusion
• Using this construct, we can see that we
can design courses for different degrees of
learner autonomy— by varying dialog and
structure ….
• We can design research to explore and
test the many interactions within and
between these variables
which gets back to the basis of Moore’s
original investigations.
Elaboration of theory ……….
A Systems Approach in Theory Building
Farhad Saba
Department of Educational Technology, San Diego State University
Chapter forthcoming in Handbook of Distance Education, Second Edition, 2007
Saba, F., & Twitchell, D. (1988). Research in distance education. A system modeling
approach.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 9-24.
Saba, F. (1989). Integrated telecommunications systems and instructional transaction.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(3), 17-24.
Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology, and epistemology:
A pragmatic paradigm. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),
Handbook of distance education (pp. 3-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model
of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36-59.
Structure
Structure
Dialog
Time
Transactional Distance
Saba’s systems dynamics hypotheses:
When structure increases, transactional distance increases and dialog decreases.
When dialog increases, transactional distance decreases and structure decreases
Transactional Distance (t)= Transactional Distance (t-dt) + (structure-dialog) x dt.
TD vis a vis Peters
and Holmberg
“transactional
distance is an open
system residing in a
larger environment
in the instructional
systems level which
is in turn part of a
larger system in the
hierarchical model”
(Saba 2007)
TD is only a
pedagogical theory
… a theory about
teaching and learning
Some theorists deal
with larger systems,
(Peters) others with
smaller systems
(Holmberg)
Instructional-learning system
Instructional program
structure (content, objectives, strategies, evaluation)
learner
learner
teacher
dialogue
teacher
empathy
autonomy
LEARNING
GROUPS
Autonomy is one component of the learner system;
empathy is one component of teacher system
With new interactive
technology we have
potential for dialog
between learners and a
new form of learner-learner
autonomy reducing the
transactional distance for
each student.
“concluding comment on how you view the interpretations of and the
debate(s) about your theory”
I have very little to comment ……
One thing I would like to point out is that transactional distance theory was/is
no more than that, --- a summary of knowledge in one part of the field … the
teaching-learning process.
As such, it is purely descriptive …. It is not prescriptive …… some authors
think I am an advocate for more or less learner autonomy, more or less
dialogue, more or less structure ……. This is NOT so.
I am happy that transactional distance theory has served at least one purpose
successfully which is to ensure that distance education is taken seriously as a
field of study in the United States, which was not the case before 1972.
It has proven useful in encouraging others to write about theory and it has
proven useful as a foundation for research; examples are shown in the
Handbook chapter.
(recent) opinions of scholars and researchers
“by showing the transactional distance not as a fixed quantity but as a variable,
which results from the respective changing interplay between dialogue, the
structured nature of the teaching program being presented, and the autonomy of
the students, it (the transactional distance theory) provides a convincing
explanation of the enormous flexibility of this form of academic teaching. It also
provides an insight into the pedagogical complexity of distance education “….
(Peters, 1998, 42)
what “in essence (is) changed by the revolution in media we have undergone over
the last decade?” … “Moore's theory remains, in my view, the crucial framework
of ideas against which such assertions as represented here can be tested” (Tait,
2003: 5).
“ transactional distance …….. subsumes concepts that are based on physical
attributes, such as electronics in e-Learning, blendedness in blended learning,
and wired or wireless telecommunication in online learning.
Furthermore the theory of transactional distance extends well beyond these lower
level system components and includes fundamentals of psychology, sociology
and education and other related areas of educational science. (Saba 2005: 4)
Examples of empirical studies (mostly doctoral) based on transactional distance
Saba (1988)
Saba and Twitchell (1988)
Shinkle (2001)
Braxton (1999)
Zhang (2003)
Gallo (2001)
Bischoff (1993)
Bischoff et al. (1996)
Gayol (1996)
Bunker, Gayol, Nti, and Reidell (1996)
Walker Fernandez (1999)
Moore, M.H. (1999)
Vrasidas and MacIsaac (1999)
Anderson (1999)
Atkinson (1999)
Hopper (2000)
Rovai (2000)
Chen Y. (1997)
Chen and Willits (1998, 1999)
Chen, Y. (2001)
Clouse (2001)
Williams (2003)
Edstrom (2002)
Wheeler (2002)
Lee and Gibson (2003)
Witte and Wolf (2003)
Lowell (2004)
Stein, Wanstreet, et al (2005)
Dupin-Bryant (2004)
Avive, Erlich, Ravid, and Gava (2003)
Gorsky, Caspi, and Trumper (2004)
Gorsky, Caspi, and Tuvi-Arid (2004)
Ofir et al 2004
Wikeley and Muschamp (2004)
Munro (1991)
Brenner (1996)
Richardson (1998)
Thompson, (1998)
Huang (2000)
Kanuka, Collett, and Caswell (2002)
Dron (2002, 2004)
Stein, Wanstreet, et al (2005)
Lemone (2005)
Conclusion and future directions
Jung (2001):
"WBI research showed little resemblance to established pedagogical
theory in general or distance education theory in particular. While
some studies raised their research question and discussed the
findings in theoretical frameworks, other studies had little
relationship to established learning theories."
I fear:
further proliferation of non-theoretical grabbing at data, conceptual
confusion and thus mis-directed research resources
I hope:
More research connected to theory through study of educational
theory, including foundations of educational psychology, philosophy,
curriculum design, instruction as requirement for higher education
practice and research
I expect
more attention to learner-to-learner dialogue stimulated by
constructivist philosophy and methodology, leading to more
understanding of learner autonomy, what is appropriate dialog with
teacher and what are appropriate course structures
Thank you..
Michael G. Moore
www.ajde.com
Forthcoming
HANDBOOK OF DISTANCE EDUCATION. SECOND EDITION
by Michael G. Moore (ed.)
ISBN/ISSN: 0-8058-5847-4
Pub. Date: March 2007
http://www.erlbaum.com