The transactional distance theory states that a "psychological and communications space" (transactional distance) exists between the instructor and student (22). Depending on the level of dialog and structure in a distance education class the transactional distance will vary. Increased structure The greater the level of transactional distance the more autonomy the students will need to have.
In one of the articles we read Moore focuses on three types of interaction (where these uses are strong "dialog" would be increased and transactional distance would be decreased). These three are "learner-content" "learner-instructor" and "learner-learner." Moore states that "the main weakness of distance education programs is their commitment to only one type of medium" (5). Those preparing distance (and other kinds of) education courses need to pay attention to the levels of these interactions.
I was particularly interested in the "learner-content" interaction as it reminded me of one of my favorite essays by David Hawkins (who served on David Williams' doctoral committee). Moore suggests that this may be one area in which Holmberg's conversational theory may be particularly applicable.
Thus far in this class we have focused on three theories--"industrialized education," "conversation" and now the "theory of transactional distance." Moore (the author of transactional distance theory) discusses the relationship between these theories as saying that Peters' (industrialized) model is the highest-level, with transactional theory nested underneath. Holmberg's (conversational) theory is a "lower-level system nested within the transactional distance system" (101). Thus we see that these theories do not need to conflict with each other but can come together in a whole.
One insight I gained while reading this article stemmed from Moore's argument that transactional distance is a matter of degrees and that (commenting on Holmberg's theory) "Rather than declare that all teaching should be conversational, it would be more helpful to describe what kinds of students benefit and do not benefit from such an approach, and what aleternatives are available to each" (101). Typically, I have tried to find "the one best way." This quote illustrates that there may not be a "best way" for every situation. In some cases high transactional distance is okay. At times, a conversational approach may be the best way to go. And perhaps even an industrialized mass-produced product also has its place. The key is to guage the needs of the learner and match them with the appropriate pedagogical tools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I think the "no one best way" argument extends to teachers as well. I teach learning theories in my Ed Psych class and one thing I want to get across is that different teachers may be better at using the different theories. I saw this a lot at the MTC; some people were fantastic speakers/lecturers, but they weren't such great interaction-type teachers. Likewise, I also saw the opposite.
The essay you linked was interesting - but I don't think I quite understood the connection you were trying to make there related to learner-content interactions. Could you elaborate on that some.
To me, theories are lenses through which we make sense of the world. They don't represent some "absolute." They frame how we view a challenge or a situation. For example, the industrialization theory really focuses on much more than distance ed instruction - that lens focuses more on the "business" side or productivity side of the distance ed challenge. Both transactional distance and conversation theory really focus much more directly on the "instruction of distance ed."
You have hit on a great insight with the thought that instruction should be tailored to the student and that not all learners need the same approach. This seems to be a weakness of most current instructional approaches. I think that it is just more exaggerated in distance ed without much human interaction because when human interaction is involved the nature of the approach can change - even if slightly to address individual needs.
@Peter: I think the key is to use the theory to identify weaknesses you have as a teacher and try to use this knowledge to strengthen the areas in which you are weak.
@Charles: The connection to the Hawkins letter I was trying to make simply was the idea of the importance of the "it" in "I, thou, and it." In order to teach effectively the material should not be "teacher-centered" nor "student-centered" but focused on the "it" -- the material in question.
I do agree with your conclusion that different solutions might apply to different situations. The only thing that concerns me about Moore's approach is that it assumes that the only important learning outcomes are the skills or knowledge that can be acquired. To this end, if a person can acquire skills and knowledge without any dialog with an instructor, then it would seem to be ok to have no dialog.
I am wondering if this is a little shallow. I think that good interaction between a mentor and a learning has affects that are beyond the skills and knowledge. If this is true, then even an autonomous learner needs interaction as part of theire personal growth side of their learning journey. I think something really important is missing from a learning environment where good quality and mentoring interaction is missing.
I welcome debate!
Jeremy from David Wiley's class - reading all of your blogposts and responding to my former advisor...
Charles said: To me, theories are lenses through which we make sense of the world. They don't represent some "absolute." They frame how we view a challenge or a situation.
Yes, BUT!!!
Even though they may not be absolute, they are relatively more or less able to address specific types of challenges.
To paraphrase something I heard once, "All models are wrong. Some are just less wrong than others."
That's what the Moore quote in the last paragraph is saying. It's not enough to know that Theory X would say, "Do this," while Theory Y would say, "Do that." The theories, their assumptions and limitations must be analyzed to determine which is most appropriate for the given context. (I'm sounding like Yanchar... Yikes!)
The habit of instructional theorists to either claim their theory applies in all cases (or at least to *not* describe the cases in which their theory may not apply) is damaging to the field. It fosters the development of isolated universes of knowledge that can only grow in themselves and do not contribute to the rest of the field.
Borrow David Williams' copy of "Evaluation Roots" edited by Marvin Alkin, and try to make sense of all the theories laid out in the first 20-someodd chapters. Then read Owen's chapter on "evaluation forms" where he's done what I described above: Organize each theory by the type of problem it addresses. Then you can let your problem determine the "best" theory for the situation, rather than letting the theories you know dictate what problems you can address.
Post a Comment