Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Theories and Scholarship in Distance Education
by David Whittier, EdD
• This presentation introduces scholarship and theory in distance education drawn from chapter 9 of Moore & Kearsley’s 1996 and 2005 (2nd ed.) texts on Distance education: A systems view and the theory of distance education known as “Equivalency Theory” (Simonson, 1999).
• This presentation was originally prepared as part of an graduate, online course at Boston University in Distance Education Research and Design.
2
Study Guide
• Viewers will gain more from this presentation by reading chapter 9 of the Moore & Kearsley text as well as Simonson’s 1999 article on equivalency theory. Both are cited in the references section in the final two slides.
3
Introduction to the scholarship in the field.
• One of the many ways in which this presentation is useful in the study of distance education is the way in which Moore & Kearsley’s “very short history of scholarship” traces the emergence of research in the field.
• Beginning in 1926, a definite, if sporadic, flow of research has documented practices and worked toward clarifying what variables contribute to the effectiveness of distance education.
4
The Value of Scholarship
• In addition to informing us of some “lessons learned” in the field, knowing the history of scholarship in distance education affords the view that “e-learning,” while clearly the most recent and prolific of the forms of distance education, builds nonetheless on established practice.
5
The Value of Scholarship
• Knowing the research in any field is like having a map of the terrain. Conversely, working in a field and not knowing the research is like trying to get somewhere without a map; there is much greater risk of wandering around in circles and simply just repeating the work and mistakes of others.
• When you know the research and theory of a field, you have the opportunity to know: – What has been answered already; – What has been deemed unanswerable, or insignificant; – What needs more clarification through research.
6
A Theoretical Basis for Distance Education.
• Moore & Kearsley begin their presentation of distance education theory by introducing the idea that education can be thought of as a “transaction.” They report that this concept was derived by Boyd and Apps from the work of philosopher and educator John Dewey. The concept conceptualizes an educational transaction as “the interplay among the environment, the individuals, and the patterns of behaviors in a situation” (Boyd & Apps, 1980, p. 5).
7
Distance Education as Transaction
• The concept of transaction can be extended to distance education by describing it as the “interplay between people who are teachers and learners, in environments that have the special characteristic of being separate from one another,” (Moore & Kearsley, 2005, p. 224).
• Educational transactions when teachers and learners are separate require a “set of special teaching and learning behaviors” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p. 200).
8
A Theoretical Basis for Distance Education
• The concept of an educational transaction can be combined with physical separation or distance in distance education to yield the concept of “transactional distance.” Moore and Kearsley (2005) emphasize that in distance education, physical separation leads to a “psychological space of potential misunderstandings between the instructors and the learners that has to be bridged by special teaching techniques; this is the Transactional Distance” (p. 224).
• This idea can be stated simply to be useful in the theoretical discussion: “Transactional Distance is the ‘Potential for Misunderstanding.’”
9
The Theoretical Basis for Distance Education
• There is some potential for misunderstanding, some transactional distance, in any educational event, but, as Moore and Kearsley point out, “what is normally referred to as distance education is that subset of educational events in which the separation of teacher and learner is so significant that it affects their behavior in major ways” (p. 224). Understanding the impact or “significance” of physical separation is crucial to understanding these concepts.
10
The Theory of Transactional Distance
• In emphasizing the significance of physical separation it is also important to qualify our concept of distance. Because we have a variety of means with which to communicate across space and time, it is no longer useful to think of distance as geographical. Distance education can be as valuable to a learner across the street as it is to a learner on the other side the earth.
11
Understanding Distance
• In the theory of transactional distance, it is useful to think of physical separation as presenting obstacles to understanding and perception that have to be “overcome by teachers, learners, and educational organizations if effective, deliberate, planned learning is to occur” (Moore &Kearsley, 1996, p. 200). In distance education, people must use planning and technology to overcome the potential for misunderstanding that may be much more significant when teachers and learners are physically separate.
12
Understanding Transactional Distance
• Moore and Kearsley point out that “the first postulate of the theory of transactional distance is that distance is a pedagogical phenomena” and not a physical one. They go on, then, to the pragmatic conclusion that “the procedures to overcome this distance are instructional design and interaction procedures, and to emphasize that this distance is pedagogical, not geographic, we use the term ‘transactional distance’ ” (Moore and Kearsley , 1996, p. 200).
13
Transactional Distance in Distance Education
• Transactional distance, then, according to Moore and Kearsley, describes the potential for misunderstanding that exists in any educational encounter. However, in distance education, when teacher and learner are physically separate, the potential for misunderstanding is greatly amplified over the potential in face-to-face education, where common occurrences such as quizzical facial expressions and other spontaneous non-verbal communication, raising a hand to ask a question, and other spontaneous examples and illustrations may easily attempt to clarify meaning.
14
Transactional Distance
• Have you ever experienced “Transactional Distance”? Have you ever experienced either misunderstanding or a potential for misunderstanding that you could now characterize as an instance of transactional distance (TD)?
• In teaching this work for 16 years (1998-2014), I had hundreds of students give hundreds of examples of how they had experienced TD in both face-to-face and online educational experiences.
15
The Variables Within
• After describing the concept of transactional distance, Moore and Kearsley go on to explain that it includes two major clusters of variables related to its educational application: dialog, and structure. The way in which these variables compete or co-exist, and their interaction with the characteristics of the learner described as “learner autonomy,” are the principle ideas of transactional distance.
16
Transactional Distance: Three Major Variables
Dialog Structure
Learner Autonomy
17
Defining Dialog
• In introducing the concept of dialog as it applies to the theory of transactional distance, it is essential to understand that the meaning, although based on the typical idea of interpersonal exchange or conversation, is much more than that. In the context of distance education, dialog is embedded in several important contextual constraints that determine its meaning.
18
Factors Shaping Dialog
• Moore and Kearsley elaborate the concept of dialog in education by stating that it is influenced by certain external factors. Dialog, then is shaped by the:
• Philosophy of instructor/designers of the course; • Personalities of those involved; • Subject matter; • Environmental factors; • Size of the learning group; • Language i.e. native vs.. foreign; • Medium or media of communication.
19
Characterizing Dialog
• The concept of dialog extends beyond that of conversation. Holmberg (1981), for example, thought of prepared instructional materials as planned, structured communication [dialog] between a learner and teacher or author.
• “The teacher prepared a set of ideas or information for transmission to and interaction with an unknown distant viewer [learner], and the dialog is what Holmberg would call ‘an internal didactic conversation” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p. 202).
20
Dialog as Internal Didactic Conversation
• Holmberg conceptualized this type of dialog as a special and limited form of conversation that he also called a “guided didactic conversation,” “aimed at learning.”
• He envisioned this concept as building on the idea that “the presence of the typical traits of a conversation facilitates learning (Holmberg 1986, 1989).”
21
Levels of Dialog. Conversation may be the highest level of dialog. British mathematician Alan Turing suggested conversation be the basis of the test for intelligence in the development of Artificial Intelligence.
See http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/test.html for a discussion of the Turing Test.
22
Some educators believe that conversations in individual tutoring are the highest form of education (Perkins, 1992).
23
From Dialog to Structure
• The second major variable that defines the theory of transactional distance is structure. Structure here means the degree to which the learning experience is organized around previously encoded resources that do not respond to individual questions. A highly structure learning experience would be one where the learner simply interacts with a printed text and no person is involved. It would be the opposite of an individualized tutorial where the learner can ask any question about the content and learning is customized to exactly what the individual needs.
24
Structure As a Set of Variables • Moore and Kearsley state that “every educational course
or other educational event has a structure,” and clearly, “some are more structured than others” (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 203). In formal education, structure is comprised of such ideas as learning objectives, curriculum scope and sequence, presentations of content, activities, tests, papers and other assignments. The degree of structure, like dialogue, is determined by the philosophy of the institution, the personalities of the teacher(s) and the learners, the subject matter, and the media and technology employed to facilitate the learning experience.
25
Structure - continued
• Because “structure expresses the rigidity or flexibility of the course’s educational objectives, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods, it describes the extent to which course components can accommodate or be responsive to each learner’s individual needs” (Moore and Kearsley 2005, pp. 226-227).
• It follows then, that a highly structured course is, by definition, less responsive to a given learner’s individual needs.
26
Characterizing the Relationship Between Dialog and Structure
• Interactivity and structure differ between any course or courses.
• However, in distance education where the course is dependent on media and technology, simply by virtue of the content being encoded in media there must be more structure and proportionally less dialogue. Being dependent on instructional technology resources means that communication between the learner and a distant teacher/designer is more structured.
27
Relating Dialogue and Structure in Distance Education
• Having introduced the meaning given to dialogue and structure in transactional distance, let’s examine further how these two variables relate to one another.
28
Structure and Dialog Measure Transactional Distance
• Moore and Kearsley present dialogue as the instrument through which a learning experience may be individualized. If a person has a question, then they can ask that question of their teacher and receive an answer, a clarification in terms that that individual can understand. “In a course . . . with little transactional distance,” that is, where there is little potential for misunderstanding, “learners receive directions and guidance through ongoing dialogue with their instructors and by using instructional materials that allow modifications to suit their individual needs, learning style, and pace” (2005, p. 227).
29
Structure and Dialog Measure Transactional Distance
• In applying the concepts of dialog and structure to the theory of transactional distance we can state the following premise:
• In general, the more dialog, the less transactional distance, and conversely, the more structure, that is, the less responsive a learning experience is to individual needs, the greater the transactional distance.
• However, because online and other forms of distance education can be effective, achieving the right balance between structure and dialog is desirable.
30
Structure and Dialog Measure Transactional Distance-continued
• Moore and Kearsley point out that if structure is high, learners at least have guidance. However, “if there is neither dialog nor structure they must make their own decisions about study strategies and decide for themselves how to study, what to study, when, where, in what ways, and to what extent” (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 204). This describes the concept of “independent study,” as introduced by Wedemeyer.
31
Transactional Distance and Learner Autonomy
• Independent study means that there is little dialog or structure and so a learner must take greater responsibility for directing their own learning. “The greater the transactional distance, the more responsibility the learner has to exercise” (2005, p. 227).
• The idea of a learner being responsible for their own learning leads to the other important variable in the transactional distance triumvirate; what Moore and Kearsley call “Learner Autonomy.”
32
Learner Autonomy (LA)
• Moore and Kearsley define the concept of LA in stating that it stands for the idea that “learners have different capacities for making decisions regarding their own learning” that is, for deciding how to study, what to study, when, where, in what ways, and to what extent” to study (Moore & Kearsley, 2005, p. 227).
• If a learner has a greater capacity for making those decisions they have greater learner autonomy and vice versa.
33
Elaborating Learner Autonomy (LA)
• Moore and Kearsley elaborate LA by stating that “learner autonomy is a continuous variable” (1996, p. 207), that is, learners, and even the same learner, can vary in the degree to which they can exercise learner autonomy.
• They also claim that distance education “programs can be defined and described in terms of what degree of autonomy learners are expected or permitted to exercise” (Moore and Kearsley, 2005, p. 228).
• Lastly, it is important to point out that the concept of learner autonomy should include motivation.
34
Relating LA to Transactional Distance (TD) • The concept of learner autonomy provides a
variable that might predict performance in relation to the level of transactional distance. For example, Moore and Kearsley state that “the more highly autonomous the learners, the greater is the [transactional] distance they can be comfortable with–that is, the less the dialog and the less the structure” (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 206).
• For some, however, transactional distance must be reduced by increasing dialogue.
35
Relating LA to TD
• The theory of transactional distance is expanded by recognizing that there are times when learners want to or must learn something on their own, when their only recourse is to a video, book, audiotape, printed manual, and/or web site. These are times when it is “appropriate to design highly structured courses or programs” that limit or exclude dialogue. However, to do well in a highly structured learning environment, a learner must have the necessary learner autonomy (LA) to do so.
36
Learner Autonomy (LA)-continued
• Moore and Kearsley claim that distance “courses or programs may be classified by the variable of learner autonomy that is, “by the extent that the learner or the teacher controls the educational processes, especially determining objectives, implementing teaching strategies, and making evaluations” (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 208).
37
Components of Structure
• It is useful to recognize three critical components of structure as: determining objectives, implementing teaching strategies, and making evaluations. These can be thought of as the principle variables on which learner autonomy or teacher controlled structure vary and which introduce the next section on theoretical refinements.
38
“Theoretical Refinements” • Garrison and Baynton (1987) claim that there is an
inverse relationship between LA and instructor control. For example, when LA increases, instructor control decreases.
• Moore and Kearsley see these variables in a “dynamic balance” between instructor and learner in setting objectives, implementing teaching strategies, and making evaluations “that allows the student to develop and maintain control over the learning process” (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 208).
39
Variables Determining Control
• Instructor • Learner
• Setting Objectives
• Implementing Teaching Strategies
• Making Evaluations
40
“Theoretical Refinements”-continued
• The relationship between autonomy and the additional elements of structure, such as pacing and the negotiation of objectives and dialog is further examined by Garrison and Baynton (1987).
• The overall level of structure can be raised through its components individually or collectively. Of course, many people pursue formal education because it provides a structure that otherwise, the learner would have to generate themselves.
41
The Pacing Variable Within Structure
• The issue of pacing in formal learning is an important one as some see the purpose of distance education to be creating “self-paced” learning. In the theory of transactional distance we can see that the efficacy of self-paced learning is complicated by the concept of learner autonomy.
• TD theory predicts that a learner with low autonomy would have more difficulty completing self-paced learning experiences than a learner with higher LA.
42
Pacing within Structure
• The issue of pacing is also complicated by research such as that conducted by Coldeway (1988) who, when comparing “the completion and cost-effectiveness of self-paced learning with that paced by the distance teaching organization” found that, “paced students completed sooner and at lower costs” (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 68).
43
Meaningful Learning
• In discussing the work of Randy Garrison and others on pages 229 and 230 of their 2005 text, Moore and Kearsley introduce an special set of concepts that have become increasingly important and relevant in online education. These concepts relate to the idea that each person makes meaning of the world and of new learning by “assimilating or accommodating new ideas into their existing knowledge structures” (2005, p. 230).
44
Meaningful Learning
• The idea that each person constructs their own understanding of the world is framed by the idea that each individual arrives at this understanding through a socially constructed process. This can be thought of as the process of learning. Moore & Kearsley term this process as “collaborative constructivist” where each individual gains meaning based on their interactions with others.
45
Meaningful Learning • It is important to recognize that the Internet,
especially through discussion boards, blogs, and other online forums, has evolved so that it can provide some support for collaborative constructive processes that likely will influence the shape of education in the future. However, there is a question of depth in informal, online discussions because they can easily be unsystematic and lack evidence or credible, expert guidance and response.
46
Transactional Distance Theory and Practice
• How well do the ideas of correlating dialog, structure, and learner autonomy relate to your own experience of teaching and learning? Did you ever take a course where there was too much structure or too much dialog? How would you rate your own level of learner autonomy? Do you like to participate in setting objectives, devising teaching strategies, and evaluating your performance? Do the variables of structure and dialogue hold in the collaborative construction environment of the discussion board?
47
Furthering Transactional Distance Theory
• The next section introduces some research and further theoretical work on the concepts of transactional distance.
48
Testing TD
• Saba & Shearer (1994) “sought to empirically verify the concepts of transactional distance, structure, and dialogue” through system dynamics modeling and discourse analysis.
49
Testing Dialog and Structure
• Saba & Shearer tested the relationship between dialog and structure. They postulated, and found, an inverse relationship between levels of dialogue and structure writing that “over a period of time, as dialogue increased, transactional distance and structure decreased, and as structure increased, transactional distance also increased; dialogue, however, decreased” (Saba & Shearer, 1994, p. 46). This relationship is graphically represented in the next screen.
50
Over Time
Where: • D = Dialog S = Structure
• TD = Transactional Distance
D = S = TD
51
The converse was also true:
• D = Dialog S = Structure • TD = Transactional Distance
= D S = TD
(Saba & Shearer, 1994)
52
The Role of Instructors
• Saba and Shearer found that when instructors were more direct, learners were less active. They defined “direct” as meaning that instructors provide “guidance, information, and feedback; lead the learner by asking questions; and respond to the learner by informative comments.”
• They also found that “when instructors were more indirect, learners were more active.” They defined “indirect” as meaning that instructors requested “clarification and elaboration from the learner, ask questions for the purpose of clarification, respond to the learners inquiries, and provide supportive and corrective feedback” (Saba & Shearer, 1994, p. 42).
53
Instructor - Learner Control
• Saba and Shearer shed more light on the theory of transactional distance when they found that it “varied according to the rate of dialogue and structure. An increase in the level of learner control increased the rate of dialogue, which in turn decreased the level of transactional distance.
• Conversely, they found that “an increase in the level of instructor control increased the rate of structure, which in turn increased the level of transactional distance” (Saba & Shearer, 1994, p. 54).
54
TD as System
• Saba described education in the theory of transactional distance as a system, finding that “the stability of the system depends on interventions . . . on the action of teacher and learner.” He wrote that,
• “in a plausible scenario, the need for decreasing structure is communicated to the teacher. Consultation automatically increases dialogue; then adjustments in goals, instructional materials, and evaluation procedures occur and the learner achieves the desired level of autonomy” (Saba, 1988, p. 22 as cited in Moore and Kearsley, 1996, pp. 208-209.
55
Theory and Research • Conclusion(s)?
• Further research is needed to understand what variables lie within dialog, structure, and learner autonomy.
• For example, with respect to online education, both Zhang (2003) and Rabinovich (2008) found that the computer interface contributed to TD with better interface design contributing less. However, in general, all computer interfaces appear to add to TD.
56
From TD to EQ
• This concludes this brief introduction of transactional distance theory. The next section introduces Equivalency, a different perspective on distance education theory.
57
Equivalency Theory
• Equivalency theory holds that distance education “should provide equivalent learning experiences for all students - distant and local - in order for there to be expectations of equivalent outcomes of the educational experience” (Simonson, 1999, p. 5).
• Two variables: an individual student’s unique needs, and, an individual student’s unique location are important in equivalency theory.
58
Equivalency Theory - continued
• One of the fundamental premises of Simonson’s work with equivalency theory is that “local and distant learners have fundamentally different environments in which they learn. It is the responsibility of the distance educator to design instructional events that provide learning experiences for individuals and groups of students.”
• Simonson explains further that “the experiences of the local learner and the distant learner should have equivalent value even though specific experiences might be quite different” (Simonson, 1999, p. 7).
59
Equivalency theory suggests that although composed of different experiences, a distance educational experience can, through activities suggested by Moore & Kearsley, be more or less equivalent to a face-to-face learning experience.
= F 2 F
DE
60
Visualizing Equivalency
• The next screen graphically depicts many of the important variables in distance education and suggests that although they may be applied differently, they can yield equivalent results.
61
Variables in Distance Education
Learners Unique Environment
Learner’s Individual Needs
Interactional Strategies
Instructional Materials
Media & Technology
Instructional design and TD Theory: D - S - LA
Evaluation
Learner Control
62
The Varieties of Learning Experience
• Simonson wrote that “the goal of instructional planning for distance education is to develop an approach that makes the sum of experiences for each learner equivalent. Instructional design procedures should attempt to anticipate and provide the collection of experiences that will be most suitable for each student or group of students”
63
The Varieties of Learning Experience
• Simonson goes on to state that “local control” and “personalized instruction” are the core values of the equivalency approach. Of course, local control would be incompatible with a learner having a low degree of autonomy and personalized instruction, while desirable, may be expensive to achieve and may lack collaborative constructivism. On the other hand, because equivalency may be achievable in many different ways, it is a valuable concept even with these potential drawbacks.
64
The Industrialization of Teaching?
• As a final point of discussion, consider the theory of Otto Peters, presented in the section of the Moore & Kearsley text on the “History of a Theory of Distance Education.” Moore & Kearsley tell us that in 1967 Peters published in German the idea that distance education, or technology-mediated education, “is a form of study complementary to our industrial and technological age” (as cited in Moore & Kearsley, 2005, p. 222).
65
The Industrialization of Teaching?
• Distance education then, “is best understood as the application of industrial techniques in the delivery of instruction.” Furthermore, unless these “industrial techniques,” which presumably constitute the division of labor that Moore and Kearsley cite in the “systems” approach when they refer to the idea that it is the “system that teaches” not a teacher, and unless these techniques are practiced, distance education “will not be successful” (p. 222).
66
The Industrialization of Teaching?
• At the end of chapter nine (p. 233), Saba is quoted as commenting further on the idea of the industrialization of teaching when he wrote that forms of distance education often found in extended and continuing education divisions of traditional colleges and universities will grow to form a distinct alternative to traditional education and that the forces of traditional, face-to-face education and distance education will engage in a “battle” that will reach “epic proportions” in the 21st century (Moore & Kearsley, 2005, p. 233).
67
The Industrialization of Teaching?
• Because the industrialization of education in the form of distance education first emerged in the context of theory, consider the merits of the industrialization of education and the potential for a war between the forces that represent the “craft” model of teaching that emerged in the face-to-face environment versus the “industrial” model of teaching in a distance education environment. Are the characteristics that attract people to education in the craft model in conflict with the characteristics that support and define the distance model?
68
Craft versus Industrialized Models of Teaching
• Many educators report that the reason they have chosen to be an educator is because they value interpersonal relationships and a “rapport with students as a foundation for learning.” Further, this value has been found to be “harnessed to an assumption that teaching is an art” and that “improvisation, imagination, tempo, pacing, and creativity outline in a general way the subtle, imprecise, and intangible aspects that pervade teaching” (Cuban, 1986, p. 65).
69
Craft versus Industrialization?
• That is, the holistic “craft” model, where teachers expect to, and are trained to, shape all the aspects of education appears in conflict with the industrialization model in which Moore and Kearsley and the systems view advocates dividing teaching into a system where teachers do not teach. In this sense, does the systems view of distance education promote the mechanization of teaching and learning?
70
Should Teaching be Industrialized?
• This presentation ends on the next slide with a few questions for your further consideration.
• For further discussion, please email David Whittier, EdD at [email protected]
71
Should teaching be industrialized?
• Does online distance education need to be industrialized or systematized as Peters (1983) and Moore and Kearsley (2005) suggest or can educators who value directing the whole process of education also exist in the technology-mediated distance domain?
• Will industrialized distance education attract a different kind of person to education and hence, will distance education be more mechanized and less humanistic than face-to-face education?
• Will these forces be in conflict or can they co-exist, serving different needs of different age learners?
72
References Boyd, R., & Apps, J., (1980). Redefining the discipline of adult education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cuban, Larry (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since
1920. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Garrison, R., & Baynton, M., (1987). Beyond independence in distance education: The
concept of control. American Journal of Distance Education 3(1), 3-15. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G., (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G., (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.)
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Perkins, D., (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New
York: The Free Press Rabinovich, T. (2008). Transactional distance in a synchronous Web-extended classroom
learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
73
References - continued
Saba, F., & Shearer, R., (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 8(1) 36-57.
Simonson, M., (1999). Equivalency theory and distance education. Tech Trends 43(5) pp. 5-8.
Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in Web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.
