Steve Wheeler & Fraser Reid

University of Plymouth, UK

A Matter of Perception?

Transactional Distance and Student Support in

Distance Education

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Transactional Distance (TD)

TD is “the physical distance that leads to a psychological … gap, a space of potential misunderstanding between the … instructor and … the learner”.

(Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p 200)

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Transactional Distance

TD has three key components:

•Dialogue (Teacher-Student)•Structure (Course elements)•Learner Autonomy

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

TD Effects (Close TD)

ST

Dialogue

++

Structure

- -

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

TD Effects

ST

Dialogue

+Structure

+

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

TD Effects (Remote TD)

T S

Structure

++

Dialogue

- -

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Technology Affordances

Affordance Interactivity

Interactive Non-Interactive

Mode Linguistic TelephoneAudioconferenceChat Instant Messaging

E-mail AnswerphoneVoicemail Fax Letter Usenet

Visual Video conferenceVideophone Shared Workspaces

Video Mail

Technological Affordance for Interactivity (Whittaker, 1996)

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Hypotheses

•H1: Mediated dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than f2f dialogue

•H2: Asynchronous dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than other modes of communication

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

The Study •Quantitative study over 3 years•N= 348 participants•Teacher Trainees •Mainly mature (x = 40.8, sd = 8.15)•307 Females, 38 Males•Questionnaire based•f2f, e-mail, telephone & videoconference modes EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

~

Hypothesised Causal TD Model

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Approaches to Study

Expected Tutor Support

TechnologyMode

Dialogue

StudentAutonomy

SocialPresence

Immediacy

Structure

TransactionalDistance

Path Model (f2f)

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Autonomy

Surface

Tenacity Immediacy

Presence

Structure

StudentCharacteristics

TechnologyAffordances

0.12

-0.65*

-0.30*

Four models created, one for each communication mode

Autonomous Students

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Autonomy

Surface

Tenacity Immediacy

Presence

Structure

StudentCharacteristics

TechnologyAffordances

-0.09

0.02

0.37

Surface Students

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Autonomy

Surface

Tenacity Immediacy

Presence

Structure

StudentCharacteristics

TechnologyAffordances

0.48

0.75

0.65

Tenacious Students

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Autonomy

Surface

Tenacity Immediacy

Presence

Structure

StudentCharacteristics

TechnologyAffordances

0.88*

1.26*

1.23*

Summary of Results

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

f2f telephone e-mail video

Autonomy – Structure -0.09 0.65 1.21* -0.16

Autonomy – Presence 0.02 0.73* -1.94* 0.22

Autonomy – Immediacy 0.37 2.00* 0.85* -0.54

Surface – Structure 0.48 0.91* -1.00* -3.06

Surface – Presence 0.82 1.75 0.50 1.94

Surface – Immediacy 0.65 1.92 -0.82* -3.09

Tenacity – Structure 0.95* 0.23 -0.40 2.86

Tenacity – Presence 1.32* 0.48 0.40 2.01

Tenacity – Immediacy 1.23* 0.60 -0.25 2.57

** p <.01 * p < .05

X 2 179.76** 155.01** 149.94** 153.90**

df 120 127 121 125

CFI 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.92

N 305 51 51 72

Conclusions

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

• Autonomous learners perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy through telephone dialogue

• They experience highest levels of structure through e-mail

• Synchronous communication reduces TD and is preferred to e-mail and co-present contact

Conclusions

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

• Surface learners perceive least structure through telephone, highest structure through e-mail communication

• They perceive greater immediacy of dialogue through telephone, and lowest through e-mail communication

• Synchronous communication reduces TD

Conclusions

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

• Tenacious learners experience highest structure in co-present dialogue

• They perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy of dialogue in co-present settings

• Co-present contact reduces TD, but learners perceive higher structure

Conclusions

EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

• We propose that immediacy and social presence, as two sub-factors of dialogue, be considered as important predictors of transactional distance.

Thank you for listening

www2.plymouth.ac.uk/distancelearningEDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology