Reference: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Aldrich A. 2000
www3.gartner.com |
|
|
Evaluating an End-to-End
E-Learning Infrastructure Provider |
|
Note number: R-10-9646
(Advanced search under author's name) |
|
2) Basiel A (1999) DELBERT
Demo: www.iclml.mdx.ac.uk |
|
3) Checkand P 1999 Soft
systems Methodology in action - Routledge Press, London |
|
4) Hein G.
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/ghein/mazeweb.html * |
|
5) Mason, R. (1998), “Models
of Online Courses” ALN Magazine 2 (2) |
|
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm |
|
6)
Moore, M.G. 1993 “Theory of transactional distance” In: Desmon Keegan (Ed)
Theoretical principles of distance education London, New York: Routledge 1993 |
|
7) Moore,
M.G. 1983 “On a theory of independent
study” |
|
In:
Stewart, D. Keegan & B. Holmberg (Eds.) Distance Education |
|
International Perspectives,
London: Croom |
|
8)
Stephenson, J. 2001 "Teaching and Learning Online: |
|
Pedagogies for New
Technologies" Kogan Page Ltd., London |
|
*
Keynote speech given July 18, 1997 at the 1997 Visitor Studies Association |
|
(VSA) conference in
Birmingham, Alabama. |
|
It
will be published in 1998 proceedings from that conference and is provided
here |
|
by
special permission from VSA. |
|
Information about VSA,
contact Prof. Ross Loomis, President, Visitor Studies Assoc., |
|
Psychology Department, |
|
Clark
B219, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80521-1876, |
|
email, loomisr@lamar.colostate.edu. |
|
|
Theory of transactional
distance |
|
Moore (1993) sees the extent
of transactional distance in an educational programme as a function of these
three variables; dialogue, structure and learner autonomy. Dialogue describes
the extent to which the learner and educator are able to respond to one
another. Some elements of dialogue are the content, educational philosophy
and (virtual) environment factors such as the medium / online tools for
communication. For example, dialogue is low in a one-way B.B.C. T.V.
delivered programme, but high in an interactive text-chat on the web. |
|
|
|
Structure is a measure of an
educational programme's responsiveness to the learner's individual needs.
Some elements of structure are the adaptability of learning objectives,
teaching strategies, and evaluation methods (summative and formative) to
support the learning experience. Highly structured programmes are determined
for the learner in a linear, content-driven design, while a loosely
structured design allows flexibility to support a student-centred pedagogy
(Baume 1994). |
|
|
|
Learner autonomy sees the
student sharing responsibility for their own education process. One
illustration of this is when students make presentations to the class
(face-to-face or online). By acting as a resource for their peers, motivation
and self-direction is supported (Mueller 2000).The transactional distance
formula shows a relationship between dialogue, structure and learner
autonomy: |
|
|
|
Transactional
distance formula |
|
(+)
learner autonomy = (-) structure + (+) dialogue |
|
(+) =
an increase, (-) = a decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
The greater the transactional
distance, the more autonomy the learner will exercise. Low transactional
distance can be achieved by much dialogue and little predetermined structure
(Muelller 2000). |
|
[> Back to Summary Totals] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|