Reference:  <Back [Home] Next tab >
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.elearning.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).
SCORM: Interoperability Standards: 
 http://www.cetis.ac.uk/static/standards.html
Links to Types of Discussion Boards below:
This List of references comes from a research paper:
"Push & Pull Pedagogy for
Web-based Instructionally Designed Environments"
This paper can be accessed at: www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/
Discussion boards that support images:
  http://www.screenporch.com/sp/product/demo_conference.html  
www.yahoo.com - for Yahoo Groups
http://www.delphi.com/ 
2D virtual reality discussion environments:
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/stadium/aboutstadium.html 
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/researchweb.html  
http://www.thepalace.com
3D worlds:
http://www.activeworlds.com/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Virtual+Reality%2C+3D+worlds&btnG=Google+Search
[> Back to Summary Totals]
<Back [Home] Next tab >