Main Article Content
In flexible and open models of education students and lecturers experience a virtual sense of separation that is caused by more than physical distance between students and lecturers. Transactional distance is “a psychological and communications gap, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of lecturer and those of the student” created in part by the physical distance inherent to online learning (Moore 1991, p. 2). a large transactional distance such as that between geographically dispersed students and lecturers in an asynchronous, text-based, online learning environment may contribute to students’ feelings of isolation and disconnectedness, which can lead to reduced levels of motivation and engagement and consequently attrition.
When designing e-learning experiences lecturers must consider two variables that affect transactional distance: structure and dialogue. Structure refers to the flexibility or rigidity of the pedagogical methods and strategies used in an e-learning experience. Dialogue refers to the interaction between the lecturer and student during an e-learning experience. Moore does not suggest that either structure or dialogue are inherently good things. Each may be appropriate in different circumstances and a typical educational event such as a conventional lecture will, at a micro-level, move constantly between the two. Another dimension of the theory suggests that more autonomous students, being self-directed, are better able to cope with more structure while less autonomous students benefit more from greater dialogue.
This paper explores a proposed model of flexible learning which attempts to inform practitioners of the fluid, interdependent relationships between students, resources, contexts and lecturers. This helps explain and justify a reconceptualisation of the role of the lecturer and suggests how social activity is also pivotal in successful learning outcomes for students.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
Anderson, S. K., & Middleton, V. (2002). You Want Me to do What? The Cultural and Psychological Struggle of Putting a Course Online. The Technology Source, January/February 2002. Available online at http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034 or http://technologysource.org/article/436/
Armitage, A. (2007). (3rd Ed.) Teaching and Training in Post-Compulsory Education and Training. McGraw Hill, Open University Press: Maidenhead.
Bostock, J., & Wood, J. (2012). Teaching 14-19: A Handbook. McGraw Hill, Open University Press: Maidenhead.
Bostock, J., & Wood, J. (2014). Supporting Student Transitions 14-19: Approaches to Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Canning, R. (2002). Distance or Distancing Education? A Case Study in Technology Based Learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(01).
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and Practice of Distance Education. London: Routledge.
Knowles, M. (1984). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Lehman, R. M., & Conceicao, S. C. O. (2010). Creating a sense of Presence in Online Teaching. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M. G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6.
Moore, M. G. (2007). Theory of Transactional Distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 89-101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moore, M. G. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. Open Learning, 5(3), 10-15.
Pedler, M. (1990). Book Review of Action Learning: New Techniques for Action Learning. Management Learning, 11, 219-223.
Peters, O. (2000). The transformation of the university into an institution of independent learning. In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Changing university teaching: Reflections on creating educational technologies (pp. 10-23). Routledge: Abingdon.
Scales, P. (2008). Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector. McGraw Hill, Open University Press: Maidenhead.
Thomas, D. (1995). Flexible Learning Strategies in Higher and Further Education. Cassell: New York.