5

The Theory of Transactional Distance

Michael Grahame Moore

Transactional distance theory: historical significance.

The publication of this Handbook coincides with the fortieth anniversary of the first

appearance of what became known as the theory of transactional distance (Moore 1972,

1973).

To most readers of the Handbook, now living in a world in which “distance education”,

and its offspring, e-learning, online learning, and blended learning - among others - are

such familiar co-habitants, it is hard to imagine a world like that of the 1970’s and 80’s,

when the idea that students might learn as well apart from their teachers as in a classroom

was, to the vast majority of mainstream educators, a preposterous idea. There was of

course, correspondence teaching, a form of distance education that had opened doors for

millions of otherwise deprived “backdoor learners” as has been described in an earlier

chapter of this Handbook, and there were educational programs broadcast by radio and

television too. However so despised and derided by the educational establishment were

these, that it would be a very adventurous professor of education who would deign to

mention them when lecturing on teaching methodology, or countenance their

representation in the theories about education that appeared in the textbooks studied by

teachers in training. Because there was no theory framing such out-of-classroom practice,

there was no academic research either. That is not to say there was no research, as has
been described also in a previous chapter, for it was left to leading practitioners like

Charles Wedemeyer and Gayle Childs to create a research agenda, derived from their

need to evaluate the effectiveness of their correspondence and broadcast education.

Scholarly research, in the sense of research driven by theory and contributing to theory,

was impossible, simply because there was no theory to start with. All scholarly research

in education was grounded in the almost universally accepted assumption that

“instruction refers to the activity which takes place during schooling and within the

classroom setting” (Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development 1971).

It was as an attempt to establish the identity of the other form of teaching and

learning, i.e. teaching and learning that did not take place in classrooms that the concept

of “distance education” was first proposed, and developed into what became referred to

as the theory of transactional distance. What had hitherto been an activity on the far

margins of educational practice was given a name, called, for the first time in English,

“distance education”. It was then defined in terms of three sets of variables that have

proven to be sufficiently robust to enable subsequent research and further theorizing by

an ever-growing number of students and academics, and for the concept to enter into the

mainstream of educational discourse, as has the practice of distance education also

entered the mainstream of education and training at every level. As a result, whatever

specific issues might be the cause of disagreement among scholars of our present

generation, it is only by rather convoluted and even bizarre argument that any

contemporary writer would argue that there is no such field of research and study as

distance education. True, there are those who cause confusion by failing to recognize the

full breadth of the field and its multi-dimensional nature, as they focus on one or other of
its component parts or one of its many applications—expressed in terms such as

distributed learning, tele-learning, online learning, and e-learning—and others who by

accident or design conflate distance education and “contiguous” (Moore, 1972, page 76)

education, using such terms as open learning, blended learning and flexi-learning.

However, even such muddling of concepts does not detract from the general recognition

that there is a universe of educational programs and practices that are distinctly different

from those where teachers and learners work in the same space and time, a field worthy

of study and research, and the practice of which is also worth study and training. It is this

recognition and acceptance that distance education has its own identity and distinguishing

pedagogical characteristics that is the first claim of transactional distance as an

educational theory.

To further appreciate the historical significance of the theory, it is the character of

that identity that must be understood, for this was the first American theory to define the

field in pedagogical terms. By 1970, as already noted, education outside the classroom

had existed in practice for almost a hundred years, beginning as correspondence study

through the mail and later supplemented by radio and television programs, the use of

telephone and the earliest computers. As long as this practice was defined solely by the

technology, the few research questions that were generated were also stated as studies of

the technology—usually how education through that technology might best resemble

“real” teaching, i.e. teaching in classrooms. This began to change with the theory of

transactional distance, which showed that teaching and learning in separate locations is

better understood not as an aberration from the classroom, but as a significantly different

pedagogical domain.
Origins of transactional distance theory

The argument for legitimizing, identifying and researching this kind of teaching

and learning and the need for developing its own theory was argued in the following

terms in a 1972 presentation to the World Conference of the International Council for

Correspondence Education (ICCE):

"As we continue to develop various non-traditional methods of reaching the

growing numbers of people who cannot or will not attend conventional

institutions but who choose to learn apart from their teachers, we should divert

some of our resources to the macro-factors, i.e. describing and defining the

field …… discriminating between the various components of this field;

identifying the critical elements of the various forms of learning and teaching,

in short building a theoretical framework which will embrace this whole area

of education." (Moore, 1973, p. 661)

In that presentation, distance education was first defined. It was defined as: "the family of

instructional methods in which the teaching behaviors are executed apart from the

learning behaviors … so that communication between the learner and the teacher must be

facilitated by print, electronic, mechanical, or other device" (Moore, 1972: 76). The

“critical elements” mentioned in the extract from the ICCE presentation above, were

identified through a process of empirical research, a content analysis of a large selection

of program descriptions and other literature. This analysis produced three sets of “macro-

factors” and it was these that, it was argued, should define the field in three dimensions.

The first of these, derived from analysis of the curricula taught through the technologies

of the day was described as the teaching-learning program’s “structure”; the second,

derived from analysis of communications between teachers and learners – mostly at that

time by mail but also by telephone - is the “dialogue” in the program. The third described

the roles of learners, in terms of the extent to which they exercise degrees of “autonomy”

in deciding what to learn, how to learn, and how much to learn. The pervasive

requirement in all distance education environments for learners to exercise degrees of

self-management was reflected in Wedemeyer’s (1971) definition of independent study

as well as informed by the (then) radical writings of Carl Rogers (1969), Abraham

Maslow (for example Maslow, 1968), and other "humanistic" psychologists.

The term, "distance education" originated at the University of Tübingen in

Germany, where researchers in the 1960’s wrote about "fernstudium" (“distance study")

to describe how certain industrial principles, such as division of labor and use of

technology, could be applied in the craft of teaching. The terms “dialogue”, “structure”

and “transaction” originated with adult education professor Robert Boyd. The term

“dialogue” was chosen deliberately in preference to “interaction” in recognition of

Boyd’s argument that the latter term includes relationships that are manipulative and

negative and that an alternative term should defines the kind of helping, constructive and

positive exchanges that are required in a teaching-learning relationship. Boyd’s teaching

theories were heavily influenced by Gestalt psychology, and it was from this that the
importance of identifying programs according to their ‘structure” originated. The term

“transactional distance” was first used in Boyd’s 1980 Handbook of Adult Education

(Boyd and Apps, 1980). Originating with John Dewey, the concept of transaction

"connotes the interplay among the environment, the individuals and the patterns of

behaviors in a situation" (Boyd and Apps, 1980, p. 5). Thus the transaction in distance

education is the interplay of teachers and learners in environments that have the special

characteristic of their being spatially separate from one another. As the concept of

transactional distance was refined, what emerged was a typology of educational programs

having this distinguishing characteristic of separation of learner and teacher. A typology,

as a heuristic device should accommodate all possible types, and in this case

accommodates programs at one extreme that are relatively highly structured and quasi-

industrial, owing a lot to behaviorist and cognitivist theories of learning, as well as those

– at the other extreme – that reflect the humanists’ (and nowadays, constructivists’)

perspective of a learner-centered pedagogy, in which learners engage in a relatively high

degree of dialogue with a more-or-less supportive tutor. (It should be noted that the terms

“relatively”, “varying degrees” and “more or less” are very significant, since

transactional distance theory describes the fullest range of all possible degrees of

structure, dialogue and autonomy.) Because this is a point that is often overlooked, it

bears repeating that transactional distance is relative rather than absolute. Teaching-

learning programs are not dichotomously either “distance” or not “distance”, but they

have “more distance” or “less distance”. One has more dialogue than another, less

structure than another, or allows greater learner autonomy than another. Commenting on

the significance of this, the distinguished German scholar Otto Peters (one of the
Tübingen group mentioned earlier) says: “by showing the transactional distance not as a

fixed quantity but as a variable, which results from the respective changing interplay

between dialogue, the structured nature of the teaching program being presented, and the

autonomy of the students, it (the transactional distance theory) provides a convincing

explanation of the enormous flexibility of this form of academic teaching. It also provides

an insight into the pedagogical complexity of distance education ---“ (Peters, 1998, p.

42).

More about structure, dialogue and autonomy

More about structure

An educational course consists of one or more lessons, each containing such

elements as: learning objectives; presentations of information, case studies, images,

possibly audio and video recordings; activities and exercises, questions for discussion,

advice about study, projects, and tests. Each of these might be very strictly specified by

the designer(s), leaving little room for a student or instructor’s deviation. You only have

to imagine the content of courses designed for medical, nursing, military or other

technical training to see how such rigid standardization would be appropriate. To arrive at

the structure that would be most effective, an instructor or design team might test parts of

the course on a pilot group of students, to find out, for example, precisely how long it will

take each student to accomplish each objective and the suitability of the test questions

aimed at evaluating performance; they might measure the reading speed of the sample of
students and then tailor the number of pages of reading required for each part of the

course. Where more than one instructor is to be employed (which in better distance

education systems is usually the case), to ensure all students achieve precisely the same

degree of competence, instructors may be provided detailed marking schemes. During the

instruction, they may monitor the progress of each student very frequently and give

regular feedback and remedial activities for those that need them, and so ensure that

every student has accomplished each step of the course in a tightly controlled sequence.

Each student might have to follow the exact same sequence of reading and activity; audio

and video materials may be synchronized very tightly and linked to specific pages in a

study guide or web-site; synchronous discussions may be carefully organized minute by

minute to ensure participation by each student, according to a carefully scripted plan. A

recorded video program for example is usually highly structured with virtually every

activity of the instructor and every minute of time scripted and every piece of content

pre-determined. There is little or no opportunity for any student to deviate according to

personal needs from what the instructors have planned for that period of time. All this

describes a course or program that has a high degree of structure. By comparison, other

courses are designed with a loose structure in which students can follow any of several

different paths, or many paths, through the content or may negotiate significant variations

in the program with the instructor(s). Such a course might allow students to surf the

Internet, browse YouTube or a loosely determined set of web-sites or view a CD or DVD

or podcast at their own speed, chose from a library of recommended readings, and only

submit written assignments when they feel ready. They may be told to call an instructor

if, and only when, they need advice. Such would be a course with much lower structure
than the one described before. Since structure expresses the rigidity or flexibility of the

course's educational objectives, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods, it describes

the extent to which a course can accommodate or be responsive to each learner's

individual needs and preferences.

More about dialogue

Dialogue is a particular kind of interpersonal interaction, and it happens after a

course is designed, as teachers exchange words and other symbols with learners, aimed at

the latter’s creation of knowledge. Interaction is not always constructive, but dialogue by

definition is. Dialogue has a synergistic character, as each party in the exchange builds

upon comments of the other. In dialogue, “each party…is a respectful and active listener;

each is a contributor and builds on the contributions of the other party or parties.”

(Moore, 1993, p. 26).

Courses of instruction may allow almost continuous dialogue between students

and teachers or none, and there is a range of variations between the extremes. The extent

and nature of dialogue in any course is determined by numerous factors, and over-arching

all is the structure of the course. For example, a teaching institution using synchronous

video conferencing on the Web (a potentially highly dialogic medium) but holding the

view that the role of the student is to assimilate information by listening and taking notes,

might design its courses with highly structured lessons and dialogue limited to asking

factual questions of the teacher and receiving answers. Obviously another particularly

important variable affecting dialogue is the medium of communication. In a

correspondence course in which communication is through postal services, although there

is the potential for each learner to engage in a relatively highly dialogic relationship with

the instructor, the pace of such dialogue is slow when it is conducted by traditional mail.

If the same course was delivered on the Web, even though communication is in text, a

greater degree of dialogue is likely, as there can be rapid and frequent responses by

teacher to student. A tutorial between an instructor and a single student conducted in real-

time by audio online is likely to be a highly dialogic process, while a similar online

teleconference between groups would probably have a lower degree of dialogue (for each

student). Some courses, such as those using CDs or “teach yourself” books, are not only

very highly structured, but have virtually no dialogue with a live instructor. Other

determinants of the extent of dialogue in a course or lesson are the subject matter of the

course, the personality of the teacher, the ability of a learner to competently participate in

the dialogue, and cultural and language differences between instructors and students.

Dialogue is of course also powerfully affected by the abilities of students to manage their

side of the process. Highly autonomous learners are able to cope with a lower degree of

dialogue but less autonomous need a relatively high degree of dialogue.

Transactional distance is a function of dialog and structure.

In the typical recorded video podcast instructional program, the teaching is highly

structured and there is minimal teacher-learner dialogue; (we have to say “minimal”

because there is a kind of vicarious dialogue between the learner as he/she uses the

recordings and the instructors who prepared them, as the learner experiences what
Holmberg ( 1981) called an “internal didactic conversation”). With such a high degree of

structure and little or no dialogue, the transactional distance is high. By comparison a

virtual class meeting in Second Life could experience considerable dialogue, though with

some restriction from the technology, and less structure, so the course would have, and

the students experience, less transactional distance. It should be clear that the extent of

dialogue and the degree of structure varies from course to course. It is not simply a matter

of the technology, though that definitely imposes limitations, but also depends on the

teaching philosophy of the instructor, the capacity of learners, the nature of the subject.

For these reasons, online distance education programs vary enormously in the

extent of both structure and dialogue. A common cause of failure, or at least of courses

falling short of expectations, is failure to design the balance of structure and dialogue that

is appropriate for a particular student population and subject field.

How the variables of dialog and structure interact to determine transactional

distance can be seen in a simple two-dimensional graph (Figure 1).

PLACE FIGURE ONE ABOUT HERE

More on learner autonomy

The Humanistic psychologists, particularly Carl Rogers ( 1969) were responsible

for establishing the idea of “learner autonomy”, supported by empirical research, notably

that of Alan Tough (1971), that demonstrated that students have, in different degrees, the

ability to develop a personal learning plan, to find resources for study in their work or
community environments, and to evaluate for themselves when progress was satisfactory.

During the research that led to the development of the theory of transactional distance it

became apparent that some programs allow or demand the greater exercise of learning

autonomy than others and that there are conditions under which greater learner autonomy

may be exercised and others where a lower degree of autonomy is more appropriate.

Thus it was hypothesized, and demonstrated, that teaching-learning programs can

be organized, not only according to the extent of structure and dialogue, but also

according to the extent of self-management, or learner autonomy, permitted by each

program.

Here is how the idea was first explained, in 1972:

“In our efforts to explore various aspects of learner autonomy in distance

teaching and learning programs, we have tried to prepare a system that makes

it possible to order programs according to the kind and extent of autonomy the

learner is expected or permitted - to exercise. We are placing programs in

appropriate positions on a continuum, with those permitting the exercise of

most autonomy at one extreme and those permitting the least at the other. For

every program, we seek to identify the relationship between learners and

teachers, and where control of each instructional process lies, by asking:

Is learning self initiated and self-motivated?

Who identifies goals and objectives, and selects problems for study?

Who determines the pace, the sequence, and the methods of information

gathering?
 What provision is there for the development of learners' ideas and for

creative solutions to problems?

Is emphasis on gathering information external to the learner?

How flexible is each instructional process to the requirements of the

learner?

How is the usefulness and quality of learning judged?

By this subjective, inductive method we can put together a typology of

distance teaching programs, classified by the dimension of learner autonomy”.

(Moore 1972, p. 83)

Applying these criteria, programs were classified on a range from AAA meaning

the learner had full autonomy in deciding what to learn (Goals) how to learn (Execution)

and how much to learn (Evaluation) at one extreme, and NNN at the other extreme,

describing a program in which the learner had absolutely no freedom to make any

decisions about the learning program. These are only theoretical constructs, because no

one is entirely without freedom or absolutely without constraint. Between these

theoretical poles lie all teaching-learning programs. This can be illustrated in a model

(Figure 2.)

PLACE FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

Since this has sometimes been misunderstood, it should be noted that it was not

suggested that all learners are fully or even highly autonomous. It is recognized that
learners vary in their ability to exercise autonomy, and might want to have greater

autonomy in some courses than others. It is very appropriate for educators to allow the

exercise of more or less autonomy. Also, it is not suggested that highly autonomous

learners do not need teachers. It is the relationship of such learners to teachers that is

different than that between teachers and less autonomous learners, with the latter needing

more emotional support from the teacher and the former only needing instrumental

support, i.e. information and the advice necessary to ‘get the job done”.

Relationship of autonomy and transactional distance.

In a course with low structure and high dialogue, i.e. low transactional distance,

learners receive information and guidance through on-going dialogue with their

instructors and through instructional materials that allow modifications to suit their

individual needs, learning style and pace. Such a program with a lower degree of

transactional distance is invariably more attractive to those learners who are less secure in

managing their own learning. On the other hand, more autonomous learners are more

comfortable with less dialogue, receiving instruction through more highly structured

course materials, comfortable with finding information and making decisions for

themselves about what to study, when, where, what ways, and to what extent. In other

words, the greater the transactional distance the more the learners have to exercise

autonomy.

This relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.

 PLACE FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE

Transactional distance theory at work in research, 1988-2005.

Since the publication of the Second Edition of this Handbook, the theory of

transactional distance (TD) has entered even further into the mainstream of discourse

about distance education. Indeed it is frequently used even when the three-dimensional

theory it represents has been neither identified nor recognized. Occasionally such uncited

use is deliberate, but usually the failure to reference the literature is because the idea of

transactional distance is now so much a part of the general knowledge of the field that the

source is either not known, or not considered noteworthy. Leaving such cases aside, we

can provide here a brief mention of some of the dissertation and other studies in which

the theory has been formally acknowledged as the basis of the research.

Although the idea of transactional distance first appeared in print in 1980 (Moore

1980), the first major researcher to recognize its potential, and subsequently to contribute

significantly to the development of transactional distance theory was Farhad Saba. In

pioneering the use of computer simulation, Saba and colleagues developed a model based

on principles of systems dynamics that operationalized dialogue, structure, and autonomy

(Saba, 1988; Saba and Twitchell, 1988), and tested the hypothesized changes in each of

these that resulted from changes in others. In a subsequent project, Saba and Shearer

(1994), used discourse analysis to identify ten categories of teacher-learner transactions

and again demonstrated how changes in dialogue, structure, and teacher/learner control
effected changes in each of the others. Saba and Shearer’s instrument has been adapted

for use by others, as for example by Shinkle (2001) in an analysis of dialogue by e-mail

in a doctoral distance education program. Enhancements and modifications of dialogue

and structure have been proposed, as, for example by Braxton (1999) in what she called a

“refined theory of transactional distance”. Along with Saba and Shearer and others,

Braxton also attempted to create an instrument to measure transactional distance. An

instrument developed by Zhang (2003) measured transactional distance in web-based

courses, not only between student and teacher, but also student and student, student and

content, and between student and interface procedures. Based on an analysis of 58

research articles in five distance education journals, Jung (2001) suggested that in Web-

based instruction, the dialogue variables include academic, collaborative, and

interpersonal interaction, while the structure variables are content expandability, content

adaptability, and visual layout, and learning variables are learner autonomy and

collaboration. Gallo (2001) used transactional distance theory in an attempt to identify

the competencies needed for success as distance learners, and proposed a training

program to develop these competencies. Shin (2001) expanded the idea of transactional

distance by postulating and testing a concept of transactional presence. Caspi, Gorsky,

and Chajut (2003) developed what they called a “restructured model of transactional

distance” consisting of four kinds of dialogue, and used it to examine the effect of group

size on students' behavior in asynchronous discussion groups.

Bischoff (1993) and Bischoff et al. (1996) reported the effect of electronic mail in

lowering transactional distance in public health and nursing courses delivered by video-

conferencing. In what were probably the first cross-cultural studies, Gayol (1996) and
Bunker, Gayol, Nti, and Reidell (1996) examined transactional distance in courses

delivered by audio-conferencing and electronic mail to students in four countries. The

effects of differences in culture on transactional distance among foreign graduate students

in the US was studied by Walker Fernandez (1999), and effects of cultural differences on

transactional distance in computer science courses delivered on the Web have been

reported by Lemone (2005). Moore, M.H. (1999) used transactional distance theory in a

study of the effects of changing a training program from an individual, self-directed

package to a group method using videoconferencing. Vrasidas and MacIsaac (1999)

studied course structure and dialogue in computer mediated instruction, and found that

quality of dialogue is significantly affected by prior experience. In a study of

mathematics taught on the Internet, Anderson (1999) found that students and faculty

reported that their dialogues were meaningful, though they were relatively highly

structured, and that while these courses facilitated learner autonomy, for some students

the level of autonomy was uncomfortable and they wanted more dialogue with

instructors. Atkinson (1999) described instructor strategies such as humanizing and the

use of visual techniques as ways of increasing dialogue to reduce transactional distance in

video based courses. Hopper (2000) found that students who reported a perception of

high transactional distance did not think it impeded their achievement or satisfaction with

their learning experience. Transactional distance was among variables examined by

Rovai (2000) to see what makes a sense of community in asynchronous learning

networks, and later (Rovai, 2002) he described steps to increase a sense of community by

facilitating dialogue. Chen, Y. (2001) found that in a Web-based course, previous

experience with distance education and in-class learner support had no effect on students’
perception of the transactional distance but the learner's skill in using the Internet and the

extent of the dialogue that occurred between instructor and learners and among learners

had significant effects. Clouse (2001) found that transactional distance in an online

course was lower in a chat mode and higher in a threaded discussion. Dron (2002)

reported an online course explicitly designed to have a high degree of dialogue, in which

an unanticipated reversion by instructors to increased structure occurred, with negative

effects on both quality and quantity of dialogue. Subsequently Dron and colleagues,

(2004) discuss how students’ self-organization (i.e. the exercise of autonomy) in a highly

structured learning environment can lead to increased dialogue, and thus a program in

which both structure and dialogue are high. Williams (2003) includes implications for

transactional distance theory in a discussion of research on retention and barriers to

success in an online graduate program. Wikeley and Muschamp (2004) developed a

model for the delivery of professional doctorate programs at a distance, arguing that

dialogue might be increased through a structure that allowed greater adaptability of

content by instructors. Edstrom (2002) discussed transactional distance in the classroom,

and how it can be reduced through use of information and communication technologies.

Wheeler (2002) concluded that transactional distance can explain why “remote students

expect a great deal more from their instructors than their local peers in terms of social and

practical support...” (Page 425). Lee and Gibson (2003) concluded from a study of adult

learners taking a computer mediated course that instructors should encourage dialogue,

allow for structural flexibility, encourage critical reflection, and permit students to take

on some degree of control. Witte and Wolf (2003) in a study of mentoring recommended

that instructors “ …should consider the perceived transactional distance as well as

keeping the various types of mentoring interaction, facilitation, and structured student

collaboration in mind when organizing materials and assignments” (pp. 98-99). Lowell

(2004) found that significant predictors for perceived distance among students in online

courses were dialog, social presence, and fluency. Pruitt (2005) in a study of students in

three delivery modalities (Internet, telecourse, compressed video) found dialogue,

structure and learner autonomy to be significant in predicting self-ratings of performance

and grades. Stein, Wanstreet, et al (2005) concluded that satisfaction with the course

structure and with dialogue led to satisfaction with perceived knowledge gained. Dupin-

Bryant (2004) identified teaching behaviors necessary to account for transactional

distance in a survey of 225 instructors at nine land grant universities. Avive, Erlich,

Ravid, and Gava (2003) evaluated dialogue in two Open University of Israel courses, one

more structured than the other, and found that high levels of critical thinking were more

evident in the structured environment. Also at the Open University of Israel, Gorsky,

Caspi, and Trumper (2004) investigated dialogue in a physics course and Gorsky, Caspi,

and Tuvi-Arid (2004) in a chemistry course. Gorsky and Caspi, concluded that

transactional distance could be explained primarily in terms of dialogue, though they also

said that dialogue was supported by “structural resources” such as “instructional design,

group size and accessibility of students and instructors” (2005: 140). Offir and colleagues

describe how an analysis of verbal and nonverbal interactions revealed the strategies

teachers use to reduce transactional distance. They report that “data, indicating significant

cross-context changes in teacher-student interaction patterns validate Moore’s (1972,

1993) transactional distance theory”; they believe their “empirical evidence of changes in
specific categories of interaction also expands the conceptualization of the dialogue

variable” (Ofir et al 2004: 101)

Among studies that focus primarily on learner autonomy, Munro’s (1991)

study reported a relationship between dropping out of distance learning programs and

perceived deficiencies in dialogue. Emulating, though not replicating, Moore’s (1976)

study of learner autonomy and the cognitive style of field dependence-independence,

Brenner (1996) investigated field dependence-independence of learners who studied by

video and text, and found no relationship between field independence and achievement.

Richardson (1998) also failed to find a relationship between students’ field independence,

their course evaluations, preference for independent learning, course completion, or level

of autonomy. In her study of learner autonomy among nurses returning to college,

Thompson, (1998) used questionnaires based on Baynton’s (1992) derivation of

transactional distance theory, and concluded the distance learners did not show greater

autonomy than traditional students, which she believed was probably due to the high

degree of structure in both their programs. Chen (1997) and Chen and Willits (1998,

1999) who studied teaching strategies in videoconference courses concluded that “the

more independent the students reported themselves to be, the more frequently they

indicated in-class interaction”. This finding of a positive relationship between dialogue

and autonomy was later confirmed by Huang (2000) who gathered data about Web based

courses. Kanuka, Collett, and Caswell (2002) investigated the effects of integrating

asynchronous Internet communication into distance courses and wrote: “Finally, in terms

of Moore’s theory of the relationship between structure and dialogue versus learner

autonomy, the outcomes of this study not only support this idea, but also provide
additional insights and clarification. While structure is a relatively straightforward

concept that that tends not to be in need of further clarification, in agreement with

Garrison and Baynton (1987), we find that autonomy is a complex and multi-faceted

construct. However, while Garrison and Baynton describe autonomy in terms of power,

control and support, the participants in this study referred to autonomy in terms of

flexibility.”

Transactional distance theory at work in research 2006-2011.

As mentioned above, the terminology of transactional distance is widely used, even when

the actual theory it represents has been neither identified nor recognized. The number of

studies that use the term in this loose a-theoretical manner is so large and there is so little

coherence in such use that there is no point in trying to include them in our literature

review. More helpfully, we are able to point to examples of studies that are grounded in

the theory, either as the principal source of the research question – the more important, –

or in which TD played a supportive role to some other theory. Perhaps most interesting

and valuable is a third set of studies, those in which the researcher has set a goal of

refining, developing, adding to or criticizing the theory itself.

What is of special interest perhaps in this new edition of the Handbook is the

extent to which in all these studies, a theory that was conceived in the days of

correspondence education, television and radio broadcasting is now employed in

formulating researchable questions about teaching and learning carried by Web 1.0 and

even Web 2.0 technologies.

 2006-2011 studies in which TD featured as the principal or a dominant theory.

The following is a selection of recent studies in which TD featured as the

principal or a dominant theory :

Falloon (2011) analyzed the effects of using a virtual classroom in graduate teacher

education, and identified positive effects (creating dialogue) and negative (diminishing

learners’ sense of autonomy).

Belair (2011) determined how regular phone calls by teachers contributed to the work

habits of students in a virtual high school.

Mathieson, (2011) examined Shearer’s (2009) idea of “dialogue towards understanding”

in a study of audiovisual feedback as a supplement to text feedback in a graduate online

course.

Watts (2010) studied online dialogue, contrasting participants in baccalaureate radiologic

sciences and in the English department.

McLaren (2010) asked, to what extent does transactional distance affect learner

satisfaction in online Masters courses?

Veale (2009), interviewed students in an online Radiologic Science baccalaureate

program and analyzed results for emergent themes that increase students’ feelings of

connectedness and decrease transactional distance.

McBrien, Jones, and Cheng(2009) studied the use of Elluminate Live! and identified

themes related to dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy.

Deng and Yuen (2009) studiedthe use of educational blogs in higher education.

Bajt (2009) investigated relationships between dialog, structure, support and satisfaction

among “Millennial” online students, and found a positive relationship between structure

and satisfaction.

Benson and Samarawickrema (2009) used cases from two Australian universities in

applying TD to discuss design of courses using Web 2.0 technologies.

A study by Wang and Morgan (2008) investigated student perceptions of using instant

messaging for online discussions in a graduate teacher educational technology course.

Murphy and Rodriguez-Manzanares, (2008) collected data regarding TD in the context of

Web-based high school distance education

Seok (2008) reviewed instructional contents, assessment strategies, and digital libraries in

e-Learning. Stewart (2008) studied online synchronous dialogue.

Dron (2007) extends the theory to the social software, such as blogs, wikis, tagging

systems and collaborative filters.

Beasley (2007) studied the effects of instructor behaviors on student perceptions of the

online learning experience.

Steinman (2007) addressed transactional distance: (a) learner-to-instructor; and (b)

learner-to-other-students in online learning courses.

Lenear (2006) compared mentor-protégé interaction, transactional distance, structure,

satisfaction, and support in Internet-based mentoring.

Mulhollen (2006) demonstrated that interpersonal intelligence was predictive of attitude

toward independent learning, supporting the theory regarding autonomy and transactional

distance.
Kuskis (2006) described the social dynamics in asynchronous online higher education

courses, and concluded that the dialogue between learners as well as instructor-to-learner

dialogue, also reduces transactional distance for learners.

Wallace et al (2006), in one of the relatively few experimental designs, compared two

instructional strategies, and found that students taking quizzes in the lower transactional

distance format performed significantly better.

Aceves (2006) questioned the relevance of the university’s traditional tasks and missions

in the newly emerging online environment.

2006-2011 studies contributing to evolution of the theory.

Every study that uses a theory contributes to the evolution of the theory. However some

studies go further than others in refining, developing, adding to or criticizing the theory

itself -- as compared with those studies listed above in which the purpose of the theory

was to guide the formulation of the research question. The following is a selection of

recent studies in which the researchers articulated the evolution of the theory as one of

the purposes of their research:

Horzum (2011) is one of several who have attempted to develop a scale to measure

transactional distance. A scale consisting of 38 items and 5 sub-factors was used to

measure perception of transactional distance in a blended learning environment.

Hughes (2010) also developed an instrument, the Multivariable Transactional Distance

Survey to explore the effects of disseminating educational messages via email to nurses.
Park (2011) postulated four types of mobile learning, with varying degrees of

transactional distance.

Shearer (2009) proposed a scheme for classifying dialogue, drawing on the philosophical

work of communication theorist Burbules.

Rabinovich (2009) developed a 46-item "Scale of TD for synchronous Web-extended

learning environments".

Giossos and colleagues (2009) drew on the work of John Dewey to link TD theory with

the epistemological framework of "realism".

Whitesel (2009) offered a phenomenological rendering of transactional distance in

exploring teacher presence in learning based in technology.

Sahin (2008) concluded that the three dimensions of transactional distance may be linked

with Kolb's two dimensional views of individual learning styles.

Kang and Gjorke (2008) compared TD with cultural-historical activity theory and noted

areas of compatibility as well as contradictions.

Wheeler (2007) concluded that the effects of transactional distance could be analyzed

more deeply if two sub-variables of dialogue were recognized, social presence and

immediacy.

Wolverton (2007), seeking to sharpen the focus of TD that he describes as a “grand

theory”, proposes a “middle-level” theory of Internet education.

Jung (2006) studied students in videoconferencing classrooms and developed what he

claimed to be a superior operational definition of transactional distance.

Sandoe (2005) designed an instrument to measure structure in the online environment and

tested it on 20 courses, finding it to excel in comparison to other instruments.

2006-2011 studies in which TD theory played a complementary role

The following are examples of the third type of research study, in which the theory is

cited but not necessarily as the principal source of the research question, illustrating the

wide range of subject areas in which researchers find some value in the theory.

Boster (2009) grounded a study of social issues facing online students in the theories of

social development as well as transactional distance.

Logsdon (2008) applied both TD theory as well as a model of conflict resolution to

identify factors leading to student-to-student conflict in online courses.

Pettazzoni (2008) surveyed students who completed world literature classes online to

evaluate attitudes including that to transactional distance.

Kennedy & Cavanaugh (2008) focused on the contributions of the course's design

elements to the students' perceptions of transactional distance in an online teacher

education course.

Cavanaugh and Cavanaugh (2008) attempted to reduce students’ sense of transactional

distance by using interactive geographic maps as a form of dialogue.

Heindel, Smith, & Torres-Ayala, (2007) applied TD theory to the analysis of how

Blackboard tools are used across different disciplines

Talvitie-Siple (2007) looked at perceptions of transactional distance as well as social

presence in evaluating students’ motivation to learn mathematics in a virtual high school.

Her (2006) investigated students' media preferences within a foundational mathematics

course in blended and online enhanced face-to-face learning environments.

Ehrlich-Martin (2006) studied teaching of American sign-language, and said she found

her central finding supported by transactional distance theory.

Urban (2006) compared using computer-based distance education (CDE) and traditional

tutorial sessions as ways of providing supplemental instruction for at-risk students.

Papadopoulos and Dagdilelis (2006) used TD theory in a study of students learning

geometry in a traditional classroom.

Sargeant et al (2006) interviewed 50 physicians in an attempt to ascertain how to

overcome the transactional distance in online continuing medical education.

Hendry (2005) measured student satisfaction with various facets of an online biology

course.

Conclusion: how to use this literature.

Transactional distance theory provides the broad framework of the pedagogy of distance

education. It allows the generation of almost infinite number of hypotheses for research

into the interactions between course structures, dialogue between teachers and learners

and the student’s propensity to exercise control of the learning process. It is as a

framework for such a scientific approach, as contrasted to the haphazard “wouldn’t it be

nice to know …” approach that is unfortunately too prevalent in education, that

transactional distance theory, like other theory, is most valuable.

This chapter has summarized the genesis of the theory, and listed some of the research

projects it has spawned, which now serve to point the way for future research. Before

proceeding in that direction, potential researchers should look more closely at some of the

studies reviewed above, and then when results are in, they will be able to report them

with reference to this literature, and in terms of the underlying theory.

References

Aceves, R. (2006). Input quality in Internet delivered education at a large

comprehensive university. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (304941419).

Anderson, D. S. (1999). Mathematics and distance education on the Internet: An

investigation based on transactional distance education theory. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

(304500155).

Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1971). Criteria for

assessing the formal properties of theories of instruction. In R. Hyman (Ed.),

Contemporary thought on teaching (p. 123). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Atkinson, T. R. (1999). Toward an understanding of instructor–student interactions:

A study of videoconferencing in the postsecondary distance learning

classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge

construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 7 (3). Retrieved from http://www.sloan-

c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/index.asp.

Bajt, S. K. (2009). Preferred distance learning modalities of millennial community

college students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (304894997).

Baynton, M. (1992). Dimensions of “control” in distance education: A factor

analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 17–31.

Beasley, S. (2007). Influence of instructor behaviors on student perceptions of the

online learning experience. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (3282352).

Belair, M. 2011. The investigation of teacher communication practices in virtual

high school. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses Database. (897921887).

Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning:

Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education,

30(1), 5–21.

Bischoff, W. R. (1993). Transactional distance, interactive television, and electronic

mail communication in graduate public health and nursing courses:

Implications for professional education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Bischoff, W. R., Bisconer, S. W., Kooker, B. M., & Woods, L. C. (1996).

 Transactional distance and interactive television in the distance education of

health professionals. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 4–

19.

Boster, M. (2009). Social implications facing online learners: A case study of

undergraduate multimedia students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (305080477).

Boyd, R. & J. Apps, (eds.) (1980). Redefining the Discipline of Adult Education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braxton, S. N. (1999). Empirical comparison of technical and non-technical

distance education courses to derive a refined transactional distance theory

as the framework for a utilization-focused evaluation tool. D.Sc. dissertation.

George Washington University, Washington. DC.

Brenner, R. J. (1996). An analysis of the transactional distance in asynchronous

telecourses at a community college using the group embedded figures test.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson

City.

Bunker, E., Gayol, Y., Nti, N., & Reidell, P. (1996). A study of transactional

distance in an international audioconferencing course. Technology and

Teacher Education Annual, 40–44. Phoenix, AZ: Association for the

Advancement of Computing in Education.

Caspi, A. P., Gorsky, & Chajut, E. (2003). The influence of group size on non-

mandatory asynchronous instructional discussion groups. The Internet and

Higher Education, 6(3), 227–240.

Cavanaugh, T., & Cavanaugh, C. (2008). Interactive maps for community in online

learning. Journal of Computers in the Schools, 25(3–4), 235–242.

Chen, Y. (1997). The implications of Moore’s theory of transactional distance in a

videoconferencing learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Chen, Y. J. (2001). Dimensions of transactional distance in World Wide Web

learning environment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 32(4), 459–470.

Chen, Y. & Willits, F. (1998). A path analysis of the concepts in Moore’s theory of

transactional distance in a videoconferencing learning environment. Journal

of Distance Education, 13(2), 51–65.

Chen, Y. J., & Willits, F. K. (1999). Dimensions of educational transactions in a

videoconferencing learning environment. The American Journal of Distance

Education, 13(1), 45–59.

Clouse, S. F. (2001). The assessment of student performance and satisfaction

outcomes with synchronous and asynchronous interaction methods in a

student-centered distributed learning environment. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University Of Montana, Missoula.

Deng, L., & Yuen, H. K. (2009). Blogs in higher education: Implementation and

issues. TechTrends, 53(3), 95–98.

Dron, J. (2002). Achieving self-organisation in network-based learning

environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Brighton,

Brighton, UK.
Dron, J. (2007). Designing the undesignable: Social software and control.

Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 60–71.

Dron, J., Seidel, C., & Litten, G. (2004). Transactional distance in a blended learning

environment. ALT Journal, 12(2), 163–174.

Dupin-Bryant, P. (2004). Teaching styles of interactive television instructors: A

descriptive study. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 39–

50.

Edstrom, R. (2002). Flexible education in the upper secondary school: Extended

classrooms and a decreased transactional distance. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Ehrlich-Martin, S. (2006). A case study of an American sign language course taught

via videoconferencing. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (305355708).

Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore's Theory of Transactional

Distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate

online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

43(3), 187–209.

Gallo, J. A. (2001). A distance learning and training model. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Garrison, D. R., & Baynton, M. (1987). Beyond independence in distance education:

The concept of control. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(3),

3–15.

Gayol, Y. (1996). The use of computer networks in distance education: analysis of

 the patterns of electronic interaction in a multinational course. In C. C.

Gibson (Ed.), Distance education symposium 3: Learners and learning (pp.

61–70). University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance

Education.

Giossos, Y., Koutsouba, M., Lionarakis, A., & Skavantzos, K. (2009). Reconsidering

Moore's Transactional Distance Theory. European Journal of Open,

Distance and E-Learning, 2(II), 1–6.

Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005, March). Dialogue: A theoretical framework for

distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 36(2), 137–144.

Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Trumper, R. (2004). University students’ use of dialogue in

a distance education physics course. Open Learning, 19(3), 265–277.

Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Tuvi-Arid, I. (2004). Use of instructional dialogue by

university students in a distance education chemistry course. Journal of

Distance Education, 19(1), 1–19.

Heindel, A. J., Smith, G. G., & Torres-Ayala, A. T. (2007). Blackboard tool usage

across different disciplines: Interaction and transactional distance. In T.

Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-

Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007

(pp. 1866–1873). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Hendry, S. R. (2005). Student perceptions: Importance of and satisfaction with

aspects of an online biology course. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (305435299).

Her, M. H. Y. (2006). An investigation of students' media preferences in learning

mathematical concepts. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (305335299).

Holmberg, B. (1981). Status and Trends of Distance Education. London: Kogan

Page.

Hopper, D. A. (2000). Learner characteristics, life circumstances, and transactional

distance in a distance education setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Wayne State University, Detroit.

Horzum, M. (2011). Developing transactional distance scale and examining

transactional distance perception of blended learning students in terms of

different variables. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1582–

1587.

Huang, H. (2000). Moore’s theory of transactional distance in an online mediated

environment: Student perceptions on the online courses. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA.

Hughes, W. G. (2010). Transactional distance theory: The effect of disseminating

educational messages to frontline registered nurses in an acute care hospital

setting. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton

Rouge.

Jung, H. Y. (2006). Transactional distance and student motivation: Student

perception of teacher immediacy, solidarity toward peer students and student

motivation in distance education. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (304968352).

Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of Web-based instruction in the

context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology,

32(5), 525–534).

Kang, H., & Gyorke, A. (2008). Rethinking distance learning activities: A

comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open

Learning, 23(3), 203–214.

Kanuka, H., Collett, D., & Caswell, C. (2002). University instructor perceptions of

the use of asynchronous text-based discussion in distance courses. The

American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 151–167.

Kennedy, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2008). Student perceptions of transactional distance

in online teacher education courses. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen, &

D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and

Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 485–490).

Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Kuskis, O. A. (2006). Facilitation and community in asynchronous online courses:

Views and practices of expert practitioners. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (304926057).

Lee, J., & Gibson, C. C. (2003). Developing self-direction in an online course

through computer-mediated interaction. The American Journal of Distance

Education, 17(3), 173–187.

Lemone, K. (2005). Analyzing cultural influences on ELearning transactional issues.

In G. Richards, (Ed.), Proceedings. World Conference on E-Learning in

Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 2637–

 2644). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Lenear, P. E. (2006). The effect of an Internet-based mentoring program on the

transactional distance and interaction between mentors and proteges.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (305331326).

Logsdon, Jr., D. (2008). A quantitative study of student perceptions of factors likely

to produce student-to-student conflict in the online learning environment.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). TUI University, Cypress, CA.

Lowell, N. (2004). An investigation of factors contributing to perceived

transactional distance in an online setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Some educational implications of the humanistic

psychologies, Harvard Educational Review, 38(4).

Mathieson, K. (2011). Screencasting: Results of a pilot study and practical

applications. Presentation at the 27th Annual Conference on Distance

Teaching and Learning. Madison, WI, August.

McBrien, J., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a

synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online

learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,

10(3).

McLaren, A. C. (2010). The effects of instructor–learner interactions on learner

satisfaction in online masters courses. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (231235132).

Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent

learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76–88.

Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching.

Journal of Higher Education, (44), 661–679.

Moore, M. G. (1976). Investigation of the interaction between the cognitive style of

field independence and attitudes to independent study. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Moore, M. G. (1980). Independent study. In R. Boyd & J. Apps (Eds.), Redefining

the discipline of adult education (pp. 16-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.),

Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 22–29). New York:

Routledge.

Moore, M. H. (1999). The effects of two instructional delivery processes of a

distance training system on trainee satisfaction, job performance and

retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University,

Columbus.

Mulhollen, C. (2006). The relationship between multiple intelligences and attitude

toward independent learning in a high transactional distance environment.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (305281548).

Munro, P. (1991). Presence at a distance: The educator–learner relationship in

distance education and dropout. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2008). Revisiting transactional distance

theory in a context of Web-based high-school distance education. Journal of

Distance Education, 22(2), 1–13.

Offir, B., Lev, Y., Y. Lev, Barth, I., & Shteinbok, A. (2004). An integrated analysis

of verbal and nonverbal interaction in conventional and distance learning

environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 101–118.

Papadopoulos, I., & Dagdilelis, V. (2006). The Theory of Transactional Distance as

a framework for the analysis of computer-aided teaching of geometry.

International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(4), 175–

182.

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing

educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International

Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2).

Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education Analysis and

interpretation from an international perspective. London: Kogan Page.

Pettazzoni, J. E. (2008). Factors associated with attitudes toward learning in an

online environment: Transactional distance, technical efficacy, and physical

surroundings (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses Database. (AAI3346551).

Pruitt, D. (2005). Transactional distance and learner autonomy as predictors of

student performance in distance learning courses delivered by three

modalities. Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.

Rabinovich, T. (2009). Transactional distance in a synchronous Web-extended

classroom learning environment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (304845866).

Richardson, J. T. (1998). Field independence in higher education and the case of

distance learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(3),

241–250.

Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merril Publishing

Company.

Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning

networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285–297.

Rovai, A. P. (2002, April). Building sense of community at a distance. International

Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.

Saba, F. (1988). Integrated telecommunications systems and instructional

transaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(3), 17–24.

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.

Saba, F., & Twitchell, D. (1988). Research in distance education. A system

modeling approach. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 9–

24.

Sahin, S. (2008). The relationship between student characteristics, including learning

styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in Web-based courses in higher

education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9 (1), 123–138.

Sandoe, C. (2005). Measuring transactional distance in online courses: The structure

component. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses Database. (305421786).

Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating

interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and practice.

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2), 128–136.

Seok, S. (2008). Teaching aspects of e-learning. International Journal on E-

Learning, 7(4), 725–741. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from

http://www.editlib.org/p/24323.

Shearer, R. (2009). Transactional distance and dialogue: An exploratory study to

refine the theoretical construct of dialogue in online learning. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

(AAI3399706).

Shin, N. (2001). Beyond interaction: Transactional presence and distance learning.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA.

Shinkle, A. (2001). Interaction in distance education: A study of student–student

and student–teacher interaction via an electronic distribution list.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Wyoming, Laramie.

Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, J. E. (2005).

Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. The

American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 105–118.

Steinman, D. (2007). Educational experiences and the online student. TechTrends,

51(5), 46–52.

Stewart, S. (2008). A study of instructional strategies that promote learning centered

synchronous dialogue online. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (3347372).

Talvitie-Siple, J. (2007). Students' motivation to learn: An evaluation of perceptions,

pedagogy, and design in one e-learning environment. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (304842369).

Thompson, B. (1998). An investigation of professional nurse autonomy and learner

autonomy among female registered nurses enrolled in distance education

and traditional baccalaureate programs. D.NSc. dissertation, Widener

University School of Nursing, Chester.

Urban, C. Q. (2006). The effects of using computer-based distance education for

supplemental instruction compared to traditional tutorial sessions to

enhance learning for students at-risk for academic difficulties. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

(304916833).

Veale, B. L. 2009. Transactional distance and course structure: A qualitative study.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (304940869).

Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online

course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.

Walker Fernandez, S. E. (1999). Toward understanding the study experience of

 culturally sensitive graduate students in American distance education

programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida International

University, Miami.

Wallace, T., Grinnell, L., Carey, L. & Carey, J. (2006). Maximizing learning from

rehearsal activity in Web-based distance learning. Journal of Interactive

Learning Research, 17(3), 319–327. Retrieved from

http://www.editlib.org/p/6311.

Wang, L. C., & Morgan, W. (2008). Student perceptions of using instant messaging

software to facilitate synchronous online class interaction in a graduate

teacher education course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(1),

15–21.

Watts, L. K. (2010). The role of dialogue in distance education: A qualitative study.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (250697391).

Wedemeyer, C. A. (1971). Independent study. In L. C. Deighton (Editor-in-Chief),

The Encyclopedia of Education, vol. 4 (p. 550). New York: The MacMillan

Co.

Wheeler, S. (2002). Student perceptions of learning support in distance education.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 419–429.

Wheeler, S. (2007). The influence of communication technologies and approaches to

study on transactional distance in blended learning. ALT-J: Research in

Learning Technology, 15(2), 103–117.

Whitesel, C. H. (2009). Virtualizing the teacher: The lived experience of teaching

within technology. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (304924476).

Wikeley, F., & Muschamp, Y. (2004). Pedagogical implications of working with

doctoral students at a distance. Distance Education, 25(1), 125–142.

Williams, K. T. (2003). Factors affecting student retention in an online graduate

certificate program: A grounded theory study. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Florida, Gainsville.

Witte, M. M., & Wolf, S. E. (2003). Infusing mentoring and technology within

graduate courses: Reflections in practice. Mentoring and Tutoring, 11(1), 95–

103.

Wolverton, R. (2007). Internet education: A middle-range theoretical model for

overcoming transactional distance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (304787027).

Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in Web-based college learning

environments: Toward measurement and theory construction. Unpublished

dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmo

 As structure increases, transactional distance increases
As dialog decreases, transactional distance increases
more
less
Structure
less
more

more Dialog less

Figure 1. Relation of course structure and instructor-student dialog in transactional

distance
Degrees of learner autonomy. Programs vary from those allowing learner to decide
what to learn, how to learn and to self-evaluate (AAA) to those in which all decisions
are taken by others (NNN) and various combinations.

6. NNA (autonomy only in

evaluation—most rare)
3. ANA (autonomy in setting
goals and in evaluation)

5. NAA (autonomy
in execution and
evaluation—
uncommon) 1. AAA (fully autonomous)
EVALUATION

GOALS

4. ANN (autonomy only in

8. NNN (no autonomy) setting goals--uncommon)

7. NAN (autonomy only in 2. AAN (autonomy in setting

execution--by far the most goals and execution)
common situation)

Figure 2. Degrees of learner autonomy in determining what to learn, how to learn and

evaluating learning.
 the level of autonomy
required of the learner
increases as transactional
distance increases.

AUTONOMY

Figure 3. relation of dimensions of transactional distance and learner autonomy