It is interesting how certain misperceptions around educational theories and constructs often persist and propagate in education. This was highlighted again this week when I was reading an article by a group of educational psychology researchers (Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths). In this article they discussed how the notion of learning styles (visual, auditory, kinetic) still exists even after several studies that have shown there is insufficient evidence that links learning styles to learning outcomes. Although they do acknowledge that learners do have preferences in how they engage with content.

Reading this article made me step back and reflect more on how the theory of transactional distance is often misunderstood and reported on inaccurately in studies. This notion is also highlighted in Dr. Saba and my upcoming book on Transactional Distance and Adaptive Learning ( http://bit.ly/2xh2AYK ). All too often the theory and in particular the idea of transactional distance is viewed at the course or group level, while it is truly a theory that is focused on the dynamic interaction of key variables at the individual or personal level.  Further, while we embrace the construct of socially constructed knowledge, how we learn and the development of our mental schemas is a personal endeavor that is informed through dialogue with others and through reflection.

Thus, when we think of the theory of TD and the Community of Inquiry Model (CoI) model we must view them in the appropriate context. The theory of TD evolved out of the independent study world, and the CoI model evolved out of the online collaborative world.

 

The ideas behind Moore’s theory of TD evolved over several years starting in the early 1970’s and did not emerge as a theory until the 80’s. Throughout this time many independent learning courses were reviewed and the key constructs of structure and dialogue emerged. Although autonomy was also a key concept in the theory and related to the structure and dialogue, it was later that Moore further defined the theory and discussed autonomy as a separate variable that impacts both structure and dialogue. In general, the theory represents the interaction of these three key variables, and when dialogue increases, structure decreases, and the overall transactional distance decreases. In terms of the theory, the TD variable represents one’s overall feeling of psychological separation, and it represents the space (physical and/or virtual) that can exist between the learner and the instructor, the learner and content, and the learner and other students, that may lead to miscommunication or misunderstanding of concepts. It is also important to note that the theory does not predict learning or learning outcomes. It strictly highlights the key variables that, when in balance, can create an ideal environment for learning.

Thus, the theory is rooted in an individualistic view of how a learner finds balance between structure, dialogue and autonomy throughout a course. Further these variables are not fixed in time and vary as one moves through a learning experience. So, to take the theory of TD and impose the framework on a course or a group in many ways misses the point. Even when one considers the incorporation of the idea of learner- learner dialogue, which Moore added into the theory as technologies evolved, it is still very much a theory focused at the individual student level.

However, we continue to see studies where the researchers compile data from a class to make a statement about transactional distance at the course or group level. This in essence nullifies the study as they have used a particular theoretical framework, but then collect data and analyzed it in a way that does not stay true to the theoretical framework. This is an important aspect of the theory for instructional designers to keep in mind. Although we may design for increased dialogue in order to reduce TD, and we may attempt to reduce the structure and increase learner control, these are aspects that are individual and will play out differently for each learner.

In examining the CoI model developed by Anderson and Garrison, which has been examined and validated through many studies, we could also make the case that this model is about the individual student. The concepts of cognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence are again very personal variables when it comes to learning. Although the model/theory was envisioned in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s in the early days of online learning, and is one that helps us think about the key components required in a successful online course, how each student experiences these presences will be different.

Thus, as researchers we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of examining these theories/models at the overall course level, as learning is a very personal experience and these frameworks help us think about how to design the experience for individuals, even though they may be participating in a cohort educational structure.

This also represents a challenge for instructional designers who are tasked with designing DE and online experiences for small and large classes, where they must find a mix between the individual and the group, and envision a balance between structure, autonomy, dialogue, and social presence that will hopefully work for most of the students. Therefore, they need to take these models and theories and decide how they can be used to create a learning experience that goes beyond the individual, while still keeping the individual in mind. This is a challenge as each learner will still want to find their own balance in the DE course.

So, we have this dichotomy between the underlying framework of the theories and our designs for online DE courses. How do we design for the individual while also attending to scale that the cohort models provide? In independent learning this was not an issue, but it is today. Of course, we could change our one size fits all paradigm and find a way to provide individualization while also maintaining the social aspect of learning, and the ideas of social presence that can assist with external motivation.

Reference

Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J. and McGrath, L.M. (2017).  Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology. 8: 1314. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314.