Still, I think he's got a good theory here! In any case, I felt like I could understand and relate to a lot of Moore's ideas. Of course, I haven't done any empirical research myself on this theory, but everything he stated seems congruent with my recollection of my own experiences. And where my experiences are different from others' experiences, I don't have to work too hard to imagine how it might still apply to them as well.
I won't attempt to cover everything about the theory here (no sense in rewriting Moore's work), but I think it will be helpful to clarify what the major points of his theory are, and I may write a few thoughts on them as I go along.
Moore (1993, p. 22) defines transactional distance as the "psychological and communications space" between learners and teachers. Describing it as such, we must understand that TDT is a continuum of "distant-ness" for pedagogical transactions--that is, every pedagogical transaction can be considered in terms of the amount of transactional distance associated with it. This idea of a continuum of transactional distance is in striking contrast with previous research, which generally spoke of educational transactions in terms of whether they were "distance" or "not distance" (Moore, 2007, p. 93).
Understanding that a pedagogical transaction is either more or less distant, the question arises: what are the factors that influence this psychological and communications distance? After analyzing a "large selection of program descriptions and other literature," Moore identified three sets of "macro-factors" that interact to determine the level of transactional distance for any given pedagogical transaction (Moore, 2007, p. 90). These macro-factors are structure, dialogue, and learner autonomy.
Structure
Moore (1993, p. 26) states that "structure expresses the rigidity or flexibility of the programme's educational objectives, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods." Further, "it describes the extent to which an education programme can accommodate or be responsive to each learner's individual needs."
Higher structure increases transactional distance.
Dialogue
Again citing Moore (1993, p. 23), dialogue is "the interactions that occur when one gives instruction and the others respond." Dialogue interactions are specifically positive (exclusive of interactions that could be considered negative) and are "purposeful, constructive, and valued by each party" (p. 24).
As dialogue increases, transactional distance decreases.
Learner Autonomy
The term "learner autonomy" refers to the amount of initiative and self-regulation that a learner will use in order to explore, plan, and achieve educational goals. It is thus self-evident that every individual learner will have an individual level of autonomy.
As structure increases and dialogue decreases, the amount of learner autonomy that is necessary in order to achieve the learning objectives increases (Moore, 1993, p. 27). Conversely, a student with a higher level may not need a heavily structured course that has high dialogue value.
Some of My Thoughts
Greater learner autonomy allows a student to choose and achieve learning objectives without substantial guidance from the instructor. This makes high learner autonomy sound like a good thing. And indeed it is. So, within the framework provided by this theory,how do we increase the level of autonomy in students participating in courses with a high degree of transactional distance?
On an another issue, (sorry this seems rushed--I just need to go to bed) I believe it must be noted that learner autonomy trumps the other two macro-factors in terms of overall effect on the outcomes of a pedagogical transaction. As an instructor, I can choose to have as much or as little structure and dialogue in my course as I please. And yet, my students will respond to such levels in dialogue and structure according to their own levels of learner autonomy. I can't force my students to interact with the course content or with me in any way that contradicts the nature of their learner autonomy.
Also, learner autonomy trumps all. It trumps all dialog and all structure. If the student really doesn't want to play the game by your rules, they just won't.
In my view learner autonomy can be a good thing and a bad thing. Autonomy that is thrust on a learner unprepared to be completely autonomous can be a very frustrating proposition. At the same time not allowing for autonomy can be equally frustrating for a learner who is highly self-motivated.
ReplyDeleteAlso, think of courses that require individuals to work in collaborative groups . . . any time you are "required" to work with or interact with others you lose some autonomy. So, under what conditions to the benefits seem to outweigh the costs? That is a question that is not easily answered . . . and one that instructors have to make all the time.
So - here is a thought (a Gospel parallel) that I had regarding learner autonomy . . . there seems to be a paradox between the idea of trying to be "self-sufficient" on the one hand and knowing on the other hand that we are ultimately dependent on the atonement and others and cannot be completely self-reliant.
It seems that there is an oblique parallel here with learner autonomy - "agency" being the key concept. What thoughts do you have on this connection before I elaborate more on mine with you . . . ?