Steve Wheeler & Fraser Reid University of Plymouth, UK A Matter of Perception? Transactional Distance and Student Support in Distance Education EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Transactional Distance (TD) TD is “the physical distance that leads to a psychological … gap, a space of potential misunderstanding between the … instructor and … the learner”. (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p 200) EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

Transactional Distance TD has three key components: Dialogue (Teacher-Student) Structure (Course elements) Learner Autonomy EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

TD has three key components:

Dialogue (Teacher-Student)

Structure (Course elements)

Learner Autonomy

TD Effects (Close TD) EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology S T Dialogue ++ Structure - -

TD Effects EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology S T Dialogue + Structure +

TD Effects (Remote TD) EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology T S Structure ++ Dialogue - -

Technology Affordances Technological Affordance for Interactivity (Whittaker, 1996) EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Video Mail Video conference Videophone Shared Workspaces Visual E-mail Answerphone Voicemail Fax Letter Usenet Telephone Audioconference Chat Instant Messaging Linguistic Mode Non-Interactive Interactive Interactivity Affordance

Hypotheses H 1 : Mediated dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than f2f dialogue H 2 : Asynchronous dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than other modes of communication EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

H 1 : Mediated dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than f2f dialogue

H 2 : Asynchronous dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than other modes of communication

The Study Quantitative study over 3 years N= 348 participants Teacher Trainees Mainly mature (x = 40.8, sd = 8.15) 307 Females, 38 Males Questionnaire based f2f, e-mail, telephone & videoconference modes EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology ~

Quantitative study over 3 years

N= 348 participants

Teacher Trainees

Mainly mature (x = 40.8, sd = 8.15)

307 Females, 38 Males

Questionnaire based

f2f, e-mail, telephone & videoconference modes

Hypothesised Causal TD Model EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Approaches to Study Expected Tutor Support Technology Mode Dialogue Student Autonomy Social Presence Immediacy Structure Transactional Distance

Path Model (f2f) EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Autonomy Surface Tenacity Immediacy Presence Structure Student Characteristics Technology Affordances 0.12 -0.65* -0.30* Four models created, one for each communication mode

Autonomous Students EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Autonomy Surface Tenacity Immediacy Presence Structure Student Characteristics Technology Affordances -0.09 0.02 0.37

Surface Students EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Autonomy Surface Tenacity Immediacy Presence Structure Student Characteristics Technology Affordances 0.48 0.75 0.65

Tenacious Students EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Autonomy Surface Tenacity Immediacy Presence Structure Student Characteristics Technology Affordances 0.88* 1.26* 1.23*

Summary of Results EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology 72 51 51 305 N 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.89 CFI 125 121 127 120 df 153.90** 149.94** 155.01** 179.76** X 2 ** p <.01 * p < .05 2.57 -0.25 0.60 1.23* Tenacity – Immediacy 2.01 0.40 0.48 1.32* Tenacity – Presence 2.86 -0.40 0.23 0.95* Tenacity – Structure -3.09 -0.82* 1.92 0.65 Surface – Immediacy 1.94 0.50 1.75 0.82 Surface – Presence -3.06 -1.00* 0.91* 0.48 Surface – Structure -0.54 0.85* 2.00* 0.37 Autonomy – Immediacy 0.22 -1.94* 0.73* 0.02 Autonomy – Presence -0.16 1.21* 0.65 -0.09 Autonomy – Structure video e-mail telephone f2f

Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Autonomous learners perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy through telephone dialogue They experience highest levels of structure through e-mail Synchronous communication reduces TD and is preferred to e-mail and co-present contact

Autonomous learners perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy through telephone dialogue

They experience highest levels of structure through e-mail

Synchronous communication reduces TD and is preferred to e-mail and co-present contact

Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Surface learners perceive least structure through telephone, highest structure through e-mail communication They perceive greater immediacy of dialogue through telephone, and lowest through e-mail communication Synchronous communication reduces TD

Surface learners perceive least structure through telephone, highest structure through e-mail communication

They perceive greater immediacy of dialogue through telephone, and lowest through e-mail communication

Synchronous communication reduces TD

Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology Tenacious learners experience highest structure in co-present dialogue They perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy of dialogue in co-present settings Co-present contact reduces TD, but learners perceive higher structure

Tenacious learners experience highest structure in co-present dialogue

They perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy of dialogue in co-present settings

Co-present contact reduces TD, but learners perceive higher structure

Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology We propose that immediacy and social presence, as two sub-factors of dialogue, be considered as important predictors of transactional distance.

We propose that immediacy and social presence, as two sub-factors of dialogue, be considered as important predictors of transactional distance.

Thank you for list e ning www2.plymouth.ac.uk/distancelearning EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology