Eden 2005 Helsinki

1,564 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Eden 2005 Helsinki

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Transactional Distance <ul><li>TD has three key components: </li></ul><ul><li>Dialogue (Teacher-Student) </li></ul><ul><li>Structure (Course elements) </li></ul><ul><li>Learner Autonomy </li></ul>EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology
  4. TD Effects (Close TD) EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology S T Dialogue ++ Structure - -
  5. TD Effects EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology S T Dialogue + Structure +
  6. TD Effects (Remote TD) EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology T S Structure ++ Dialogue - -
  7. 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
  8. Hypotheses <ul><li>H 1 : Mediated dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than f2f dialogue </li></ul><ul><li>H 2 : Asynchronous dialogue will cause more remote transactional distance than other modes of communication </li></ul>EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology
  9. The Study <ul><li>Quantitative study over 3 years </li></ul><ul><li>N= 348 participants </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher Trainees </li></ul><ul><li>Mainly mature (x = 40.8, sd = 8.15) </li></ul><ul><li>307 Females, 38 Males </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaire based </li></ul><ul><li>f2f, e-mail, telephone & videoconference modes </li></ul>EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology ~
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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*
  15. 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
  16. Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology <ul><li>Autonomous learners perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy through telephone dialogue </li></ul><ul><li>They experience highest levels of structure through e-mail </li></ul><ul><li>Synchronous communication reduces TD and is preferred to e-mail and co-present contact </li></ul>
  17. Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology <ul><li>Surface learners perceive least structure through telephone, highest structure through e-mail communication </li></ul><ul><li>They perceive greater immediacy of dialogue through telephone, and lowest through e-mail communication </li></ul><ul><li>Synchronous communication reduces TD </li></ul>
  18. Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology <ul><li>Tenacious learners experience highest structure in co-present dialogue </li></ul><ul><li>They perceive highest levels of social presence and immediacy of dialogue in co-present settings </li></ul><ul><li>Co-present contact reduces TD, but learners perceive higher structure </li></ul>
  19. Conclusions EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology <ul><li>We propose that immediacy and social presence, as two sub-factors of dialogue, be considered as important predictors of transactional distance. </li></ul>
  20. Thank you for list e ning www2.plymouth.ac.uk/distancelearning EDEN 2005 Conference: Helsinki University of Technology

×