Colleen Swain
University of Florida

Keywords: teaching strategies, transactional distance, interaction, computer mediated communication (CMC)

Introduce the topic of distance education in a faculty meeting and you tend to get a variety of responses. Some faculty feel pressure to "get on the distance education train or be left behind" while other faculty dismiss this method of education as "totally inappropriate" for their field. The concerns and issues faculty have about distance education must be given serious consideration but careful contemplation should also be given to elements in distance education that make this learning environment successful for some students. Frequently, distance education instruction tries to duplicate or mimic instruction occurring in traditional (face-to-face) classroom settings. Yet I noticed that as I studied and implemented instructional strategies for the distance environment, my teaching in traditional courses improved. Teaching strategies I used in my distance courses surfaced in my traditional courses. As I thought about my teaching in both environments, I realized I was placing more emphasis on some of the distance instructional strategies than on the traditional strategies with which I was well familiar. My traditional teaching was always good and I had positive student evaluations from large and small classes. But with the combination of instructional strategies, my traditional courses improved even more. This article looks at two theoretical frameworks utilized in distance education that provide opportunities for student success, and how these factors could transfer into traditional teaching environments. The purpose of this paper is to show areas where research from distance teaching can help educators involved in traditional teaching create more meaningful and engaging learning environments for students.

In order to conceptualize how certain theoretical frameworks and technologies from distance education can be applied in traditional educational settings, it is important to understand these frameworks and technologies in the distance education environment. Therefore a brief explanation of transactional distance, interaction, and the use of computer mediated communication technologies follows.

Transactional distance is a term frequently found in distance education literature but applies to all educational experiences. Because so many factors beyond geographical distance effect the educational experience of distance students, special consideration is given to describing this special teaching environment. There is a difference in roles for teachers and students, the forms of communication and interaction, and even the curriculum used. Thus, the term transactional distance is used to indicate the distance that students encounter is a pedagogical issue not merely a geographical issue. The transaction concept signifies the interplay among the learning environment, the people involved, and the patterns of behavior in the situation. Hence, one can conclude that anytime there is a teacher, a learner, and a means of communication, the possibility of transactional distance exists.

Distance educators have worked to develop strategies for dealing with transactional distance by focusing on teaching behaviors that fall into two clusters: dialog and structure. Moore and Kearsley (1996) define dialog as "a term that helps us focus on the interplay of words, actions, and ideas and any other interactions between the teacher and learner when one gives instruction and the other responds." (p. 201)[6] Numerous factors influence dialog such as the size of the learning group, the educational philosophy of designer of the instructional materials, and the personalities of teacher and learner. The other cluster involved in transactional distance, structure, deals with the rigidity or flexibility of elements in the instruction (Moore & Kearsley, 1996) [6] For example, the course educational objectives, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods are elements of structure within a course. One of the goals for distance educators is to find the "right" combination of dialog and structure for each learning task. Some learning activities call for a high dialog, low structure combination while others require a low dialog, high structure combination. Creating appropriate levels of dialog and structure for each learning activities provides students with a high probability for success in the distance learning environment.

Interaction is another area in distance education where significant amounts of research are available. Research (Kearsley, 1995 [4]; Seaton, 1993 [7]) has shown that some form of interaction influences student success whether in a traditional teaching environment or in a distance education setting. Moore (1989) is frequently credited with defining three types of interaction in the distance education environment: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner [5]. Learner-content interaction provides the learner with an opportunity to construct new knowledge by incorporating the lesson information into previously existing cognitive structures. Learner-instructor interaction, which is regarded as essential by most learners (Moore & Kearsley, 1996), provides the instructor the opportunity to assist students in their construction of new knowledge as well as providing counsel, support and encouragement [6]. Learner-learner interaction allows distance students to join and form a community of learners dealing with a common topic or course. Garrison (1990) found that students who interact regularly with their instructor and fellow students are more motivated and report a better learning experience [1]. Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) drew attention to another form of interaction for distance students, that of learner-media [2]. They noted that the interaction that takes place between the learner and the technology strongly influences the success of a distance student. Recently, Sutton (2000) has suggested that a fifth type of interaction, vicarious interaction, be considered [8]. Sutton (2000) states that vicarious interaction occurs when "a student actively observes and processes both sides of a direct interaction between two other students or between another student and the instructor." (p. 8) [8] Distance educators strive to provide ample opportunities for interaction to enhance the chance of student success with course objectives as well as success in the overall distance education environment.

Although there are other significant areas of research in distance education, transactional distance and interaction provide a framework for distance educators when designing and implementing distance learning environments. These theoretical frameworks also provide guidance in selecting educational technologies to complement the instructional strategies selected for use in their courses by the distance educators. Computer mediated communication (CMC) is one type of educational technology used by distance educators. CMC includes synchronous and asynchronous systems. Examples of synchronous systems, those in which communication occurs in real-time, are chat systems, MOOs, and online conferencing via the Internet. Advantages of synchronous systems are that students and teachers can gain immediate feedback on all aspects of the distance environment. Students can ask questions and teachers can perform "on the spot" assessment of student understanding. Asynchronous communication systems, where communication activities do not place in real time, include e-mail, listservs, threaded discussion boards, and newsgroups. Asynchronous communication systems have many advantages such as self-pacing, time for reflection before contributing to discussions, and allowing typically silent students to have a voice in discussions.

Upon reflection, one can see that transactional distance and the need for interaction are concepts that can be applied to all learning environments – not just the distance arena. Instructors at every level should consider methods to provide enough dialog and structure to promote success with each specific learning objective. As educators ponder the most appropriate instructional strategies to use when teaching the learning objectives in a course, distance education research suggest that educators also consider ways to provide students interaction with content, instructor, peers, and media. As with distance educators, educators teaching in traditional environment must work to find the optimal levels and types of interaction opportunities necessary for successful learning.

As I became more comfortable and familiar with teaching in the distance learning environment, I noticed that my traditional courses were also improving. My thought process for creating and implementing meaningful and engaging learning environments had expanded. When creating meaningful and engaging learning environments for students in my traditional courses, I utilized a variety of instructional strategies to introduce or teach the content to my students. We would use video case studies, class discussions, direct instruction, and project-based learning. I tried to incorporate many of the attributes of meaning learning as described by Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) [3]. Although I provided students with individual opportunities, both inside and outside of class, to reflect upon their learning and to make new connections to prior knowledge, I realized that I was not providing open forums for discussion and reflection with peers outside of class. In addition, when I was working with students having difficulty in a class, the problems they were describing frequently dealt with transactional distance. They needed different levels of dialog or structure than what I was offering. Granted, it is impossible to provide the "perfect balance" of dialog and structure for each individual student but I could provide scaffolding for students in these areas so they could be more successful in the class.

Interaction can be a tricky business because all learning activities do not require high levels of interaction. For example, when students are learning and then practicing certain skills, interaction with the content is critical but providing an abundance of interaction opportunities between instructor and peers is not needed. When I tried to include ample opportunities for interaction beyond that of content-interaction, students stated that too much discussion with their peers and me slowed down their progress. However, I felt it was important to always provide a way for students to share their ideas and thoughts with the class members. I began to use course discussion boards as a method for this interaction. I created forums for students to reflect upon major topics covered in the course but also included areas where students could share their ideas about a variety of issues. Figure 1 shows a listing of the various discussions occurring in the course along with the number of posts made My courses use a great deal of technology so I have a forum called Electronic Reflections where students can discuss the use of technology in their learning, ask technical questions, etc. I also have another forum titled Open Reflections where students can post a variety of questions. As of the fourth week of the semester, a class of 28 students has 43 postings in this area. Another thing I have done in my courses to promote a stronger sense of community among all learners is to have students post web pages about themselves. This is done on a closed system where only students from our course with correct passwords can enter. Again, students have commented that this helps them get to know each other and feel more comfortable in course.

The use of the course bulletin board for discussion with respect to class content has also improved the overall quality of my courses. Class discussions are active and engaging. I am truly sorry when the class session is over&emdash;yet with this technology, the discussions continue. For example, in one class dealing with various teaching theories, students were asked to post one theory or part of a theory they felt was significant and would influence their teaching in the future There were 28 students in the class; however, by the following class there were 42 postings. Students began to respond to each other's posting and the conversation continued. Students were questioning each other and challenging each other to think outside their existing boxes. One student remarked that when she was on a plane that weekend, she could hardly wait to get back and read the discussion board to see what others thought about the topic and her post. Another student remarked that a new forum needed to be started to permit further discussion and so we did this. Although I experienced this type of result from my distance courses, I hadn't been providing my traditional students with this tool to extend the learning environment. This was a tool my traditional students now use and it has produced many benefits for my class. There is more interaction with others about the content and a higher level of discussion occurs on the discussion board due to the additional time students have for reflection prior to posting.

Balancing dialog and structure for students is one of the biggest struggles I encounter. At what point have I provided too much structure? How can I build each class session to promote student responsibility but also provide a level of comfort? The compromise I've reached for my classes is to provide an electronic agenda in the form of a web page for each class session. I also have a resource section on our class web site providing exemplary web sites dealing with both technical and content related topics. Finally, I made judicious use of email. Students can expect to receive a minimum of one email each week. Many times the email contains announcements or encouragement. Students know I am interested in them and want them to feel comfortable communicating with me via phone, email, and personal meetings. I also send messages dealing with lack of participation in class, feedback on assignments, and class absences. Even though I always had numerous office hours, responded to email and phone messages, by initiating much of the email at the beginning of the course, students reported that they felt communication with me was much easier.

Spending time in preparing lesson still takes significant amounts of my time. I still do many of the same tasks: determining the learning objective, selection of appropriate learning activities and media, and devising evaluation activities for students. However, now I add a new list of questions to answer as I create the lesson plan and corresponding materials for each class session. The questions listed below assist me in designing my lesson with transactional distance and interaction in mind.

 

The gradual integration of distance education strategies into my traditional courses increased the effectiveness of these courses. I discovered I relied so much upon the fact that I was always "there" in my traditional courses that I did not provide as many opportunities for students in these course to extend the learning experience as I did for students in my distance courses. Thinking about concepts from the distance teaching and learning environment when I create and implement lessons for my traditional courses has truly improved my traditional teaching. I hope this paper will spark ideas of how theoretical frameworks, strategies, or distance technologies can make your traditional courses even more meaningful and engaging for students.

 

Garrison, D. (1990). An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 13-24

Hillman, D., Willis, D., & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc

Kearsley, G. (1995). The nature and value of interaction in distance learning. Paper presented at the Third Distance Education Research Symposium. [Online]. Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~etl/interact.html

Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Seaton. (1993). Computer mediated communication and student self-directed learning. Open Learning, 8(2), 49-54

Sutton, L. (2000). Vicarious interaction: A learning theory for computer-mediated communications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000). ERIC Document No. 441 817