1. Theory and theorists www.ajde.com Michael G. Moore
European Distance Education Network.
Castelldefels: October 27th 2006
Michael G. Moore
Professor of Education
The Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A. Editor: The American Journal of Distance Education
19 Roundham Road, Paignton, Devon, UK. TQ46JA

2. Early publications in distance education theory
Holmberg, B. (1960). On the methods of teaching by correspondence. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift N. F. Avd. 1 Bd 54: 2. Lund:Gleerup.
Peters, O. (1967). Das Fernstudium an Universitäten und Hochschulen. Weinheim: Beltz.
Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2),
Available online at
Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching.
Journal of Higher Education, (44),
Available online at
Peters, O. (1973). Die didaktische Struktur des Fernunterrichts. Weinheim: Beltz.
Holmberg, B. (1977) Distance education. A survey and bibliography. London: Kogan Page

3. Historical perspective.
International Council for Correspondence Education (ICCE) 1972.
.. the universe of instruction consists of two families of teaching behaviors, … "contiguous teaching" and "distance teaching."
distance teaching:
"instructional methods in which the teaching behaviors are executed apart from the learning behaviors,.. so that communication …must be facilitated by print, electronic, mechanical, or other devices."
“… we should direct resources to the macro-factors: describing and defining the field; discriminating between the various components of this field; … building a theoretical framework...”
Origin of the term "Distance Education“

4. Evolution of Theory of Transactional Distance (based on Stover, UMUC 2003)

5. First steps These included programs delivered by:
Moore started by gathering a large sample of “independent study” programs.
These included programs delivered by:
TV and radio
Correspondence
Programmed instruction
Computer-assisted instruction
Telephone
Dial access audio tapes
Independent learning on campus

6. He classified them by the extent to which generally the learning program was individualized
More individualized programs were usually:
Correspondence
Programmed instruction
Independent learning on campus
Less individualized programs were:
Computer-assisted instruction
TV and radio
Telephone groups
Dial access audio tapes

7. He then classified whether the programs involved dialog (“constructive interaction”) between teacher and learner
High individualization
Low individualization
Independent learning on campus
Individual telephone
Individual correspondence
Group telephone
Group correspondence
Computer-assisted instruction
Programmed instruction
Dial access audio tapes TV
Radio
Textbook study
High dialog
Low dialog
High individualization
Low individualization

8. He explained that pedagogical, or “transactional distance” is a function of two sets of variables, dialog (D) and structure (S).
These variables indicate four types of programs:
1. Programs with no dialogue and no structure (– D – S)
2. Programs with no dialogue, but with structure (– D + S)
3. Programs with dialogue and structure (+ D + S)
4. Programs with dialogue, but no structure (+D – S)
Note:
D and S are continuous variables, i.e. every program has more or less D and S.

9. Transactional distance increases
How the variables of dialog and structure determine transactional distance can be shown in a simple graph.
less
more
Transactional distance increases
Capacity for individualization
Structure
less
more
more
Dialog
less

10. Typical programs by technology used (Moore, 1972, 1973)
Transactional distance
less
more
11. Textbook –self-directed independent reading
10. radio
5. GROUP correspondence
9. TV
Capacity for individualization
4. GROUP
telephone
8. dial access
audio tapes
Structure
3. individualized
correspondence teaching
7. computer-assisted instruction
2. individualized telephone
1. independent study on campus
less
more
6. programmed instruction
personal tutorials
more
Dialog
less

11. Moore’s second hypothesis focused on the learner
more
less
Capacity for individualization
Structure
less
To better understand Moore’s second hypothesis, we must first rotate our 2 dimensional diagram.
more
more
Transactional distance
Dialog
less .

12. Autonomy and transactional distance
Dialog
more
less
Structure
Transactional distance
Capacity for individualization
the level of autonomy required of the learner increases as transactional distance increases.
Transactional distance
AUTONOMY

13. Determinants of autonomy
Autonomy itself is a three-dimensional concept. It shows for any program the type of control that the learner is allowed in:
establishing goals
executing the learning program
evaluating progress
Determinants of autonomy
6. NNA (autonomy only in evaluation—most rare)
3. ANA (autonomy in setting goals and in evaluation)
Programmed learning
5. NAA (autonomy in execution and evaluation—uncommon)
1. AAA (fully autonomous)
EVALUATION
GOALS
4. ANN (autonomy only in setting goals--uncommon)
8. NNN (no autonomy)
7. NAN (autonomy only in execution--by far the most common situation)
2. AAN (autonomy in setting goals and execution)
External certification programs
EXECUTION

14. Examples of hypothesized relationships of autonomy, structure and dialog
When autonomy is low the need for structure is high
When structure is low the need for autonomy is high
Programs with low dialog require a high degree of learner autonomy.
Programs with low dialog and low structure require a higher degree of learner autonomy.
Learners with high autonomy require less dialog, less structure
Etc
Highly autonomous learners may engage in auto-dialog
Course designers can develop very highly structured courses, with little room for learner autonomy in setting goals, execution or evaluation.
Or can develop very unstructured courses, allowing learners to exercise a high degree of autonomy.
An autonomous learner could put together a highly structured learning program for him/herself — or could make a loosely structured program.

15. A 3D Model of transactional distance
Transactional distance can be viewed as a set of tiered platforms. As one steps away from the origin (dialog or structure), the steps also increase in height (autonomy).
Transactional distance
high
more
Autonomy permitted/ required by the teaching method
more
Structure
less
less
Dialog
more
less
low

16. A 3D Model of Transactional Distance
high TD
Different teaching programs can be viewed as glasses that are stacked on these tiers according to their degrees of structure and dialog.
more
Autonomy
less
more
The height of the glass represents the degree of autonomy that is permitted in an actual program.
The height of the liquid within the glass represents the degree of autonomy that is required of the learner.
Structure
less
Dialog
more
less
low TD

17. Autonomy Structure Dialog
Thus, the manner in which a program is designed and conducted can result in requiring or permitting a higher or lower overall level of autonomy.
high TD
more
Autonomy
less
For instance, a course taught ONLINE – technology allowing a low degree of structure and high dialog, permitting a low degree of learner autonomy -- could be designed with high structure and/or low dialog and require a high degree of autonomy.
more
Structure
less
Dialog
more
less
low TD

18. Autonomy Structure Dialog
The final factor to be considered is the capacity of the learner for autonomous learning. The learner’s capacity has a lot to do with personality, learning styles, prior experience, and other factors, including the content to be learned
high TD
more
Autonomy
less
more
Structure
less
Dialog
This determines how high the learner can “reach”— and lets us see what teaching strategies are appropriate.
more
less
low TD

19. Conclusion
Using this construct, we can see that we can design courses for different degrees of learner autonomy— by varying dialog and structure ….
We can design research to explore and test the many interactions within and between these variables
which gets back to the basis of Moore’s original investigations.

20. Elaboration of theory ………. A Systems Approach in Theory Building
Farhad Saba
Department of Educational Technology, San Diego State University
Chapter forthcoming in Handbook of Distance Education, Second Edition, 2007
Saba, F., & Twitchell, D. (1988). Research in distance education. A system modeling approach.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 9-24.
Saba, F. (1989). Integrated telecommunications systems and instructional transaction.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(3),
Saba, F. (2003). Distance education theory, methodology, and epistemology:
A pragmatic paradigm. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.),
Handbook of distance education (pp. 3-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model
of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1),

21. Saba’s systems dynamics hypotheses:
When structure increases, transactional distance increases and dialog decreases.
When dialog increases, transactional distance decreases and structure decreases
Transactional Distance (t)= Transactional Distance (t-dt) + (structure-dialog) x dt.

22. TD vis a vis Peters and Holmberg
“transactional distance is an open system residing in a larger environment in the instructional systems level which is in turn part of a larger system in the hierarchical model” (Saba 2007)
TD is only a pedagogical theory … a theory about
teaching and learning
Some theorists deal with larger systems, (Peters) others with
smaller systems (Holmberg)

23. Instructional-learning system
Instructional program
structure (content, objectives, strategies, evaluation)
learner
teacher
learner
dialogue
teacher
empathy
autonomy
LEARNING
GROUPS
With new interactive technology we have potential for dialog between learners and a new form of learner-learner autonomy reducing the transactional distance for each student.
Autonomy is one component of the learner system;
empathy is one component of teacher system

24. “concluding comment on how you view the interpretations of and the debate(s) about your theory”
I have very little to comment ……
One thing I would like to point out is that transactional distance theory was/is no more than that, --- a summary of knowledge in one part of the field … the teaching-learning process.
As such, it is purely descriptive …. It is not prescriptive …… some authors think I am an advocate for more or less learner autonomy, more or less dialogue, more or less structure ……. This is NOT so.
I am happy that transactional distance theory has served at least one purpose successfully which is to ensure that distance education is taken seriously as a field of study in the United States, which was not the case before 1972.
It has proven useful in encouraging others to write about theory and it has proven useful as a foundation for research; examples are shown in the Handbook chapter.

25. (recent) opinions of scholars and researchers
“by showing the transactional distance not as a fixed quantity but as a variable, which results from the respective changing interplay between dialogue, the structured nature of the teaching program being presented, and the autonomy of the students, it (the transactional distance theory) provides a convincing explanation of the enormous flexibility of this form of academic teaching. It also provides an insight into the pedagogical complexity of distance education “…. (Peters, 1998, 42)
what “in essence (is) changed by the revolution in media we have undergone over the last decade?” … “Moore's theory remains, in my view, the crucial framework of ideas against which such assertions as represented here can be tested” (Tait, 2003: 5).
“ transactional distance …….. subsumes concepts that are based on physical attributes, such as electronics in e-Learning, blendedness in blended learning, and wired or wireless telecommunication in online learning.
Furthermore the theory of transactional distance extends well beyond these lower level system components and includes fundamentals of psychology, sociology and education and other related areas of educational science. (Saba 2005: 4)

26. Examples of empirical studies (mostly doctoral) based on transactional distance
Saba (1988) Saba and Twitchell (1988)
Shinkle (2001) Braxton (1999)
Zhang (2003) Gallo (2001)
Bischoff (1993) Bischoff et al. (1996)
Gayol (1996) Bunker, Gayol, Nti, and Reidell (1996)
Walker Fernandez (1999) Moore, M.H. (1999) Vrasidas and MacIsaac (1999) Anderson (1999) Atkinson (1999) Hopper (2000) Rovai (2000)
Chen Y. (1997) Chen and Willits (1998, 1999) Chen, Y. (2001) Clouse (2001) Williams (2003)
Edstrom (2002) Wheeler (2002) Lee and Gibson (2003)
Witte and Wolf (2003) Lowell (2004)
Stein, Wanstreet, et al (2005) Dupin-Bryant (2004)
Avive, Erlich, Ravid, and Gava (2003) Gorsky, Caspi, and Trumper (2004)
Gorsky, Caspi, and Tuvi-Arid (2004) Ofir et al 2004
Wikeley and Muschamp (2004)
Munro (1991) Brenner (1996) Richardson (1998)
Thompson, (1998) Huang (2000)
Kanuka, Collett, and Caswell (2002)
Dron (2002, 2004)
Stein, Wanstreet, et al (2005) Lemone (2005)

27. Conclusion and future directions
Jung (2001):
"WBI research showed little resemblance to established pedagogical theory in general or distance education theory in particular. While some studies raised their research question and discussed the findings in theoretical frameworks, other studies had little relationship to established learning theories."
I fear:
further proliferation of non-theoretical grabbing at data, conceptual confusion and thus mis-directed research resources
I hope:
More research connected to theory through study of educational theory, including foundations of educational psychology, philosophy, curriculum design, instruction as requirement for higher education practice and research
I expect
more attention to learner-to-learner dialogue stimulated by constructivist philosophy and methodology, leading to more understanding of learner autonomy, what is appropriate dialog with teacher and what are appropriate course structures

28. Thank you. Michael G. Moore www. ajde
Thank you.. Michael G. Moore Forthcoming HANDBOOK OF DISTANCE EDUCATION. SECOND EDITION by Michael G. Moore (ed.) ISBN/ISSN: Pub. Date: March