The influence of communication technologies and approaches to study on transactional distance in blended learning

This paper explores the role played by communication technologies and study orientations in the amplification and reduction of transactional distance in blended learning. Factor analysis and structural equation modelling of different communication modes (face to face, email and telephone) revealed that students experience at least some transactional distance when separated from their tutors. Email was found to facilitate the highest levels of immediacy of dialogue for most students. The conclusion is that strategic students are best placed to benefit from blended learning, and that the effects of transactional distance could be analysed more deeply if two subvariables of dialogue were recognised. These are social presence (the perception of connectedness between students and their tutors) and immediacy (the temporal effects of dialogue).

[1]  Mike Moore,et al.  Distance Education: A Systems View , 1995 .

[2]  C. Dewdney,et al.  The Skin of Culture: Investigating the New Electronic Reality , 1995 .

[3]  Ebba Ossiannilsson.  Flexible Learning in a Digital World , 2002 .

[4]  Nicolae Nistor,et al.  Human behaviour in the online sub-culture , 2003 .

[5]  Vivien Hodgson,et al.  Relationships between conceptions of learning approaches to study and students' judgements about the value of their experiences of networked learning , 2003 .

[6]  Geoffrey M. Stephenson,et al.  EYE‐CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION: A RE‐EVALUATION , 1970 .

[7]  B. Byrne.  Book Review: Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming , 1994 .

[8]  Nada Dabbagh.  Distance Learning: Emerging Pedagogical Issues and Learning Designs , 2004 .

[9]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  An evaluation of alternative distance tutoring models for at-risk elementary school children , 1990 .

[10]  C. Gunawardena,et al.  Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment , 1997 .

[11]  Noel Entwistle,et al.  Styles of learning and teaching , 1981 .

[12]  Michael Simonson,et al.  Simonson on the five themes at the foundation of Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education , 2002 .

[13]  Charalambos Vrasidas,et al.  Factors influencing interaction in an online course , 1999 .

[14]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[15]  Steve Wheeler,et al.  Building for the future of educational telematics: models, foundations and frameworks , 2001 .

[16]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Talking to strangers: an evaluation of the factors affecting electronic collaboration , 1996, CSCW '96.

[17]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with EQS : basic concepts, applications, and programming , 2000 .

[18]  Patricia Wallace.  The Psychology of the Internet , 1999 .

[19]  Betty Collis,et al.  Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations , 2001 .

[20]  Frank D. Tallman,et al.  Satisfaction and completion in correspondence study: The influence of instructional and student‐support services , 1994 .

[21]  C. Gunawardena.  Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interaction and Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences , 1995 .

[22]  M. Moore.  The Theory of Transactional Distance , 2012, Handbook of Distance Education.

[23]  Namin Shin.  Transactional Presence as a Critical Predictor of Success in Distance Learning , 2003 .

[24]  O. Simpson.  The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students , 2004 .

[25]  M. J. Emerson,et al.  The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  Jon Dron,et al.  Transactional distance in a blended learning environment , 2004 .