Introduction
Transactional distance might be defined as the perceived degree of separation during interaction between and among students and teachers. While usually associated with distance education courses, this perception can vary equally in face-to-face (FtF) classes and distance education classes. For instance, students in a FtF Introductory Sociology class of 300 may never have an opportunity to communicate with their professor or a majority of students in the class while students in an online course, separated geographically but connected electronically, may have far more contact with the course instructor.
Moore (1980) describes transactional distance as having two components: dialogue and structure. Dialogue refers to communication between students and their teacher and structure refers to the "responsiveness" of the educational plan to the individual student. (In Saba & Shearer, 1994)
Both Moore and Saba (1994) call for more empirical validation of these concepts and other variables that affect the success of education at a distance. To that end, Saba and Shearer (1994) investigated the relationship between a variety of distance education factors and Bischoff, Bisconer, Kooker, and Woods (1996) compared transactional distance in both online and face-to-face classes.
Using System Dynamics to Explain Transactional Distance
Saba and Shearer used a technique called "system dynamics" to explain the relationship between transactional distance and structure and dialogue and the relationship between these three factors and learner and instructor control and their respective factors, active and passive speech, and direct and indirect instructor control. The "system dynamics" approach involves the development of a mathematical equation to explain and predict the relationship between transactional distance, learner control, and instructor control. Once the model was developed, Saba and Shearer set out to empirically verify the accuracy of the formula.
The authors clearly defined their terms and stated two hypotheses at the outset of their study: "When dialogue increases, structure and transactional distance decrease and when structure increases, transactional distance also increases but dialogue decreases." (p. 46)
With 30 distance education (DE) students and their instructor, the authors used videotape recordings of close circuit video communications, telephone conversations, and computer screens (which comprised the "telelesson") to study the interaction between the instructor and each student. The results of their analysis supported their hypotheses -- "transactional distance varies by rate of dialogue and structure". (p. 54.)
Saba and Shearer concluded their research with an interview of the student participants, all of whom had positive responses to the telelesson although 13 of the 30 said they would prefer a DE course over a FtF course, while the remaining 17 students preferred the FtF course. The authors suggest future research that includes online courses in which the instructor communicates with more than one student at a time and recommend investigation into the Internet's ability to use video and audio for DE.
Comparing Transactional Distance Between Online and FtF Courses
Like Saba, Bischoff, et al., (1996) conducted empirical research to verify Moore's concepts of transactional distance, dialogue, and structure. Pointing out the importance of interpersonal communication in health education, the authors compared transactional distance between an online (two-way televised) and FtF graduate courses. Using data from student questionnaires, the authors wanted to determine the relationship between transactional distance, dialogue, and structure, including whether dialogue and structure could predict transactional distance. Their second question concerned whether the data from student questionnaires in the online course would differ significantly from the answers of the FtF students. Finally, the research addressed the effect of e-mail access on transactional distance, dialogue, and structure.
Data from 221 questionnaires indicated that online students communicated significantly more often that their FtF counterparts resulting in higher dialogue scores. Both dialogue and structure scores were significantly lower, and transactional distance scores were significantly higher in courses that did not use e-mail.
The authors suggest that similar, future research be replicated in other educational environments and that future research studies include a qualitative component.
Conclusion
Both of the studies reported here are early contributors to a research base that helps theorists better understand the relatively new educational concept of transactional distance. Both studies use Moore's research as a springboard and both have clear visions of future research to further expand the research base.
Bischoff, W., Bisconer, S. Kooker, B. & Woods L. (1996). Transactional distance and interactive television in the distance education of health professionals. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 4-19.
Saba, F. and Shearer, R. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36-56.