AECT Handbook of Research

Table of Contents

13. Distance Education
PDF

13.1 Introduction
13.2 History of Distance Education
13.3 Theory of Distance Education
13.4 Distance Learning Technologies
13.5 Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
13.6 Research Related to Media in Distance Education
13.7 International Issues
13.8 Summary and Recommendations
References
Search this Handbook for:

 

13.3 THEORY OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

The development of new technologies has promoted an astounding growth in distance education, both in the number of students enrolling and in the number of universities adding education at a distance to their curriculum (Garrison, 1990). While the application of modem technology may glamorize distance education, literature in the field reveals a conceptually fragmented framework lacking in both theoretical foundation and programmatic research. Without a strong base in research and theory, distance education has struggled for recognition by the traditional academic community. Distance education has been described by some (Garrison, 1990; Hayes, 1990) as no more than a hodgepodge of ideas and practices taken from traditional classroom settings and imposed on learners who just happen to be separated physically from an instructor. As distance education struggles to identify appropriate theoretical frameworks, implementation issues also become important. These issues involve the learner, the instructor, and the technology. Because of the very nature of distance education as learner-centered instruction, distance educators must move ahead to investigate how the learner, the instructor, and the technology collaborate to generate knowledge.

Traditionally, both theoretical constructs and research studies in distance education have been considered in the context of an educational enterprise that was entirely separate from the standard, classroom-based, classical instructional model. In part to justify, and in part to explain, the phenomenon, theoreticians like Holmberg, Keegan, and Rumble explored the underlying assumptions of what it is that makes distance education different from traditional education. With an early vision of what it meant to be a nontraditional learner, these pioneers in distance education defined the distance learner as one who is physically separated from the teacher (Rumble, 1986), has a planned and guided learning experience (Holmberg, 1986), and participates in a two-way structured form of distance education that is distinct from the traditional form of classroom instruction (Keegan, 1988). In order to justify the importance of this nontraditional kind of education, early theoretical approaches attempted to define the important and unique attributes of distance education.

Keegan (1986) identifies three historical approaches to the development of a theory of distance education. Theories of autonomy and independence from the 1960s and 1970s, argued by Wedemeyer (1977) and Moore (1973), reflect the essential component of the independence of the learner. Otto Peter's (1971) work on a theory of industrialization in the 1960s reflects the attempt to view the field of distance education as an industrialized form of teaching and learning. The third approach integrates theories of interaction and communication formulated by Badth (1982, 1987), and Daniel and Marquis (1979). Using the postindustrial model, Keegan presents these three approaches to the study and development of the academic discipline of distance education. It is this concept of industrialized, open, nontraditional learning that, Keegan says, will change the practice of education.

Wedemeyer (1981) identifies essential elements of independent learning as greater student responsibility, widely available instruction, effective mix of media and methods, adaptation to individual differences, and a wide variety of start, stop, and learn times. Holmberg (1989) calls for foundations of theory construction around the concepts of independence, learning, and teaching:

Meaningful learning, which anchors new learning matter in the cognitive structures, not rote learning, is the center of interest. Teaching is taken to mean facilitation of learning. Individualization of teaching and learning, encouragement of critical thinking, and far-reaching student autonomy are integrated with this view of learning and teaching (Holmberg, 1989, p. 161).

Holmberg summarizes his theoretical approach by stating that :

Distance education is a concept that covers the learning-teaching activities in the cognitive and/or psycho-motor and affective domains of an individual learner and a supporting organization. It is characterized by non-contiguous communication and can be carried out anywhere and at any time, which makes it attractive to adults with professional and social commitments (Holmberg, 1989, p. 168).

Garrison and Shale (1987) include in their essential criteria for formulation of a distance education theory the elements of noncontiguous communication, two-way interactive communication, and the use of technology to mediate the necessary two-way communication.

13.3.1 Theoretical Constructs

Recently, a wider range of theoretical notions has provided a richer understanding of the learner at a distance. Four such concepts are transactional distance, interaction, learner control, and social presence.

13.3.1.1. Transactional Distance. Moore's (1990) concept of "transactional distance" encompasses the distance that, he says, exists in all educational relationships. This distance is determined by the amount of dialogue that occurs between the learner and the instructor, and the amount of structure that exists in the design of the course. Greater transactional distance occurs when an educational program has more structure and less student-teacher dialogue, as might be found in some traditional distance education courses. Education offers a continuum of transactions from less distant, where there is greater interaction and less structure, to more distant, where there may be less interaction and more structure. This continuum blurs the distinctions between conventional and distance programs because of the variety of transactions that occur between teachers and learners in both settings. Thus distance is not determined by geography but by the relationship between dialogue and structure.

Saba and Shearer (Saba & Shearer, 1994) carry the concept of transactional distance a step farther by proposing a system dynamics model to examine the relationship between dialogue and structure in transactional distance. In their study, Saba and Shearer conclude that as learner control and dialogue increase, transactional distance decreases. It is not location that determines the effect of instruction but the amount of transaction between learner and instructor. This concept has implications for traditional classrooms as well as distant ones. The use of integrated telecommunication systems may permit a greater variety of transactions to occur, thus improving dialogue to minimize transactional distance.

13.3.1.2. Interaction. A second theoretical construct of recent interest to distance educators, and one that has received much attention in the theoretical literature, is that of interaction. Moore (1989) discusses three types of interaction essential in distance education. Learner-instructor interaction is that component of his model that provides motivation, feedback, and dialogue between the teacher and student. Learner-content interaction is the method by which students obtain intellectual information from the material. Learner-learner interaction is the exchange of information, ideas, and dialogue that occur between students about the course, whether this happens in a structured or nonstructured manner. The concept of interaction is fundamental to the effectiveness of distance education programs as well as traditional ones.Hillman, Hills, and Gunawardena (1994) have taken the idea of interaction a step farther and added a fourth component to the model learner-interface interaction. They note that the interaction between the learner and the technology that delivers instruction is a critical component of the model, which has been missing thus far in the literature. They propose a new paradigm that includes understanding the use of the interface in all transactions. Learners who do not have the basic skills required to use a communication medium spend inordinate amounts of time learning to interact with the technology and have less time to learn the lesson. For this reason, instructional designers must include learner-interface interactions that enable the learner to have successful interactions with the mediating technology.

13.3.1.3. Control. A third theoretical concept receiving attention in the distance education literature is that of independence and learner control. Studies that examine locus of control (Altmann & Arambasich, 1982; Rotter, 1989) conclude that students who perceive that their academic success is a result of their own personal accomplishments have an internal locus of control and are more likely to persist in their education. Students with an external locus of control feel that their success, or lack of it, is due largely to events such as luck or fate outside their control. Thus, externals are more likely to become dropouts. Factors of control that influence dropout rate have been of concern to distance educators as they search for criteria to predict successful course completion. Baynton (1992) developed a model to examine the concept of control as it is defined by independence, competence, and support. She notes that control is more than independence. It requires striking a balance among three factors: a learner's independence (the opportunity to make choices), competence (ability and skill), and support (both human and material). Baynton's factor analysis confirms the significance of these three factors and suggests other factors that may affect the concept of control and which should be examined to portray accurately the complex interaction between teacher and learner in the distance learning setting.

13.3.1.4. Social Context. Finally, the social context in which distance learning takes place is emerging as a significant area for research. Theorists are examining how the social environment affects motivation, attitudes, teaching, and learning. There is a widespread notion that technology is culturally neutral, and can be easily used in a variety of settings. However media, materials, and services are often inappropriately transferred without attention being paid to the social setting or to the local recipient culture (Mclsaac, 1993). Technology-based learning activities are frequently used without attention to -the impact on the local social environment. Computer-mediated communication attempts to reduce patterns of discrimination by providing equality of social interaction among participants who may be anonymous in terms of gender, race, and physical features. However, there is evidence that the social equality factor may not extend, for example, to participants who are not good writers but who must communicate primarily in a text-based format (Gunawardena, 1993). It is particularly important to examine social factors in distance learning environments where the communication process is mediated and where social climates are created that are very different from traditional settings. Feenberg and Bellman (1990) propose a social factor model to examine computer networking environments that create specialized electronic social environments for students and collaborators working in groups.

One social factor particularly significant to distance educators is social presence, the degree to which a person feels "socially present" in a mediated situation. The notion is that social presence is inherent in the medium itself, and technologies offer participants varying degrees of "social presence' (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976). Hackman and Walker (1990), studying learners in an interactive television class, found that cues given to students such as encouraging gestures, smiles, and praise were social factors that enhanced both students' satisfaction and their perceptions of learning. Constructs such as social presence, immediacy, and intimacy are social factors that deserve further inquiry.

13.3.2 Toward a Theoretical Foundation

Although there have been numerous attempts to formulate a theory base for the field, American distance education remains "chaotic and confused. There is no national policy, nor anything approaching a consensus among educators of the value, the methodology or even the concept of distance education" (Moore, 1993). Shale (1990) calls for theoreticians and practitioners to stop emphasizing points of difference between distance and traditional education, but instead to identify common educational problems. Distance education is, after all, simply education at a distance with common frameworks, common conceptual concerns, and similar research questions relating to the social process of teaching and learning. Many distance educators are beginning to call for a theoretic model based on constructivist epistemology (Jegede, 1991). Technological advances have already begun to blur the distinction between traditional and distance educational settings. Time and place qualifiers are no longer unique. The need to test assumptions and hypotheses about how and under what conditions individuals learn best leads to research questions about learning, teaching, course design, and the role of technology in the educational process. As traditional, education integrates the use of interactive, multimedia technologies to enhance individual learning, the role of the teacher changes from knowledge source to knowledge facilitator. As networks become available in schools and homes to encourage individuals to become their own knowledge navigators, the structure of education will change, and the need for separate theories for distance education will blend into the theoretical foundations for the mainstream of education.

More than 35% of the literature reviewed reported the need for developing a central, theoretical framework on which future distance education development can be based. While numerous journal articles and conference presentations discussed the lack of theoretical framework in the field, most of the work was descriptive rather than research oriented. However, several writers have contributed to theory formulation.

Verduin and Clark (1991) offer a rationale by suggesting that confusion over distance education terminology may be to blame. In response to this theoretical void, Gibson (1990) suggests borrowing a theory from existing disciplines. Miller (1989) concurs by suggesting that "it is important that the study of distance education be informed by work done in other disciplines" (p. 15). Boyd and Apps (1980) struggle with the idea of borrowing a theory, as they see the important issue being the development of a clearly defined structure, function, purpose, and goal for distance education. "We must ask ourselves what erroneous assumptions we may be accepting when we borrow from established disciplines to define distance education" (pp. 2-3). Furthermore, borrowing extensively from other fields in order to define and solve problems allows the field to define the borrowed field (Gibson, 1990) In an effort to define theoretically the field of distance education, the literature advances three strategies. Deshler and Hagen (1989) advocate a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach resulting in a diversity of perspectives. They caution that anything short of this approach may "produce theory that suffers from a view that is narrow, incomplete, discipline-based and restricted ... to a predominant view of reality" (p. 163).

A second approach is advocated by Hayes (1990), who supports the work of Knowles (1984) and Brookfield (1986). Hayes emphasizes that theoretical development relative to adult learning must be distinct from youth learning. While past experiences may occasionally interfere with an adult's openness to new learning experiences, the majority of literature views experience as a resource for new learning. Knowles (1984), for example, supports an andragogical, learner-focused foundation in his belief that "adults draw on previous experiences in order to test the validity of new information" (p. 44). A third strategy for theory development from an international perspective has been proposed by Sophason and Prescott (1988). They caution that certain lines of questioning are more appropriate in some countries than in others, thus the emanating theory "may have a particular slant" (p. 17). A comparative analysis strategy would undoubtedly be influenced by cultural bias and language barriers (Pratt, 1989). Pratt further indicates that understanding different culturally related beliefs about the nature of the individual and society may be critical in defining appropriate distance education theories. Pratt clarifies his belief through a description of how differences in societies' historical traditions and philosophies can contribute to differing orientations toward self-expression and social interactions within educational settings.

Although these three strategies for the advancement of a theoretical foundation for distance education are repeated in current literature, Ely (1992) foresees a road block to the theoretical progression. "What seems to be needed is an unclouded understanding of distance education. This includes the audience, setting, and delivery methodologies" (p. 43). Loesch and Foley (1988) concur and ask for further research in this area in their statement that only when a clear understanding of distance education becomes available can concise questions be developed that can lead to establishment of theory. Evans and Nation (1992) contribute some of the most thoughtful and insightful comments on theory building when they suggest that we examine broader social and historic contexts in our efforts to extend previously narrow views of theories in open and distance education. They urge us to move toward deconstruction of the instructional industrialism of distance education, and toward the construction of a critical approach that, combined with an integration of theories from the humanities and social sciences, can enrich the theory building in our field.

Although there has been no central theoretical framework to guide research in distance education, there have been a number of important studies that have examined the interactions of technologies with learning, course design, ,and instruction. Because of the heavy use of technology in distance education, it is appropriate to examine its role in this context.


Updated August 3, 2001
Copyright © 2001
The Association for Educational Communications and Technology

AECT
1800 North Stonelake Drive, Suite 2
Bloomington, IN 47404

877.677.AECT (toll-free)
812.335.7675

AECT Home Membership Information Conferences & Events AECT Publications Post and Search Job Listings