Produced with Scholar

Work 1: Educational Theory Analysis

Project Overview

Project Description

Topic: Take one of the theories or theoretical concepts introduced in this course. Look ahead into the course learning module to get a sense of upcoming ideas—don’t feel constrained to explore concepts introduced early in the course. Or explore a related theory or concept of your own choosing that is relevant to the course themes. 

Convey in your introduction how your topic aligns with the course themes and your experience and interests.  Outline the theory or define the concept referring to the theoretical and research literature and illustrate the significance of the theory using examples of this concept at work in pedagogical practice, supported by scholarly sources.

For Doctoral Students: Theoretical and Empirical Literature Review: Work 1 must be in the genre of a literature review with at least 10 scholarly sources. For specific details, refer to the Literature Review Guidelines provided later in this document. 

Word length: at least 2000 words

Media: Include images, diagrams, infographics, tables, embedded videos, (either uploaded into CGScholar, or embedded from other sites), web links, PDFs, datasets or other digital media. Be sure to caption media sources and connect them explicitly with the text, with an introduction before and discussion afterwards.

References: Include a References “element” or section with at least five (ten for doctoral students) scholarly articles or books that you have used and referred to in the text, plus any other necessary or relevant references, including websites and media.

Rubric: Use the ‘Knowledge Process Rubric’ against which others will review your work, and against which you will do your self-review at the completion of your final draft.

Icon for An Overview of Transactional Distance Theory

An Overview of Transactional Distance Theory

Introduction

As e-learning continues to be prevalent in education and training, instructors and course designers must continually assess and make decisions about the best ways to deliver instructional content. There are many factors to be taken into account. Decisions must be made about delivery platform, media to convey information, instructor accessibility and communication channels, how best to facilitate effective peer-peer communications, how to create a strong teacher presence, how to measure achievement of learning objectives, and how to most effectively engage learners considering the characteristics within a particular learning community.

A popular theory that has been around for the past 40 years is Michael G. Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance, which focuses on the how the dynamic of understanding between instructors and learners is affected when they are not in the same physical or temporal location. I was introduced to this theory last semester in Dr. Huang's course on Learning Technologies. Given that I have taken more than 20 classes online, I've experienced transactional distance and wanted to understand it better. It is also of interest to me because in my work as a course administrator on Canvas (a learning management system), I think about how to best arrange the course content and activities so that students will be able to easily find what they need and understand what is expected of them. Since the students I work with are traditional students who attend classes in person regularly, it would not at first seem that transactional distance is much of a factor. However, even in a traditional on-campus, face-to-face course, universities are taking a blended approach in that they are relying more and more on technology to convey course materials and activities.

This work will provide an overview of transactional distance theory, how it is applied, its criticisms, and reflect on the question of whether the theory is still relevant today.

What is Transactional Distance Theory?

Transactional Distance (TD) Theory was posited in 1980 (and later refined in 1993) by Dr. Michael Moore to provide a theoretical foundation for the burgeoning field of distance education. At the time, distance education consisted primarily of correspondence courses conducted by mail in which there was very little interaction between student and instructor. The theory essentially states that there is a psychological and communications space between an instructor and learners (the transactional distance) that must be crossed in order for understanding to take place (Moore, 1993/2005). In the case of distance education, the physical and temporal separation is great enough that it requires specialized strategies and techniques in order to minimize the transactional distance so learning can take place. These specialized strategies can be used to inform the design of distance learning environments and the pedagogies used within them. It is a theory more focused on how to create the ideal conditions for learning to occur in e-learning, online learning, and distance learning environments, rather than a theory about how learning takes place (Oh, 2018).

Moore (1993/2005) identifies three specific variables and the relationships between them as the framework for design strategies: dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy. As technology has increased capabilities in the field of distance education and e-learning, the interpretations of these variables have expanded, but the fundamental concepts remain. Even in the course of refining his own theory, Moore (1993/2005) recognized the addition of peer-peer relationships between learners that was made possible by the advent of telecommunications technology, which allowed for the inclusion of the learner-learner relationship in the consideration of the dialogue variable. The three variables identified by Moore are outlined below.

Dialogue

Initially, dialogue referred specifically to the interaction between teacher and learner. As mentioned above, Moore later adapted his theory to include interactions between learners. Moore uses the term dialogue in a very specific way. It is not meant to be construed as just any interaction between the agents in a distance learning environment, but is described as "purposeful, constructive, and valued by each party" (Moore, 1993/2005). Dialogue is affected by factors including the medium of communication, the number of learners in the environment, the physical environments of the learners and the teacher, and the emotions of the learners and the teacher (Moore, 1993/2005). In this context, dialogue is treated as a social-constructivist approach, "guided by a spirit of discovery that helps build knowledge and understanding" (Shearer & Park, 2019).

Structure

Structure refers to the actual organizational framework of the course or program. How is the content delivered? How are the learning objectives met? Are there activities, assignments, or other elements and how should they be structured to meet learning objectives given the characteristics of the learners and the resources available? How is assessment conducted? How much room is there for learner specialization? How are learners supported? Decisions about structure establish the degree of rigidity or flexibility in the learning environment (Moore, 1993/2005). As with dialogue, structure is affected by choice of media, and the characteristics and emotions of the teacher and the learners (Moore, 1993/2005) as well as the philosophy of the course designers (Oh, 2018).

Learner Autonomy

The third variable in TD theory is learner autonomy. Put simply, learner autonomy describes the extent to which the learner has control over their own learning path and experience. According to Shearer and Park (2019) it is "the most elusive" (p. 34) of Moore's TD variables because it is difficult to operationalize and understand its impact within the theory. For Moore, it included "aspects of metacognition, self-directed learning, motivation, and learning control" (Shearer & Park, 2019, p. 34). Shearer and Park (2019) also note that it is a "personal trait which is able to evolve through practice" (2019, p.34), unlike dialogue and structure, which are determined by the design of the course.

In the early seventies, behaviorism dominated what was at the time very early stages of distance education -- referred to as correspondence learning -- resulting in highly structured and regimented learning environments where the teacher had almost complete autonomy over the learning process (Moore, 1993/2005). It was Moore's early work that challenged the premise of the behaviorists and put forth the alternate concept of learner autonomy to be considered in designed distance learning. In his research analysis, he recognized that different learners preferred different degrees along the dialogue-structure axis (with less dialogue and more structure at one end and more dialogue and less structure at the other end), and that many learners took the material they were provided and used it to achieve their own purposes in their own way (Moore, 1993/2005).

The Relationship of the Variables

Fig. 1. A 3D Model of transactional distance. Moore, 2006

Moore stated there is an inverse relationship between structure and dialogue: when structure is high and dialogue is low, TD is increased; when dialogue is high and structure is low, then TD is decreased (1993/2005). It is important to note that Moore emphasizes that TD is not an absolute variable and thus there is flexibility in the relationships based on teacher and learner characteristics. In 1991, he stated:

...it can be argued that while transactional distance is a characteristic of every educational program, and that programs differ in transactional distance according to the extent of dialogue and structure within them, there is also variability in the transactional distance between teachers and learners within each educational program, resulting from the interaction of dialogue, structure, and the characteristics of each learner. (p.5)

In Figure 1, we see that more dialogue and less structure result in lower transactional distance. The 3D representation shows that the higher the transactional distance, the more learner autonomy is required (or permitted) by the teaching method.

Fig 2. A 3D Model of transactional distance. Moore, 2006

In Figure 2, we see the same representation but with a demonstration of how the expectations of learner autonomy for a course or program can impact transactional distance. Typically, a low structure, high dialogue course (well-suited to an online course, for example) doesn't require much learner autonomy and should have relatively low transactional distance. However, it is certainly possible, and may be desirable, to design a course such that even within a low structure, high dialogue environment, a high degree of learner autonomy is required, and can still result in low transactional distance.

This current course (HRD 572) in CGScholar is a good example of what this looks like. The course has what I would classify as a low-medium structure: material is organized a particular way, it is delivered on a weekly basis, there are requirements for completion of activities and projects. However, students are not required to be present for the online sessions, nor are they explicitly required to read or watch all of the weekly course material. There aren't weekly quizzes checking to see whether material has been absorbed, which would indicate a higher structure, for example. This course is high dialogue. Students and the instructors meet online once a week, and there is constant interaction in the form of updates, comments, and peer reviews. Based on the low structure/high dialogue design, looking at Figure 2, we see that combination of variables allows less learner autonomy while keeping transactional distance low.

However, the point of Figure 2 is the inclusion of the colored cylinders. Looking at the two (yellow and lime green) cylinders on the lowest portion of the 3D cubical object, we see that the combination of lower structure, higher dialogue, higher learner autonomy can still result in low transactional distance. Returning to the example of this course, we have already established it exhibits a low-medium structure and high dialogue design. However, it also requires a high degree of learner autonomy. Even though there are activities that must be completed, the schedule for doing so is fairly flexible. Students can pick and choose concepts they are interested in delving into further, demonstrating more control over their learning path and outcomes. Yet, this combination of variables -- lower structure, higher dialogue, and higher learner autonomy -- can still result in low transactional distance. Personally, my experience with the two courses I have taken on the CGScholar platform that have been structured this way is that the transactional distance -- the space for misunderstanding -- is low.

What can be taken away from this is that there is no one ideal construct for an online course or program, but, rather, it is more important to focus on the relationships between dialogue, structure, and autonomy -- within the context of understanding the learner characteristics to the extent possible -- in order to determine the optimal combination needed to facilitate an effective and engaging learning experience.

Application

Media embedded October 26, 2019

Australian Catholic University. (2016, September 8). ACU case study: Applying transactional distance theory to a flipped classroom (EDMA202) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/v8weQq7872A

In the video above, Professor Romina Jamieson-Proctor walks through how she used TD theory to inform the design of her blended and online mathematics courses for pre-service teachers. Similar to Dockter (2016), she emphasizes the importance of envisioning the student experience from their perspective in order to create an effective online teaching environment. She recommends thinking about course navigation and interaction from the student point of view. Ask questions such as: Can I find the information I need to be successful in this course? Can I easily find necessary content and instructions? Do I know where to go next? If the answer to any of those questions is no, then course structure should be revisited. Likewise, she recommends a similar evaluation process for dialogue: Is there enough opportunity for me as a student to discuss content with the teacher, with my peers? Is there somewhere to share what I want to talk about? Again, if the answer to these questions is no, then revisions should be made to allow for more dialogic interactions.

Another important point Professor Jamieson-Proctor makes reinforces something said by Moore himself, which is that creating effective online learning experiences requires outside support. Moore (1993/2005) states:

To overcome transactional distance in these ways by appropriate structuring of instruction and appropriate use of dialogue is very demanding. It requires the engagement of many different skills and it requires that these skills are systematically organized and deployed...In distance education teaching is hardly ever an individual act, but a collaborative process joining together the expertise of a number of specialists in design teams and delivery networks. (Programme Structure, 7th paragraph).

It is beneficial for instructors to call upon the expertise of instructional designers, information technology staff, and other colleagues for advice and feedback. Instructional designers and information technology staff can provide valuable guidance on methods and practices as well as advice on most effective technologies to achieve the intended objectives.

For example, I recently consulted with the instructional technology staff at my school for advice on how to incorporate technology to facilitate collaborative student projects that would produce sharable knowledge artifacts in an upcoming course. The professor and I knew we wanted students to work together in groups to produce projects on various topics relevant to the course concepts. However, as the professor explained it to me, he did not want the usual PowerPoints that are handed in and no one ever sees. After talking through the learning goals and expectations of students' ability to use various technologies, the instructional consultant and I settled on CoursePress (an academic version of WordPress) which will allow the students to produce multimodal knowledge artifacts in a shared social space. Even in this example of a traditional face-to-face course, there is a degree of transactional distance. By giving the students a way to increase their peer-peer and student-instructor dialogue, they should experience even lower transactional distance.

Media embedded October 29, 2019

Azusa Pacific University Office of Innovative Teaching and Technology. (2018, February 14). Overcoming transactional distance [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/gjFD3enZaRc

The video above stresses the importance of communication, especially between the instructor and students, for decreasing transactional distance. In TD theory, communication would fall within the variable of dialogue. Generally, more communication and dialogue results in lower transactional distance. Learners who feel more connected to the instructor will be more engaged in the course. Communication is not just about frequency, however. Communication also encompasses how the instructor conveys their persona to the students, and how that can affect students' perception of the instructor and ultimately, whether students feel satisfied with the course.

Learner Satisfaction and Perception of the Teacher

In 2015, 5.9 million post-secondary students were taking some kind of distance education course, with about half of that population taking courses fully online (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Of the nearly 20 million students enrolled in post-secondary education in 2015, 29.8% were participating in a distance education course ("National Center," 2018). Weidlich and Bastiaens (2018) state that attrition rates in online education courses are higher than traditional face-to-face courses which they refer to as "striking" (p. 223) given the convenience and flexibility that online courses typically provide. In their own literature survey, Weidlich & Bastiaens (2018) identified one standout variable -- satisfaction -- that has significant influence on whether students remain enrolled in their online courses.

In their examination of TD theory, Weidlich & Bastiaens (2018) research shows that the relationship between student and the technology is a strong predictor of learner satisfaction, likely because all other relationships (teacher-student, student-student, student-content) are mediated by the selected technology. The technology could include the learning management system, use of e-mail, use of social media, etc. -- anything that has been incorporated into the course as a means of communication. Interestingly, their findings also show that transactional distance between students is not pivotal to learner satisfaction, which, as they note, seems to be contrary to other research that supports the importance of the social learning aspect of online education. However, the transactional distance between students and teachers is a significant factor and because "students rely on teachers for support, reducing transactional distance is critical" (Weidlich & Bastiaens, p 233).

Dockter (2016) further delves into the implications of TD theory in the context of the online teacher-student relationship. He examines the concept of teacher presence, which has to do with how students perceive the teacher's persona. For example: What is the teacher's personality, teaching style? How supportive do they seem? How much does the teacher care about my ability to succeed in the course? Is the teacher approachable and accessible? All of these factors can affect a student's perception of the teacher, and, as Dockter (2016) states, "students' sense of their teacher is critically important to their success in online classes" (p. 75) because it helps to reduce the sense of isolation and potential for misunderstanding (i.e. transactional distance) that can be felt by students and teachers alike.

Dockter makes an interesting point in his research, which hones in on the idea of what constitutes a transaction in the context of the teacher-student relationship. In education, a transaction is where learning occurs in the exchange of ideas and information. Because at least two people are required for an exchange to take place, Dockter (2016) argues that both the teacher and the student have a role in creating teacher presence. Though it is impossible to fully understand and predict how each learner's individual experiences will affect how they interact with content, the teacher, and each other, by taking a more varied approach to pedagogy, course design, and communications with students, teachers can create more opportunities for students to inform their perception of the teacher and ultimately decrease transactional distance (Dockter, 2016).

Increasing ways for students to make meaning, using multimodal means of communication, and being willing to allow students to see imperfections or allowing elements of personality to come through, can all be effective ways to increase teacher presence (Docter, 2016). The example provided earlier about incorporating a new multimodal collaborative project in one of the courses I support applies here as well. By giving the students another way to engage with content and make meaning, the professor has also given them another way to connect with him. Using this course (HRD 572) again as an example, we see the use of different forms of communication in live interactions, recorded videos, and textual materials. Each medium provides a slightly different way to get a sense of the teachers' interest and commitment to the content and to the students; having multiple channels with which to experience teacher presence creates a more complete picture of who the teachers are, thus, decreasing the potential for misunderstanding.

As an example of the personality factor, recently I was able to get to know a little more about my professors in this course as they took a few minutes to explain the stories behind the photos they had chosen to be the icons for the various courses they are currently teaching. Realizing that these images were not stock photos but actual pictures taken during various travels, and hearing the reasoning behind why a particular photo was selected for a particular course gave me new insight into the teachers' thinking and deepened my sense of connection to them and to the course.

Fig. 3. Author's representation of examples of instructor-student dialogue possibilities. Top row l-r: discussion board, video recording. Bottom row l-r: live web class, audio/podcast recording, e-mail.

Critique

Gorsky and Caspi (2009) concluded that TD theory has "historical and philosophical significance," (p. 4) but that ultimately, Moore's theory lacks validity. They reviewed 19 studies and found that none of them fully validated the theory as a scientific means of operationalizing the proposed variables to determine transactional distance. Further, Gorsky and Caspi (2005, 2009) concluded that theory itself was not functional because it was a tautology.

One of the major flaws Gorsky and Caspi (2005, 2009) found was that many of the studies had issues with construct validity due to the lack of consistent interpretation of the definition of what constitutes transactional distance, dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy. Variables were defined differently and measured by different standards, making results unreliable and invalid. Because Moore's definitions were more formal than operational, subsequent attempts to put the theory to test yielded data that Gorsky and Caspi (2009) found to be "unacceptable" (p. 2). They further concluded that Moore's variables also omitted any connection to learning outcomes, which they believe is critical for any instructional theory (2009).

Gorsky and Caspi (2005) also point out that the relationship between the three variables is actually hierarchical as Moore described them, rather than independent. Gorsky and Caspi's (2005) interpretation is that because of the inverse relationship between structure and dialogue described by Moore, structure therefore determines to some extent dialogue, which is also affected by the characteristics of the learner. So, in this case, since structure and learner autonomy are significant only to the extent they drive dialogue, they are not variables on an equivalent level as dialogue.

The tautology issue arises from Gorsky and Caspi's (2005, 2009) examination of Moore's stated inverse relationship between dialogue and structure. According to Moore, as dialogue goes up and structure goes down, transactional distance will decrease, whereas as dialogue decreases and structure increases, so will transactional distance. Gorsky and Caspi (2005) interpreted this as the tautology, "As understanding increases, misunderstanding decreases" (p. 8). Moore (1993/2005) defines dialogue as specialized interaction "with value placed on the synergistic nature of the relationship of the parties involved" (Instructional Dialogue, 1st paragraph) and said that in education, dialogue is to help increase the understanding of the student. Recall that from Moore's view, transactional distance is the space where there is a potential for misunderstanding between teacher and learner.

In other words, any increase in understanding must automatically decrease misunderstanding, and vice-versa. It is an inverse relationship and as such, there is no point in attempting to validate the theory because "a quantity and its inverse are being correlated" (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005, p.9). A classic example of an inverse relationship is between speed and time. The faster you move, the less time it takes to get where you are going; inversely, the slower you move, the more time it takes to get where you are going. You cannot both move quickly and take longer to arrive at your destination. In the context of TD theory, you cannot both increase understanding (dialogue) and misunderstanding (transactional distance) at the same time, therefore, there is no reason to try to validate the theory as x will always equal y:

  • x: understanding increases
  • y: misunderstanding decreases

Another critical analysis (Giossos, Koutsouba, Lionarakis, & Skavantzos, 2009) attempts to parse the theory through the epistemological framework of realism rather than searching for empirical validations or interpretations of procedure. Their reasoning is that transactional distance cannot be studied in the closed and controlled environment that is typically necessary to scientifically test the relationships between variables and how they affect the theory in predictable ways because of the human element. Giossos et al. (2009) state, "There is no such thing as an abstract or intangible transactional distance, but a specific, individual one" (p.3).

Realism allows for hypotheses about the unobservable (Miller, 2014) and is a philosophical approach in which "science investigates actions, which, through mechanisms, produce results under certain conditions" (Robson, 2002, as cited in Giossos et al., 2009, p.3). Using these terms, Giossos et al. (2009) designate teaching as the action; structure, dialogue, and learner autonomy as the mechanisms; and transactional distance as the result. They key point of this approach is that it recognizes that there is value in studying the variables and the conditions that drive them. Gorsky and Caspi's (2005) assessment of TD theory also recognizes the philosophical value of Moore's theory and that the variables, if redefined and expanded, can be operationalized to gather empirical evidence.

Paul et al. (2015) concluded that Moore's model is still important, but the tool used to measure distance must be adaptable to the rapid rate of change of technology's impact on communications. They state, "Unlike physical distance, which can always be measured with a yardstick, transactional distance will change with technology and society" (p. 378). Their model of analyzing and measuring transactional distance is based on a revised model developed by Zhang (2003) in which she proposed four dimensions of transactional distance: student-student, student-teacher, student-content, and student-interface. Paul et al. (2015) recommend removing the student-interface dimension as their research findings indicate that it is no longer a significant factor in transactional distance likely due to "the vast change in average student technology know-how acquired by the widespread prevalence of personal computing, mobile computing, and social media compared to when Zhang performed her research in 2003" (p. 379). Just three years later, their conclusion on the significance of the student-interface dimension was disputed by Weidlich and Bastiaens (2018) who emphasize the importance of the student-interface dimension, as described earlier in this work.

Reflection

As technology has evolved, both within the sphere of education and in society in general, it has added new dimensions to Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance. We are a long way from his original research on correspondence courses where the transactional space was bounded by the speed of the mail service or a fax transmission. With technology facilitating multidirectional and faster methods of communication, and social media allowing for a multimodal approach to knowledge creation, is Moore's theory still relevant?

I believe it is. With the ubiquity of technology and its increasing influence on education, the question of how to best serve and engage learners remains front and center. As technology provides a multitude of ways to deliver instructional content and the traditional face-to-face classroom environment becomes less important, what are we potentially losing (or gaining) in the communications space if students are not right in front of us, and how do we ensure that learners feel connected no matter where they are spatially or temporally? Moore's theory can still help answer those questions, but it does need to be modified to be applicable to the current time. As Paul et al. (2015) note, an effective model of transactional distance must be nimble enough to adapt to a changing definition of distance due to changes in technology and society.

As this work discussed, scholars have presented mixed opinions about the theory, including whether it is even a theory at all. Yet, there does appear to be an underlying conclusion that Moore's work is important to the field and can still be used (in some form) to study e-learning environments and to inform design decisions. At the very least, it is a beneficial exercise to examine how course material is presented and arranged, as Professor Jamieson-Proctor illustrates in the video from Australian Catholic University (2016), and how open and accessible the lines of communication are between the instructor and the leaners, as both Jamieson-Proctor and Dockter (2016) advocate. Moore's theory of transactional distance continues to provide a framework for evaluating how three fundamental variables of the distance learning universe (structure, dialogue, and learner autonomy) interact and how those interactions affect the ability of teachers and learners to clearly and effectively convey meaning. Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance is perhaps more relevant than ever.

References

Australian Catholic University. (2016, September 8). ACU case study: Applying transactional distance theory to a flipped classroom (EDMA202) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/v8weQq7872A

Azusa Pacific University Office of Innovative Teaching and Technology. (2018, February 14). Overcoming transactional distance [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/gjFD3enZaRc

Dockter, J. (2016). The problem of teaching presence in transactional theories of distance education. Computers and Composition, 40, 73-86. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.009

Giossos, Y., Koutsouba, M., Lionarakis, A., & Skavantzos, K. (2009). Reconsidering Moore's transactional distance theory. European Journal of Open Distance and ELearning, 2. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284762965_Reconsidering_Moore's_transactional_distance_theory

Gorsky, P. & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1-11. Retrieved from https://www.openu.ac.il/personal_sites/download/avner-caspi/Gorsky&Caspi05.pdf

Gorsky, P. & Caspi, A. (2009). Theory of instructional dialogue: A new paradigm for distance education. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f9d/1c317ac0638c632cda69f7c819544208beb1.pdf

Miller, A. (2014). Realism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/realism/

Moore. M.G. (2005). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.) Theoretical principles of distance education. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=3eHpsBphit8C&pg=GBS.PT1 (Original work published 1993)

Moore, M.G.. (2006). Theory and theorists [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://slideplayer.com/slide/5869053/

Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649109526758

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Fast facts: Distance learning. Retrieved October 26, 2019 from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80

Oh, E.G. Transactional distance theory [Online lecture]. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/lecture/learning-technologies-foundations-applications/transactional-distance-theory-vPFk3

Paul, R.C., Swart, W., Zhang, A.M., & MacLeod, K.R. (2015). Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: refinement and validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education, 36(3), 364–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081741

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell

Shearer, R.L. & Park, E. (2019). The theory of transactional distance. In Jung I. (Ed.) Open and distance education theory revisited. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7740-2_4

Weidlich, J. & Bastiaens, T.J. (2018). Technology matters - The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 222-242. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3417

Zhang, A.M. (2003) Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction [Abstract] (Unpublished doctoral disseration). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond