A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TRANSACTIONALDISTANCE THEORY

Paul Gorsky and Avner CaspiThe Open University of Israel

This investigation reviews published empirical studies that attempted to support or to validate transactionaldistance theory (Moore, 1993). It was found that either data only partially supported the theory or, that if theyapparently did so, the studies lacked reliability, construct validity, or both. It was concluded that the basicpropositions of transactional distance theory were neither supported nor validated by empirical research find-ings. Furthermore, it was found that the theory may be reduced to a single proposition (as the amount of dia-logue increases, transactional distance decreases) and that this proposition may be construed as a tautology.

INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE

Many attempts have been made to define dis-tance education. Some view it as a unique dis-cipline (Holmberg, 1986; Sparkes, 1983) whileothers view it within the bounds of traditionaleducational endeavor (Keegan, 1986). Overthe past 20 years, parallel to developments incommunication technologies, several theorieshave been proposed that seek to define anoverall framework through which distanceeducation may be viewed. Theoreticians suchas Garrison (1989), Holmberg (1989), Keegan(1986), Moore (1993), Peters (1983), and Ver-duin and Clark (1991), have all made signifi-cant contributions to our understanding ofdistance education.

One attempt to define distance educationand to articulate a theory about its underlyingmechanisms was made by Michael Moore.The theory evolved from basic insights regard-ing independent learning and learner auton-omy (Moore, 1972) into a multidimensionalset of interrelated definitions, propositions andconstructs known as the "Theory of Transac-tional Distance" (Moore, 1993). The processof theory development was driven initially byresearchers who conducted theoretical studies(e.g.. Garrison & Baynton, 1987; Garrison &Shale, 1987; Keegan, 1980). More recently,some empirical studies have been conducted inorder to ascertain the construct validity of thetheory (Bischoff, Bisconer, Kooker, & Woods,1996; Bunker, Gayol, Nti, & Reidell, 1996;

• Paul Gorsky, The Open University of Israel, 108 Ravutski St., P. O. Box 808, Ra'anana, Israel 43137. Telephone: +972-9-778-1339. E-Mail: paulgo@open.ac.il

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 6(1), 2005, pp. l - I l ISSN 1528-3518Copyright © 2005 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 6, No. 1, 2005

Chen, 2001a, 2001b; Chen & Willits, 1998;Saba& Shearer, 1994).

Moore (1993) defined distance education as"the universe of teacher-learner relationshipsthat exist when learners and instructors areseparated by space and/or by time" (p. 22).This definition includes both synchronous andasynchronous delivery formats. Transactionaldistance theory is important conceptually,since it proposes that the essential distance indistance education is transactional, not spatialor temporal. Advances in communicationstechnology, which made synchronous andasynchronous interaction readily available,enabled interaction to become a key factor indistance education systems. Prior to theseadvances, distance education was often studiedin comparison to face-to-face or classroominstruction. The usefulness of such compara-tive studies has diminished as results generallyindicated "no significant difference." By plac-ing transaction at the core of distance educa-tion, Moore offered new insights into themechanisms of distance education programsand pointed toward new and importantresearch directions.

Today, transactional distance theory isimportant in practical terms for several rea-sons. First, many researchers view it as a basicanalytical framework for understanding dis-tance education systems. Garrison (2000)wrote that theories such as transactional dis-tance theory are "invaluable in guiding thecomplex practice of a rational process such asteaching and learning at a distance" (p. 3).According to Jung (2001), "Transactional dis-tance theory provides a useful conceptualframework for defining and understanding dis-tance education in general and as a source ofresearch hypotheses more specifically" (p.527). Second, researchers often cite the need toreduce transactional distance. Murphy andCollins (1997) attempted to identify communi-cation conventions in real-time, interactiveinstructional electronic chats (IECs) and toexamine whether IEC users recognize a needto use these conventions to communicateclearly with others. They concluded that users

recognized a need to use a variety of communi-cation conventions to reduce transactional dis-tance in computer-mediated educationaltransactions. Third, the theory is assumed"true" and is taught at institutions of higherlearning. For example, the importance of thetheory is described on the Minnesota StateUniversity at Moorhead (2002) Website:

The purpose of the site is to gain a basicunderstanding of Transactional DistanceTheory, or TDT. As today's generationsand future generations move toward aneducational process through means of tech-nology, understanding TDT is vital for peo-ple to be effective in distance learning andteaching.

The initial purpose of this study was toappraise the current status of the theory vis-a-vis empirical findings made in the studies citedabove. Special attention was paid to howresearchers defined operationally the key con-structs of the theory (structure, dialogue,learner autonomy and transactional distance).For each of the constructs, three questionswere posed: How was it defined operationally?How was it measured? To what extent weremeasurements deemed valid and reliable?

Next, the global, dynamic aspects of thetheory that emerged from the research datawere studied by posing additional questions:Were learning outcomes measured? If so, howand to what extent? Did transactional distanceappear to affect learning outcomes? Did theempirical data indeed support the theory in itspresent form?

The two questions about learning outcomesare especially relevant since a theory should beable to explain processes and predict events. Ifthe theory of transactional distance is to beuseful to distance education (and possibly toeducation in general), the variable transac-tional distance must correlate in a significantand meaningful way with learning outcomes.

Given the high face validity of the theory,expectations were to find a high-level good-ness-of-fit between data and theory. It wasfound, however, that either data only partiallysupported the theory (Chen 2001a, 2001b;

A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory

Chen & Willits, 1998) or, that if they appar-ently did so (Bischoff et al., 1996; Bunker etal., 1996; Saba & Shearer, 1994) the studieslacked reliability and/or construct validity. Inlight of these unexpected findings, a review ofthe basic assumptions and mechanisms postu-lated in transactional distance theory wasmade. On close scrutiny, it was found that thetheory, when operationalized, is transformedinto what may be construed as a tautologywherein the key dependent variable (transac-tional distance), by necessity, becomes theinverse of the key independent variable (dia-logue).

TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCETHEORY: A REVIEW OF THETHEORY'S BASIC TENETS

A detailed explanation of Moore's theory isnot provided here. The unfamiliar readershould refer to other sources for deeper under-standing, especially Moore (1993) and Moore& Kearsley (1996). Transactional distance the-ory assumes that the most profound impact ondistance education is pedagogy and not thephysical or temporal distance that separatesinstructor and learner. Moore (1993) definedthe variable "transactional distance" as "a psy-chological and communications space to becrossed, a space of potential misunderstandingbetween the inputs of instructor and those ofthe learner" (p. 23).

The extent of transactional distance in a dis-tance education program is a function of threekey variables named "structure," "dialogue,"and "learner autonomy." Moore's (1993) for-mal definitions follow:

A dialogue is purposeful, constructive andvalued by each party. Each party in a dia-logue is a respectful and active listener;each is a contributor, and builds on the con-tributions of the other party or parties....The direction of a dialogue in an educa-tional relationship is towards the improvedunderstanding of the student (p. 24).

Structure expresses the rigidity or flexibil-ity of the programme's educational objec-tives, teaching strategies, and evaluationmethods It describes the extent to which aneducational programme can accommodateor be responsive to each learner's individ-ual needs (p. 26).

Leamer autonomy is the extent to which inthe teaching/learning relationship, it is theleamer rather than the teacher who deter-mines the goals, the learning experiences,and the evaluation decisions of the learningprogramme (p. 31).

Relationships among these variables may besummarized as follows:

1. Dialogue and transactional distance areinversely proportional; as one increases,the other decreases. Specifically, Moore(1993) wrote "one of the major determi-nants of the extent to which transactionaldistance will be overcome is whether dia-logue between learners and instructors ispossible, and the extent to which it isachieved" (p. 26).

2. Increased program structure decreases theextent of dialogue, which in turnincreases the extent of transactional dis-tance. According to Moore: "When a pro-gram is highly structured and teacher-learner dialogue is non-existent the trans-actional distance between learners andteachers is high" (p. 27).

3. Transactional distance and leamer auton-omy are directly proportional. Moore(1993) wrote: "the greater the structureand the lower the dialogue in a pro-gramme the more autonomy the leamerhas to exercise" (p. 27).

TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCETHEORY: A REVIEW OFEMPIRICAL RESEARCH FINDINGS

Despite the considerable time span over whichthe theory has been evolving, to date, very fewresearchers have carried out empirical studiesto test the validity of its key constructs and.

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 6, No. 1,2005

especially, the relationships among them. Sixempirical studies were found and examinedafter a thorough literature review. The firstthree studies viewed dialogue only as a syn-chronous, in-class interaction. Although eachof the studies supported the theory, their valid-ity was extremely limited.

Three Studies that Support theTheory but Lack Construct Validity

At the University of Hawaii, Bischoff et al.(1993) surveyed 221 students' perceptions ofstructure, dialogue, and transactional distancein a distance education course mediated byinteractive television. Data were generated bya 68-item questionnaire administered onceduring the course. Items on the questionnairewere measured by a 5-point Likert scale.

Bischoff et al. (1993) defined transactionaldistance as "the perceived interpersonal close-ness between the teacher and student, amongstudents, and between other students and theteacher, as perceived by the student respon-dents" (p. 5). Transactional distance was mea-sured by students' responses to two items: theperceived "closeness/distance between youand the teacher" and the perceived "closeness/distance between other students at the site andthe teacher" (p. 11).

Dialogue was defined operationally as"communication between teacher and student"(p. 11). It was measured by one item only:"number of times you communicated with theteacher" (p. 11). Structure was defined as "thedegree of individualization of course contentfor the learner"; it was measured by "totalnumber of students in the class," "seatingarrangements," and "class activities" (p. 11).No attempt was made to relate any of the threeconstructs to learning outcomes.

In support of Moore's theory, resultsshowed that "dialogue" and "transactional dis-tance" were inversely proportional; that is, asdialogue increased, transactional distancedecreased. However, these results lack con-struct validity for two reasons. First, dialoguewas measured by one item only, the amount of

teacher-learner dialogue. This quantitativemeasure says nothing about the qualitativeaspects of the variable dialogue. It does not, forexample, address the issue of whether learnerunderstanding was achieved. Second, in a sim-ilar manner, the operational definition of trans-actional distance used in the questionnaire(perceived "closeness" or "distance") differscompletely from the theory's definition, whichfocuses on understanding, or lack of it, thatemerges from teacher/learner dialogue.

Saba and Shearer (1994) studied 30 interac-tions between instructors and learners in acomputer conferencing environment in orderto verify key constructs of the theory, espe-cially the relationship between dialogue andtransactional distance. Each of the 30 partici-pants worked individually, one-on-one, withthe instructor. Students and instructors, work-ing from different locations, could see eachother via a video link and could talk to eachother by telephone. Instructional transactionsbetween instructor and learner were video-taped. Using a system dynamics model ini-tially proposed by Saba (1988), they measuredthe variables in each system (verbal behaviorsof instructor and learner) and graphed theresults. Learning outcomes in the form oflearner satisfaction were evaluated, but notspecifically correlated with transactional dis-tance.

Saba and Shearer (1994) defined dialogueoperationally "as the extent of verbal interac-tion between the educator and the learner" (p.42). It was measured by "discourse analysis," atechnique that counts and categorizes each actof speech. They defined structure as "a mea-sure of an educational program's responsive-ness to learners' individual needs" (p. 42). Itwas measured by "the extent to which pace,sequence, feedback and content are organized"(p. 42). Transactional distance was defined as"a function of the variance in dialogue andstructure as they relate to each other" (p. 42). Itwas measured as the ratio between the amountof dialogue and the extent of structure.

Results of Saba and Shearer's study showedthat transactional distance varied in accor-

A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory

dance with dialogue and structure. As dialogueincreased, transactional distance decreased; asstructure increased, transactional distanceincreased. Two limitations in this study werenoted. First, the architecture of the model, itsunderlying assumptions and structure, is prob-lematic. Transactional distance was defined asa function of the variance in dialogue andstmcture as they relate to each other. This is aderived operational definition of the concept,not related directly to the theory's formal defi-nition based on learner understanding. Graphsshowed that rates of dialogue and structure, asdefined for use in the model, change over time;however, it cannot be concluded that a gap incommunication between instructor and leamerhas increased or decreased or that leamerunderstanding of the subject matter hasincreased or decreased as a result of this vari-ance. Second, the generality of the study islimited since only one kind of dialogue wasanalyzed: one-on-one synchronous interac-tions between instructor and leamer. Itappears, therefore, that the study's conclusionsare not supported by the data.

Bunker et al. (1996) tried to measure theeffect of changes in stmcture on dialogue in anintemational, multicultural distance educationcourse taught via audio-conferencing. Theresearch setting was a course that broughttogether a virtual class of approximately 100students at nine different sites located in fourcountries. In this study, stmcture was definedin terms of one specific aspect of instmctionaldesign, the question-asking behavior of theinstmctor. Dialogue was measured by its fre-quency and duration. Transactional distance,leamer autonomy, and leaming outcomes werenot assessed.

In support of transactional distance theory,the authors found that different types of ques-tion-asking behavior had a role in predictingand determining dialogue (leamer participa-tion). However, the authors themselvespointed out that these results lack meaningfulreliability and validity. Of the four plannedexperimental procedures, one was cancelledand a second was biased (the instmctor did not

act in accordance with experimental design).The instmment for measuring interaction wasuntested for reliability in audio-conferencingand the samples used were not uniform induration. Furthermore, regarding constmctvalidity, dialogue was measured in terms of itsfrequency and duration, not in terms of leamerunderstanding as transactional distance theoryprescribes. It may be concluded, therefore, thatconclusions are not supported by data.

Three Studies that Found Only LimitedSupport for the Theory

The following three studies viewed dia-logue not only as in-class and synchronous, butalso as out-of-class, both synchronous andasynchronous. These studies found only lim-ited support for Moore's version of transac-tional distance theory. Chen and Willits (1998)studied the experiences of 121 leamers in avideo conferencing environment. The studyaddressed the following research question:What are the determinants of perceived leam-ing outcomes and transactional distance whensimultaneously examining seven variablesmediated through dialogue, stmcture, andleaming autonomy? Operational definitionsand measurement procedures follow.

Three types of dialogue were identifiedand defined: in-class discussion, out-of-classface-to-face interaction, and out-of-class elec-tronic communication. Dialogue was mea-sured in terms of frequency of occurrence.Two dimensions of stmcture were identifiedand defined: course "delivery-implementa-tion," which included teaching methods,leaming activities, and pace; and course"design-organization," which included atten-dance, objectives, choice of readings, require-ments, deadlines, and grading. Stmcture wasmeasured according to leamers' perceptionsalong the dimension ranging from "extremelyflexible" to "extremely rigid." Leamer auton-omy was defined as the ability to be self-directed, to work without guidance, and todevelop a personal study plan. Leamers ratedthemselves on a scale ranging from extremely

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 6, No. 1,2005

low autonomy to extremely high. Chen andWillits (1998) defined transactionai distanceas a "distance of understandings and percep-tions" (p. 57) with teachers, on-site class-mates, and remote site learners. It wasmeasured by the students' own perceptions ofthis distance. Learning outcomes were definedas how much learners thought they hadlearned from the course.

Chen and Willits (1998) found only limitedsupport for the theory's basic postulate thatdialogue reduces transactionai distance. Theynoted that the relation between dialogue andtransactionai distance depended on the type ofdialogue involved and how transactionai dis-tance was measured. They found that "variouskinds of dialogue affected different types ofperceived transactionai distance rather thanjointly contributing to a lessening of all typesof transactionai distance in video-conferences"(p. 62). Except for dialogue, measured in termsof its frequency rather than learner understand-ing, the operational definitions used in thisstudy were congruent with Moore's formaldefinitions. Unfortunately, learners' percep-tions of transactionai distance and learningoutcomes were measured at only one point intime; furthermore, these perceptions were notcompared with actual values.

Regarding learning outcomes, a variablenot included in transactionai distance theory,Chen and Willits (1998) noted that only twovariables had significant direct effects on thelevel of learners' perceived learning outcomes.They found that the greater the perceivedtransactionai distance between instructor andlearner, the lower the perceived learning out-comes; and the greater the frequency of in-class discussion, the higher the perceivedlearning outcomes.

In two other studies, Chen (2001a, 2001b)measured the impact of individual andinstructional variables on learners' perceivedtransactionai distance in a World Wide Weblearning environment. Seventy-one studentsparticipated in the study. Transactionai dis-tance was defined as a "distance of under-standings and perceptions" (p. 462) between

learner-instructor, learner-learner, learner-subject matter and learner-interface. Ques-tionnaires measured students' perceptions oftransactionai distance along a scale rangingfrom extremely close to extremely distant.The items were found to be reliable. Instruc-tor-learner transactionai distance was definedby three items: the degree to which learnersunderstood the concepts and theories pre-sented by the instructor and the degree towhich they agreed with the comments andfeedback posted by the instructor; the degreeof instructor accessibility; and the overallquality of interaction between instructor andlearner. Learner-learner transactionai dis-tance was defined by the degree that learnersunderstand the ideas presented by other learn-ers and agree with them, the degree of acces-sibility to learners and the overall quality ofinteraction among learners. Learner-contenttransactionai distance was defined by thedegree that learners understand the ideas pre-sented in course materials, and that the mate-rials, objectives, and requirements met theirlearning needs and expectations. Learner-interface transactionai distance was definedby the degree of user friendliness as experi-enced by the learner.

Results of the studies showed that high lev-els of one type of transactionai distance did notnecessarily imply high levels of other types.Chen (2001a) concluded that alternative mea-sures of transactionai distance (i.e., objectivemeasures and qualitative measures such asobservation and interviews) will help expandour understanding of this phenomenon. Again,only limited support for transactionai distancetheory was noted.

Empirical Research Findings:Summary and Conclusions

It was found that the propositions of trans-actionai distance theory have been neithersupported nor validated by the empiricalresearch carried out to do just that. Thisappeared to be so for two reasons. First,

A Critical Analysis of Transactionai Distance Theory

TABLE 1

Summary of Operational Definitions

Research

Saba&Shearer (1994)

Bunker et al.(1996)

Bischoffetal.(1998)

Chen & Willits(1998)

Chen (2001a,2001b)

TransactionaiDistance

variance indialogue andstructure

—

closeness/ distance

distance ofunderstandings &perceptions

distance ofunderstand-ings &perceptions

Dialogue

number ofcommunications;discourse analysis

length & number ofcommunications;

number ofcommunications;

number ofcommunications

—

Structure

organization of pace,sequence, feedback,content

instructional design

activities; seating;number of students

Implementationorganization

learner support, extentof onlineasynchronousinteraction

LearnerAutonomy

—

—

—

Independent;interdependent

Independent;interdependent

LearningOutcomes

Satisfaction

—

—

extent oflearning

extent oflearning

Moore (1993) did not define any of the the-ory's constructs operationally. This led someresearchers to use operational definitions thatdiffered meaningfully from the formal ones,thereby severely compromising constructvalidity. By Moore's own definitions, dia-logue is not the number of verbal interactionsthat occurred and transactionai distance is nota perceived value of "closeness." Table 1shows the different operational definitionsused by researchers.

It is noteworthy that, except for Saba andShearer (1994) and Bunker et al. (1996) whomeasured observed behavior, all other mea-surements were subjective, based on students'one-time perceptions obtained from one-timequestionnaires. All authors recommended thatfuture research include interview and observa-tional data. Second, even when operationaldefinitions were generally congruent with for-mal ones, only limited support for the theorywas found. It was found that different dia-logue types led to different kinds of transac-tionai distance not accounted for by Moore.We felt, however, that the lack of support fortransactionai distance theory went deeper thanissues of reliability and validity. A critique ofthe basic tenets of transactionai distance the-ory as explicated by Moore (1993) follows.

A CRITIQUE OF THE BASIC TENETSOF TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCETHEORY

First, it will be shown that the theory may bereduced to a single functional relationship: asthe amount of dialogue increases, transactionaidistance decreases; second, that this relation-ship may be construed as tautology, not theory.

Reducing Transactionai DistanceTheory

Moore (1993) wrote that the extent of trans-actionai distance in an educational program isa function of three sets of independent vari-ables—structure, dialogue, and learner auton-omy—that interact to determine transactionaidistance, a dependent variable. However, theindependent variables are, in fact, hierarchi-cal. Moore (1993) wrote that "When a pro-gram is highly structured and teacher-learnerdialogue is non-existent the transactionai dis-tance between learners and teachers is high. Atthe other extreme, there is low transactionaidistance in those teleconference programs thathave much dialogue and little predeterminedstructure" (p. 27). In other words, "structure"is a variable that determines to some degree the

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 6, No. 1,2005

extent of "dialogue" which, in turn, determinesthe extent of "transactional distance."

In the same vein, regarding "learner auton-omy," Moore (1993) wrote that when dialogueoccurs, its extent and nature is determined by,among other factors, the personalities ofteacher and learner. In other words, "learnerautonomy" is a variable that also determines tosome degree the extent of "dialogue" which, asnoted above, determines the extent of "transac-tional distance."

Since structure and learner autonomy bothdetermine to some degree the extent of dia-logue, the theory, therefore, may be reduced tothe functional relationship: "As the amount ofdialogue increases, transactional distancedecreases." Indeed, this relationship wasinvestigated repeatedly in the studies citedabove.

Tautology

Transactional distance theory is based onformal definitions only. Using our own set ofoperational definitions for the variables dia-logue and transactional distance, derived fromMoore's formal ones, we will show that thetheory may be construed as the tautology: "Asunderstanding increases, misunderstandingdecreases".

On Dialogue and Understanding

Moore's (1993) formal definition of dia-logue follows:

A dialogue is purposeful, constructive andvalued by each party. Each party in a dia-logue is a respectful and active listener;each is a contributor, and builds on the con-tributions of the other party or parties... Thedirection of a dialogue in an educationalrelationship is towards the improved under-standing of the student, (p. 24)

Moore (1993) distinguished between inter-action and dialogue. Dialogue is an interactionor series of interactions having the positive

qualities, cited above, that other interactionsdo not have. According to Moore, "there canbe negative or neutral interactions" (p. 24), butdialogue, by definition, leads to improved stu-dent understanding. How then can we ascer-tain that a dialogue has occurred? If studentunderstanding has been achieved or improved,say as a result of an instructor-student conver-sation, then dialogue between them occurred;if not, dialogue has not occurred and the con-versation was merely interaction. Using thisempirical procedure, the occurrence or non-occurrence of dialogue may be determined inretrospect, as a function of student understand-ing, achieved or not.

On Transactional Distance andMisunderstanding

Moore's (1993) definition of transactionaldistance is "a psychological and communica-tions space to be crossed, a space of potentialmisunderstanding between the inputs ofinstructor and those of the learner" (p. 23). Wesuggest that transactional distance be mea-sured as "student misunderstanding," quanti-fied as a percentage. As such, the initial valueof transactional distance (seen as the potentialfor misunderstanding facing every student inany distance education program, course, ortransaction) is always 100%. That is, a studentmay subsequently learn nothing at all. To illus-trate this point, the following initial conditionsprior to some instructor-student conversationare assumed: actual student understanding =0%; potential for student misunderstanding(transactional distance) = 100%.

If, at the end of the assumed conversation,actual student misunderstanding is still 100%,then the transactions were "interactions," lack-ing the "positive qualities" necessary to makethem a "dialogue." Using this empirical proce-dure, the extent of transactional distance isequivalent to the extent of student misunder-standing, measured in retrospect as a percent-age.

A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory

The Equivalency of Dialogue andTransactional Distance

We have suggested operational definitionsfor dialogue and transactional distance; theformer is said to have occurred, or not, by ana-lyzing student understanding while the extentof the latter is analyzed in terms of student mis-understanding. Since both variables are mea-sured along the same bipolar dimension(understanding), transactional distance theorymay be restated: "As the amount of dialogue(measured in terms of leamer understanding)increases, transactional distance (measured interms of leamer misunderstanding) decreases"or as understanding increases, misunderstand-ing decreases. Any attempt to support or tovalidate the theory is meaningless, since aquantity and its inverse are being correlated.

DISCUSSION

Some conclusions about transactional distancetheory and conjecture as to why the theory hasexisted for so long follow.

Some Conclusions about TransactionalDistance Theory

It may be concluded that transactional dis-tance theory was never a valid scientific the-ory. This is so, we believe, for three reasons:relations between variables were ambiguous;no operational definitions of any kind wereproposed for any of the variables; and, ulti-mately the key variables, dialogue and transac-tional distance, are related inversely, given acertain, reasonable set of operational defini-tions.

What, then, is the usefulness of the concept"transactional distance"? As a historical mile-stone, it pointed out that the essential distancein distance education is transactional, not spa-tial or temporal. In practical terms, as a mea-surable dependent variable in a theory ormodel, the concept has little usefulness.

How and Why the Theory has Existed forSo Long

Since Socrates, dialogue has generally beenassigned a fundamental position in Westemviews of education. Historically, dialogue hasbeen viewed from both philosophical and ped-agogical approaches. Philosophicalapproaches to interpersonal instructional dia-logue tend to emphasize either its epistemolog-ical advantages in the pursuit of knowledgeand understanding (Socrates and Plato) or itsmoral and political foundations based onequality and mutual respect (Bruner, 1966;Buber, 1965; Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1972; Rog-ers, 1969). For example, regarding the moralaspects of educational dialogue, Martin Buber(1965) wrote "the basic movement of genuinedialogue, and thus of education itself, is a trulyreciprocal conversation in which teacher andstudents are flill partners" (p. 184). Accordingto Buber, the relationship between teacher andstudents is based on honesty, equality, open-ness and mutual respect. Genuine dialogue isnot located within any one of the participants,but rather is found in their "betweeness," inwhat Buber calls the reality of the "interhu-man" (p. 184). Jerome Bruner and Carl Rogersalso emphasized the importance and necessityof dialogue between teacher and student.Bmner (1966) wrote that instructor and studentshould engage in an active dialogue (i.e.,Socratic leaming). He contended that the taskof the instructor is to translate information tobe leamed into a format appropriate to theleamer's current state of understanding. Rog-ers (1969) discussed the centrality of the inter-personal relationship (dialogue) in thefacilitation of leaming alongside the need toprovide freedom in educational environments.Clearly, Moore's definition of dialogue, citedabove, rests firmly in this philosophical tradi-tion of humanism.

Transactional distance theory was acceptedphilosophically and logically since its coreproposition (as the amount of dialogueincreases, transactional distance decreases) hashigh face validity and seems both obvious as

10 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 6, No. 1,2005

well as intuitively correct. Indeed, the philo-sophical impact of Moore's theory remains.Unfortunately, however, the movement fromabstract, formal philosophical definitions toconcrete, operational ones caused ambiguity,at best, and collapse of the theory, at worst.

The problem with philosophical approachesto dialogue is that they are highly idealized andprescriptive. They tell us how people shouldrelate to each other and what outcomes shouldresult from dialogue. They do not tell us, how-ever, what real dialogues look like, sound like,and how they work, or fail to work, in real sit-uated leaming environments. Philosophicalapproaches are biased a priori toward an anti-empirical approach to the study of dialoguethat, in fact, may explain the dearth of empiri-cal research into transactional distance theory.

REFERENCES

Bischoff, W. R., Biscotier, S., Kooker, B., &Woods, L. (1996). Transactional distance andinteractive television in the distance education ofhealth professionals. The American Journal ofDistance Education, /0(3), 4-19.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man (R. G.Smith, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

Bunker, E., Gayol, Y., Nti, N., & Reidell, P. (1996).A study of transactional distance in an interna-tional audioconferencing course. Proceedings ofseventh international conference of the Societyfor Information Technology and Teacher Educa-tion (pp. 40-44). Phoenix, Arizona.

Chen, Y. J. (2001a). Transactional distance inWorld Wide Web leaming environments. Inno-vations in Education and Teaching Interna-tional, 55(4), 327-338.

Chen, Y. J. (2001b). Dimensions of transactionaldistance in World Wide Web leaming environ-ment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Edu-cational Technology, 52(4), 459-470.

Chen, Y. J., & Willits, F. K. (1998). A path analysisof the concepts in Moore's theory of transac-tional distance in a videoconferencing leamingenvironment. The American Journal of DistanceEducation, 13(2), 5\-65.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Tor-onto: Macmillan.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Har-mondsworth. United Kingdom: Penguin.

Garrison, D. R., & Baynton, M. (1987). Beyondindependence in distance education: The con-cept of control. The American Journal of Dis-tance Education, 5(1), 3-15.

Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping theboundaries of distance education: Problems indefming the field. The American Journal of Dis-tance Education, 1(3), 7-13.

Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding distanceeducation. New York: Routledge.

Garrison, R. (2000, June). Theoretical challengesfor distance education in the 21st century: Ashift from structural to transactional issues.International Review of Research in Open andDistance Leaming, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v 1.1 /randy.html

Holmberg, B. (1986). Growth and structure of dis-tance education. London: Croom Helm.

Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of dis-tance education. London: Routledge.

Jung, L (2001). Building a theoretical framework ofWeb-based instmction in the context of distanceeducation. British Journal of Educational Tech-nology. 52(5), 525-534.

Keegan, D. (1980). On defming distance education.Distance Education, 7(1), 13-35.

Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distanceeducation. London: Croom Helm.

Minnesota State University. (2002). http://sws.mnstate.edu^eerybr/defl .html

Moore, M. G. (1972). Leamer autonomy: The sec-ond dimension of independent leaming. Conver-gence, 2, 76-88.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional dis-tance. In D. Keegan, (Ed.), Theoretical princi-ples of distance education. New York:Routledge.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance edu-cation: A systems view, Belmont, CA: Wad-sworth.

Murphy, K. L., & Collins, M. P. (1997). Develop-ment of communication conventions in instruc-tional electronic chats. Journal of DistanceEducation, 72(1/2), 177-200.

Peters, O. (1983). Distance teaching and industrialproduction: A comparative interpretation in out-line. In D. Stewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg,(Eds.), Distance education: International per-spectives (pp. 95-113). London: Croom Helm.

A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory 11

Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus,OH: Merrill.

Saba, F. (1988). Integrated telecommunication sys-tems and instructional transactions. The Ameri-can Journal of Distance Education, 2(3), 17-24.

Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying the keytheoretical concepts in a dynamic model of dis-tance education. The American Journal of Dis-tance Education, 8{\), 36-59.

Sparkes, J, (1983). The problem of creating a disci-pline of distance education. Distance Education,4(2), 179-194,

Verduin, J,, & Clark, T. (1991). Distance education:The foundations of effective practice. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.