Teaching with Technology

The first article in this sixth volume of JOLT, A Case Study of Wikis’ Effects on Online Transactional Interactions applies the learning theories of M.G. Moore concerning transactional distance (less is better) and learner autonomy (more is better) to the use of wikis in an online learning course. This brief article is painstakingly documented and includes over two pages of sources. The survey instruments are exquisitely described, as are the dynamics of Moore’s learning theories. This excerpt gives a sense of the discussion:

In order to achieve desired learning outcomes, both the learner and the instructor should decrease
the transactional distance via the instructor and the learner initiating and participating in dialogs (D) in the
forms of interaction, the instructor developing and the learner following the structure of the course content
and delivery (S), and the instructor enabling and the learner exercising autonomy (A). The theory
suggests that high levels of dialog (D+) can decrease the transactional distance (TD-). A low level of
dialogue (D-), on the other hand, might impede the learning process by increasing the transactional
distance (TD+)(Benson & Samarawickrema, 2009; Moore, 1997).

I must say this made for some difficult reading at times, so much so that I looked up Moore’s own description of this concept summarized here:

The first attempt in English to define distance education and to articulate a theory appeared in 1972. Later this was
called the theory of transactional distance. What was stated in that first theory is that ‘distance education is not
simply a geographic separation of learners and teachers, but, more importantly, is a pedagogical concept. It is a
concept describing the universe of teacher-learner relationships that exist when learners and instructors are separated
by space and/ or by time. This universe of relationships can be ordered into a typology that is shaped around the
most elementary constructs of the field – namely, the structure of instructional programmes, the interaction between
learners and teachers, and the nature and degree of self-directedness of the learner.

Moore’s explanation of these concepts makes much more sense to me. The research question in this article is whether the use of wikis increases learner-to-learner or learner-to-instructor interactions, either of which are deemed to reduce transactional distance and so contribute to the learners’ realization of learning outcomes (via learner-content interaction that is not a research question in this particular study).

The author notes that most work concerning Moore’s theories predates the collaborative tools afforded by web 2.0.

The graduate course used in this study was very much like our own CTCH603, concerning teaching with technology. In that course, rather than blogging about journal articles, students were required to collaboratively compose syntheses of their readings using a wiki. With apologies for this lengthy citation, it nevertheless presents the meat of this study:

In terms of writing, reviewing, and editing contents on the wiki
pages, participants tended to report them in the beginning of the course. This suggested that later in the
course either the writing and reviewing processes were internalized thus participants did not explicitly
describe them in the reflective survey, or learners did not always review, revise, and rewrite in wikis. The
latter could be a potential drawback of using “semi-open” wikis in educational settings. Since semi-open
wikis, constrained by the concern of students’ privacy, are not accessible to everyone on the Internet,
students are not motivated in constantly contributing and revising the wiki document (Lawler, 2008).
Another possible explanation might be because learners feel fatigued because they think that writing on
PBworks is an endless process. If they have to turn in a hard copy of the reading synthesis or respond to
an online discussion thread, that often signifies the end of the assignment. On the wiki, however, because
participants can go back to change the content of the page anytime, they might not perceive a tangible
ending point of the assignment. As a result they could lose the momentum to continue their writing,
reviewing, and editing processes at the end of the course period. Instructors therefore need to devise
process guidelines to encourage students’ regular participation in developing the wiki document.

The author goes on to further caution against negatively impacting learner autonomy.

Gil’s Assessment

I find myself craving the unfettered prose of Richard Mitchell, deceased author of The Underground Grammarian and frequent critic of “eduspeak”. One of the lessons I have taken from CTCH603 is that (learner) engagement with the technology tools supporting instruction, i.e., with content, consistently ignites the interest of everyone in the class. My sense from this article is that, as with the Second Life business course I’ve written about previously, in this case the technology itself (this time, wikis) was not sufficiently transparent to the learning process to fulfill its full potential as an instructional tool; consequently much of the reported outcomes have more to to do with initial adjustments to a new technology than to the pedagogical efficacy of the tool itself. Perhaps as we better learn these tools we shall transform as learners, and as educators.

Source: Wen-Hao David Huang, “A Case Study of Wikis Effects on Online Transactional Interactions,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2010): 1-14.