Theoretical Underpinnings of Online Learning
“In case you do not already know it, teaching online is different from teaching in the traditional classroom. You cannot just take what you do in a face-to-face class and “put it online.” In fact, because online learning is so different from traditional classroom learning, the online learning revolution has forced us to look more closely at how courses are constructed and how students learn. Ultimately, this forced self-reflection of sorts will hopefully result in better instruction of both the concrete and online kind.” (Pollock, 2013, p. 3, emphasis added).
The theory of transactional distance emphasizes the importance of getting the balance right between structure, dialogue, and autonomy (learner control) “for a particular student population and subject field”. Failing to strike that balance can diminish student performance and satisfaction (Moore, 2013b, p. 71).
Transactional Distance Theory
Transactional distance describes the physical and cognitive space that is an inherent part of any distance education/e-learning environment (Moore, 1973, 1993, 2013b; Moore & Kearsley, 2011). Sandoe (2005) notes that “distance is not determined by geography but by the way in which instructors, learners, and the composition of the learning environment interact with one another” (p. 2). While we typically describe distance to mean physical separation, this need not be the case. Transactional distance is “a psychological and communication space to be crossed, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of instructor and those of the learner” (Moore, 1993, p. 22). Some have argued that transactional distance is not a phenomenon unique to a distance learning situation, but also exists in conventional classrooms (Rumble, 1986). However, in the distance education experience, the separation of learner and instructor does require specialized strategies and techniques to accommodate learning.
Structure, Dialogue, and Student Autonomy
Transactional distance is a function of the interplay between the three critical elements; structure, dialogue, and learner autonomy. The structure of a course refers to the various elements of the course itself. This includes the learning objectives; the presentation of materials; and the organization of learning objects, activities, exercises, discussion questions, assessments and other curricular elements of the course itself. Structure also refers to the course’s level of flexibility or rigidity of the instructional methods and strategies. These elements of structure, in turn, have an effect on the degree of dialogue present in the course. Dialogue refers to the way that interactions "play out" amongst the stakeholders of the educational experience. Some classes have a high degree of dialogue, often associated with lower levels of structure. In other courses, interactions are "one sided" resulting in monologic discourse rather than a true dialogue (ie. video lectures, readings, etc.). One form of dialogue over the other is not necessarily preferable. Variations in dialogic interactions should, however, be aligned with the learning objectives being addressed and be appropriate to the activity. Lastly, autonomy describes the nature of the learners themselves. Specifically, it refers to the degree to which learners are involved in what they learn, how much they learn, and when they learn. Autonomy is contingent upon the previous two components in that it refers to the sense of both independence and interdependence perceived by learners as they engage in the course. Learner autonomy is intimately connected with a learner’s sense of self-direction or self-determination, and this can be significantly affected by the dialogue, the level of rigidity or flexibility inherent in the course design and delivery, and the ‘extent to which the learner exerts control of the learning procedures’ (Falloon, 2011, p. 190).
Moore (2013) emphasizes that teaching-learning programs are not dichotomous; that is, they are not either “distance” or not “distance”. Rather they range from “more distant to less distant” depending on the makeup of the three critical elements of structure, dialogue, and learner autonomy. In other words, transactional distance does not refer to a fixed specified space but to the interplay of structure, dialogue, and learner autonomy (Peters, 1998).
Learner Supports
It is important that appropriate learning supports be integrated into the online course to help manage transactional distance and set the correct levels of interaction for an online course. Again, the appropriate levels of interaction vary and are unique to each situation.
The design of learning tasks and identification of learning resources are undoubtedly important things to consider in the online environment, however planned learning supports will often determine how the learning is actualized by the student. The number and nature of online learning supports will vary from situation to situation depending on the cognitive load that the content places on the student, the level of interaction required to achieve the learning outcome(s), and the autonomy of the students themselves. But, you can be sure that some form of learning supports will need to be present and that these supports will be different from what you are used to in the classroom. Because of the distance inherent in an online course, there becomes more room for misinterpretation and misunderstandings to occur between instructors and students.
“In order to create cognitive presence and higher-order learning outcomes consistent with intended goals and expectations of the educational experience, there is a need for a moderator (i.e., teaching presence) who can assess the nature of discourse continuously and proactively shape it following the critical thinking cycle” (Garrison & Akyol, 2013, p. 110).
Communities Of Inquiry (CoI)
If transactional distance describes the exchange of educational ideas among the student, the instructor, and the content, a community of inquiry is the “marketplace” in which this transaction takes place. The CoI Model is situated in specific learning theory that addresses the learning processes from a collaborative constructivist point of view to foster critical discourse among the group. An educational CoI is defined as “a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct meaning and confirm mutual understanding” (Garrison, 2011, p. 2). Within the CoI Model, the experience of learning is mediated through the development of three interdependent elements, referred to as presences: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence.
Social Presence
Garrison (2009) defines social presence as “the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” (p. 352). By this definition, the development of social presence goes beyond support for the establishment of purely social relationships, but also fosters group cohesion in an environment that encourages probing questions, skepticism, and expressing ideas (Garrison and Aykol, 2013). Affective interpersonal social communications, such as emoticons, punctuation and capitalization, the use of humor, and the willingness to disclose personal information about oneself, are necessary environmental conditions that can lead to learning landscapes characterized by purposeful critical discourse.
Although social presence tends to develop naturally over time, instructors have the ability to facilitate its growth. Simple suggestions include encouraging the use of inclusive pronouns such as “we” and “our” as well as addressing others directly by name (Garrison and Aykol, 2013). Students with different levels of experience in online classes may require different scaffolding to create social presence. The level and types of support likely depend on the instructional design of the course, the nature and use of the technology involved, and/or the level instructor mediation (Garrison and Aykol, 2013). Effort put into social presence, however, pays off considerably. Swan and Shih (2005) provide evidence that students perceiving the highest social presence, are more likely to project themselves into online discussions and reveal meaningful differences in perceptions of the usefulness and purpose of online learning than students who perceive themselves as socially distant. Others note that social interaction is a critical factor in student course completion and retention (Boston, Ice, Diaz, Richardson, Gibson, & Swan, 2009). The increase in group cohesion that is fostered by social presence leads to a greater capacity for group collaboration, which in turn optimizes the learning experience.
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence is defined as the “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical community of inquiry” (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001, p. 5). Cognitive presence promotes critical thinking, which in turn both authenticates existing knowledge and generates new knowledge. Cognitive presence is enacted through the Practical Inquiry (PI) model, which is rooted in Dewey’s model of reflective thinking (Dewey, 1933). The PI model represents an inquiry process through which students, in collaboration with others, make sense and meaning from complex situations and confusion. The PI model consists of four phases of critical inquiry: a triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution.
Cognitive presence is perhaps the most difficult of the three CoI presences to grasp. It relates to how students move through the learning process – approaching problems, seeking out new knowledge, gaining new levels of understanding, and sharing that understanding with the learning community. Cognitive presence focuses on providing students with the means to move past the early stages of learning – where all is questioned and confusion thrives – to the stage where learning has meaning and where students can understand and apply new concepts. Students integrate key concepts from the classroom into their own worlds, explore associated resources, and bring new knowledge and new ideas into the learning process.
Teaching Presence
The third element of the CoI framework is teaching presence. Teaching presence is defined as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purposes of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson, Liam, Garrison, & Archer, 2001 p. 5). Following this definition, teaching presence plays a critical role in realizing the intended educational outcome of a course. It includes designing and developing the course and guiding and supporting the learners during the course delivery. Teaching presence also plays a crucial part with regards to establishing social and cognitive presence in a classroom as the main responsibilities of teaching presence overlap the other two in the following areas: course design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction (Garrison and Akyol, 2013).
Establishing Presence in the Online Classroom
When comparing the components of the theory of Transactional Distance to the features of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model, considerable overlap becomes apparent. The cognitive presence that is an important aspect of the CoI framework appears closely related to dialogue, as it is through dialogic interactions that individual knowledge is fostered and developed. Teaching presence in the CoI model is similar to the overall construct of transactional distance as teaching presence requires the teacher to orchestrate and balance the fundamental elements of transactional distance: dialogue, structure, and student autonomy. Social presence is the only feature of the CoI model that does not seem to be explicitly addressed by transactional distance. The psycho-social connection suggested by the COI model potentially adds to the increased student motivation and satisfaction in online settings.
Practical Theory in Instructional Design
The design and organization of an online task is markedly different from the same task in a face-to-face class. Because of the differences with regards to the teaching medium, it is imperative that teaching and learning activities be modified to take full advantage of the technology that the online environment affords. In other words, the design and delivery of an online course must be considered simultaneously
When doing instructional design, there are a number of explicit models that one might follow (see Dick & Carey, 1990; Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1992; Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2019). While there are a variety of approaches that one might take, many of these approaches share common features. Most instructional design boils down to some form of the ADDIE method. ADDIE stands for analysis, design, develop, implement and evaluate. While models vary with regards to the elements within each phase, most design models follow the general ADDIE approach.
In another section of this website we will address specifics that we believe are important to consider in the creation of your course. For the purposes of this section, there are two main takeaways. First, you adopt some model of instructional design. Second, the design process works best when you complete one iteration of the cycle before your course runs. Many of us have taught our classes for so long and have honed our pedagogy to such an extent that it seems as if “the class runs itself”. When teaching online, it is particularly important to take a step back and ask yourself if the instructional design would be clear if you were not immediately available to ask questions.
