Résumés
Abstract
Transactional distance (TD), the perception of psychological distance between the student and his peers, his instructor/teacher, and the learning content, has long been a prominent construct in research on distance education. Today, distance education primarily takes place over the internet, with technology mediating engagement and communication. Because transactional distance in online distance learning will always rely on technologically-mediated communication or interaction, we argue that in order to get the full picture, this aspect of technological mediation needs to be considered. For this purpose, we introduce a new scale for measuring transactional distance between students and the learning technology (TDSTECH), comprised of two interrelated dimensions. Reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity suggest a suitable scale. Preliminary inferential analyses are conducted with multiple linear regression and mediation analysis. Regression models show that TDSTECH is the single most important predictor of satisfaction in this population. This may have important implications for practitioners trying design and facilitate satisfying online distance learning experiences. Also, mediator analysis reveals that TDSTECH mediates the relationship between TD student-teacher and satisfaction, but not for TD student-content. Surprisingly, TD student-student shows no significant relationship with satisfaction. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.
Keywords:
- transactional distance,
- learning technology,
- satisfaction,
- distance education,
- online learning
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Adamopoulos, P. (2013). What makes a great mooc? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses. 34th International Conference on Information Systems: ICIS 2013. Retrieved from http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~padamopo/What%20makes%20a%20great%20MOOC.pdf
- Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change. Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
- Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/grade-change-2013
- Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
- Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5-21.
- Bevan, N., Carter, J., & Harker, S. (2015). ISO 9241-11 revised: What have we learnt about usability since 1998? In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 143-151). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Chen, Y. J. (2001). Dimensions of transactional distance in the world wide web learning environment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 459-470.
- Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314.
- Ekwunife-Orakwue, K. C., & Teng, T. L. (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78, 414-427.
- Goel, L., Zhang, P., & Templeton, M. (2012). Transactional distance revisited: Bridging face and empirical validity. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1122-1129.
- Gokool-Ramdoo, S. (2008). Beyond the theoretical impasse: Extending the applications of transactional distance education theory. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.541
- Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1-11.
- Green, D., & Pearson, J. M. (2006). Development of a web site usability instrument based on ISO 9241-11. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(1), 66-72.
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. London: Guilford Press.
- Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918-1927.
- Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
- Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2012). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-12.
- Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2016). Student rules: Exploring patterns of students' computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning. Computers & Education, 101, 29-42.
- Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080-1090.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2016). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on usability (ISO Standard No. 9241-11). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/16883.html
- Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638-654.
- Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651
- Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students' satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654-1664.
- Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, J. (2013). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context. Computers & Education, 62, 149-158.
- Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23.
- Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159-174.
- Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2013). A structural equation model of predictors of online learning retention. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 36-42.
- Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185-204.
- Maddrell, J. A., Morrison, G. R., & Watson, G. S. (2017). Presence and learning in a community of inquiry. Distance Education, 38(2), 245-258.
- Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
- Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical principles of distance education, 1, 22-38.
- O'Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690.
- Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.
- 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.
- Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417.
- Schreiner, L. A. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Coralville, IA: Noel-Levitz. Retrieved from https://cmsro.uwstout.edu/admin/provost/upload/LinkingStudentSatis0809.pdf
- Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396-413.
- Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445.
- Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159-186.
- Sun, J. (2016). Multi-dimensional alignment between online instruction and course technology: A learner-centered perspective. Computers & Education, 101, 102-114.
- Swart, W., MacLeod, K., Paul, R., Zhang, A., & Gagulic, M. (2014). Relative proximity theory: Measuring the gap between actual and ideal online course delivery. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(4), 222-240.
- Thoms, B., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). How media choice affects learner interactions in distance learning classes. Computers & Education, 75, 112-126.
- Weidlich, J. & Bastiaens, T.J. (2017). Explaining social presence and the quality of online learning with the SIPS model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 479-487
- Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students' decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115-127.
- Zhang, A. M. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Commonwealth University, Virginia.