Defining concepts

Distance education can only be defined in the context of education and its components of teaching and learning. Teaching is a deliberate effort by someone (or something) in the role of a teacher to bring about or facilitate learning in one or more students; depending on the theory to which one subscribes, learning is a change in behavior, in one's mental state, or in the reality one has constructed. Not all teaching results in learning, and not all learning is a result of teaching. In defining education, a distinction must be made between formal learning (facilitated by or accomplished through teaching) and informal learning, which one acquires on one's own through self-directed study or undirected experiential learning. "Education" encompasses all of teaching and the formal learning that is associated with it, but generally does not consider informal learning.

Definitions of the educational process generally assume the existence of a teacher, a learner, and a body of knowledge to be acquired and/or a level of understanding to be achieved by the learner as a result of a deliberate effort. Distance educators such as Keegan (1986, 1988, 1993), Garrison and Shale (Garrison and Shale, 1987, Shale, 1988), Rumble (1989), Carl (1989), and Moore (Moore and Kearsley, 1996) have debated the definition of distance education and whether it extends to self-directed learning, must involve a learning group or an educational institution. Self-acquired or experiential learning are often not considered part of the educational process, either because there is no teacher, because the learning is unplanned, because there is no evaluation, or for any combination. A broader view of education would only require the presence of the three elements of establishment, execution or evaluation. Some institutions have begun providing academic credit for self-acquired and experiential learning. Adult education and continuing education for professionals will not necessaily involve a formal assessment of learning.

The debate between what constitutes "education" and what is merely "training" has continued to pervade discussions of the architectural curriculum. Some educators feel that certain competencies, like learning how to operate a CAD program, to pour concrete, or to draw construction details, do not belong in the architectural curriculum because they lack sufficient intellectual content. Acquisition of technical skills and knowledge of practical matters are considered more appropriate for learning on the job (training) after graduation.

Distance education as it relates to education, teaching and learning

Separation in place. The essential feature of distance education is that the learner and teacher are not in each other's physical presence. In face to face (what Charles Moore refers to as "contiguous") education, not all learning takes place in the presence of the teacher; much of it takes place outside the teacher's presence, while the student is reading, studying, and completing homework assignments. Definitions of distance education take this into account by stating that the interaction between teacher and learner (as opposed to the process of learning) occurs at a distance.

There are degrees of physical separation, and not all rise to the level of "distance" education. A live lecture delivered by closed-circuit television to other locations on the same campus (perhaps because the primary lecture hall is filled to capacity) would probably not be considered an example of distance education. A re-broadcast of the same lecture—involving a separation of both place and time—would fit most definitions of distance education. Some would argue that distance education necessitates a physical separation of the learner from the learning institution; however, it is perfectly possible to have learners assembled together in an educational setting (such as a university study center, a corporate training room, or a hotel conference room) while their instructor is at the other end of a satellite link.

Separation in time. Contiguous education is, by definition, synchronous. If there is a separation in time (e.g., a learning program based on audio or video tapes), the program must be considered a distance education program. However, distance education does not require that there be any separation in time. Thus, a live audioconference, videoconference, or a lecture delivered by satellite will all be considered distance education.

Technological mediation. In distance education, some type of medium is necessary to overcome the physical separation and link the students, teacher, and content together. The medium will affect the verisimilitude and immediacy of the educational transaction. While distance education was once limited to print communications, a wide range of media, each with its own strengths and weaknesses for a particular set of educational objectives, can be used. The Internet is a popular medium in the United States because of its unparalleled flexibility—for those who have reliable Internet access and enjoy sufficient speed and bandwidth. The special value of technology in distance education is that it can greatly enhance (and often eclipses) traditional forms of teaching. The 50-minute classroom lecture is a linear, oral sequence of events: the student cannot pause and rewind the presentation to review a point before proceeding to the next topic, or choose to have the material presented in a different sequence or at a different pace. Without a good ear and a well-developed skill at taking notes (along with a sufficent amount of notepaper and a pen that doesn't run dry), a student can easily miss much of what transpires.

Existence of a human teacher. Distance education theories typically assume that someone in the role of the teacher will be in communication with the learner, but this is not always the case. The "teacher" may be an integral part of the course content and/or the medium of communication, the role being fulfilled by the printed content, such as a book or study guide, or even an interactive computer program. "Programmed learning" and "computer-assisted learning" are encompassed in Moore's analysis of distance education. Börge Holmberg's theory of distance education as a "guided didactic conversation" is predicated on prepared course materials as the primary teaching mechanism, which should be prepared in a manner that will give them the character of a personal conversation (Holmberg 1983, 1986, 1989, 1995, 2001). Likelwise, in the highly industrialized form of distance education described by Otto Peters (Peters 1989, 1993, 1997, 2002) and practiced by the British Open University, the teacher has no direct contact with the learners, but is a content expert on a multidisciplinary team that produces learning materials designed for self-study by thousands of students. In the Open University model, the "tutor" with whom students occasionally interact by telephone, email, or in person, is not the principal source of learning but a functionary whose principal responsibility is to mark completed assignments.

Necessity for dialogue. Most descriptions of distance education assume the necessity for two-way communication between teacher and learner. Moore characterizes this as "dialogue," suggesting a degree of responsive interaction, but the idea that there is an intellectual exchange may be more of an aspiration than a theoretical predicate. In reality, communication may be entirely unbalanced and take different forms in each direction. In the traditional lecture course, the teacher delivers an oral presentation, students submit written assignments and take written tests, and are informed of their results by receiving a grade at the end of the term. Such an interchange can hardly be characterized as a "dialogue." The European distance education writers tend to view the teacher in this role of the knowledgeable master providing instruction to learners who are primarily passive recipients of information. While distance education courses do not necessarily require any more communication than face to face education, they frequently involve much higher levels of direct student-teacher communication as students have the opportunity to reflect on the material and ask questions.

Learning in isolation. Distance education is not necessarily carried out in isolation. It can be delivered to an individual, studying at his or her own pace, or to a cohort of learners who are in communication with each other and can form a community of learners. This learner group may be physically present at one place, such as an audio or videoconferencing center. The existence of a group of learners usually results in a need for pacing of the instruction, limiting the learner's freedom to engage in learning activities at any time. This disadvantage may be offset by the interchange of ideas that can occur in the group setting.

An institutional context. Garrison and others have refuted Keegan's argument (echoed by Rumble) that distance education must involve an educational institution that provides at least some measure of services and support, in addition to delivering instruction. While it might be desirable that distance education be delivered by an institution, and that student support and other services be provided along with the instruction, neither condition should be necessary for a program to be considered within the realm of distance education. Distance education may in fact be provided by a single individual operating as a tutor or mentor, and services and support may be obtained from an entirely different and unrelated source, such as one's local library or the Internet.

The equivalency debate. The question of whether distance learning is equivalent to face-to-face education—a legacy of a time when correspondence schools offered the only alternative to on-campus learning— continues to linger despite its acceptance by postsecondary accrediting bodies and adoption by most postsecondary institutions in the U.S. Educational equivalency is often a threshhold question for those who are gaining their first exposure to distance education or who are considering a shift from contiguous education. The overwhelming evidence from hundreds of studies over the past twenty years is that on the whole, there is no significant difference in outcomes between face to face and distance education in student achievement, attitude, or retention (Bernard et al., 2004, p. 406). However, there are wide variations in both directions, with performance variations of as much as 50%. Some applications of distance education, particularly in asynchronous applications (permitting high student-instructor contact), outperform classroom education, while synchronous activities (such as live lectures) tend to favor the latter mode. In essence, distance and classroom education each have their advantages and disadvantages; netither is inherently superior to the other.

Because many distance education programs involve some face-to-face contact with a tutor or teacher, and many conventional education programs now include "learning events" that occur at a distance, it is no longer possible to draw a bright line separating contiguous and distance education. Rather, there is a more graduated transition reflecting the many ways that the two methods can be combined. Programs that combine face-to-face and remote contact are referred to by terms such as "hybrid" or "blended learning," and may offer the best opportunity to capitalize on the strengths of each.

Moore's Theory of Independent Learning

In his article, Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A Shift from Structural to Transactional Issues (2000), Randy Garrison describes the challenge and opportunity of providing theory "that will explain and anticipate distance education practices for a broad range of emerging educational purposes and experiences" (p. 1) such as computer-mediated communication (p. 12). Such theory must "speak to the needs and concerns of new audiences" (p. 12) including traditional higher education institutions that have associated an "idealized (but seldom approached)" (p. 13) model of a highly interactive and adaptable educational transaction with educational quality.

Michael Moore's theory of independent learning, first advanced in 1972 (Moore 1972, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994; Moore and Kearsley, 1996), has emerged as a cornerstone of distance education theory.

Moore's original theory of independent learning (1972) had two parts. The first part dealt with what he described as a "dimension" of teaching behaviors. Based on a review of several thousand articles on distance teaching methods, he identified the principal modes of delivery and hypothesized that they could be classified based on two qualitative variables—individualization and dialogue—to reflect their relative "distance."

His first order of classification was based on whether the pacing of these teaching methods was individualized (i.e., whether or not the individual learner could control the pacing of instruction to suit the learner's needs). He then sorted these teaching methods by whether or not they involved any "dialogue" (interaction) between the teacher and learner.

In 1973, the "dialogic" and "non-dialogic" categories became "high" and "low" dialogue, and "individualized" and "non-individualized" became "high" and "low" individualization (Moore, 1973), representing a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Dialogue, referred to "the extent to which a learner may communicate with his teacher" became his first order of classification. The concept of individualization (eventually renamed as "structure") focused on the learner's control over pacing: "the extent to which a learner can control the pace at which he receives information and at which he must make his responses" (Moore, 1973, p. 665).

Moore added more types of program to the classification scheme and assigned a numerical ranking to the methods. His classification scheme can be represented by a 2x2 table containing four clusters of teaching methods:

Moore's Classifications (1972-73)
Individualization (control of pacing)	Student-teacher interaction
	Highly dialogic (+D)	Less dialogic (-D)
High individualization (-S)	1. Independent study/learning on campus   2. Individual telephone     3. Individual correspondence	6. Computer-assisted instruction   7. Programmed instruction
Low individualization (+S)	4. Group telephone         5. Group correspondence	8. Dial access audio tapes       9. TV         10. Radio           11. Textbook study

Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance, as first expressed, was that as dialogue and individualization decrease, "transactional distance" increases. Moore initially defined transactional distance simply as "a function of individualization and dialogue" (Moore, 1973, p. 665); he did not attempt to describe that relationship in symbolic or mathematical terms. His best attempt to describe transactional distance in non-abstract terms is that it is "a psychological and communications space to be crossed" (Moore, 1993, p. 76), "a psychological space of potential misunderstandings between the behaviors of instructors and those of learners" (Moore and Kearsley, 1996, p. 200). In its simplest terms, it is "the perceived interpersonal closeness between the teacher and student" (Bischoff et al., 1996, p. 5).

Garrison praises Michael Moore's theory of transactional distance (Moore, 1993) as intuitively appealing and moving the field toward the realization of a pedagogical theory, but he questions the clarity of Moore's description of the components of transactional distance: structure and dialogue. Garrison's chief complaints are that "the exact nature of the interrelationships among structure, dialog and autonomy is not clear. There is confusion around whether structure and dialogue are variables, clusters or dimensions" (Garrison, 2000, p. 9). He calls for "more macrolevel theoretical work that goes beyond simply refining this promising and appealing theory" and points out the need for a visual model to clarify the structural relationships among the concepts of dialogue, structure and autonomy.

Inverting the table above, the basic theory of transactional distance can be depicted as a graph, providing a better understanding of how dialogue and structure relate to transactional distance. This format immediately reveals that in Moore's ranking of teaching methods, all of the more highly dialogic teaching methods have a lower transactional distance than any of the non-dialogic methods, making dialogue a more significant factor than individualization in determining the degree of transactional distance:

Transactional Distance (based on Moore, 1973)

As Moore's theory developed, the dimensions of dialogue and individualization have been refined. The dialogue dimension involves interaction not only between the learner and the teacher, but also between the learner and content and among learners (Moore, 1989). Gunawardena extended that concept to include interaction with the medium (Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena, 1994).

Moore renamed his individualization dimension as "structure." Verduin and Clark (1991) extended Moore's classification from four clusters in a 2x2 matrix to twelve. They extended the dialogue axis to cover highly dialogic face-to-face teaching in addition to low- and non-dialogic methods; learner support was an element of dialogue. In their construct, structure has two dimensions: their axis of competence or self-directedness Moore's is roughly comparable to Moore's individualization axis; a second dimension of structure is the degree of formalization of the content.

Verduin and Clark's classification system
Dialogue/support		High	Low	None
Formal structure	Low self-direction	Case 6: primary/secondary classroom ed; most study of formal subjects	Case 2: large lecture classes; correspondence study for vocational/technical DE	Case 10: textbook based distance education in formal subjects
	High self-direction	Case 8: advanced science classroom study; graduate seminars; continuing professional ed	Case 4: classroom and DE in advanced vocational and professional areas	Case 12: continuing professional education in formal subjects through DE, such as reading journals
Informal structure	Low self-direction	Case 5: wide-ranging, general interest audio/teleconferencing; consciousness-raising; college classroom discussions	Case 1: one-way, general interest videoconferencing	Case 9: unplanned, unstructured distance ed; watching TV talk shows
	High self-direction	Case 7: advanced humanities classroom study; graduate seminars; continuing professional ed in education	Case 3: problem-oriented DE; learning contracts; independent study courses	Case 11: professional continuing ed in low-structure fields; reading journals; dinner meeting programs

Applying Moore's theory to Verduin and Clark's 3-dimension typology, transactional distance (blue arrow in the diagram below) would be lowest in a high-dialogue, highly self-directed (individualized), informal learning environment such as advanced classroom and graduate study (Verduin and Clark's category 7); it would be highest in non-dialogic, other-directed, formalized situations such as distance learning by textbook for highly formalized subjects (Verduin and Clark's category 10).

3-dimensional representation of Verduin
and Clark's classification system

Learner Autonomy

Part Two of Moore's theory of independent learning sought to classify teaching and learning methods by their level of autonomy, "the extent to which learners control and influence the learning" (Moore, 1973). Moore described this "dimension" of learner autonomy and offered some hypotheses on its relation to the first dimension (transactional distance). His classification was based on the degree of control that learner has over the three phases of education: preparation (establishment of goals and objectives and design of the program); execution (implementation); and evaluation. This hierarchy (which did not use the same examples as the first part of his theory) can be illustrated by the following table:

Moore's Classification by Autonomy (1973)
description	code	Preparation	Execution	Evaluation
1. complete autonomy     (theoretical)	AAA	Autonomous	Autonomous	Autonomous
2. evaluation controlled by others     (ex: external certification programs)	AAN			Non-autonomous
3. execution controlled by others     (ex: programmed learning)	ANA		Non-autonomous	Autonomous
4. learner-set goals     (unusual)	ANN			Non-autonomous
5. learner-controlled execution and evaluation     (uncommon)	NAA	Non-autonomous	Autonomous	Autonomous
6. learner-controlled evaluation     (most unusual)	NNA		Non-autonomous
7. learner-controlled execution     (most common)	NAN		Autonomous	Non-autonomous
8. no autonomy     (theoretical)	NNN		Non-autonomous

It should be noted that by virtue of the order in which the items are listed, learner control in preparation would appear to be the most important factor in autonomy. Control over execution is the second most important factor when the learner has a degree of control over preparation, but is the least important factor when there is no control over preparation. There is no rationale for this particular pattern; it was apparently unintented on Moore's part.

To avoid this implication, learner autonomy could be grouped by the number of factors over which the learner has control. This results in four major categories: maximum learner autonomy (control over preparation, execution and evaluation), learner control over two of the three components, learner control over one component, and minimal autonomy:

Varying levels of autonomy
maximum autonomy minimum autonomy	1. AAA
	2. AAN	3. ANA	5. NAA
	4. ANN	7. NAN	6. NNA
	8. NNN

Moore's concept of autonomy can also be represented as a three-dimensional object or graph, with the three dimensions of preparation, execution, and evaluation as its axes. This allows learner control in each dimension to be treated as a variable; the eight corners of the cube represent the extremes in Moore's classification system. The diagonal of the cube represents the range of autonomy.

Moore's concept of autonomy as a function of preparation, execution, and evaluation.

Moore predicted that "a relationship between this autonomy and individualization and dialogue will be found" (Moore, 1972, p. 80), but as Garrison has pointed out, that relationship remains unclear. Moore's final hypothesis—which provided the basis for his Theory of Transactional Distance—was that there is a positive relationship between distance (as measured by individualization and dialogue) and autonomy (p. 83). Presumably, as distance increases, so does the need for learner autonomy. Moore illustrated the possible combinations of his eight categories of autonomy and his four "clusters" of dialogue and structure as a 32-cell grid, which he felt could "provide a typology of all educational programs" (Moore, 1976):

Moore's "Suggested typology of educational programmes" (from Moore, 1973, 1976)

Moore's three-dimensional figure is actually an extruded table, like a wine carton laid on its side; a close examination reveals that the horizontal (left to right) dimension has no significance. The 32-cell table that forms the right side of Moore's solid figure is represented below, in a slightly rearranged form. The order of the columns has been reversed. Because Moore assigned a lower transactional distance to all of the highly dialogic methods (making "structure" a secondary factor), both dialogue and structure form a single axis ranging from low to high transactional distance. The rows (levels of autonomy) have been organized according to the preceding table, ranging from maximum to minimum autonomy.

Moore's Suggested typology of educational programs
		Low	Transactional distance		High
		More dialogue (+D)		Less dialogue (-D)
		Low structure/ more individualized (-S)	High structure/ less individualized (+S)	Low structure/ more individualized (-S)	High structure/ less individualized (+S)
Maximum autonomy	1. AAA    (theoretical)			contract learning	"teach-yourself" book
More autonomy	2. AAN			external certification programs
	3. ANA	personal sports coaching		programmed learning
	5. NAA    (uncommon)
Less autonomy	4. ANN    (uncommon)		driving school
	7. NAN	most independent study programs			Air Force training
	6. NNA (most rare)
Minimal autonomy	8. AAA    (theoretical)		professional certification programs
unclassifiable methods (autonomy may vary)		individual telephone individual correspondence	group telephone group correspondence	computer assisted instruction	dial access tape TV, radio

Not all of the teaching methods classified by Moore in his 1973 and 1976 articles can be placed within this structure. While the teaching methods identified by Moore are distinguished in the execution phase of teaching. The use of any particular teaching method does not necessarily determine how much autonomy the learner has been afforded, particularly in the planning and evaluation phases.

An unexplained feature of Moore's diagram (the extruded table) is the inclusion of the labels "most independent" and "least independent" at opposite corners. The placement of these labels suggests that "independence" is a function of transactional distance and autonomy. His diagram suggests that the learner has a low degree of independence when autonomy is low and distance is low; high tranactional distance and a high threshhold of autonomy imply a high level of learner independence.

A possible relationship between transactional distance and autonomy can be illustrated by a three-dimensional graph. If autonomy varied directly with transactional distance, the resulting straight-line relationship could be depicted as follows:

Linear relationship between transactional distance and autonomy

Such a graph is an abstraction that only takes three factors into account. A more concrete visual metaphor can be used to illustrate this relationship, allowing additional factors to be represented. In the illustration below, the four tiers of a platform represent Moore's four clusters of teaching methods; their position on the horizontal plane represents the dimensions of dialogue and structure, and their relative height suggests the amount of autonomy. Taking the analogy one step further, different teaching methods, represented as containers, can be distributed among these tiers in accordance with Moore's typology. The size and height of each container suggests the variations in autonomy that can occur within each "tier."

Dialogue, structure, transactional distance, and autonomy

There are several aspects of autonomy that are determined by course design and execution, and they may vary in different ways. First is the threshhold level of autonomy that a particular course design and teaching method require of the learner. Theoretically, a course with a low transactional distance (highly-dialogic, highly-individualized) will not require a high degree of autonomy of the learner. In the one-on-one tutorial that Moore identifies as having the least transactional distance, the teacher will structure and deliver the course and evaluate the student's learning in a manner that is tailored to the student's individual needs. As a teaching method becomes less individualized and less dialogic, the learner's autonomy (capacity for independent study) must increase to compensate for the increased transactional distance.

The threshhold level of autonomy associated with a teaching method can be visualized as a barrier over which the learner must reach. Such a barrier could take various forms: a language or cultural barrier, a level of math skills, or of computer competency. For a learner of a given level of autonomy (independence or competence), represented by the learner's height, a low threshhold of autonomy will not present a barrier, but a high threshhold of autonomy may be difficult and frustrating to overcome:

Varying threshhold levels of autonomy

Conversely, a given threshhold of autonomy may present a barrier to a learner with a low level of autonomy, but not to one with a higher level of autonomy:

Varying levels of learner autonomy

A second aspect of autonomy that is affected by course design and execution is the degree of autonomy that is permitted of the learner. This represents a ceiling of autonomy, and may not vary with transactional distance in the same way as the threshhold level of autonomy. For instance, because a highly dialogic course demands interaction, the independent student is not as free to explore the subject on his or her own: thus, there is an upper limit, or ceiling, on the autonomy that this student may exercise. A rigidly-paced course will require a low level of competence in managing one's time, but will severely constrain those who are able to set their own pace. The placement of the "least independent" label in Moore's diagam, in the corner representing low distance and low autonomy, may reflect this concept.

In our visual metaphor, this ceiling level of autonomy presents no problem for the shorter (less autonomous) learner, but presents a problem for the taller (more autonomous) learner. An example of teaching methods that afford limited autonomy might be learning to conjugate verbs by rote, or basic military training.

Ceiling levels of autonomy

The third aspect of autonomy is the degree of autonomy that a course provides to the learner. Dialogue or interaction (in Verduin and Clark's model, support is a part of the dialogue dimension) and learning resources can help a learner to become more independent. An example of such support in an online course might be a set of links to sites that can help the learner understand the terminology or concepts that the course expects the learner to have mastered. In our visual metaphor, support takes the form of a platform that increases the learner's autonomy.

Support for learner autonomy

Largely outside of the control of the course designer is the degree of autonomy that the learner possesses. Our visual metaphor permits us to visualize more than one type of learner competency. The learner's height might represent an ability to structure materials in a meaningful way and develop associations, stride could be analogized to an ability to operate in a less individualized setting, and the learner's reach could represent an ability to operate with lower levels of guidance or direction from the teacher. Competency in one area may help a learner to overcome a lack of competency in another. Taking all of these factors into consideration, our visual metaphor might appear as follows:

Aspects of autonomy: threshholds, limits, support, and learner competence

Garrison and Baynton's Theory of Independence

The degree of independence that a learner can exercise is not a fixed quantity. Garrison and Baynton identified three "dimensions of control" that are maintained in a dynamic balance through the interaction between the learner and the teacher. Independence or choice represents the degree of flexibility that is afforded to the learner—there can be no independence without options from which one may choose. Power, proficiency or competency represents the learner's personal attributes and outlook, a willingness to take independent action. A third factor affecting a student's control of the learning transaction is the support provided by the teacher and access to learning resources (Garrison and Baynton, 1987; Baynton, 1992).

Garrison and Baynton's "Dimensions of control" (1987, 1992)

In testing this theory, Baynton (1992) refined this theory, separating out three factors that were shown to have an effect upon control:

• flexibility (closely associated with choice or independence)
• value orientation (closely associated with student competency), and
• access to resources (closely associated with support).

By representing Garrison and Baynton's two-dimensional figure as a three-dimensional prism in which their three "dimensions" are represented by its edges, we can illustrate how nature of control in an educational transaction might vary in these three respects, and how the balance of control might shift between the learner and teacher:

   
High learner control vs. high teacher control

Saba and Shearer have tested this dynamic interchange between learner and teacher (Saba, 1988, Saba and Shearer, 1994). In a series of experiments, they were able to show that control is in fact a dynamic variable, constantly shifting between student and teacher as one responds to the other.

Revisiting the concept of transactional distance.

The work of Verduin and Clark, Garrison and Baynton, and Saba and Shearer help point out a fundamental limitation in Moore's theory of transactional distance: it examines only the attributes of teaching method, without taking into account those of the learner. Moore measures transactional distance by positioning a teaching method in relation to an origin at which structure is most individualized and involves a maximum of dialogue. This origin, as characterized by the personal tutorial is, theoretically, the point where transactional distance is the lowest.

However, determining the "distance" between the learner and the teacher requires that we know where the learner is positioned in this construct. We should not assume that all learners are situated at the same origin from which the position of the teaching method is measured. A learner with limited verbal communication skills (such as a foreign student who can read English but cannot converse well) would not be well served by a highly-dialogic teaching method; such a student would likely feel more comfortable with a less-dialogic course employing a limited amount of asynchronous text messaging. An individualistic, divergent-thinking learner would not be well suited for a course that was structured around highly-structured, rigidly-paced group activities—which another group of learners might prefer.

Moore's theory can be extended to the learner side of the equation to determine where the learner is situated. Transactional distance would then be measured by the relative positions of the learner and teacher under any particular teaching method. The characteristics of both the teaching method and the learner can be analyzed to determine if they are within "reach" of one another. The extent of overlap defines an area within which the educational transaction can take place. The positions (attributes) of a number of learners can be taken into account, and the concept of transactional distance can be expanded to encompass cooperative learning in a learning community.

The following diagram indicates the relative positions of the teacher and three learners, along with the range of their capabilities. The teacher and learner 1 share a space in which learning can transpire: learner 1's "core" is within the "reach" of the teacher, even though the teacher's "core" is slightly outside of learner 1's "reach." Learner 2 is outside the reach of the teacher: for any learning transaction to occur, they must both operate within their common attributes. There is no overlap between Learner 3 and the teacher: neither can reach the other (for instance, because of a language barrier). However, learner 1 and learner 3 have a shared space, permitting learner 1 to act as a tutor (or translator) for learner 3. Learner 2, however, is not in a position to learn from either learner 1 or learner 3.

Transactional distance as a relative concept

If the teacher was able to assess the positions of learners 1, 2, and 3 in advance, or if the teaching method was flexible enough that it could be modified to respond to the needs of the students, then the position of the teacher could be recentered and the teacher's capabilities augmented to provide a larger "reach," as suggested by the following diagram:

Recentering the teaching method to optimize transactional distance

Moore's initial premise was that distance education was a way to better serve the independent, self-directed learner who was not well served by traditional classroom education. As distance education became more commonplace, high rates of attrition were experienced among learners who did not have the temperament, self-suffiency or independent learning skills to learn without the structure and pacing of the classroom. In order to reach a broader group of learners, distance education has responded by seeking to reduce "transactional distance," lowering the levels of autonomy required of the student. The strategies have included enhancing the levels of communication (consistent with Moore's theory) and support (consistent with Garrison and Baynton's theory). While the continued emphasis that academia places on the development of objectively measurable objectives and the rise of the discipline of instructural design has placed more emphasis on planning courses, the result has been to make courses more highly structured in their content and pacing, giving students less control over planning and evaluation. The design of more learner-centered, constructivist courses is constrained by the desire to plan out the entire educational transaction in advance.

The market. The population served by distance education has expanded greatly. Once intended as a medium to bring university education to those whose physical separation made it impractical or impossible for them to attend live classes (as is still the case in more sparsely populated countries such as Australia and Canada), distance education has found a market among those who find it difficult to attend scheduled classes, even at a nearby institution, because of work schedules, family commitments, or transportation difficulties. Distance education has become popular even with resident on-campus students who prefer the flexibility that it offers them in scheduling and study. Students taking online courses are no longer faced with scheduling conflicts among classes or between classes and extracurricular activities.

Legitimacy. Distance education programs have become commonplace at the majority of higher learning institutions. A wide range of courses are offered, and an increasing number of entire degree programs have emerged. A review of the course offerings on the SUNY Learning Network reveals that distance education is especially popular among nonresidential community colleges that seek to serve a large local population of part-time students. Online learning is popular: distance education programs have been growing faster than the student population, and online courses are often closed out long before their face-to-face counterparts. Questions about equivalency of distance education and face to face learning have largely subsided, and updated accreditation standards no longer pose a significant barrier. Libraries have large online collections and are increasingly linked together in regional and statewide networks that provide access to subscrption-based databases and collections.

The medium. In the United States, with easy access to the Internet, high levels of computer ownership and near-universal computer literacy among college students (Commerce Department, 2002), distance education in postsecondary institutions has become largely synonymous with online learning (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998, 2002, 2003). This medium supports many different methods of instruction, permitting instructors to combine approaches in a way that would have been impossible at the time Moore formulated his theories. The use of methods such as closed-circuit television, videotapes and other distributed media, dedicated computer learning networks, radio, video- and audioconferencing, and correspondence, has declined or disappeared. In the corporate training world, which deals with a generally older and less computer-literate segment of the population, self-paced online education is gradually displacing the training session.

Online courses are delivered through a mixture of individually-created course websites and through more sophisticated university-created, open-source and commercial learning management systems, such as BlackBoard and WebCT, that provide administrative course management functions such as enrollment, communications, and assessment. Course design generally remains the responsibility of the individual instructor.

Use of the Internet is also widespread in face to face courses. It is now almost obligatory, if only for competitive reasons, that a textbook have an accompanying CD-ROM as well as a web site with additional learning resources and updates for both the students and the instructor. Such resources include multimedia presentations, video clips, interactive exercises and specialized-use computer programs that go far beyond what an individual instructor would be able to assemble or create for a course. Publishers' online assessments provide students with immediate, detailed feedback that would be virtually impossible for an instructor to provide. Publishers also create "course packs" that provide content formatted for the major learning management platforms. Even laboratory courses are offered, with virtual experiments using test and measurement equipment that simulate that found in a real lab. MIT's open courseware project, which aims to make all of the institution's online content available to the public, demonstrates what can be done in many fields.

Online pedagogy. Early online course offerings were poor from a pedagogical standpoint. Instructors, untrained in distance learning pedagogy and inexperienced in conducting (or even taking) online classes, often fall victim to the idea that online course delivery can be accomplished by posting one's syllabus, lecture outlines and assignments on a website, and taking in assignments by email. Some courses have contributed to information overload, presenting students with too much material to digest, or have left them to find their own content through unguided websurfing. A common mistake is for the course designer to expend enormous effort to develop the perfect online course that will run largely by itself, not appreciating that a "set piece" designed for a hypothetical learner may not work well for all of those who do not fit that model. Many first-generation online courses failed to engage and motivate the learner.

Even today, many online courses feature minimal amounts of interaction with the instructor or other learners. Communications are largely limited to asynchronous text messaging and online exchange of files. Course content (beyond the assigned textbook) may consist largely of text files and few images. Such online courses share the same flaws pointed out by Felder with respect to traditional courses: they are designed for the same left-brained, verbal/text-proficient, convergent thinking, deductive reasoning, analytical, Kolb-Quadrant 2 and 3 INTJ's that make the most successful engineering and law students because they most closely fit the profile of the university professor. Distance learning has adapted easily to teaching and learning styles that fit this model.

Developing interactive media that can address other learning styles is largely beyond the capabilities of individual "lone ranger" faculty members responsible for putting together their own courses. Designing courses where learning arises out of high levels of communication rather than from the assimilation of facts continues to present a challenge for distance education: the channels of communication may be available, but getting a discussion going, involving the entire class, and maintaining it can be difficult.

 

This study has sought to evaluate the extent to which distance education is utilized in architecture programs, from course websites in support of a "blended" approach to fully online courses. The Association of Collegiate Schools or Architecture's 2004 survey of its members includes, for the first time, questions on whether schools are using distance learning. Unfortunately, a computer system failure has made it impossible for this data to be compiled before the completion of this study.

In the absence of timely survey data, extensive searches by various means (including keyword searches on multiple Internet search engines, literature searches for mentions of programs, and identification of schools through the affiliation of authors) have been made for evidence of distance education in architectural programs. The websites of forty of the 115 architecture schools in the United States, including those of the top-ranked 15 schools, have been visited and searched thoroughly, and many foreign school sites have also been visited (see Links section). Because online course listings and course websites may not be linked to a school's website (many of which were incomplete and out of date), a more definitive source, their parent universities' listings of online courses and course websites, where publicly accessible, has also been searched to determine if online courses were being offered in architecture.

Despite its explosive growth in many disciplines, online learning appears to have left most architecture schools almost completely untouched. There are no architectural degree programs available online. Architecture schools are well behind the state of the art of distance education in their parent universities, even with respect to the traditional lecture courses that make up about half the architectural curriculum. There are only a handful of individual architecture courses that can be taken entirely online (see, e.g., Boston Architectural Center), and these tend to be in technological subjects. There is no evidence that design classes that can be taken online at any school.

The State University of New York's online learning network (http://sln.suny.edu/) offers over 4,000 courses from 50 state colleges and universities to over 70,000 students each year in over 80 disciplines, but there are no architecture courses to be found among them. Even universities that are world leaders in distance education and provide extensive support to faculty with teaching and learning centers, such as Wisconsin and Penn State, often offer no distance education courses in architecture.

The use of websites to supplement face to face courses is more widespread (see, e.g., Columbia University and MIT). Such sites are being used effectively in both studio and non-studio classes to disseminate materials such as reference drawings and written assignments, to provide links to additional resources on the Internet, and to provide a method of communication and presentation of student work. However, most course websites in architecture schools—where they exist—are minimal, providing no more than a place for the instuctor to post syllabus or course description.

School sites were also searched for links to individual faculty web pages. In a few instances (see, e.g., the University of Utah, a common template had been provided by the school, where biographical information for a majority of the full-time faculty members has beem posted. Some faculty members expand upon the minimum information, providing full resumes and links to their course pages and their published work (see, e.g., Nancy Cheng at the University of Oregon).

School sites and those of their parent universities were also searched for school-affiliated research programs (see, e.g. the Center for Virtual Architecture at SUNY-Buffalo, the Program of Computer Graphics at Cornell University, and the MIT Media Lab), revealing some links to design studios and academic programs.

While much has been much written in the specialized publications and conferences of the CAD community about using virtual design studios to link geographically-separated studios and critics, there is virtually no discussion of "pure" distance education in architecture. The idea that a student might be able to participate in a design studio at a distance as an individual, outside of the physical presence of the critic and other students, has yet to be addressed.

There are a number of possible reasons why distance learning has not taken hold in collegiate architectural education. The forces driving adoption of distance education programs by universities are not felt as strongly in their architectural schools. While the university may seek to reach out to those for whom frequent attendance on campus may be difficult, it is almost incomprehensible to imagine that architecture could be taught anywhere but at the institution. Like a science lab, the studio requires students to be physically present on campus, where each has an assigned workspace and keeps tools, drafting equipment and supplies. It is highly impractical for a student to carry drawings and models back and forth every day to a setup at home or at work. Students are expected to do their design work in the studio, where it can be reviewed by the instructor and observed by classmates at it progresses. Since most students are present in the design studio most (if not all) days of the week, the campus is the most convenient place for all their instruction.

Collegiate distance learning programs reach out to those who may not be separated by distance, but are studying part-time and have other demands on their time, such as work and families, that make attending scheduled classes difficult. In contrast, most architecture students are attending on a full-time basis, and there is little perceived need to accommodate those (especially in masters degree programs) who work, have families, or can only attend on a part-time basis. Rather, the prevailing attitude seems to be that it is the student's responsibility to make the necesary sacrifices to attend.

While there are an increasing number of complete online degree programs, a large number of distance education courses serve those who are studying on an à la carte basis, gaining specialized skills, updating or filling gaps in their education, or seeking personal development. These programs permit the institution to expand its existing offerings at a relatively low incremental cost. In contrast, there are no casual course-takers in architecture, whose students are immersed in a highly-structured program leading to a professional degree which is closed to non-majors. Enrollment cannot be expanded in specific areas.

A primary reason for the low utilization of online education in architecture schools would be the relatively low level of computer literacy among architectural faculty members. In design courses, this is compounded by the high threshhold level of competency required by computer graphics programs. The prospect of having to create a visually rich website (such as the "Spirit of Place" site by Catholic University's Travis Price at http://www.spiritofplace-design.com/) can be intimidating enough to deter many faculty members from even making the attempt.

Faculty who believe that an online course cannot match the flexibility, immediacy and intensity of a studio desk crit conducted in the presence of one's classmates are not mistaken. In the studio process, learning is accomplished entirely through intense and frequent interaction between learner and critic, interactions among learners, by witnessing other learners' interactions with the critic. The course content is created as part of the process, and the primary medium is graphic images that can be marked up and exchanged or worked on simultaneously by multiple users. A live studio online session cannot be replicated with present technology, and any attempt to do so should probably not even be made. Why would anyone want to use a medium that is still a poor substitute for the real thing?

The question that should be asked is not whether distance education can duplicate the design studio, but whether the present studio method adequately addresses all of the learning objectives, is the only way for a student to learn how to design, and is the best way for every student. Can other methods be used in conjunction with the studio? Can a methodology be developed that would allow students to learn design at a distance? Would it give students who do not fit the profile of the successful studio learner a better chance at success? Are there advantages of such a methodology that might outweigh any disadvantages resulting from the lack of personal contact? Are there parts of the curriculum that could be offered more effectively online?