Learning Technology Research

Bridging the 'Psychological Gap' in Distance Learning through Telematics

Steve Wheeler, Adrian Vranch and Fraser Reid
University of Plymouth, UK

Poster presented at the 19th World Conferenceon Open Learning and Distance Education, Vienna, Austria, June 20-24, 1999.
 
Abstract
 
Studies by Moore (1991) and Willis (1993)have identified an 'instructional gap' in the practice of distance education. This 'transactional distance' becomes apparent when teachers and studentsinteract at a distance. It can manifest itself in a variety of ways,mostly negative, such as student demotivation, lack of understanding andultimately, loss of confidence and satisfaction with remote learning resultingin raised drop-out rates.
 
The nature of this psychological distanceis explored and some possible solutions offered. The authors concludethat the 'psychological gap' is subtle, and can only be bridged by thedevelopment and practice of a range of new pedagogical and social facilitationskills. How these are practiced and how social transactions are managedat a distance, is perhaps the most vital ingredient for the success ofdistributed learning. This paper presents initial finding from apilot study, N=17. A more complete version will be presented at theconference.
 
Introduction
 
By its very nature, distance learning separatesstudents and tutors (Boondao and Rowley, 1991) and this separation may betemporal as well as geographical (Marsden, 1996). Moore (1991) hasidentified a 'transactional distance' between learners and tutors, whichhe claims, amplifies any existing problems in understanding between thetwo. This instructional gap (Willis, 1993) may also result in mismatchesbetween what the course author desires to communicate and the students'interpretations (Marsden, 1996), and between the intentions of tutors andthe expectations of students (Moore, 1991). Lack of interaction betweentutors and students and the perception of lack of tutor input into thelearning process have been shown to have detrimental effects on some distancelearners (Teven and McCroskey, 1996). Moreover, there isevidence to suggest that anxiety or psychological discomfort resultingfrom learning at a distance can increase rather than decrease as time goesby (Jegede and Kirkwood, 1994).
 
Geographical distance can be bridged byinformation and communication technology (ICT). It has also beenargued that text is also a mediating factor between tutors and remote students(Marsden, 1996). However, a psychological dimension to theseparation also exists, and the authors argue that this gap can only bebridged effectively by sensitive and appropriate facilitative support skillson the part of the tutor. Teachers often fail to take thesefactors into consideration when designing courses to deliver to remotestudents (Jenkins, 1988). Although distance learners may be usingthe same technologies they may experience learning differently and thereis therefore a case, argues Bates (1997) for tutors to meet these diverseneeds by offering a range of tutorial services.
 
In this paper we report a study that investigatedthe nature and extent of the psychological distance apparent in distributedlearning environments. A comparison was made between two learnerpopulations, local and remote, studying on two courses, business computerapplications and computer aided design (CAD). The paper offers recommendationsfor a strategy of staff development, and an outline is offered of the kindsof social and facilitative skills necessary for tutors to acquire and practicein order to obviate the transactional distances that may arise betweenthemselves and their remote students.
 
Method
 
Participants
 
Two groups of students studying on identicalcourses were chosen to participate in the study. There were 17 studentsin total (n males and n females), with a mean age of n, and a range ofn.  One group (n=11) studied at three colleges of further education,in Exeter, Torquay and Jersey and these were designated as the local or'L' group. A second group of students (n=6) studying at seven ruraltelecentres across the region were also recruited and these were designatedas the remote or 'R' group (See Figure 1).
 
 

The groups were enrolled on two courses,namely a basic computer literacy and information technology course (CLAIT),and a course in computer aided design (CAD). They were labelled aslevels 1 and 2 respectively, reflecting the increased level of academicdemand required by the latter. All the students had been enrolledon their respective courses for at least one month, and were studying ona flexible basis.

Procedure

Each student completed a questionnairethat measured several items, including demographic details, student expectations,perceptions of tutor support, and satisfaction levels. Participants were also asked to completea learning styles and preferences questionnaire (the approaches to studyinventory - ASI) to provide a further dependent measure (Entwhistle, 1981).Although space prevents results being presented in this paper, they willbe discussed during the presentation. A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was used to group categories of responses into five discrete areas of support:I - information giving (r = .64), E - explanation (r = . 63), D - direction(r = .73), M - motivation (r = . 63) and F - feedback (r = .67). See Appendix 1 for question group codings.

Results

As expected, a difference was observedbetween the tutorial contact times of local and remote students, with remotestudents enjoying less (See Figure 2).  Lack of contact can be explainedby the difficulty in communication between people at a distance, but mayalso contribute to the student feeling isolated from learning expertise.

There was a marked difference between theperceptions and reality of support between local and remote students. Table 1 shows mean scores (and standard deviations) across all categoriesof support offered by tutorial staff.  Higher scores indicate higherexpectations.

 
Information
Explanation
Direction
Motivation
Feedback
Local Support   (Expected)
3.83
(2.23)
4.33 
(2.66)
3.50
(1.97)
3.50
(1.97)
3.17 
(2.04)
Local Support   (Received)
3.50
(2.35)
4.33
(2.34)
3.67
(1.97)
3.67
(1.51)
3.17
(2.04)
Remote Support (Expected)
5.45
(2.16)
6.55
(1.75)
6.27
(2.10)
4.09
(2.63)
3.64
(2.66)
Remote Support (Received)
5.18
(2.48)
4.91
(2.51)
5.55
(2.54)
3.55
(2.91)
3.45
(2.66)

Table 1: Mean scores for five categoriesof tutorial support
 
 
 
 

 

One way analysis of variance showed a significantstatistical difference between groups in expected explanation, F(1,15)=4.31,p< .05, and expected direction F(1,15)=7.03, p< .01. No otherbetween group differences were statistically significant.

Discussion

The difference between perceived and actualsupport received by students indicates that little difference exists betweenwhat students expect and receive. However, there was a marked differentialbetween what local students expected when compared to the expectationsof remote students. There was also a significant increase in thesupport offered to remote students, but interestingly, where explanationwas concerned, this fell substantially short of what remote students expected.

There were other disparities in experiencebetween local and remote students. Firstly, the means by which studentscommunicated with their tutors mediated the frequency of communication. Remote students averaged fewer conversations each month with their tutorsthan local students.

It is evident from this study that remotestudents expect a great deal more from their tutors than local students,most probably due to the psychological distance they perceive. Tutors of remote students must concentrate in particular on providing pedagogicalsupport in the areas of explanation, direction and information giving.Although this can be seen as didactic in nature, a great deal of interactionwith the student may also be necessary for the student to apprehend thematerial effectively.

 
References

Bates A W (1997) The impact of technologicalchange on open and distance learning.  Distance Education, 18 (1),93-109.
Boondao S and Rowley G (1991) The effectof assignments for field-dependent/independent students in teaching mathematicsby distance education.  AARE Conference.  Queensland, Australia,November 26-30, 1991.
Entwhistle N J (1981) Styles of learningand teaching.  Chichester.  John Wiley & Sons.
Jegede O J and Kirkwood J (1994) Students'anxiety in learning through distance education.  Distance Education,15 (2), 279-290.
Jenkins J (1988) Focusing on the learner. In D Sewart and J S Daniel.  International Council for Distance Education.Oslo, 255-6.
Marsden R (1996) Time, space and distanceeducation.  Distance Education, 17 (2), 222-246.
Moore M G (1991) Editorial: distance educationtheory.  American Journal of Distance Education.  5 (3), 1-6.
Teven J J and McCroskey J C (1996) Therelationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacherevaluation.  Communication Education. 46 (1).
Willis B (1993) Distance education: Apractical guide.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ.  Educational TechnologyPublications.