Transactional Distance and the Capacity Triangle of Adult Teaching and Learning

While there is a somewhat definable physical distance in online education, it is the psychological and communicative distance that we must attend to. The very nature of online learning means that students and teachers are likely not in the same location or in the same classroom. To begin to understand psychological distance, think of the old lecture halls in traditional universities where many of us might have sat during 100- or 200-level courses. There might have been 300-500 students in those large auditoriums, but the larger classes were broken down into smaller labs or groups led by teaching assistants. The “sage on the stage” was the professor in charge of the course and the many teaching assistants. Even if there was a psychological or communicative distance between students and professor, the physical distance narrowed in the labs. In those large courses, narrowing of the psychological and communicative distance became the responsibility of the teaching assistants. Simultaneously, students were responsible for bridging communication gaps and misunderstandings about content. The responsibility was on the student to ask questions and seek support. However, this is much more easily accomplished in a face-to-face classroom where there is relatively immediate access to a content expert and peers.

Students in face-to-face classrooms have the luxury of hearing tone, seeing non-linguistic social cues, and viewing demonstrations that are foundations for covering communication and psychological gaps between students and instructors. Likewise, instructors or teaching assistants can differentiate their support, teaching, and feedback to the needs of the students in their classroom or labs. Additionally, further individual explanation and support can be provided via office hours. Students in face-to-face classrooms appear to have an advantage with immediately applicable and specific feedback. Being able to raise one’s hand and receive an answer covers the psychological and communicative distance. This contributes to making the gap between instructor and teacher very narrow. As a side note: the author does recognize that the responsibility remains with the student to seek out that individualized support.

Still, from being in a classroom with peers, a student may have a sense of what they do not understand, or they have at least learned from face-to-face interactions the language needed to articulate a question about their confusion. In an online setting, these cues and opportunities for close listening between teacher and students to seek answers to confusing questions diminishes or disappears.

Students choose online learning for any number of reasons. For example, students may be in a location or have challenges that preclude them from easy access to an on-ground university (Kotera et al., 2019; Meyer, 2014; Wladis et al., 2015; Wong & Fong, 2014). Additionally, students may have responsibilities that do not fit the traditional timestamp of on-ground universities (Meyer, 2014; Wengrowicz et al., 2018). These students might be parents, caregivers, or active-duty military, or they might work in industries that require working non-traditional hours or hours of travel (such as cross-country truck drivers). Online students might have learning challenges or disabilities and feel as though an on-ground university is not the best environment for their needs. While these represent only a few of reasons students choose online learning, the task remains to continually understand these students in the context of their lives and how best to communicate for skills improvement.