Data Driven Ehtnography Distance Learning

Distance Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2003
Transactional Presence as a Critical Predictor
of Success in Distance Learning
Namin Shin
Center for Research in Distant and Adult Learning, The Open University of Hong Kong
ABSTRACT This paper argues that, apart from interactive activities, the perceptions of psychological
presence that distance education students hold of their teachers, peer students, and the institution can
be significant predictors of their learning. The “perception of presence” in this paper is defined as the
degree to which a distance education student senses the availability of, and connectedness with, each
party. This form of presence is designated here as “Transactional Presence” (TP). In this study, distance
education student learning was assessed in the light of students’ perceived learning achievement,
satisfaction, and intent-to-persist. An analysis of student survey data indicates that a distance student’s
sense of institutional TP predicts all the selected measures to do with success in distance learning. While
a sense of peer student TP is significantly related to satisfaction and intent-to-persist, the effect of teacher
TP is found to relate only to student-perceived learning achievement. Implications of the TP construct
are discussed with respect to the theory, research, and practice of distance education, along with
recommendations for future research.
Introduction
If those who have studied the distance education literature are in accord on any one point, it
is probably this: psychological distance is more important than physical distance. Being a
matter of psychology, “distance” can be treated as a theoretical construct or a variable that can
be manipulated by instructional design or a set of institutional arrangements (Moore, 1973,
p. 665, 1991, p. 63). Depending on the way in which distance teaching is structured, students
may feel different levels of distance from their teacher, tutor, or instructor.
The matter of psychological distance has been addressed indirectly under such themes as
“human contact,” “interaction,” or “relationship.” These loosely defined terms tend to be used
interchangeably. For example, the term “contact,” or anecdotes associated with the term, is
frequently found in the literature mirroring the context of a large-scale distance education
institution such as an open university (e.g., Cole et al., 1986; Fritsch & Strohlein, 1988;
Henderson, 1979; Rekeddal, 1986). Given that students in this context learn mainly by
interacting with self-study materials, one can intuitively understand why the literature has paid
special attention to the importance of “human” contact.
The term “interaction,” on the other hand, is commonly encountered across a variety of
distance education literature; indeed, interaction has been one of the most common themes of
research in distance education (Saba, 2000, p. 4). Generally, research on interaction takes a
so-called Attribute Treatment Interaction approach, which primarily investigates relationships
between the levels of interaction experiences of students with their teachers, peers and levels
ISSN 0158-7919 print; 1475-0198 online/03/010069-18  2003 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
DOI: 10.1080/0158791032000066534
70 N. Shin
of learning achievement or satisfaction. Some research on this topic has also focused on what
individual or instructional factors can contribute to varying levels of students’ interaction with
teachers or their peers within a distance education course (e.g., Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999).
Other research has related the theme of interaction to such discussions as cost effectiveness
(Kearsely, 1995), students’ perceptions of interaction (Fulford & Zhang, 1993), types of
interaction (Hillman et al., 1994; Moore, 1989), and the process of knowledge building in an
online learning environment (Gunawardena et al., 1997).
Compared to the amount of discussion and research on interaction, discussions about
interpersonal relationships in a distance education setting have been limited and scattered. The
seemingly unique nature of the student–teacher relationship forged in a distance education
setting, as well as its impact on student learning, has not been systematically studied in the
field. This may be due to the inherently complicated nature of human relationships in general
and a student–teacher relationship in particular. Lentell (1994, p. 50) notes that the nature of
a student–tutor relationship itself, which can be “often scruffy, eluding precise quantification,
and is ongoing and transforming,” may make it difficult for researchers to produce neatly
formulated knowledge that can be “officially” accepted within the field.
Nonetheless, a few studies shed light on the necessity to research relationships in particular,
rather than subsuming the topic into the obscure overarching theme of interaction. For
example, Rekkedal’s (1986) comparative study found that students with a close relationship
with a single tutor who has performed the multiple roles of subject expert, counselor, and
administrative service provider, tended to be more active and persistent in distance learning
than did students who had several tutors playing those roles individually. This finding suggests
that a distance student’s sense of engagement in an interpersonal relationship may be as much
as, or possibly more significant than, sheer frequency of contacts or interaction activities.
May’s (1993) study gives another clue about the subtle distinction between relationship and
interaction. Students in May’s study generally had a positive attitude towards forming
collaborative relationships with other students in the class, but they regarded taking part in
interactions, including face-to-face meetings, as being another matter. A more in-depth view
on the theme of interpersonal relationships comes from Munro (1991, 1998). On the basis of
a comprehensive review of pertinent literature, Munro concludes that it is essential for distance
educators or institutions to bring their presence to remote students, as a dialogic “educator–
learner relationship” can ultimately determine student success or failure.
Building on Munro’s position, Shin (2002) recently set forth the construct of Transactional
Presence (TP) in theorizing distance students’ perceptions of significant others involved in a
distance education setting. This paper presents an exploratory investigation on the efficacy of
the novel construct of TP in explaining selected aspects of distance learning. An analysis of
survey data garnered from 506 distance students suggests that the TP construct can be a
significant predictor of distance students’ perceived learning achievement, satisfaction, and
intent-to-persist.
Theoretical Framework
The construct of TP was induced from a critical review of two streams of literature: media and
communication studies, and distance teaching–learning transactions. The nexus between these
areas of research is that they are commonly concerned with a mediated communication
Transactional Presence 71
situation where “people” (students and teachers) deal with a certain “task” (learning and
teaching) through communication media (instructional media).
In characterizing an individual’s perceptions of other people in a different place and time
zone, media and communication researchers have developed such concepts as “telepresence”
and “social presence.” “Telepresence” involves a user’s sense that remotely located people or
machines are working as expected so that they can control them without being physically
present at the place (Martin, 1981, p. 167). Later, the term “telepresence” was elaborated to
refer mainly to one’s perceptions of human–human interaction via communication media, as
is found in Buxton: “the use of technology to establish a sense of shared presence or shared
space among geographically separated members of a group” (Buxton, 1993, p. 816). On the
other hand, the concept of “social presence” was originally developed in order to differentiate
communications media according to their capabilities for conveying media users’ sense of
engagement with other users in a different time and space (Short et al., 1976, p. 66). In
essence, the concept of “presence” in media and communication studies in general involves
people’s “perceptual illusion of non-mediation,” due to some devices embedded in communication
media (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p. 9), or simply “the feeling of contact” cultivated
among media users (Williams, 1978, p. 127).
As far as communication is concerned, distance education literature invariably focuses on
student learning, making it important to raise such questions as whose presence and why. As
is the case in a conventional face-to-face education setting, the literature suggests that teachers,
peer students, and an institution’s support staff are the significant others for distance students.
For discussions on the characteristics of the three types of relationships, as well as on the roles
played by teachers, peer students, and the institution in a distance learning setting, see Shin
(2002, pp. 127–132).
From a review of the literature, it was conjectured that a distance education student’s
perception of people in an educational setting might not be best captured by the concept of
telepresence or the concept of social presence. Considering the purposeful nature of formal
learning that distance students are involved in at a given time, the perceptual behavior must
go beyond merely identifying one’s locations, or feeling close to people in terms of sharing
time or space. Rather, the perceptions must have to do with distance students’ idiosyncratic
needs for connection with learning resources and sources of support. This notion of presence,
which is designated as “Transactional Presence,” refers to the degree to which a distance
student perceives the availability of, and connectedness with, people in his/her educational
setting. “Availability” implies that what is needed or desired is obtainable upon request,
involving the responsiveness of interpersonal relationships. “Connectedness” indicates the
belief or feeling that a reciprocal relationship exists between two or more parties, involving an
individual’s subjective judgment upon the extent of the engagement in relationships with
others.
Hypothesis
Given the foregoing definition of TP, a distance student who has a strong sense of teachers’
TP is assumed to be sensitive to the availability of his or her teachers while believing in an
established relationship with the teacher. Thus, having a due sense of teacher TP is likely to
ease a distance student’s anxiety caused by the physical isolation from the resource person. In
72 N. Shin
fact, the term “isolation” or “loneliness” is defined as a subjective experience of lacking social
support networks within which one can participate rather than meaning “being alone”
(McWhirter, 1990, p. 418), and so “people with high levels of connectedness are better able
to mange their own needs and emotions through cognitive processes” (Lee & Robbins, 1998,
p. 338).
Because teachers, student peers, and the institution are identified as significant parties to a
distance student, and because learning achievement, satisfaction, and persistence or drop-out
rate have been used as principal indicators that can evaluate a distance education course or a
program (Gibson, 1991, p. 34), the following hypothesis was advanced:
A distance student’s perceptions of the Transactional Presence of teachers, peers, and the
educational institution significantly predict:
HA: learning achievement;
HB: learning satisfaction;
HC: learning persistence.
Method
The Context
A survey was carried out to test this hypothesis with students engaged in distance education
courses at Korea National Open University (KNOU). In the institutional context, students’
interactions with teachers, student peers, and the institution or staff members take a number
of different forms. Interactions with teachers, i.e., faculty members and teaching assistants
belonging to each academic department, are mostly arranged on the basis of individual
students’ needs. Although students do not have individually assigned tutors, they can locate
and interact with teachers by participating in such activities as lecture sessions, tutorials,
student orientations, and visiting study centers. Interaction between peer students also occurs
voluntarily, mostly through study group activities. Students initiate, join, or withdraw from a
study group as their needs for collaborative learning with other students arise or disappear.
Interaction with administrative staff members takes place at 12 regional and 34 local study
centers located across the country. Recently, the institution launched an integrated online
communication system to facilitate the three types of interactions (KNOU, 2000).
Subject Selection and Procedure
A sample of students was selected among those who attended compulsory tutorials at two
regional study centers. A method of modified random sampling was used with the three
elements considered: academic program, academic standing, and the date of assigned tutorials.
Six hundred survey questionnaires were distributed over a period of 3 days in the middle of
November 2000, when the fall semester was about to end. Five hundred and six copies were
collected and used for analysis.
The Study Participants
The 506 study participants represented a variety of academic programs including Early
Childhood Education, Information Statistics, Media Arts and Sciences, Business AdministraTransactional
Presence 73
tion, etc., all of which lead to a bachelor’s degree on completion. The students had an average
of 2.6 years of distance learning experiences associated with KNOU; 24.1% were freshmen;
33.7% sophomore; 38.7% junior; and 3.5% senior (missing 25 cases). Their average age was
33 years (SD 7.94). The gender ratio was skewed towards female students (71.1%); 56.9%
of the students were married, and 30.2 per cent were involved in study group activities.
The Instrument
Given the initial nature of the study, it was necessary to develop a scale of measurement that
could assess individual distance students’ perceptions of the three types of TP. For this, Gable
and Wolf’s (1993) Instrument development in the affective domain was the main reference; and
the major tasks involved were item writing, a panel-of-experts review, and a pilot survey (see
Shin, 2001). A 5-point Likert scale was used in the survey in which “1” indicated strong
disagreement with a statement and “5” indicated strong agreement. The final instrument, the
“Transactional Presence Questionnaire,” included five scales of measurement: the teacher TP,
the peer TP, and the institution TP, satisfaction, and persistence, along with items asking the
respondents’ background information.
Measurement of Transactional Presence
Since TP was operationalized in terms of notions of Availability and Connectedness, items
developed for the TP scale represented either the notion of Availability or that of Connectedness.
Fifteen items were developed for each TP scale, most of which were prefaced with
phrases such as “I believe” or “I feel” in order to capture a respondent’s subjective state of
mind (see Table 1).
Measurement of Distance Learning
As was proposed in the research hypothesis, distance learning was indicated by three
measures: students’ perceived learning achievement, satisfaction with overall distance learning
experience at the institution, and persistence to continue distance learning in future.
Learning achievement. Learning achievement was assessed by students’ self-report on Grade
Point Average (GPA) scores of the previous semester as well as their own perceived
achievement. The perceived learning achievement was indicated on a 0–9 scale under the
question of “How much have you learned from the courses?” (“0” meant nothing, and “9”
meant more than any learning experience I had ever had before) (Richmond et al., 1987, p. 6).
Satisfaction. Student satisfaction was defined as the degree to which a student feels a
positive association with his or her own educational experience. The items constituting the
satisfaction scale are listed below:
• Studying at KNOU is a valuable experience to me.
• I have been able to learn a lot from the courses KNOU provided.
• I do not regret enrolling at KNOU.
74 N. Shin
• I feel that I am continuously growing due to a variety of activities in which I’ve been
engaged at KNOU.
• I feel that I am accomplishing something while studying at KNOU.
• I like the fact that I am studying at KNOU.
• It is worthwhile to keep studying at KNOU.
• I would encourage others to take the courses KNOU provides.
Persistence. Learning persistence was operationalized as a student’s “intent-to-persist” with
their current study, since it goes well beyond the scope of this investigation to trace the status
of subject students’ actual course completion, which, in fact, takes years of enrollment at the
institution. Intent-to-persist was defined as the estimated likelihood of one’s continued
enrollment at an educational institution, adapted from Bean’s (1982, p. 293) definition of
“intent to leave.” The six items comprising the persistence scale included:
• Graduating from KNOU is important to me.
• I am confident that I can overcome obstacles encountered in the course of studying at
KNOU.
• I will finish my studies at KNOU no matter how difficult it may be.
• I will certainly enroll for the next semester.
• I am not likely to continue my studies at KNOU.
• I would like to quit my studies at KNOU.
Validity
For ensuring content and construct validity of the survey instrument, the instrument was
pilot-tested with 111 voluntary students involved in distance learning in the same institution.
The content of the instrument was further validated by consulting a panel of experts, which
included:
• three authors who had published articles related to the theme of the present study;
• four faculty members working in open universities in Canada, Hong Kong, and South
Korea; and
• four academic and administrative staff members involved in a research-based state university
in the United States.
Communication between the researcher and the panel was by e-mail. The panel was asked to
judge in an evaluation sheet provided whether or not each item could shed light on the
definition of the construct that it was purported to measure, and the result was tallied item by
item. Only items on which there was over 80% agreement were included in the final
questionnaire.
Factor analysis was used to examine the TP scale’s construct validity. In this paper,
validating the construct means seeing whether the developed instrument reflects the theoretical
structure of the TP construct by identifying “underlying dimensions that explain responses to
the questionnaire” (Bryant & Yarnold, 1997, p. 99). A series of Principal Component Analyses
were run on the item clusters defining teacher TP, peer TP, and institutional TP, with an
Transactional Presence 75
TABLE 1. Factor analysis of the peer TP scale
Factor loading
Items 1 2
21. I feel a sense of commonality with peers through our joint 0.838
association with KNOU
22. I have strong comradeship with peers 0.825
20. I believe there is a bond between peers and myself 0.807
25. I feel friendly with my peers 0.768
23. I would not hesitate to have an informal conversation with peers 0.727
if I have the chance to do so
19. If there is a social gathering with peers, I am willing to
participate 0.687
26. I believe that peers are willing to make time to meet me if I ask
them to do so 0.645
14. I feel like I know my peers 0.564
17. I believe that peers will give me advance if I ask them 0.846
questions about school life
15. I believe that peers will promptly reply to my e-mail questions 0.825
18. I believe that peers will encourage me to continue my studies 0.753
16. I feel that peers are approachable 0.696
24. I believe that if I ask peers to help me with my schoolwork 0.627
they will do so willingly
Factor Initial eigenvalues % of variance Cumulative %
1 7.999 61.534 61.534
2 1.049 8.068 69.602
eigenvalue greater than one as criterion for number of factors. The Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for the analysis of these data. Overall, a consistent and clear
pattern was observed from the analysis: each TP scale was grouped into two domains
representing either the notion of Availability or that of Connectedness (see the example of the
peer TP construct in Table 1).
Reliability
The reliability of each scale was checked with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which indicates
the extent of internal consistency among the items in eliciting responses from survey
respondents. The result of reliability analysis showed acceptable levels of Alpha coefficient for
each scale, ranging from 0.83 to 0.94 (see Table 2).
76 N. Shin
TABLE 2. The reliability of the scales
Scale Number of items Alpha coefficient
Teacher TP 13 0.88
Peer TP 12 0.94
Institution TP 11 0.85
Satisfaction 9 0.94
Intent-to-persist 6 0.83
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed by means of a series of multiple regression and correlation analyses
(MRC) (Licht, 1997). Multiple independent variables of teacher, peer, and the institutional TP
were entered into a regression model with a respective criterion variable of learning achievement,
satisfaction, and intent-to-persist. For the criterion of learning achievement, the perceived
learning achievement score was selected and used in the analysis, given the lack of
statistical significance of the GPA score in relation with each TP variable (see Table 3).
Each regression was run using a stepwise backward elimination method, which included all
the hypothesized predictors in the first step of the series of MRC analyses and terminated when
the elimination of any variable significantly reduced the equation model’s explanation power,
or R2 (Licht, 1997, p. 53). This method was considered fit for the present data analysis, given
the nature of the study exploring the efficacy of the TP construct in explaining selected aspects
of distance learning rather than discovering new predictors of distance learning by relying
solely on statistical calculations. The alpha level for a significant test was set at the p value
of 0.05.
TABLE 3. Inter-correlations of the variables
Perceived learning
Teacher TP Peer TP Institution TP GPA achievement Satisfaction
Teacher TP 1.000
Peer TP 0.383** 1.000
Institution TP 0.547** 0.483** 1.000
GPA 0.009 0.003 0.067 1.000
Perceived learning 0.268** 0.197** 0.311** 0.251** 1.000
achievement
Satisfaction 0.369** 0.395** 0.466** 0.127* 0.559** 1.000
Intent-to-persist 0.241** 0.238** 0.274** 0.102 0.369** 0.669**
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** correlation is significant at the 0.01
level (two-tailed).
Transactional Presence 77
Findings
Hypothesis A, the relationship between the three types of TP and perceived learning
achievement, is partially supported. The model summary in Table 4 shows that eliminating the
peer TP variable results in little changes in R and R2 between model 1 and model 2, thus the
variable of peer TP was dropped in model 2. The regression model 2 composed of the teacher
TP and institutional TP variables accounts for 13.0% of the variance of perceived learning
achievement F(2,386) 28.73, p 0.001 (see Table 5).
TABLE 4. Summary of stepwise backward elimination model for HA
SE of
Model Variables entered Variables removedb R R2 Adjusted R2 estimate
Teacher TP
1 Peer TP 0.362 0.131 0.124 1.6921
Institution TPa
2 Peer TP 0.360 0.130 0.125 1.6909
aAll requested variables entered.
bDependent variable: perceived learning achievement.
TABLE 5. Predictors of perceived learning achievement
Regression weight
Predictors Raw Standardized
Teacher TP 2.881* 0.131*
Institution TP 7.763** 0.272**
Intercept 2.155
Summary statistics: R 0.360**; R2 0.130
*p 0.05; **p 0.01.
Hypothesis B, the relationship between the three types of TP and learning satisfaction, is
supported. All the three TP variables entered into the regression model turned out to be
significant, constituting an equation F(3,429) 51.118, p 0.001 that accounts for 26.3% of
the variance of satisfaction (see Tables 6 and 7).
Hypothesis C, the relationship between the three types of TP and learning persistence, is
partially supported. The backward elimination model drops the teacher TP variable, yielding
78 N. Shin
TABLE 6. Summary of stepwise backward elimination model for HB
SE of
Model Variables entered Variables removedb R R2 Adjusted R2 estimate
Teacher TP
1 Peer TP 0.513 0.263 0.258 5.3905
Institution TPa
aAll requested variables entered.
bDependent variable: satisfaction.
TABLE 7. Predictors of satisfaction
Regression weight
Predictors Raw Standardized
Teacher TP 0.070 0.092
Peer TP 0.143** 0.214**
Institution TP 0.302** 0.311**
Intercept 14.187
Summary statistics: R 0.513**; R2 0.263
*p 0.05; **p 0.01.
TABLE 8. Summary of stepwise backward elimination model for HC
SE of
Model Variables entered Variables removedb R R2 Adjusted R2 estimate
Teacher TP
1 Peer TP 0.304 0.093 0.086 3.8789
Institution TPa
2 Teacher TP 0.299 0.089 0.085 3.8216
aAll requested variables entered.
bDependent variable: intent-to-persist.
Transactional Presence 79
TABLE 9. Predictors of intent-to-persist
Regression weight
Predictors Raw Standardized
Peer TP 0.070** 0.162**
Institution TP 0.114** 0.184**
Intercept 19.355
Summary statistics: R 0.299**; R2 0.089
*p 0.05; **p 0.01.
Discussion
The analysis of data shows that, independently of interaction activities, the perceptions of
psychological presence a distance student holds on the part of teachers, student peers, and the
institution can be significant predictors of their success in distance learning. Although teachers,
peers, and institution all serve as significant partners in educational relationships for distance
students, the present research reveals that the impacts of the relationships differ in terms of
degree as well as in their nature.
Empirical Support for the Transactional Presence Construct
That the two notions of Availability and Connectedness shed light on different dimensions of
the TP construct was, in part, backed indirectly by validating the TP scale. The factor analyses
run on the TP scales show that the items measuring the Availability sub-construct can be
differentiated from the items measuring the Connectedness sub-construct while both constructs
are positively correlated with one another. A bivariate correlation analysis indicates relatively
high correlations between scores on the scales of teacher Availability and teacher Connectedness
(r 0.65, p 0.01), peer Availability and peer Connectedness (r 0.78, p 0.01), and
institution Availability and institution Connectedness (r 0.55, p 0.01). It is assumed,
therefore, that a student who has a strong sense of teacher availability, for example, is likely
to have a strong sense of connectedness with the teacher, and vice versa.
Institutional TP: Perceived Interface to Support Services
One of the notable findings of this investigation is the pervasive influence of the institutional
TP variable on all the selected indicators of distance learning: students’ perceived learning
achievement, satisfaction, and intent-to-persist. Along with the teacher TP, the institutional TP
variable predicted 13.0% of the perceived learning achievement variance. In addition, it
accounted for 26.3% of the satisfaction, and 8.9% of the intent-to-persist variances together
with the peer TP variable. This finding appears to mirror the characteristic of the distance
education system in which designing, developing, and implementing a course or a program is
80 N. Shin
systematically managed at the level of an institution. This supports the assertion that a distance
student’s sense of “studentship” or connection to the institution can be vital to his or her
academic success as well as to course completion (Student Research Centre, Institute of
Educational Technology, Open University, 1986, p. 14).
If student support services are the “interface between the institution and its students” in an
open and distance education context (Sewart, 1993, p. 11), the institutional TP may be seen as
a “perceived interface to support services” from a student’s point of view. Distance students
must go through the cognitive interface first before actually tapping into the services. Without
knowing available services, and without feeling comfortable in revealing the need for support,
adult students, especially those who are at risk, are unlikely to get benefit from student support
services, if any. Research shows that mature adult students may feel uneasy about seeking help
while learning at a distance because of the belief in “personal control” associated with the
notion of “independency” and “autonomy” generally expected in adulthood (Garland, 1994,
p. 52).
However, the institutional TP’s influence on student learning must be contingent upon a
specific distance education context. If the empirical investigation had been geared towards
students in a group mode of distance learning, for example in a videoconference, the effect of
a teacher or peers’ TP might have been more recognizable, considering the typical structure
of a class conducted by videoconference imitating face-to-face classroom instruction. It is
argued, thus, that the student–institution relationship is relatively more important for those
students who are involved in distance education settings such as an open university, dual-mode
institution, or correspondence studies program rather than for those who are enrolled in single
or short-term distance education courses.
Student Peer TP: Supporters for Psychological Affect Towards Distance Learning
Along with the institutional TP variable, the influence of a distance student’s perception of
peer TP on the satisfaction and intent-to-persist variables was ascertained. It has been well
documented that peer contact or interaction can enrich a distance student’s learning experience,
including the areas of satisfaction as well as cognitive development and growth (Egan & Gibb,
1997; Kirkup & Priimmer, 1990; Morgan & Thorpe, 1993). The present study adds to this the
thesis that the psychological presence of peer students can also bring a positive effect on
various aspects of distance learning.
The present investigation, however, fails to find any relationship between student peer TP
with student’s perceived learning achievement. Choi and her associates’ (1996) research
concerning the same institutional context shows a similar result in which the peer interaction
effect had more to do with the students’ course completion rate than with GPA scores. Thus,
it appears that the effect of student peer relationships in the institution is more evident in an
affective domain such as attitude, satisfaction, or motivation towards distance learning rather
than in a cognitive domain of learning.
The peer TP construct’s joint association with the satisfaction and intent-to-persist variables
is another point worthy of note. Indeed, student satisfaction and persistence or drop-out rates
have been popular measures for evaluating student learning as well as a distance education
course, program, or system (e.g., Boverie et al., 1997; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Hackman
Transactional Presence 81
& Walker, 1990). Gibson (1991, p. 38) notes that “Looking through the distance education
literature, success appears to be equated with completion and satisfaction.” The relatively high
correlation (r 0.66, p 0.01) found in the data analysis between the satisfaction and the
intent-to-persist variables confirms this observation. Although it is difficult to assert strict
causality, the present data hint at plausible linear relationships between the peer TP,
satisfaction, and intent-to-persist variables. In other words, distance students who have a strong
sense of peer TP would be more satisfied with their learning experience compared with those
having a weak sense of peer TP, and this level of satisfaction may further affect their decisions
on continued enrollment in courses in a given institution.
Teachers’ TP: Perceived Supporters for Cognitive Learning
Contrary to the prevailing belief in the centrality of teacher roles in an education setting, the
present investigation shows that the teacher TP variable’s effect is limited to the perceived
learning achievement variable. However, the unsupported relationship between the teacher TP
and satisfaction and intent-to-persist variables should be interpreted with some caution. Since
MRC analysis deals with inter-correlations among multiple independent variables and the
correlations between each independent variable and a dependent variable at the same time,
when inter-correlations among independent variables are high—the status of so-called multicollinearity—
it can suppress the effect of a certain independent variable despite its actual high
correlation with a dependent variable (Licht, 1997, pp. 45–48). Indeed, the three TP variables
put in the regression model are inter-correlated to a certain extent (see Table 3). Thus, rather
than totally dismissing the effect of teacher TP on satisfaction and intent-to-persist variables,
it would be reasonable to view the teacher TP as being unable to contribute “above and
beyond” the regression model composed of peer TP and institutional TP variables. Overall,
however, the result of statistical analysis reflects the students’ circumstances in the subject in
which individual tutors were unavailable at the time of the survey and interactions with
teachers were more or less based on student initiatives.
The significant relationship found between distance students’ perceptions of teacher TP and
perceived learning achievement is somewhat similar to what Chen (1997) observed in a
videoconferencing class where some students were located in remote sites, separated from an
instructor. Chen found that a teacher’s physical presence affected the level of students’
participation in in-class discussions, which in turn was positively related to perceived learning
achievement. Given this situation, Chen raises the question as to what could supplement the
lack of physical presence of teachers. As a counterpart to physical presence, the notion of TP
may address this issue, shifting the focus of research from “absence” or “distance” to
“presence” of significant others involved in a given distance education setting.
Spaulding’s (1995) study, too, supports the potential efficacy of the teacher TP construct in
formulating research questions concerning distance learning. Spaulding found that, even in a
face-to-face classroom setting, students who had a greater sense of the psychological presence
of a teacher engaged themselves more in a writing task and performed better than students who
had a weaker awareness of the psychological presence of a teacher. In a distance education
setting, too, it is plausible to conjecture that the teacher TP construct is associated with a
psychological mechanism through which distance students are motivated to engage themselves
in learning tasks, and possibly in the process of cognitive development as well.
82 N. Shin
Implications and Recommendations
Those who are concerned with the psychological “distance” their students feel may wish to
enquire further into ways of embodying the three types of TP in their educational contexts.
Increasing the level of interaction between the participants could be one of the strategies for
increasing the perception of TP. However, this should be exercised with caution, because the
effect of interaction is highly contingent upon specific distance education settings and because
students’ needs for interaction vary greatly. More importantly, relentlessly increasing the level
of interaction could interfere with student autonomy over the discretion to choose when and
where to learn.
For practical reasons, therefore, it will be useful for distance education providers to be aware
of the relative importance of the three types of TP as well as the reasons behind that ranking.
For the students involved in the present study, the effect of the institutional TP was found more
robust than that of peer or teacher TP. This finding supports all the assertions made on the
importance of student support services in a distance education system (e.g., Sewart, 1983,
1993, 1999; Tait, 1996). Institutions, therefore, should not only try to build an effective
support system but also make the services known to their students.
What may be learnt from this study is not so much the relative importance among the three
types of TP as the idea that this kind of information can help teachers, instructional designers,
and administrators make decisions about allocating teaching and learning resources so as to
engage distance students in various forms of educational relationships. Some of these strategies
could include the use of advice such as “adopting use of the first person, a colloquial style,
and conveying your personality” in the writing of distance education course materials (Moore,
1987, p. 48). Similarly, recommendations given to a teacher in videoconferencing instruction,
e.g., reveal your personality, disclose yourself, and humanize yourself (Mottet, 1998, p. 24),
should also be useful in conveying teacher’s presence and immediacy.
Apart from these practical implications, this study should encourage researchers to further
investigate the notion of TP. On a conceptual level, whether it is appropriate to apply the
notion of TP to such different types of relationships as between student and student, student
and teacher, and student and institution needs to be examined. It would be desirable for further
research to take an in-depth, micro-level approach to reveal what notions of presence distance
students hold with respect to each party. Furthermore, researchers interested in individual
differences may wish to investigate the elements of individual student characteristics contributing
to varying degrees of perceived TP, though involved in similar distance education systems.
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations of this study are worth noting:
• As the literature behind the logic and rhetoric of the TP construct is selective, the theoretical
validity of the construct may also be limited.
• Although some educational researchers argue that a student’s self-evaluation can be a more
“appropriate” and “accurate” indicator of learning than a GPA score (Gorham, 1988, p. 43;
Sanders & Wiseman, 1990, p. 342), the measurement of student learning achievement might
not be reliable, as it depended on a student’s self-report on a single item. Certainly, future
research needs to establish more valid indicators of success in distance learning.
Transactional Presence 83
• The gender distribution of the subjects is uneven, skewed towards females (71.1%).
Although women students make up to 62.3% of the actual KNOU student population
(KNOU, 2000), the sample is more representative of female distance students. Thus, any
attempt to generalize the findings of this investigation to other institutional, societal, and
cultural contexts of distance education would need to be approached with caution.
Conclusion
Munro (1998, p. 3) notes that a vision of the educator–learner relationship can affect an
institution’s decisions on “program development, course design and delivery, student support
services, capital investments in communications hardware and software, and institutional
goals.” Depending on different arrangement of these considerations and resources, distance
students may have differing degrees of TP on the part not only of teachers, but also student
peers, and the institution. Conversely, understanding the level of their distance students’ TP
may help institutions evaluate to what extent they are reaching their students at a distance.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation. She would like to thank Michael G.
Moore, her advisor, and Melody M. Thompson, Hoi K. Suen, and Thomas M. Dana,
committee members, for their valuable input.
REFERENCES
Bean, J. P. (1982). Student attrition, intentions, and confidence: Interaction effects in a path
model. Research in Higher Education, 17(4), 291–320.
Boverie, P., Nagel, L., McGee, M., & Garcia, S. (1997, April 16–19). Learning styles,
emotional intelligence, and social presence as predictors of distance education student
satisfaction. Paper presented at the 8th National Conference on College Teaching and
Learning, Jacksonville, Florida.
Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1997). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and
understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Buxton, W. A. S. (1993). Telepresence: Integrating shared task and person spaces. In R. M.
Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 816–
822). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Chen, Y. J. (1997). The implications of Moore’s theory of transactional distance in a
videoconferencing learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania
State University, State College.
Choi, J., Sung, K., Song, H., & Song, J. (1996). A study on the students’ learning achievement
process in Korea National Open University. Seoul: Student Guidance Center, Korea
National Open University.
Cole, S., Coats, M., & Lentell, H. (1986, February). Towards good teaching by correspondence.
Open Learning, 16–22.
84 N. Shin
Egan, M. W., & Gibb, G. S. (1997). Student-centered instruction for the design of telecourses.
In New directions for teaching and learning, No. 71 (pp. 33–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fritsch, H., & Strohlein, G. (1988, June). Mentor support and academic achievement. Open
Learning, 27–32.
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance
education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21.
Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston:
Kluwer.
Garland, M. R. (1994). The adult need for “personal control” provides a cogent guiding concept
for distance education. Journal of Distance Education, IX(1), 45–59.
Gibson, C. C. (1991, May). Changing perceptions of learners and learning at a distance: A
review of selected recent research. Paper presented at the second American Symposium on
Research in Distance Education, Pennsylvania State University.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student
learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate
and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of
knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4),
397–431.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within
a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education,
11(3), 8–26.
Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom:
The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction.
Communication Education, 39, 196–206.
Henderson, P. (1979). The tutor-counselor role: A case study. Teaching at a Distance, 14,
58–63.
Hillman, D. C, 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.
Kearsley, G. (1995). The nature and value of interaction in distance learning. Paper presented
at the Distance Education Symposium 3: Interaction, University Park, Pennsylvania State
University.
Kirkup, G., & Priimmer, C. v. (1990). Support and connectedness: The needs of women
distance students. Journal of Distance Education, V(2), 9–31.
KNOU. (2000). Korea National Open University [Brochure]. Seoul: Korea National Open
University.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1998). The relationship between social connectedness and
anxiety, self-esteem, and social identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(3), 338–345.
Lentell, H. (1994, November). Why is it so hard to hear the tutor in distance education? Open
Learning, 49–52.
Licht, M. H. (1997). Multiple regression and correlation. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold
(Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 19–64). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Transactional Presence 85
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence, [World Wide
Web]. JCMC. Retrieved July 6, 2000, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.
htm
Martin, J. (1981). Telematic society: A challenge for tomorrow. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall.
May, S. (1993). Collaborative learning: More is not necessarily better. American Journal of
Distance Education, 7(3), 39–50.
McWhirter, B. T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature, with implications for
counseling and research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68(March/April), 417–422.
Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of
Higher Education, XLIV(12), 661–679.
Moore, M. G. (1987). Print media. In J. A. Niemi & D. D.Gooler (Eds.), Technologies for
learning outside the classroom. San Francisco and London: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Moore, M. G. (1991). Theory of distance education. Paper presented at the second American
Symposium on Research in Distance Education, Pennsylvania State University.
Morgan, A., & Thorpe, M. (1993). Residential schools in open and distance education: Quality
time for quality learning? In T. Evans & D. Nation (Eds.), Reforming open and distance
education: Critical reflections from practice (pp. 72–87). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Mottet, T. P. (1998). Teaching from a distance: “Hello, is anyone out there?” Paper presented
at the 19th Annual Ethnography in Research Forum, Philadelphia, PA.
Munro, J. P. (1991). Presence at a distance: The educator–learner relationship in distance
education and dropout. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
Munro, J. S. (1998). Presence at a distance: The educator–learner relationship in distance
education (Research Monographs 16). University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
Rekkedal, T. (1986, February). The tutor-counselor in Norway. Open Learning, 46–48.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom
VII: Linking behavior and cognitive learning. Communication Yearbook, 10, 574–590.
Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1). Available http://www.irrodl.org/content/
v1.1/farhad.pdf
Sanders, J. A., & Wiseman, R. L. (1990). The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher
immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural
classroom. Communication Education, 39(October), 341–353.
Sewart, D. (1983). Distance teaching: A contradiction in terms? In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, &
B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 46–94). London:
Croom Helm.
Sewart, D. (1993). Student support systems in distance education. Open Learning, 8(3), 3–12.
Sewart, D. (1999). Advice and choice for students on line: An Open University perspective.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Distance Education, Vienna, Austria.
Shin, N. (2001). Beyond interaction: Transactional presence and distance learning, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Adult Education Program, Pennsylvania State University, State
College.
86 N. Shin
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of “transactional presence.” Open
Learning, 17(2), 121–137.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication.
New York: John Wiley.
Spaulding, C. L. (1995). Teachers’ psychological presence on students’ writing-task engagement.
Journal of Educational Research, 88(4), 210–219.
Student Research Centre, Institute of Educational Technology, Open University (1986, June).
The human dimension in Open University study. Open Learning, 14–17.
Tait, A. (1996). Conversation and community: Student support in open and distance learning.
In R. Mills & A. Tait (Eds.), Supporting the learner in open and distance learning
(pp. 59–72). London: Pitman.
Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course.
American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.
Williams, E. (1978). Teleconferencing: Social and psychological factors. Journal of Communication,
28(Summer), 125–131.
Correspondence. Namin Shin, Center for Research in Distant and Adult Learning, The Open
University of Hong Kong, 30 Good Shepherd Street, Ho Man Tin, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail: nshin@ouhk.edu.hk
Namin Shin received her doctoral degree from the Pennsylvania State University, specialising
in distance and adult learning. Focusing on the theme of human relationships in various
distance education settings, she has been investigating a distance student’s perceptions of
psychological presence on the part of teachers, peer students and institution, and their impacts
on the process and outcome of distance learning. Her academic interests also include
socio-historical understanding of distance education, the liaison between distance education
and lifelong learning, and human-media interface.