Transactional Distance and Interaction in Hybrid Education: a Case Study
By:
References
- Abu-Elrob, R., & Tawalbeh, A. (2022). The pivotal role of small talk in distance teaching during covid 19 curfew period. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures, 14(1), 165–188.
https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.14.1.9 - Bambaeeroo, F., & Shokrpour, N. (2017). The impact of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 5(2), 51–59. NODOI
- Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.
- Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2020). Facilitating student engagement in higher education through educational technology: A narrative systematic review in the field of education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 315–368.
- Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006 - Burgsteiner, H., & Krammer, G. (Eds.). (2022). Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic’s distance learning on students and teachers in schools and in higher education – International perspectives. Leykam Buchverlag.
https://doi.org/10.56560/isbn.978-3-7011-0496-3 - Cahapay, M. B. (2020). A reconceptualization of learning space as schools reopen amid and after COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 269–276.
- Conklina, S., Oyarzun, B., & Barreto, D. (2017). Blended synchronous learning environment: Student perspectives. Research on Education and Media, 9(1), 17–23.
https://doi.org/10.1515/rem-2017-0004 - Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 - Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206 - Gnaur, D., Hindhede, A. L., & Harms Andersen, V. (2020). Towards hybrid learning in higher education in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. European conference on e-learning.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/028255fde9ef6a013f90bd0c5a7ee240/1?cbl=1796419&pq-origsite=gscholar&parentSessionId=zxQJIxiql4V3tBOl0jmgwCIIP1sj0L6%2Fl2zNUyTTL%2F0%3D - Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1), n1.
- Howe, C. (2023). Classroom interaction and student learning: Reasoned dialogue versus reasoned opposition. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 11(3), A26–A41.
https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.549 - Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654.
- Kara, M. (2021). Transactional distance and learner outcomes in an online EFL context. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36(1), 45–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1717454 - Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional distance among Open University students: How does it affect the learning process? European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 17(1), 26–42.
https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0002 - Kim, K., Sharma, P., Land, S. M., & Furlong, K. P. (2013). Effects of active learning on enhancing student critical thinking in an undergraduate general science course. Innovative Higher Education, 38(3), 223–235.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9236-x - Lakhal, S., Mukamurera, J., Bédard, M.-E., Heilporn, G., & Chauret, M. (2021). Students and instructors perspective on blended synchronous learning in a Canadian graduate program. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1383–1396.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12578 - Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2018). Investigating students’ perceptions of instructional strategies to establish social presence. Distance Education, 39(3), 281–298.
- Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online learning, 22(1), 205–222.
- Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1), 184–205.
- Mbwesa, J. K. (2014). Transactional distance as a predictor of perceived learner satisfaction in distance learning courses: A case study of Bachelor of Education arts program, University of Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2(2), 176–188.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v2i2.291 - Moore, M. G. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661–679.
- Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659 - Moore, M. G. (2018). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 32–46). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315296135-4 - Moreno, M. M. L., Rodrigo, M. M. T., Torres, J. M. R., Gaspar, T. J., & Agapito, J. L. (2021). Transactional Distances During Emergency Remote Teaching Experiences.
- Murray, A., Roy, S., Hahn, M., & Voglewede, P. (2021). Did the student-instructor and peer-to-peer divide widen with instructional changes during COVID-19? EdArXiv.
https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/fkw32 - Nussli, N., & Oh, K. (2024). Creating a “Space In-Between”: Learning on the physical–hybrid–virtual continuum. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(4), 471–506.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395241252139 - Paul, R. C., Swart, W., Zhang, A. M., & MacLeod, K. R. (2015). Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: Refinement and validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education, 36(3), 364–382.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081741 - Pettit, J. M., & Grace, D. J. (1970). The Stanford instructional television network. IEEE Spectrum, 7(5), 73–80.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.1970.5213376 - Pittman, V. (1991). Rivalry for respectability: Collegiate and proprietary correspondence programs. 183–184.
- Raes, A. (2022). Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: Does presence matter? Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 138–159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00274-0 - Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 269–290.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z - Roberts, P., Scott, S. V., Cranney, J., Cumming, T. M., Angstmann, E., Nehme, M., & Watson, K. (2024). Design principles for dual mode readiness in an uncertain future. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 240–250.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2147094 - Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature Review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185–213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936 - Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 - Şat, M., İLhan, F., & Yukselturk, E. (2022). Web tools as e-icebreakers in online education. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(3), 721–737.
https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1084512 - Santo, S. A. (2011). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education Michael Simonson, Sharon Smaldino, Michael Albright, and Susan Zvacek, Eds: 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2011, 383 pp. (softcover). American Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 201–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2011.589757 - Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: What effects are there on students’ social presence experience? Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 487–503.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.881391 - Szeto, E. (2015). Community of Inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching? Computers & Education, 81, 191–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.015 - Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 3(3), 68–70.
https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.3.3.68 - Vasiloudis, G., Koutsouba, M., Giossos, Y., & Mavroidis, I. (2015). Transactional distance and autonomy in a distance learning environment. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 18(1), 114.
https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2015-0008 - Wang, Q., Quek, C. L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.3034 - Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction. Retrospective ETD Collection.
https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd_retro/94
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2025-0003 | Journal eISSN: 1027-5207
Language: English
Page range: 44 - 62
Published on: Feb 24, 2025
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 times per year
Related subjects:
© 2025 V.L. Ottenheim, R. Meulenbroeks, P. Drijvers, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.