Developing Transactional Distance Scale and Examining Transactional Distance Perception of Blended Learning Students in Terms of Different Variables

Abstract The first purpose of this study was to develop valid and reliable a scale which measure the transactional distance. Besides, the second purpose of the study was to investigate whether the transactional distance perception differed according to gender, utilized component and number of logins to system, and also blended learning was useful. The study group consisted of 197 blended learning students at the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences in Sakarya University. The scale consisted of 38 items and 5 sub-factors. It was found out that gender, utilized component and number of logins to system did not have a significant effect on transactional distance perception. Dialog, structure flexibility, control, and autonomy perception of participants who regarded blended learning useful was high; on the other hand, their content organization perception was low. Key Words Transactional Distance, Blended Learning, Transactional Distance Scale. From past to present, dropout rate of students is one of the main problems regarding to distance education. Related research showed that approximately 30% and 50% of distance education students fail to complete distance education courses (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Wheeler & Reid, 2005). This high level dropout rate encouraged the researchers to study on this topic. In these studies, difficulty of lesson, attitude, motivation, determination, success and satisfaction are found to be major variables related to students' drop out (Huang, 2002; Kearsley & Lynch, 1996; Moore, 2001; Offir, Lev, Lev, Barth, & Shteinbek, 2004; Stein & Wanstreet, 2003; Swain, 2002). Specific theories of distance education come into prominence to find solutions to dropping out problem and other related problems. Transactional Distance (TD) is "a psychological and communication space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of instructor and those of the learner; it is not only a physical space" (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). According to TD theory, distance education elements are related with two variables; distance (structure and dialog) and autonomy (Verduin & Clark, 1994). Transactional distance is consisted of dialogue component which refers two way interactions between learner and teacher and structure component which refers to the extent to which an education program can accommodate or be responsive to each learner's individual needs. Autonomy refers to active participation of students in determining learning activities and evaluation criteria. Moore (1972; 1980; 1993) considered the dialogue and structure as significant variables in distance learning and suggested them as dimensions of TD. In a distance education program while dialogue increases structure decreases, on the contrary while structure increases dialogue decreases (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004). Based on Moore's theory and using with system dynamics models, Saba and Shearer (1994) defined two more variables, namely learner control and teacher control. Dron (2006) defined this control variable as transactional control. Dron's transactional control variable is related with choices. In all of the modes of distance education, online, offline or face to face, some of the choices are made by teachers and some of the choices are made by students. The way of how and who make these choices includes transactional control. Transactional control has a constant structure and similar to the TD theory, as teacher control increases student control decreases (Dron, 2007). Consequently, TD theory comprised of four variables, namely, structure, dialogue, autonomy and control. Literature related with TD theory points out the three main categories. The first one aimed to elaborate, to criticize, to test hypotheses of TD theory and also attempts to develop tools and methods to reduce transactional distance (Bischoff, 1993; Bischoff, Bisconer, Kooker, & Woods, 1996; Braxton, 2000; Cookson & Chang, 1995; Force, 2004; Gorsky & Caspi, 2005a; Jung, 2000b; Kanuka, Collet, & Caswell, 2002; Lenear, 2006; Lowe, 2000; Lowell, 2004; Saba & Shearer, 1994; Sandoe, 2005). …