1

Theories of Distance Education Meet Theories of Mediated (Mass)

Communication

By: Saeid Roushanzamir

Paper to be presented at
Association for Educational Communications & Technology
Conference—Chicago, IL 2004
Distance Learning Roundtable
 2

Introduction:

Distance learning for higher education has its advocates and its detractors.

Researchers, drawing primarily on psychological and educational research literatures,

make impassioned arguments for and against institutionalizing distance learning.

Undoubtedly, with increasingly rapid technological developments including hand-held,

network and personal hardware capable of processing huge amounts of data, and

advances in creating virtual classrooms, the allure of delivering quality education cheaply

and widely has attracted attention of educators, policy-makers, corporate boards and end-

users.

However, the implications of the models and theories of mediated communication

that should inform the debate regarding distance education seem to have attracted little

attention. This paper will describe the two dominant models of mediated (and mass)

communication: an information theory/source-receiver model and a cultural, structuralist

model. The mainstream conversation in education disciplines about distance learning

presupposes an information theory/source-receiver model of communication. I will

discuss the origins and parameters of information theory/source-receiver communication

models and describe how mainstream distance education theories presuppose this model.

Next, I will examine structural and cultural models of communication and suggest the

role those may play in developing efficacious ways in which to evaluate whether and

when distance learning can best be implemented. I will propose that distance education

scholarship must situate its theoretical underpinnings if research findings are to be of use

in making decisions of any sort about distance learning.

 3

Theories of Mediated/Mass Communication:

From the post-World War II period, the dominant models offered by U.S. mass

media researchers extended the linear effects model as proposed by early 20th century

researchers. The post-World War I generation of American scholars comprised a cohort

that had fled the dire conditions in inter-war Europe. They were keenly aware that mass

communication could be used to appeal to and to organize recently urbanized proletariat.

Post-World War II researchers, living in a time of relative prosperity, argued that media

effects would be tempered by variables that earlier scholars, in their reaction to fascism’s

mastery of mass communication, had neglected. Once scholars built in feedback loops or

focused on audience choice, the huge direct effects model was challenged.

Be that as it may, common among most effects researchers remained the notion

that mass communication is exemplified by a formula: a source produces messages which

are in turn interpreted by audience members. Communication in this formulation is “a

process in which a source encodes and then transmits a message along a channel. This is

received and decoded at its destination upon which it produces an effect.”(O'Sullivan,

Hartely, Saunders, Montgomery, & Fiske, 1994) (p. 51). Among the assumptions of this

model is that the channel will more or less efficiently (channel is one site at which

researchers can examine the process) transmit/ transfer a message (content, another area

for researchers to explore) that can be clearly and cleanly decoded by an audience (a third

area of focus).

As effects researchers increasingly studied mass communication from the

audience site, there seemed to be fewer effects that could be attributed to mass

communication. Audiences were only idiosyncratically attentive to the intended

 4

meanings of messages (content) and sometimes highly erratic in terms of their attention

to the media (producers) altogether. For example, the ‘uses and gratifications’ approach

to audience research asserts that the audience member’s attentiveness is strictly

“motivated and directed toward the gratification of certain individually experienced

needs.”(O'Sullivan et al., 1994) (p. 325). What kinds of gratification can distance

learning create for its communities? (This question points to a research agenda with

potential relevance for the field of distance education; however, it would require

knowledge of mass communication research literature.)

Concomitant with post-war peace was the emergence of new nations from the

ruins of European empires. International mass communication scholars adapted general

theories of mass communication to suggest that mass media could play a significant role

in the modernization and development of nations around the world: on the African

continent and in Asia and others.

When the United Nations proclaimed the 1960s the “decade of development” two

eminent researchers, Daniel Lerner and Wilbur Schramm, had independently associated

increased exposure to mass media with accelerated rates of development in traditional

societies. Schramm endorsed Lerner’s assertion that exposure to new communication

technologies is highly correlated with a decline in fatalism and reliance on traditional

authority and a concomitant rise of economic development indicators and political

participation leading to development and democracy. Schramm went even further

suggesting that “the task of the mass media of information and the new media of

education is to speed the long, slow social transformation required for … development.”

(Thussu, 2002) (italics added by author).

 5

Following the lead of Lerner and Schramm, mass communication scholar Everett

Rogers highlighted the role of mediated communication in his work on the Diffusion of

Innovations (Rogers, 1995). He advanced a top-down model of communication in which

innovations in education as well as other social practices, such as agricultural and

governmental arrangements, are dependent on rising levels of media penetration and the

identification of indigenous elites (innovators) to lead the economic, political and social

changes that are part and parcel of national development. Each of these researchers

(Schramm, Lerner and Rogers) thought of new media as neutral objects through which

messages passed from producers to audiences. They adapted the more general theories of

mass communication that highlighted the impact or effects of media on an individual’s

attitudes and behaviors to conduct research and recommend policies for developing

countries. Their policy recommendations were based most often on the findings of

surveys conducted by various US-government agencies and educational foundations (in

particular the data collected in Asia and Latin America) (Thussu, 2002)(p. 57). As

development policies were interpreted and implemented around the world the

shortcomings as well as the implicitly Western bias of those policies were noted. But in

any case, the Schramm-Lerner-Rogers scholarship implicitly and explicitly identified

mass media as tools for education.

Reaction to U.S.-led development policies turned into doubts about the efficacy of

following a Western (European and American) template of development. Criticism of the

information theory or the effects model of mass communication was spear-headed by

Third World intellectuals such as Paulo Friere. Third World scholars were able to observe

and experience the pragmatic impact of the applications of dominant mass

 6

communication theories on development programs including educational ones. Friere’s

Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 2000) proved highly influential, not only among

Third World researchers but also world-wide. However despite the criticisms, mass

communication media as tools for development and education were not simply rejected,

nor were they seen a priori as tools of cultural imperialism. New theoretical approaches

were proposed.

By the 1980s an alternative paradigm had emerged in the field of mass media

studies. Highlighting the differences of mass media as a form of production (i.e. different

in kind from, for example, the production of cars) and recognizing ideology as itself a

product (i.e. produced and reproduced), constituted a major break with traditional mass

communication research. The structural ways in which race, class, gender and nationality

(among other variables) are inscribed as power relations were returned to the analytical

tool-kit of researchers. Concepts that held sway in mainstream research were questioned

(for example the notion that traditional and modern are bi-polar opposites) or undermined

(for example, denoting a nation as developed/ing or developed) and other concepts,

introduced (for example, using the concepts of center and periphery). No longer could

technology and infrastructure be regarded as neutral; to the contrary, they were

understood as the products of a specific historical moment inscribed with its politics,

economics, social and cultural specificities.

To date, American mass media and communication scholarship is still dominated

by the source-receiver model. The research focuses on the functionality of

communication, assumptions which elide the problematics of who defines functionality;

it tends to over-emphasize consensus and veers away from accounts of conflict and
 7

change. And yet, especially among American media researchers concerned with global

issues, and among European, UK and Latin American scholars, structural and cultural

approaches provide relevant alternatives. One example of this different approach is the

work of American cultural studies which exemplifies the constructivist paradigm and

which also highlights consensus building through communication ritual (as opposed to

the source-message receiver model).

Research using structuralist/post-structuralist analysis focuses primarily on how

social divisions are made meaningful and in particular on the hegemonic role of mass

media and communication. It recognizes the key organizing concepts such as class, race,

and gender are historical realities and as such are always integral to research. Mass media

technologies and infrastructures are interrogated rather than taken for granted. “The aim

was to understand how culture (the social production of sense and consciousness) should

be specified in itself and in relation to economics (production) and politics (social

relations).”(O'Sullivan et al., 1994) (p. 72) . Furthermore, this model highlights the

institutional and industrial conditions of ownership and production.

As the insistence on historically-specific media research that embraces the role of

ideology suggests, cultural and structural media/mass communication research is overtly

concerned with social justice and is purposefully engaged with social transformation. The

concerns, the politics of the research, stand in contrast to the social scientific voice as

removed, impartial and objective. The perspective of cultural studies researchers overtly

originates within the researched. That the scholars may then propose a radical

transformation of current media practice, suggesting this alternative would be the site of a

21st century pubic sphere (i.e. “open and accessible to all … [and therefore] … a key
 8

component of modern, participatory, democratic life” is as much to say that an emerging

social model must be tied to any progressive human endeavor (O'Sullivan et al., 1994) (p.

251).

Distance Learning: Definitions and Models:

In 1986 Desmond Keegan categorized theories of distance learning into the three

areas: ‘theories of autonomy and independence’ (with the major contributors, Charles

Wedemeyer and Michael G. Moore), ‘theory of industrialization’ (dominated by the work

of Otto Peters), and ‘theories of interaction and communication’ (major contributors

Börje Holmberg and John Bääth).(Keegan, 1986) Additionally, Garrison and Shale’s

model of distance education seems to fit into category I of Keegan’s chart since their

model is “focus[ed] on the functional basis of education first by placing the teaching and

learning transaction at the core of distance education practice”(D. R. Garrison, & Archer,

W, 2000) p.9. Keegan’s categories do not delineate a linear progression in the

advancement of theories of distance learning. Categories are grouped according to their

main concepts. For example, Wedemeyer’s work was developed during 1960s and 1970s

and Moore’s in late 1970s and 1980s. However in both cases, the emphasis is on learner

independence thus they are grouped together. Thus it is quite possible to chart an

intellectual narrative of definitions and models of distance learning and to infer theory or

theories.

Keegan (1980) identified 6 dimensions of distance learning: separation between

teacher and student; influence of an educational organization; use of media to connect

teacher and student; two-way exchange of education; students perceived as individuals,

not as groups; education as a form of industrialization (Gunawardena, 2004). Over the

 9

past 25 years some of those categories may seem obsolete. For example, the concept of

‘students perceived as individuals’ (rather than as group) may no longer be relevant for

distinguishing distance from face to face education. It can be argued that group work is

easily accommodated into the most current technologies. “[T]he quasi-permanent absence

of learning groups … need no longer apply. Groups of learners can cooperate although

being geographically separated.” (Holmberg, 2003). However, caution is advised in too

quickly adapting theory to current technological developments or for that matter current

pedagogical practice. Keegan’s categories may still be suggestive as in the example of

individual vs. group orientation; the individuals and/or groups may be differently placed

in space and/or time.

In the event, these six dimensions emerged from the period of the 1960s and early

1970s in which distance learning was closely and postively linked with issues of

economic, political and national development, especially by American teachers and

scholars. However, by the latter 1970s enthusiasms were replaced first by doubt and then

sometimes by despair, as it became clear that even in highly developed countries such as

the United States., Great Britain and in other European countries access to higher

education was skewed away from rural areas and from disadvantaged or marginalized

populations whether rural or urban. In the so-called Third World or developing countries

the term “peripheral” came to express access to education as well as participation in the

global economy. Also it was increasingly recognized that development was not always a

national-level variable. Access to higher education through distance learning might

penetrate to urbanized areas, there to be accessed by developing nations’ elites.

 10

During the 1980s, and with the concomitant rapid expansion of communication

technologies into everyday life, the appeal of distance learning received a new lease on

life. It came to be seen not as simply a tool for reaching underdeveloped areas and

peoples, but as part of the mainstream in higher education and in the corporate

environment. For example, Charles Wedemeyer, as a leading proponent of distance

learning, emphasized the individual freedoms that, he believes, distance learning confers.

He advances the argument that distance learning and newer technologies confer equal

access, personal independence and autonomy. Similarly, Wedemeyer’s model proposes

that a democracy of education for all people regardless of their gender, age, nationality,

class, and place is the logical outcome of distance learning. (Moore, 1991) His approach

assumes that teaching and learning are the prime movers of distance learning, thus he

focuses on the pedagogical possibilities. On the other hand, Wedemeyer seems to ignore

important structural components such as power and political-economy.

Michael Moore rethinks the concept of distance, arguing that distance should be

theorized as a multi-dimensional concept. He suggests that among these dimensions and

contrary to previous work, geographical distance is not the most important. Using the

term ‘transactional distance’ he proposes two major concepts within his theory of

learning: structure and dialogue. Moore defined structure as “a measure of an educational

program's responsiveness to learners’ individual needs.”(Hoffman, 2004) He defined

dialogue as “the extent to which, in any educational program, learner and educator are

able to respond to each other.”(Moore, 1991) Put another way, structure refers to the

design of the instructional program while dialogue refers to the interaction through
 11

communication of the learner and the educator. In sum, Moore shifted the debate

concerning distance learning by pushing it into the arena of pedagogical differences.

For Garrison and Shale educational issues are the fundamental issues in the theory

of distance education regardless of separation of teacher and students. They attempt “to

focus on the functional basis of education first by placing teaching and learning

transaction at the core of distance education practice”(R. Garrison, 2000) (p. 9-10).

Garrison added the concept of ‘responsibility and control’ into the theory of transactional

learning. Control and responsibility give student a chance to shape their own educational

outcome. “As students’ knowledge and abilities develop, they can assume increased

responsibility and control. Responsibility and control together will encourage students to

assume ownership of their learning and education.”(D. R. Garrison, & Archer, W, 2000)

Garrison, Anderson and Archer (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2003) in their

most recent efforts cite the differences of distance learning from face-to-face education

by noting what they refer to as its new and powerful feature: the ability to “conduct

collaborative learning regardless of time and place.” (p.113). This allows for a true

“creat[ion of] a community of inquiry” based on three essential elements: “social

presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence.”(p.115). This ‘community of

inquiry model,” should, according to these authors, help provide the much needed

theoretical/research guidelines or parameters for the applications and practice of distance

learning. “The problem of the field of distance education is that we do not have the

theoretical models and research to guide its practical application and fully imagine its

potential and impact.” (p.124)

 12

Exemplifying the category “theory of industrialization” is the work of Otto Peters.

(2001). Peters advanced a typology of difference arguing that “distance education is quite

distinct from traditional face-to-face education, and that it is different because it results

from the ‘industrialization’ of teaching and learning.”(Connell, 1998) For Peters, the

‘objectification of the teaching process’ is a result of the industrialization of distance

learning. Distance education has shifted away from interpersonal communication which

is at the heart of the face to face education to the “objectified, rationalized and

technologically produce interaction.”(Connell, 1998)

Peters, drawing on Jurgen Habermas’ (1971) conceptual differentiations between

types of communication i.e., "symbolically mediated interactions" (=traditional teaching)

and "rational acting (=distance learning), proposed that distance learning generates

human interactions that, in common with other industrial forms, are "objectivized,

rationalized and technologically…” functional(Connell, 1998). “What is the

characteristic feature of distance education?” Peters asks, and then continues: “Hence,

distance education can be defined as the most industrial form of teaching and learning.”

Peters’ work points to a general characteristic of the new form of teaching and

learning, and it illuminates structural peculiarities and distinctions, and thus separates it

sharply from all conventional forms of face-to-face instruction. (Keegan, 1994) (p.10).

Traditional teaching, relying on face-to-face communication, generates relational

communication. Peters’ typology demonstrates that these two approaches differ at every

level from the most fundamental assumptions about the roles of education and teaching

and the impact of mediated and interpersonal communication, to the standards by which

success can be measured. In particular he highlights how communication is central to any

 13

consideration or comparison of educational approaches. Therefore theories of

communication are recognized as of primary relevance to theories and practices of

education.

Peters (Peters, 2003) emphasizes the importance of new information and

communication media which brought digitalization into our daily lives as well as our

educational institutions. He asserts that there are historically distinct phases of distance

education and each phase has is own unique form of teaching and learning behavior. The

first generation of distance learning used the book as its main medium (over 100 years).

The second generation added the use of radio and television as additional media to the

still used textbook (dating from circa1970). The third generation phase (experiencing at

the present) is dominated by digitalization. It is characterized by the integration of

multimedia technologies and the personal computer (PC). “The PC serves at the same

time as a carrier, distribution, display, instruction, and interactive medium. In addition, it

provides pedagogically useful services that traditional media are completely unable to

do.” (pp. 88-89). The new media powerfully combine networks, and use of servers,

search engines, and expert systems. ‘This configuration integrates the new media,

allowing the digital learning environment not only to determine the structure of the

learning process but to reconstitute it.’ (p. 89).

The next category of classified distance learning theories in Keegan’s typology is

“theories of interaction and communication” of which Holmberg’s research is an

exemplification. The heart of Holmberg’s distance theory is the concept of “Guided

didactic conversation” which, he argues, is a “pervasive characteristic of distance

education.”
 14

“Guided didactic conversation…refer[s] to both real and simulated conversations,

although the reliance is upon simulated conversation. As such the emphasis is very much

on the content and conversational character of written pre produced course package” (R.

Garrison, 2000)(p. 7). Holmberg himself came to regret his adoption of the term “guided

didactic conversation;” he felt it was misunderstood, perceived as referring to a

totalitarian approach to the distance education. “Further, I used a somewhat unfortunate

terminology. I referred to the conversational character of distance education as ‘didactic,’

an adjective in many cases taken to indicate an authoritarian approach ( the opposite of

what was meant). Instead of guided didactic conversation, I now prefer the term

teaching-learning conversion.” (Holmberg, 2003) p 79.

In any case, Holmberg’s theory is an attempt to introduce and link the notions that

teaching and communication are equally vital areas of concern when conducting research

about the efficacy of distance education. However, despite Holmberg’s revisions to his

original formulation, his work has not yet been embraced by the field. For example, this

comment is not atypical: “[W]hile Holmberg makes a great effort to place teaching at the

core of his theory, his own structural assumptions and the central role of self-study

learning packages limit teaching to one-way communication.”(R. Garrison, 2000)(p. 8).

(italics added by author)

Discussion & Conclusions:

Every serious educator is aware of the importance of theory in teaching, learning

and research. Theory teaches us what we know. Theory also tells us what we do not know

and guides us in our research. Theory points to where/how research can further advance a

discipline, a professional practice and public policy. “Research that is not grounded in
 15

theory is wasteful.”(Moore, 1991) Additionally, teaching (practicing) that is not grounded

in theory is also wasteful. Practicing a theory can be a conscious and/or unconscious

behavior. This essay questioned whether staying within the boundaries of distance

learning theory in teaching, learning and research is sufficient to understand this aspect of

educational practice. I argued that attempting to explicate a theory of distance education

without including theories of meditated communications is futile.

It is vital to realize that communication is an integral part of distance education. It

follows that mass communication theories are as relevant as theories of education to

understanding distance education. This project delineates two models of communication.

One developed from information theory, the other from structuralism generally and

critical cultural studies specifically. I have argued that education researchers, sometimes

unknowingly, rely on models of communication that highlight processes and overvalue

efficiency. Of the research outlined, only Peters’ work seems to consider structural and

critical cultural variables.

And yet a structural and critical cultural theory of communication is a better

alternative because it allows insights into communication as a process of negotiation and

exchange of meanings that occur within the external economic and social formation (the

context and lived experiences within which learning occurs). This model insists that

agency cannot be limited to the source, message, receiver and that communication must

be understood as the process of making meaning within structures of power and ideology.

Once adopted, this model will in turn allow researchers to ask better questions that focus

attention on what Peters calls the advantages of traditional teaching: emancipation,

 16

extension of dominance-free communication rather than an increase of the effectiveness

of teaching system and geographical reach.

 17

References

Connell, W. J. (1998). Distance Learning: Problems and Possibilities. Retrieved March 2, 2004, from

http://pirate.shu.edu/~connelwi/Distance+Learning.htm

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continum.

Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A Transactional Perspective on Teaching and Learning - A

Framework for Adult and Higher Education. In.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A Theory of Critical Inquiry in Online Distance

Education. In G. M. Moore & A. W. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 113-127).

London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A Shift from

Structural to Transactional Issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 1(1), 1 - 17.

Gunawardena, C. N., McIsaac, M. O. (2004). Distance Education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hoffman, D. (2004). Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 2, 2004, from

http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/transactdist/index.htm

Holmberg, B. (2003). A Theory of Distance Education Based on Empathy. In G. M. Moore & A. W. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 79-85). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keegan, D. (1986). The Foundations of Distance Education. London: Croom Helm.

Keegan, D. (Ed.). (1994). Otto Peters on Distance Education. The Industrialization of Teaching and

Learning. London and New York: Routledge.

Moore, G. M. (1991). Editorial: Distance Education Theory. The American Journal of Distacne Education,

5(3), 1-6.

O'Sullivan, T., Hartely, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (1994). Key Concepts in

Communication and Cultural Studies (second edition). London

NY: Routledge.
 18

Peters, O. (2003). Learning with New Media in Distance Education. In G. M. Moore & A. W. G. (Eds.), A

Theory of Distance Education Based on Empathy (pp. 87-112). London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations - Fouth edition. New York: The Free Press.

Thussu, K. D. (2002). International Communication - Continuity and Change. London: Arnold.