ABSTRACT: No matter how we define distance education, the demands on learner autonomy andthe opportunitiesfor increasedself-direction appear to be a constant feature ofnon-contiguousprograms. This article discusses some ofthe implications of learner autonomy and self-directed learning in telematic programs. p. 1

The underlying supposition appears to be that the label “distance education” is applied to those curricular activities that can - an do - occur in spite ofthe physical separation between learners and useful learning resources. As we shall see, this may turn out to be less of an issue than anticipated, and the central features of distance education quit~distinct from those associated with geography. p. 1

For teacher-learner interactions to qualify not only as “distant”, but also as “educational”, various criteria will, or at least should be applied depending on which definition of education one espouses, and on which author one comes across (Holmberg, 1986; Keegan, 1993). The provision of2-way communication for example, seems to be a relatively widespread notion among theorists (Rumble, 1986). Other parameters include the use ofone or more technical media (including print) and the possibility ofmass delivery, the control and influence ofan educational institution and the predominance of independent study (Keegan, 1996). Taken together, these elements have served to identify curricular activities that can be called both “distant” and “educational”, and to distinguish them from activities that fall in some other category: p. 1

Some authors have attempted to reframe the concept of “distance” by emphasizing the pedagogical aspects ofthe teacher-learner transaction. According to Moore and Kearsly (1996) we must consider “the subset of educational events in which the separation of teacher and learner is so significant that it affects their behaviors in major ways…In short, the transactional distance is such that special organizational and teaching behaviors are essential” (p.200). Moore (1972) first picked up on the idea oftransactional distance, which he defmed as the collection offactors that contribute to increase the communication gap between teacher and learner. More specifically, the degree oftransactional distance is determined by the presence (or absence) ofdialogue and by the extent to which a predetermined structure is built into (or lacking from) the learning activity. I I I I- p. 2

Moore purports that high structure and low dialogue account for increased levels of transactional distance. Conversely, transactional distance can be reduced with an increase in dialogue and a minimizing ofcourse structure. While the extent ofboth structure and dialogue can vary from course to course, low transactional distance would imply continuous dialogue with the p. 2

Sounds like my idea of "granularity of collaboration" p. 3

instructor and the opportunity to alter the instructional materials to meet the individual learning needs. p. 3

In regard to the pedagogical responsibility taken on by autonomous students, Wedemeyer (1973) considered the concept of learner independence, leading to self-directedness or learner autonomy. Moore (1972) cited learner-autonomy as the “second dimension” ofindependent study, which allowed for the development ofprograms that correspondto various levels oflearner autonomy either anticipated or allowed. p. 3

According to Moore (1972), the greater the transactional distance, the more considerable the degree of learner responsibility that must be applied. p. 3

Kasworm and Yao (1992) suggest that the format of distance education programs should include a structure that encourages the learner to become pro-active iri assuming various learning strategies, committing himlherselfto the life-long goal ofself-directed learning, as opposed to what Freire calls “banking educ~tion”. p. 3

Meaning is, in its origins, a physical activity (grasping, seeing), a social activity (it requires another), a survival activity (in doing it, we live). Meaning, understood in this way, is the primary human motion, irreducible. (Kegan, 1982, pp. 18-19). p. 4

By considering this particular form ofmeaning-making as the “irreducible” factor of human understanding, Kegan redefines the act o f learning as a fundamental (indeed the fundamental) psychological impulse. In a similar perspective, Reed (1997) distinguishes between the notion of learner as receptor and as perceiver: “A perceiving organism is and should be an active, motivated observer, one that is hunting for stimulation, not passively receiving stimuli. Stimuli may existfor receptors, but they do not existfor perceivers.” (p. 268. p. 4

Conclusion Human consciousness is not a passive object which can be observed from the outside. Rather, our thoughts consist of a fluid, ongoing process, that ”…performs an action which is that of knowing” (Russell, 1955, p. 840. Italics mine). In this perspective, human knowledge is a p. 4

subjective entity, indissociable from human experience. p. 5

One implication for research is that the learner's perceived reality is intimately related to his/her actions, to the extent that the instructional environment plays a secondary role to the learner's own symbolized understanding ofthe ambient context. This could explain the fact that adverse conditions are cited by self-directed learners as factors that promote, rather than hinder their learning (Bouchard, 1994). Another implication is that learning actions cannot be separated from their interpretation by the learner. Research into the various learning styles (Claxton, 1987) have shown that deep learners are very articulate when it comes to “explaining” how/why they learn. Surface learners, on the contrary, volunteer less self-interpretation when asked about their learning strategies, which suggests that learning ability is closely related to the ability to describe and explain one's own learning. p. 5

References p. 5