Content uploaded by Ramashego Mphahlele
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ramashego Mphahlele on Nov 13, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
113
CHAPTER 8
REFLECTING ON THE THEORY
OF TRANSACTIONAL DISTANCE
IN ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN OPEN
DISTANCE LEARNING
Ramashego Shila Shorty Mphahlele and
Matlala Violet Makokotlela
ABSTRACT
This chapter employed a systemic meta-synthesis literature review to reect
on the transactional variables of the theory of transactional distance (TTD)
in addressing barriers to student engagement in the open and distance learning
(ODL). Literature sources were obtained from unlimited databases around
the globe; however, articles published before 2015 were not included in this
review. Through the literature review, the authors identied barriers to student
engagement in the ODL through the lens of TTD. The identied barriers to
student engagement are presented according to three transactional variables
of the TTD and later classied concerning student engagement dimensions.
Findings suggest that key instructional dialogue barriers emanate from the
teacher and student personality. For program structure, the authors found the
poorly designed courses while for learner autonomy there are situational, insti-
tutional, and dispositional barriers. The identied barriers to student engage-
ment in ODL revealed the interrelatedness of the transactional variables
and the strong link with the student engagement dimensions. By integrating
International Perspectives in Online Instruction
Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 40, 113–124
Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120210000040008
114 RAMASHEGO SHILA SHORTY MPHAHLELE AND MATLALA VIOLET MAKOKOTLELA
the transactional variables of TTD and student engagement dimensions, this
chapter identied possible strategies to address barriers to student engagement
in the ODL.
Key words: Barriers to student engagement; instructional dialogue; learner
autonomy; open and distance learning; program structure; theory of
transactional distance
INTRODUCTION
There is a growing body of literature, which recognizes student engagement in
open and distance learning (ODL) as key to improving academic achievement and
reducing student alienation and dropout rates. ODL according to the Open and
Distance Learning Quality Council (2012), is a exible student-centered provi-
sion of learning which interconnects traditional, blended as well as open learning.
From this denition, Bozkurt (2019) describes ODL as a larger system that con-
nects smaller systems included in it depicting it as a solar system. The ODL litera-
ture, as described by several authors aims to address barriers that limit students’
access to higher education (Ajmal & Zahra, 2018; Bryan et al., 2018; Mukama,
2016; Shah & Cheng, 2019). These barriers are not limited to location and distance
from the university though, as they also include, nancial pressures, low academic
achievement in high school, lack of appropriate career advice, parental discour-
agement of higher education, lack of condence, parenting or carer responsibili-
ties, mental health issues, and other social problems. Scholars such as Kuh (2010)
have noted that despite the role of ODL to maximize access to higher education to
students it still faces the challenge of maximizing the student engagement.
This chapter uses a literature review to reect on the variables of the theory
of transactional distance (TTD) in addressing barriers to student engagement in
the ODL which include instructional dialogue, program structure, and learner
autonomy. Although reference is made to different types of literature reviews, the
authors of this chapter employed a systemic meta-synthesis because according to
Dudovskiy (2018), it is most relevant when one aims to integrate, evaluate, and
interpret ndings of multiple qualitative research studies. In this chapter, the nd-
ings from 16 empirical studies were analyzed to generate reections on the use of
TTD in addressing barriers to student engagement in the ODL.
The TTD’s relevance in this chapter is from the perspective of student-centered
pedagogy, in which students engage in a relatively high degree of dialogue with
a more-or-less supportive tutor. Compared to full-time and residential students,
Kuh (2010) argues that ODL has fewer opportunities for student engagement.
Kuh’s argument is based on the notion that residential and full-time students have
better access to institutional resources for learning, including faculty members
and other students compared to the ODL students.
Against this background, this chapter aims to understand how the use of TTD
in the ODL addresses barriers to student engagement. Drawing from the variables
of TTD and leveraging a systemic meta-synthesis literature review, this chapter
Reecting on the Theory of Transactional Distance 115
begins by (1) dening the student engagement in the ODL, then (2) identies
barriers to students’ engagement in the ODL, and closes by (3) exploring the use
of TTD variables to address barriers to student engagement.
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE OPEN DISTANCE
LEARNING
Recent studies such as (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016; Khumalo, 2018;
Qayyum & Zawacki-Richter, 2019) investigating ODL have conrmed increases
in student enrollment. A recent study by Qayyum and Zawacki-Richter (2019),
which was conducted in 12 countries, illustrates the increased enrollment num-
bers, with over 23 million students in higher education who are studying through
ODL means. Considering the rapid growth of interest in ODL, it is critical to
consider student engagement and how it may be affected by such high numbers
of enrollment. For example, Manning, Kinzie, and Schuh (2006) theorize that
student engagement can be affected by the allocation of resources (human and
other resources) as well as how student participation is encouraged.
Before discussing student engagement in the ODL, it is important to recognize
the uid nature of how student engagement is dened. Indeed, Ashwin and Mcvitty
(2015) suggest ample vagueness and confusion surrounding the denition. In their
argument, Ashwin and Mcvitty (2015) note the undened object or focus of stu-
dent engagement in most denitions. With that in mind, we align the student engage-
ment denition for this chapter with Martin and Torres (2016), who describe student
engagement as meaningful student involvement throughout the learning environ-
ment. From their denition, they added how they view student engagement (as a mul-
tidimensional concept) with three dimensions (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive).
• Behavioral engagement, focusing on participation in academic, social, and co-
curricular activities.
• Emotional engagement, focusing on the extent and nature of positive and neg-
ative reactions to teachers, classmates, academics, and school.
• Cognitive engagement, focusing on students’ level of investment in learning.
In the next section of this chapter, we identify barriers to student engage-
ment through the lens of TTD. Thereafter, we classify the identied barriers with
the above-mentioned dimensions of student engagement and indicate how each
transactional variable may address the barriers. Since this chapter is conceptual
in nature, we identify articles as part of the literature review to identify the bar-
riers to student engagement in the ODL. Taking into consideration some of the
benets of student engagement in the ODL such as the ability to prevent online
learner isolation low achievement (Banna, Grace Lin, Stewart, & Fialkowski,
2015), boredom and alienation, and high dropout rates (Martin & Torres, 2016),
this chapter aims to identify and propose how barriers to student engagement in
the ODL can be addressed. The section below presents the process in which the
articles were identied, sorted, and used.
116 RAMASHEGO SHILA SHORTY MPHAHLELE AND MATLALA VIOLET MAKOKOTLELA
IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
IN THE ODL
For our literature review, we employed a systemic meta-synthesis literature review.
Our literature review aimed to source ndings from different qualitative research
studies to identify barriers to student engagement in the ODL. The (delete choice
for) purpose of selecting only qualitative research studies was to focus on words
rather than numbers, in-depth rather than breadth of the studies’ ndings. As rec-
ommended by Altena (2018) and realizing how vast the literature base on ODL is,
we established a set of inclusion criteria to focus our literature review on current
and contemporary empirical articles within the last ve years (2015–2019). The
keywords of our search included: “barriers to students’ engagement in the ODL,”
“barriers to student engagement in online learning,” and “addressing barriers to
student engagement in the ODL.”
Our initial search criteria resulted in 136 journal articles. Next, we scanned the
abstracts and ndings from the journal articles aggregated from our initial selec-
tion. Articles that seemed to contain relevant information were put in a folder
labeled “initial selection.” The selected articles in the “initial selection” folder
were then read with the transactional variables of the TTD. Finally, articles that
had a positive match were placed in a folder labeled “nal selection.”
Of the 136 articles from the initial search, 54 were selected for the initial sec-
tion, and 16 of the original articles achieved nal selection. These 16 articles con-
tained most of the data that we required for this chapter. Additionally, the 16
articles were used to identify barriers to student engagement through the lens of
TTD which we discuss in the following section.
IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
THROUGH THE LENS OF TTD
In this section, we identify the barriers to student engagement in the ODL using
TTD. Moore (1993) acquiesced that TTD describes the relationship between
teachers and students when they are separated by space and or time. For
Moore, TTD is not an absolute theory in the distance education environment
due to the availability of different relationships especially the behaviors of
teachers and students. The TTD, as assumed by Delgaty (2019) was developed
by Moore in an attempt to address a barrier that raised an argument about
distance education. The argument according to Delgaty (2019) was about clari-
fying if distance education is a geographic separation of learners and teachers
or a pedagogical concept.
Moore (1993) documented a cluster of transactional distance variables in
teaching and learning, namely, instructional dialogue, program structure, and
learner autonomy. Relying on Bornt’s (2011) work, we understand that these three
clusters of transactional distance variables relate well with transactional distance
in the ODL. Based on the aforementioned transactional distance variables we
reect on how TTD can address barriers to student engagement in the ODL.
Reecting on the Theory of Transactional Distance 117
Instructional Dialogue Barriers
It is noteworthy to rst delineate instructional dialogue as a construct before
discussing the barriers that emanate from it. When rst describing instructional
dialogue, Moore (1997) presented the difference between dialogue and interac-
tion. In Moore’s explanation, he highlighted that interaction can be neutral or
negative while dialogue is used to describe an interaction or series of interac-
tions having positive qualities that other interactions might not have. Meaning
that interaction takes place during the exchange of ideas where both participants,
whether a human, machine, or art form, are active and can affect one another
while during a dialogue people discuss or negotiate so that all parties can reach
an understanding. For Moore (1997), a dialogue is reserved for positive interac-
tions. However, what is outstanding for this chapter is an instructional dialogue
that is aimed at improving student engagement. We identied the following con-
cepts which Moore (1997) regarded as determinants of instructional dialogue:
teacher and learner personalities, subject matter, and environment. Findings from
our selected empirical studies that address instructional dialogue are presented
according to the determinants of instructional dialogue in the next section.
Teacher Personality
It should be noted that personality is not a xed state but a dynamic totality,
which is continuously changing due to interaction with the environment (Busari,
2017). When exploring the relationship between personality types, learning
styles, motivation, self-esteem, and academic stress among distance learners in
Ibadan study center, Busari (2017) described personality as an area of study that
deals with complex human behavior, including emotions, actions, and cognitive
(thought) processes.
Apparent in our reviewed literature is that teachers may have a negative atti-
tude when engaging with new technologies and tools (i.e. O’Doherty et al., 2018).
Teachers’ negative attitude can be attributed toward technology and, in part,
their lack of skills and experiences (O’Doherty et al., 2018). Bawa (2016) sug-
gests that teachers who lack these skills can be referred to as digital immigrants.
Bawa (2016) addresses most of the ODL students as digital natives due to their
familiarity with popular technology even though they are not conformable with
educational technology. Therefore, teachers who are struggling to teach digital
natives are called digital immigrants. Bawa (2016) further theorized that digital
immigrants tend to poorly design courses, often resulting in student confusion
and dissatisfaction.
A study conducted by Tawalbeh and AlAsmari (2015) revealed that teachers’
negative attitudes toward learner-centered instruction can also be attributed to a
lack of knowledge. Similarly, Lee and Branch (2018) found that low prior knowl-
edge of the students might cause confusion and frustration in the learning envi-
ronment. In concluding the barriers that might affect the teachers’ personality, we
note O’Doherty et al.’s (2018) ndings which uncovered that limited knowledge
of, or improper training with technology is one of the barriers met by teachers
when engaging with students in the ODL institutions.
118 RAMASHEGO SHILA SHORTY MPHAHLELE AND MATLALA VIOLET MAKOKOTLELA
Students’ Personality
Moore and Kearsley (2012) identied students’ personality which they described
as a dimension that is often associated with distance learning namely, introver-
sion–extroversion. They explained that students with introversion–extroversion
are those who are introverted individuals and more predisposed to distance
learning. Nevertheless, Moore and Kearsley (2012) warned that the students
with introversion–extroversion personality still require some qualities such as
persistence and determination to succeed in their studies. Returning to the nd-
ings relating to barriers associated with students’ personality, the study con-
ducted by Bawa (2016) established that for high attrition rates in ODL, there
could be a combination of social factors, as well as the attitude, aptitude, and
motivational threshold of the students. Based on the aforementioned regard-
ing student personality, we would like to acknowledge that the personality
traits of students could help students to engage more in learning (Kamal &
Radhkrishnan, 2019).
What stands out for this chapter in Busari’s (2017) ndings is that academic
stress is a common phenomenon among students. Busari describes how academic
stress and pressure can cause tension and worry, resulting in various learning
problems. He further cautions that depending on the personality of the student,
learning outcomes will depend on how they react toward the academic stress.
Complementing Busari’s (2017) ndings, Shah and Cheng (2019) established
that the most frequent source of academic stress for ODL students is employ-
ment while studying. In their study, Shah and Cheng (2019) found that most ODL
students (especially the underrepresented) take increased working hours, which
places the nancial pressure of having to gain income while studying. Similarly,
O’Doherty et al. (2018) identify lack of time as a barrier to student engagement
because ODL students struggle to maintain a balance between work life, personal
life, and studying.
Program Structure Barriers
In ascertaining the program structure as one of the variables that determine
transactional distance, Moore (1997) posits that it should be regarded as the ele-
ments in the course design or show how the teaching program is structured. Most
importantly one should note that the program structure should allow the delivery
of the program through the various communications media. Moore (1997) cau-
tions that structure in a program is determined largely by the nature of the com-
munications media being employed, but also by the philosophy and emotional
characteristics of teachers, the personalities and other characteristics of students,
and the constraints imposed by educational institutions. With this in mind, it is
worthy to conclude that some of the program structure barriers may be inu-
enced by the teacher and students’ personalities as well as the ODL environment
as a whole. Since the previous section delineated the teachers and students’ per-
sonalities, it is important to focus on the barriers that might be emanating from
the ODL institutions. However, the overlaps of teacher and students’ personali-
ties are also briey highlighted in this section.
Reecting on the Theory of Transactional Distance 119
O’Doherty et al. (2018) study uncovered inadequate infrastructure (such as poor
internet connectivity) which affects live broadcasting of lectures and the absence
of institutional strategies. With regard to the absence of institutional strategies,
O’Doherty et al. (2018) depicted a lack of institutional support and limited direction
as to how tools or programs would be implemented. Linking the teacher personality
with the program structure is worth noting Delgaty’s (2019) fact that it is the respon-
sibility of the teacher to guide and encourage creative interaction among students
in a way to structure the environment to promote experiences leading to growth in
student engagement. Drawing from Bawa’s (2016) ndings, it was discovered that
poorly designed courses with confusing and dissatisfying components can also create
a great barrier for student engagement. Lastly, Bawa (2016) inferred the lack of drive
of some ODL institutions is caused by a lack of faculty input in the online courses.
Learner Autonomy Barriers
There is no agreed denition on what constitutes learner autonomy in the ODL;
however, Moore (1997) describes learner autonomy as the process whereby stu-
dents use teaching materials and teaching programs to achieve goals of their own,
in their ways, under their control. According to a denition provided by Delgaty
(2019), learner autonomy is reected in constructivist views, encouraging active,
collaborative, and responsible students. Even more, Dewey (2007) suggests that
autonomy can help create the conditions that encourage individuals to exercise
initiative, reection, and choice. As such, Delgaty (2019) suggests that the genesis
of self-directed learning can be attributed to Dewey.
A simple denition of learner autonomy is found in Nur Begum and
Chowdhury’s (2016) work, where they dene learner autonomy as the ability to
take charge of one’s learning. With this in mind, we suggest that ODL students’
learner autonomy can be evident if instructional dialogue and program struc-
ture barriers are addressed. Yasmin and Sohail (2018) referred to constraints of
learner autonomy, namely: situational, institutional, and dispositional. Fig. 1
summarizes the above-mentioned constraints of learner autonomy.
Fig. 1 supports this chapter’s argument relating to learner autonomy barri-
ers to student engagement. We argue that learner autonomy barriers cannot be
looked at in isolation as they are barriers linked with instructional dialogue and
program structure barriers. The information in Fig. 1 is also supported by nd-
ings from Shah and Cheng’s (2019) study which argues that when situational,
institutional, and dispositional constraints are affecting a student, it is difcult
for that student to achieve learner autonomy. The most interesting nding in
Shah and Cheng’s (2019) study was that most ODL students are juggling study-
ing and work. Fig. 2 illustrates the different barriers identied by Shah and Cheng
(2019) from the survey they administered to 468 students.
It can be seen from Fig. 2 that student employment plays a major role in affect-
ing their active engagement in their studies. This difculty of juggling work and
study maybe because they have children and nancial difculties. Although these
ndings cannot be extrapolated to all ODL students, it is safe to conclude that a
majority of ODL students nd themselves in a similar situation.
120 RAMASHEGO SHILA SHORTY MPHAHLELE AND MATLALA VIOLET MAKOKOTLELA
THE USE OF TTD VARIABLES TO ADDRESS BARRIERS
TO STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Now that the barriers to student engagement have been identied using TTD, in
this section we summarize the identied barriers to student engagement in the
ODL according to student engagement dimensions as highlighted in the section
that discussed the student engagement in the ODL above. We are noting that this
classication of identied barriers to student engagement will link the transac-
tional distance variables and the student engagement dimensions. The discussion
in the previous section revealed the interrelatedness between the transactional
distance variables as a result, in this section, the role of the variables in addressing
the barriers to student engagement is presented jointly.
•lack of time
•lack of money
Situational
•policy constraints
•teaching and learning approaches
•lack of technological resources
Institutional
•Features of personality such as:
•lack of motivation
•lack of confidence
Dispositional
Fig. 1. Constraints of Learner Autonomy.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Juggling work
and study
Caring for
children
Financial
difficulty
Mental health
issues
Academic
wring skills
Fig. 2. Sources of Barriers to Learner Autonomy. Adapted from: Shah and Cheng (2019).
Reecting on the Theory of Transactional Distance 121
Table 1 summarizes the identied barriers to student engagement through
the lens of TTD according to the student engagement dimensions as dened by
Martin and Torres (2016). It can be seen from Table 1 that transactional distance
variables interrelate with the student engagement dimensions. Looking at the
behavioral engagement, it is evident that most of the identied barriers are ema-
nating from the instructional dialogue. That being the case, it is worth recommend-
ing that these barriers be addressed through instructional dialogue. Moore (1997)
postulates the direct impact that communication media can have on the quality
of dialogue between teachers and students. He cites an example of two ODL stu-
dents where one is taught through the mail and the other through the computer-
mediated conference. Although the email creates a two-way interaction between
the teacher and the student, the dialogue is less spontaneous than in a computer-
mediated conference. With this in mind, this chapter contends that the relevant
communication media can address most of the behavioral engagement barriers.
It is apparent from Table 1 that a lack of emotional engagement can lead to a
lack of learner autonomy. Rabourn, BrckaLorenz, and Shoup (2018) posit that
learner autonomy requires a signicant investment of energy on the students’
part; however, it should be noted that some of the barriers caused by lack of
instructional dialogue might disenable learner autonomy.
Much of the current literature on learner autonomy pays particular attention
to language learning; however, for this chapter the focus is on learner autonomy
in the ODL. Murphy (2008) suggests that ODL students may be assumed to be
Table 1. Classication of Identied Barriers to Student Engagement.
Student-engagement
Dimension
Barriers to Student Engagement Transactional Distance Variables
Behavioral engagement Employment while studying Instructional dialogue
Teachers’ negative attitude Instructional dialogue
Inadequate infrastructure (internet
connectivity)
Program structure
Institutional communication (lack of
faculty input in the online courses)
Program structure
Lack/limited time Instructional dialogue/learner
autonomy
Policy constraints Learner autonomy/program
structure
Lack of technological resources Instructional dialogue/learner
autonomy
Emotional engagement Academic stress Learner autonomy
Lack of motivation Learner autonomy
Lack of condence Learner autonomy
Cognitive engagement Teachers’ lack of technical and
technological skills
Instructional dialogue/Program
structure
Low prior knowledge Instructional dialogue/program
structure
Poorly designed courses Program structure
Inadequate teaching and learning
approaches
Program structure/instructional
dialogue
122 RAMASHEGO SHILA SHORTY MPHAHLELE AND MATLALA VIOLET MAKOKOTLELA
learning autonomously because they control the time, the pace, what to study,
and when to study. Nevertheless, Murphy (2008) warned that being in control
of the aforementioned aspects does not necessarily mean they take responsibil-
ity for setting goals, planning, or evaluating learning as might be anticipated of
autonomous learners.
It is well established that learner autonomy may best be achieved through
supported collaboration (Murphy, 2008; Myskow, Bennet, & Yoshimura, 2018;
Yasmin & Naseem, 2019). Yasmin and Naseem (2019) maintain that collabo-
ration has the potential of building condence in students through peer feed-
back. Based on Yasmin and Naseem’s (2019) theory, this chapter suggests that
engaging students through collaboration has the potential to upgrade their self-
esteem which will enable them to take ownership and become self-aware of their
learning styles.
With regard to lack of student motivation as one of the identied barriers to
engagement, Yasmin and Naseem (2019) expanded on the ideas of collaborative
learning and pronounce that when students are sharing and getting the approval of
views from their peers it will enhance their trust in their capabilities and motivate
them intrinsically. On the contrary, this chapter notes Bryan et al.’s (2018) study on
types of technology used to enhance student engagement. Seeing that Table 1 high-
lights lack of technological resources as one of the barriers to learner autonomy, we
support Bryan et al.’s (2018) suggestion that teachers play a crucial role in adopting
technological tools that facilitate quality peer interaction in the ODL environment.
Turning now to the last student engagement dimension, cognitive engagement.
It is evident from Table 1 that cognitive engagement barriers are mostly created
by a lack of instructional dialogue and program structure. It appears from the
previous discussions in this chapter that program structure is mostly in the hands
of the teacher. Although this is the case, we argue, citing Moore’s (1997) work,
that the teacher should design the teaching and learning programs in such a way
that they allow an opportunity for deviation or variation according to the needs
of individual students. Reecting on Bawa (2016) and O’Doherty et al. (2018)
ndings, it is safe to conclude that ODL teachers need to be trained on the use of
technology and how to design programs in a way that instructional dialogue and
learner autonomy are created to bridge the transactional distance between the
teachers and students.
CONCLUSION
This chapter employed the TTD to reect on barriers to student engagement in
ODL settings. The transactional variables from the TTD, instructional dialogue,
program structure, and learner autonomy made it easy and possible to identify
the barriers to student engagement from the selected literature sources. The main
aim of this chapter was to explore how the use of TTD in the ODL can address
barriers to student engagement by integrating the transactional variables of TTD
and the student-engagement dimensions. Additionally, the interrelatedness of the
transactional variables and student engagement dimensions made it possible to
Reecting on the Theory of Transactional Distance 123
identify strategies that can address barriers to student engagement in the ODL.
This chapter emphasizes the interrelatedness of the transactional variables and
therefore cautions against the use of them in isolation. As a reminder, over-struc-
tured teaching and learning programs have the potential to limit instructional
dialogue (Moore, 1997). Similarly, a little predetermined program structure might
allow for lots of instructional dialogue. With this in mind, this chapter concludes
that to address and minimize barriers to student engagement, there should be
exibility and balance between all the transactional variables to bridge the teach-
ing and transactional distance between the ODL students and their teachers and
teaching and learning programs.
REFERENCES
Ajmal, M., & Zahra, S. (2018). Comparative study of facilities and practices of open and distance
learning directorates working in conventional universities in Islamabad capital territory.
International Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 3(2), 1–11.
Allen, E., Seaman, J., Poulin R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
Altena, S. (2018). Over 100 years old – barriers to implementing student-centered learning. Paper pre-
sented at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from https://
eprints.qut.edu.au/116376
Ashwin, P., & Mcvitty, D. (2015). The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and
practices. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European higher
education area. Between critical reections and future policies (Vol. 1, pp. 343–359). New York,
NY: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_23 Retrieved from
http://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/s_bildung/suche/s_set.html?FId=1146998
Banna, J., Grace Lin, M., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to
promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 11(2), 249–261. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27441032
Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–11. doi:10.1177/2158244015621777
Bornt, D. (2011). Instructional design models, theories and methodology: Moore’s theory of transac-
tional distance. Retrieved from https://k3hamilton.com/LTech/transactional.html
Bozkurt, A. (2019). From Distance Education to Open and Distance Learning: A Holistic Evaluation
of History, Denitions, and Theories. In S. Sisman-Ugur, & G. Kurubacak (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Learning in the Age of Transhumanism (pp. 252–273). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Bryan, T. K., Lutte, R., Lee, J., O’Neil, P., Maher, C. S., & Hound, A. B. (2018). When do online educa-
tion technologies enhance student engagement? A case of distance education at the University
of Nebraska at Omaha. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(2), 255–273. doi:10.1080/1523
6803.2018.1429817
Busari, A. O. (2017). The relationship between personality types, learning styles, motivation, self-
esteem, and academic stress among distance learners in Ibadan study center. International
Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 19(4), 850. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.
com/docview/1854221748
Delgaty, L. (2019). Transactional distance theory: A critical view of the theoretical and pedagogical
underpinnings of E-learning. In D. Cvetković (Ed.), Interactive multimedia-multimedia pro-
duction and digital storytelling. London: IntechOpen. Retrieved from https://www.openaire.eu/
search/publication?articleId=intech______::8666d7ed569f50dcf447e96a3cf0d570
Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and education. Middlesex: Echo Library.
Dudovskiy, J. (2018). The ultimate guide to writing a dissertation in business studies: A step-by-step
assistance [Online]. research-methodology.net.
Kamal, A., & Radhkrishnan, S. (2019). Individual learning preferences based on personality traits in
an E-learning scenario. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 407–435. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10639-018-9777-4
124 RAMASHEGO SHILA SHORTY MPHAHLELE AND MATLALA VIOLET MAKOKOTLELA
Khumalo, S. S. (2018). Improving student success rate in open distance learning settings through
the principle of constructive alignment. In M. Sinecen (Ed.), Trends in E-learning. London:
IntechOpen (pp. 31–44).
Kuh, G. D. (2010). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for
effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32.
doi:10.1080/00091380309604090
Lee, S. J., & Branch, R. M. (2018). Students’ beliefs about teaching and learning and their perceptions
of student-centered learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
55(5), 585–593. doi:10.1080/14703297.2017.1285716
Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2006). One size does not t all: Traditional and innovative models
of student affairs practice. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Martin, J., & Torres, A. (2016). I. What is student engagement and why is it important?. Washington DC:
National Association of Independent Schools.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of
distance education (pp. 22–38). London: Routledge.
Moore, M. G. (1997). The theory of transactional distance. In Handbook of distance education (4th ed.,
pp. 32–46). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315296135-4. Retrieved from https://
www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315296135/chapters/10.4324/9781315296135-4
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A system view of online learning (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Mukama, E. (2016). From policies to the implementation of open distance learning in Rwanda: A
genealogical and governmentality analysis. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(1), 40–56.
Murphy, L. (2008). Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the production of
courses for distance learners of French, German, and Spanish. Language Teaching Research,
12(1), 83–102. doi:10.1177/1362168807084495
Myskow, G., Bennet, P. A., & Yoshimura, H. (2018). Fostering collaborative autonomy: The roles of
cooperative and collaborative learning. Relay Journal, 1(2), 360–381. Retrieved from https://
kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp/relayjournal
Nur Begum, A., & Chowdhury, R. F. (2016). The factors that affect learner autonomy in learning
English as a foreign language (EFL) at a tertiary level in Bangladesh. ELK Asia Pacic Journal
of Social Sciences, 2(4), 337. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/217738109
O’Doherty, D., Dromey, M., Lougheed, J., Hannigan, A., Last, J., & McGrath, D. (2018). Barriers
and solutions to online learning in medical education – An integrative review. BMC Medical
Education, 18(1), 130. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1240-0
Qayyum, A., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2019). The state of open and distance learning. In O. Zawacki-
Richter, & A. Qayyum (Eds.), Open and distance education in Asia, Africa and the middle east
(1. publ. in the United States of America ed., pp. 125–140). Singapore: Springer Open.
Raboun, K. E., BrckaLorenz, A., & Shoup, R. (2018). Reimagining Student engagement: How
Nontraditional Adult Learners Engage in Traditional Postsecondary Environments. Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 66(1), 22–33.
Shah, M., & Cheng, M. (2019). Exploring factors impacting student engagement in open access
courses. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 34(2), 187–202.
doi:10.1080/02680513.2018.1508337
Tawalbeh, T. I., & AlAsmari, A. A. (2015). Instructors’ perceptions and barriers of learner-centered
instruction in English at the university level. Higher Education Studies, 5(2), 38–51. doi:10.5539/
hes.v5n2p38
Yasmin, M., & Naseem, F. (2019). Collaborative learning and learner autonomy: Beliefs, practices,
and prospects in Pakistani engineering universities. IEEE Access, 7, 71493–71499. doi:10.1109/
ACCESS.2019.2918756
Yasmin, M., & Sohail, A. (2018). Socio-cultural barriers in promoting learner autonomy in Pakistani
universities: English teachers’ beliefs. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/23311
86X.2018.1501888
