The theory of transactional distance redefines distance education in pedagogical terms rather than geographic terms:
Distance is determined by the amount of dialog which occurs between the learner and the instructor, and the amount of structure which exists in the design of the course. Greater transactional distance occurs when an educational program has more structure and less student-teacher dialogue, as might be found in some traditional distance education courses.10
As can be seen, the concept of dialogue is important to this theory. However, in this instance dialogue emphasizes an interaction that seeks to develop a common level of understanding. It does not necessarily imply continued back-and-forth conversation. Paulo Freire suggests dialogue as an interaction that seeks to develop a common level of understanding when he speaks of the importance of a dialogic form of education in which pedagogy is developed and acted upon. Students and teachers, Freire says, should be learning from each other as opposed to an imposition of learning from one to another. He uses an analogy of banking to suggest that the educator deposits information in the mind of the student and rejects any empowerment in the transaction. Indeed, even terms such as “transaction” rhetorically refer to banking. However, for Freire, through a form of “problem-posing” education, learners are encouraged to communicate, to become conscious of their own consciousness: “People teach each other, mediated by the world, by the cognizable objects which in banking education are ‘owned’ by the teacher.”11 For example, instead of assuming that a user does not know what information is needed, here we are using Freire’s concept of dialogue to suggest an equality of expertise, wherein the librarian assumes the more empowering role of partner as opposed to information guru. Instead of asking users to prove the worth of their research or research question, librarians should value the perspectives, experiences, and comfort level of the users as well as their own and work from both as a starting point.
In transactional distance theory, dialogue is placed in a continuum with structure in any online interaction. The reference interview is traditionally defined as a structured conversation between the user and the librarian. While such a definition implies a dialogue, it is hampered by the structure imposed by the tradition of the reference interview. Saba and Shearer, however, have reframed the theory of transactional distance slightly in terms of learner control, and this is applicable to a new theory of reference interaction in the online environment:
An increase in the level of learner control increased the rate of dialogue, which in turn decreased the level of transactional distance; an increase in the level of instructor control increased the rate of structure, which in turn increased the level of transactional distance.12
In other words, as structure increases, dialogue decreases, and transactional distance becomes a barrier to learning. Therefore the structured reference interview in an online setting (and, arguably, also in a face-to-face setting) may increase transactional distance between the user and the librarian.
It is important to stress that the concept of dialogue in this paper is not the standard dictionary version that emphasizes the back-and-forth of a face-to-face transaction. This study draws on both Freire as noted above, but also on the idea of dialogue discussed in distributed learning theory, in which communication may not be synchronous or even back and forth. Such a definition does not require a response from the user, and indeed the e-mail reference service examined here assumes the user will not respond after the initial contact. The librarian then compensates for this absence of response by trying to develop an asynchronous interaction that anticipates some of the dialogue.
This is borne out in Doherty’s related interpretive study that examined the process of librarians as participants responding to a user’s e-mail reference question. All participants reflected upon the specific user’s question. As a part of the study, a stimulated recall interview asked participants questions as they reviewed a user’s question. At times these questions moved beyond simple evaluation of the content to more specific issues about serving the user appropriately. For example, when the content of the user’s question did not automatically suggest a referral, there was still some second guessing that went into the ultimate decision to refer. One participant was particularly concerned at what was thought to be an inappropriate referral, noting that the referral itself lacked some content that would have at least helped to get the user started on some research. All participants saw a referral as a potential time waster for the user. Once an interaction was referred further interaction was no longer considered specifically the responsibility of the digital reference service.13
Instructional Interaction
Moore notes that one way of dealing with issues of transactional distance is through what he terms interactions.14 Wagner defines this as:
an event that takes place between a learner and the learner’s environment. Its purpose is to respond to the learner in a way intended to change his or her behavior toward an educational goal. An instructional interaction is effective when the environmental response changes the learner’s behavior toward that goal. Instructional interactions have two purposes: to change learners and to move them toward an action state of goal attainment.15
Moore further writes of three dialogical dimensions of instructional interaction: learner to learner, learner to instructor, learner to content.16 Gunawardena and McIsaac add another dialogical dimension of instructional interaction specific to the online environment: learner to technology interactions.17
Learner control is paramount to reducing the negative effects of transactional distance. In an online interaction with users, librarians should be specifically focused on the dimensions of learner to instructor, learner to content, and learner to technology. Instructional interaction occurs when the implicit emphasis of the interaction is placed on enhancing the learner’s control over the interaction. A dialogue is encouraged in which the learner’s knowledge is emphasized over the librarian’s expertise in a collaborative online learning environment. In this study, it is assumed that instructional interaction implies intent because the responder seeks to instruct the user.
Much of the literature about online reference services includes learner-to-technology and learner-to-content interactions.18 Berge contends that only through well-designed interactions within the contexts (as well as the limitations) of both the learning activities and the delivery system can interpersonal interactions be developed to support effective learning.19 Moore specifically suggests that the learner-to-instructor interaction provides the learner with instructor feedback, motivation, and dialogue. Further, Moore implies a constructivist instructional framework, where the instructor is responding to the learner’s own creation of new knowledge.20
For the librarian in the online learning environment, this can be interpreted as a response to the structural limitations of the reference interview, where it is not always possible to respond to the learner’s creation of new knowledge. Instead of assuming that a user does not know what information is needed, the instructional interaction would be a dialogue of equals wherein the librarian assumes the more equal role of partner as opposed to expert.
Method
This study examines instructional interaction in online reference through an analysis of the content of answers to questions in a currently active e-mail service.21 The study examined data stored for interactions that occurred between October and November 2004, 2005, and 2006. The complete database stored questions and answers from the inception of the service (June 2002) to the present. It should be noted that this study is focused on the librarian side of the interaction. Analysis of the user side of the interaction was not possible because of confidentiality restrictions that deleted user information from all interactions.