Review Article

Transactional distance theory in distance learning: Past, current, and future research trends

Krishnashree Achuthan 1 * , Vysakh Kani Kolil 1 , Sharanya Muthupalani 1 , Raghu Raman 2 3
More Detail
1 Center for Cybersecurity Systems and Networks, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri Campus, Kollam, Kerala, INDIA2 Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri Campus, Kollam, Kerala, INDIA3 Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(1), January 2024, ep493, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14131
Published: 18 January 2024
OPEN ACCESS   1916 Views   1611 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The accelerated adoption of distance learning in post-pandemic times has resulted in increasing research publications and review studies in a short time. This necessitates the exploration of a large corpus of academic publications for effective distance learning and learning strategies. As distance learning stakeholders have assimilated the transactional approach to understanding distance learning, transactional distance theory (TDT) is relevant to understand ways to reduce the distance between learners and educators for maximum effectiveness of distance learning. Our study applies TDT to review distance learning from a supply perspective and as a tool to ensure the improved quality of distance learning. This paper has two key contributions: we have presented evidence synthesis and conducted a foresight exercise. Following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, 275 documents published between 1994 and 2022 were identified for review. Our analysis revealed patterns, relationships, and trends in the application of TDT in various distance learning contexts. Most TDT research is conducted in social sciences (83.7%), with computer science accounting for 42.6% of the studies. The course materials’ structure and design have also received considerable attention, with around 40.0% of the research focused on this area. For distance learning, studies revolve around factors such as student engagement, satisfaction, and TDT, which examine the distance between learners and instructors in various learning environments. Through systematic review and meta-analysis, we identify the three thematic areas in TDT research on distance learning. We have chartered themes on the effect of alternate design distance learning platforms on learner success, pushing the development boundaries in distance learning success through TDT, and the practical processes for designing successful distance learning courses via TDT-based pedagogical frameworks. In doing so, we streamline research in TDT and distance learning thematically and provide insight into further work. In addition, this study analyzed the relationships between sustainable development goal (SDG) and TDT literature. The co-citation analysis suggested that the strongest links were observed between education and innovation (SDG 4 and SDG 9), followed by education and gender equality (SDG 4 and SDG 5).
Keywords: bibliometrics, sustainable development, SDG, e-learning, TDT, transactional distance, science mapping

CITATION (APA)

Achuthan, K., Kolil, V. K., Muthupalani, S., & Raman, R. (2024). Transactional distance theory in distance learning: Past, current, and future research trends. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(1), ep493. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14131

REFERENCES

  1. Abuhassna, H., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahya, N., Zakaria, M. A. Z. M., Kosnin, A. B. M., & Darwish, M. (2020). Development of a new model on utilizing online learning platforms to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00216-z
  2. Abuhassna, H., Busalim, A. H., Mamman, B., Yahaya, N., Zakaria, M. A. Z. M., Al-Maatouk, Q., & Awae, F. (2022). From student’s experience: Does e-learning course structure influenced by learner’s prior experience, background knowledge, autonomy, and dialogue. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), ep338. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11386
  3. Achuthan, K., & Murali, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of educational laboratories from cost & learning effectiveness perspective. In R. Silhavy, R. Senkerik, Z. Oplatkova, Z. Prokopova, & P. Silhavy (Eds.), Software engineering in intelligent systems. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (vol. 349). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18473-9_15
  4. Achuthan, K., Nair, V. K., Kowalski, R., Ramanathan, S., & Raman, R. (2023). Cyberbullying research–Alignment to sustainable development and impact of COVID-19: Bibliometrics and science mapping analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 140, 107566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107566
  5. Achuthan, K., Raghavan, D., Shankar, B., Francis, S. P., & Kolil, V. K. (2021). Impact of remote experimentation, interactivity and platform effectiveness on laboratory learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00272-z
  6. Alhazbi, S., & Hasan, M. A. (2021). The role of self-regulation in remote emergency learning: Comparing synchronous and asynchronous online learning. Sustainability, 13(19), 11070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911070
  7. Amoozegar, A., Abdelmagid, M., & Anjum, T. (2022). Course satisfaction and perceived learning among distance learners in Malaysian research universities: The impact of motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, and instructor immediacy behavior. Open Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2102417
  8. Ananga, P. (2020). Pedagogical considerations of e-learning in education for development in the face of COVID-19. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 310-321. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.123
  9. Ariel, N., Millikovsky-Ayalon, M., & Feldhorn, O. K. (2023). “Watching the backstage of your mind”: Redesigning learning how to learn. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 9709-9730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11580-4
  10. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
  11. Bai, X., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2022). Online learning: Does integrated video lecture help you learn more efficiently? In V. G. Duffy, M. Lehto, Y. Yih, & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Human-automation interaction: Manufacturing, services and user experience (pp. 531-548). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10780-1_29
  12. Behl, A., Jayawardena, N., Pereira, V., Islam, N., Del Giudice, M., & Choudrie, J. (2022). Gamification and e-learning for young learners: A systematic literature review, bibliometric analysis, and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176, 121445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121445
  13. Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845972
  14. Bhattacharya, S. (2020). What is so wrong with online teaching. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(23), 19-21.
  15. Blayone, T. J. B., vanOostveen, R., Barber, W., DiGiuseppe, M., & Childs, E. (2017). Democratizing digital learning: Theorizing the fully online learning community model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0051-4
  16. Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
  17. Bonilla, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Torres-Abad, C. (2015). Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1747-7
  18. Boyd, R. D., & Apps, J. W. (1980). Redefining the discipline of adult education. WorldCat.
  19. Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics.” Scientometrics, 12(5), 373-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016680
  20. Brown, B. A. (2022). Teaching approaches, social support, and student learning in non-traditional classrooms in higher education. In B. A. Brown, & A. Irons (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of higher education in a post-COVID-19 world: New approaches and technologies for teaching and learning (pp. 71-106). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80382-193-120221004
  21. Cancino, C. A., Merigó, J. M., & Coronado, F. C. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of leading universities in innovation research. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(3), 106-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.03.006
  22. Cebi, A. (2023). How e-learning readiness and motivation affect student interactions in distance learning? Education and Information Technologies, 28(3), 2941-2960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11312-0
  23. Chawinga, W. D., & Zozie, P. A. (2016). Increasing access to higher education through open and distance learning: Empirical findings from Mzuzu University, Malawi. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2409
  24. Chen, T.-Y., Chang, Y.-H., & Hung, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for instructional design in blended learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (pp. 1645-1653). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802977.paper207
  25. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004
  26. Choudhury, S., & Pattnaik, S. (2020). Emerging themes in e-learning: A review from the stakeholders’ perspective. Computers & Education, 144, 103657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103657
  27. Ciotti, M., Ciccozzi, M., Terrinoni, A., Jiang, W.-C., Wang, C.-B., & Bernardini, S. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 57(6), 365-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2020.1783198
  28. Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021626702728
  29. Delaney, B., & Betts, K. (2022). Training and supporting of journalism faculty to teach online: A multiple case sudy. Journalism Practice, 16(7), 1512-1535. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1852883
  30. Dewey, J. (2008). The later works of John Dewey 1925-1953: 1949-1952 essays, typescripts, and knowing and the known. SIU Press.
  31. Di Benedetto, A., Sarin, S., Belkhouja, M., & Haon, C. (2018). Patterns of knowledge outflow from industrial marketing management to major marketing and specialized journals (1999-2013): A citation analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 69, 13-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.024
  32. Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.
  33. Dockter, J. (2016). The problem of teaching presence in transactional theories of distance education. Computers and Composition, 40, 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.009
  34. Ekwunife-Orakwue, K. C. V., & Teng, T.-L. (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78, 414-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011
  35. Elyakim, N., Reychav, I., Offir, B., & McHaney, R. (2019). Perceptions of transactional distance in blended learning using location-based mobile devices. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 131-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117746169
  36. Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782569
  37. Fattore, C. (2022). Creating rapport in online classes through a pedagogy of care and authenticity. Journal of Political Science Education, 18(4), 624-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2022.2115920
  38. Fernandez, L. M. V., Nicolas, C., Merigó, J. M., & Arroyo-Cañada, F.-J. (2018). Industrial marketing research: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2015). Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(3), 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2017-0167
  39. Francis, S. P., Kanikkolil, V., & Achuthan, K. (2016, September). Learning curve analysis for virtual laboratory experimentation. In 2016 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI) (pp. 1073-1078). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2016.7732187
  40. 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 Distributed Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.2
  41. Hew, K. F., Hu, X., Qiao, C., & Tang, Y. (2020). What predicts student satisfaction with MOOCs: A gradient boosting trees supervised machine learning and sentiment analysis approach. Computers & Education, 145, 103724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724
  42. Iwanaga, J., Muo, E. C., Tabira, Y., Watanabe, K., Tubbs, S. J., D’Antoni, A. V, Rajaram-Gilkes, M., Loukas, M., Khalil, M. K., & Tubbs, R. S. (2023). Who really needs a Metaverse in anatomy education? A review with preliminary survey results. Clinical Anatomy, 36(1), 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23949
  43. Jayabalasingham, B., Boverhof, R., Agnew, K., & Klein, L. (2019). Identifying research supporting the United Nations sustainable development goals. Elsevier. https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/87txkw7khs/1
  44. Jha, J., & Ghatak, N. (2023). Open schools in developing countries: Virtual and open or distant and closed? In O. Zawacki-Richter, & I. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 493-508). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2080-6_27
  45. Johnson, N. (2021). Evolving definitions in digital learning: A national framework for categorizing commonly used terms. VOCEDplus. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A91469
  46. Kandemir, B., & Cakmak, E. K. (2021). Structure in distance learning: A systematic literature review. Participatory Educational Research, 8(4), 139-170. https://doi.org/10.17275/PER.21.83.8.4
  47. Kang, H., & Gyorke, A. S. (2008). Rethinking distance learning activities: A comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open Learning, 23(3), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510802420050
  48. Kanuka, H., Collett, D., & Caswell, C. (2002). University instructor perceptions of the use of asynchronous text-based discussion in distance courses. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_3
  49. Kara, M., & Yildirim, Z. (2020). Identification of the optimal faculty behaviors for performance improvement in distance education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09610-3
  50. Kawachi, P. (2008). A model for constructivist learning as an LMS basis for ordering RLOs. In Proceedings of the 10th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (pp. 502-506).
  51. Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713
  52. Kim, D., Jung, E., Yoon, M., Chang, Y., Park, S., Kim, D., & Demir, F. (2021). Exploring the structural relationships between course design factors, learner commitment, self-directed learning, and intentions for further learning in a self-paced MOOC. Computers & Education, 166, 104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104171
  53. Kruft, T., & Kock, A. (2019). Towards a comprehensive categorization of corporate incubators: Evidence from cluster analysis. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(8), 19400024. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919619400024
  54. Kulkarni, A. V, Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA, 302(10), 1092-1096. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1307
  55. Lally, V., & Barrett, E. (1999). Building a learning community on-line: Towards socio-academic interaction. Research Papers in Education, 14(2), 147-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152990140205
  56. Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154-1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.009
  57. Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582
  58. Lee, K., & Fanguy, M. (2022). Online exam proctoring technologies: Educational innovation or deterioration? British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 475-490. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13182
  59. Lei, S. A., & Gupta, R. K. (2010). College distance education courses: evaluating benefits and costs from institutional, faculty and students’ perspectives. Education, 130(4).
  60. Li, L., Wang, X., & Wallace, M. P. (2022). I determine my learning path, or not? A study of different learner control conditions in online video-based learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.973758
  61. Liotsios, K., & Demetriadis, S. (2010). ‘Going blended’: Experiences from the implementation of blended learning design and the perspective of a model. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 6(1), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2010.030021
  62. Luo, M. M., & Chea, S. (2020). Wiki use for knowledge integration and learning: A three tier conceptualization. Computers & Education, 154, 103920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103920
  63. Mart’inez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Ruiz-Real, J. L. (2020). Industrial marketing management: Bibliometric overview since its foundation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.07.014
  64. Mart’inez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2), 439-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0853
  65. Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screen casting in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2012.689166
  66. McBrien, J. L., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
  67. Melezhik, K. A., Petrenko, A. D., & Khrabskova, D. M. (2020). Reflective hyperconnectivity of social networks virtual space as a factor in the design of distant learning environment. Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 29(10), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-10-46-55
  68. Merigó, J. M., Cancino, C. A., Coronado, F., & Urbano, D. (2016). Academic research in innovation: A country analysis. Scientometrics, 108(2), 559-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1984-4
  69. Merigó, J. M., Mas-Tur, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2015). A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2645-2653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.006
  70. Merigó, J. M., Pedrycz, W., Weber, R., & de la Sotta, C. (2018). Fifty years of Information Sciences: A bibliometric overview. Information Sciences, 432, 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.11.054
  71. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Research methods & reporting–Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement-David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ (CR)-Print, 338(7716), 332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  72. Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76.
  73. Moore, M. G. (2018). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore, & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315296135-4
  74. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269
  75. Nakai, K., Terada, S., Takahara, A., Hage, D., Tubbs, R. S., & Iwanaga, J. (2022). Anatomy education for medical students in a virtual reality workspace: A pilot study. Clinical Anatomy, 35(1), 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23783
  76. Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: Map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature, 534(7607), 320-322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a
  77. Offir, B., Lev, Y., Lev, Y., Barth, I., & Shteinbok, A. (2004). An integrated analysis of verbal and nonverbal interaction in conventional and distance learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.2190/TM7U-QRF1-0EG7-P9P7
  78. Olsson, R.-M. (2000). Freedom in time and space: A study on distance education in a senior high school. Human IT, 4(1).
  79. Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
  80. Park, S., & Robinson, P. A. (2022). The effect of online academic coaches on supporting graduate students’ performance in intensive online learning environments: A three-course comparison. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(1-2), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2020-0144
  81. Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.791
  82. Paul, R. C., Swart, W., Zhang, A. M., & MacLeod, K. R. (2015). Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: refinement and validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education, 36(3), 364-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1081741
  83. Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., & Venturelli, A. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033
  84. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641-720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533
  85. Pregowska, A., Masztalerz, K., Garlińska, M., & Osial, M. (2021). A worldwide journey through distance education–From the post office to virtual, augmented and mixed realities, and education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(3), 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030118
  86. Raman, R., Achuthan, K., Nair, V. K., & Nedungadi, P. (2022a). Virtual laboratorie–A historical review and bibliometric analysis of the past three decades. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11055-11087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11058-9
  87. Raman, R., Nair, V. K., Prakash, V., Patwardhan, A., & Nedungadi, P. (2022b). Green-hydrogen research: What have we achieved, and where are we going? Bibliometrics analysis. Energy Reports, 8, 9242-9260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.07.058
  88. Raman, R., Subramaniam, N., Nair, V. K., Shivdas, A., Achuthan, K., & Nedungadi, P. (2022c). Women entrepreneurship and sustainable development: Bibliometric analysis and emerging research trends. Sustainability, 14(15), 9160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159160
  89. Ray, A., Bala, P. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022). Exploring barriers affecting eLearning usage intentions: An NLP-based multi-method approach. Behavior & Information Technology, 41(5), 1002-1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1849403
  90. Ray, B. B., & Bennett, C. A. (2023). Gameful learning as an innovative pedagogy for online learning: Exploring early career teachers’ perspectives. In A. S. Zimmerman (Ed.), Research, practice, and innovations in teacher education during a virtual age (pp. 21-34). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5316-2.ch002
  91. Rhim, H. C., & Han, H. (2020). Teaching online: Foundational concepts of online learning and practical guidelines. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 32(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.3946/KJME.2020.171
  92. Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
  93. Rolfe, V. (2015). A systematic review of the socio-ethical aspects of massive online open courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 18(1), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2015-0004
  94. Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00037-9
  95. Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.4
  96. Samiee, S., & Chabowski, B. R. (2012). Knowledge structure in international marketing: A multi-method bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(2), 364-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0296-8
  97. Sarin, S., Haon, C., & Belkhouja, M. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of the knowledge exchange patterns between major technology and innovation management journals (1999-2013). Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1), 2-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12431
  98. Sevnarayan, K. (2022). Reimaging eLearning technologies to support students: On reducing transactional distance at an open and distance eLearning institution. E-Learning and Digital Media, 19(4), 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530221096535
  99. Shahabadi, M. M., & Uplane, M. (2015). Synchronous and asynchronous e-learning styles and academic performance of e-learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.453
  100. Shea, J., Joaquin, M. E., & Wang, J. Q. (2016). Pedagogical design factors that enhance learning in hybrid courses: A contribution to design-based instructional theory. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 381-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002254
  101. Shearer, R. L., & Park, E. (2019). The theory of transactional distance. In I. Jung (Ed.), Open and distance education theory revisited (pp. 31-38). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7740-2_4
  102. Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Orellana, A. (2011). Distance education research: A review of the literature. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 124-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9045-8
  103. Singh, A. K., Satyavada, R. S., Goel, T., Sarangapani, P., & Jayendran, N. (2020). Use of EdTech in Indian school education during COVID-19 A reality check. Economic & Political WEEKLY. https://www.epw.in/journal/ 2020/44/commentary/use-edtech-indian-school-education-during-covid-19.html
  104. Swart, W., & Macleod, K. (2021). Evaluating learning space designs for flipped and collaborative learning: A transactional distance approach. Education Sciences, 11(6), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060292
  105. Swart, W., MacLeod, K., Paul, R., Zhang, A. M., & Gagulic, M. (2014). Relative proximity theory: Measuring the gap between actual and ideal online course delivery. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(4), 222-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.924721
  106. Swart, W., Wengrowicz, N., & Wuensch, K. L. (2015). Using transactional distances to explore student satisfaction with group collaboration in the flipped classroom. International Journal of Information and Operations Management Education, 6(1), 24-48. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIOME.2015.073155
  107. Tirronen, V., Lappalainen, V., Isomottonen, V., Lakanen, A.-J., Taipalus, T., Nieminen, P., & Ogbechie, A. (2020). Incorporating teacher-student dialogue into digital course material: Usage patterns and first experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1-5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274123
  108. Titarenko, L., & Little, C. B. (2017). International cross-cultural online learning and teaching: Effective tools and approaches. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 112-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1306767
  109. Tzafilkou, K., Perifanou, M., & Economides, A. A. (2021). Development and validation of a students’ remote learning attitude scale (RLAS) in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7279-7305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10586-0
  110. Ustati, R., & Hassan, S. S. S. (2013). Distance learning students’ need: Evaluating interactions from Moore’s theory of transactional distance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 292-304.
  111. Valencia-Arias, A., Chalela-Naffah, S., & Bermúdez-Hernández, J. (2019). A proposed model of e-learning tools acceptance among university students in developing countries. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 1057-1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9815-2
  112. Valuate Reports. (2022). e learning market size to grow USD 15,000 million by 2028 at a CAGR of 6.5%. https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/e-learning-market-size-to-grow-usd-15-000-million-by-2028-at-a-cagr-of-6-5-valuates-reports-886856241.html
  113. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  114. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. ArXiv.
  115. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94.
  116. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1
  117. Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters–The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(3), 222-242. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3417
  118. Wengrowicz, N. (2014). Teachers’ pedagogical change mechanism–Pattern of structural relations between teachers’ pedagogical characteristics and teachers’ perceptions of transactional distance (TTD) in different teaching environments. Computers & Education, 76, 190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.020
  119. Wengrowicz, N., & Offir, B. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of transactional distance in different teaching environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 111-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.773701
  120. Wengrowicz, N., Dori, Y. J., & Dori, D. (2014). Transactional distance in an undergraduate project-based systems modeling course. Knowledge-Based Systems, 71, 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.05.022
  121. Wold, K. A. (2011). Blending theories for instructional design: Creating and implementing the structure, environment, experience, and people (SEEP) model. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.572900
  122. Wong, J., Baars, M., Davis, D., Van Der Zee, T., Houben, G.-J., & Paas, F. (2019). Supporting self-regulated learning in online learning environments and MOOCs: A systematic review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(4-5), 356-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1543084
  123. Yilmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2017). The impact of interactive environment and metacognitive support on academic achievement and transactional distance in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116656453
  124. Yu, J., Huang, C., Han, Z., He, T., & Li, M. (2020). Investigating the influence of interaction on learning persistence in online settings: Moderation or mediation of academic emotions? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2320. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072320
  125. Zhang, A. M. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction [PhD thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University].
  126. Zilka, G. C., Cohen, R., & Rahimi, I. D. (2018). Teacher presence and social presence in virtual and blended courses. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.28945/4061
  127. Zilka, G. C., Rahimi, I. D., & Cohen, R. (2019). Sense of challenge, threat, self-efficacy, and motivation of students learning in virtual and blended courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 33(1), 2-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1554990
  128. Zong, Q.-J., Shen, H.-Z., Yuan, Q.-J., Hu, X.-W., Hou, Z.-P., & Deng, S.-G. (2013). Doctoral dissertations of library and information science in China: A co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 94, 781-799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0799-1