Read further here (new blog address)
Reflections on technology-enhanced learning and education in Cambodia. Hope you enjoy it.
24 March 2012
#H807 The Wiki Way: Analysis of Social Values of Wikis
17 March 2012
#H807 On Affordances
This week in H807 features an elaboration of the term 'affordances' in educational technology.
This relates to the broader
discussion on if and how technologies we use affect our behaviour. Is our behaviour (as a learner) influenced by
the use of e-mail, blogging, e-readers etc.? For example, 'writing
with pen and paper required the user to think linearly, writing only when the
text was near completion, in contrast the use of a word processor allows you to
think non-linearly and to adapt and develop ideas as they emerge.' (McGrenere and
Ho, 2000, p6)
The term was originally coined by Gibson (1979), but has since
undergone an evolution in its meaning.
Gibson (1979)
|
Ecology
|
Origin in the study of perception by WWII pilots.
Interaction between environment and organisms. Environment becomes meaningful in its
interaction with organisms.
Objective/ Positivistic meaning
Fundamental properties:
|
Norman (1988)
|
Design
|
Adoption of affordances for design.
Design of an object may support its intended
use.
Suggestions or clues as to how to use the properties
Perceived and actual properties of an object.
Can be dependent on the experience, knowledge,
or culture of the actor (User-centric meaning of affordance)
Can make an action difficult or easy
|
McGrenere and Ho (2000)
|
Utility vs Usability
Degrees of affordance
|
Ease with which an affordance can be
undertaken
Clarity of the information that describes the
existing affordance.
|
Kreijns et al (2002)
|
Social affordances
|
Properties of technologies that create and sustain social
interactions (‘social space’).
To invite learners to act in accordance with the perceived
affordance, i.e., start a task or a non-task related interaction of
communication’
|
Conole & Dyke (2004)
|
Taxonomy of affordances
|
Standard set of taxonomies can help practitioners to make better use
of ICT in education.'
|
Boyle and Cook (2004)
|
Affordances incompatible with social constructivism
|
|
Oliver (2005)
|
Claims
|
Term ‘affordance’ is confusing and used inappropriately.
‘Claims’ would be better.
|
Wright and Pamchoma (2011)
|
Discourse
|
Suggest discourse-based approach, like the 4 discourses on technology in learning identified by Bigum.
|
In Gibson’s view affordances are latent in the environment,
objectively measurable and independent of the individual’s ability to recognise
them, but are always in relation to the actor (Wright and Pachoma, 2011, p.249). Its meaning was confused by the
appropriation by Norman, who distinguished between ‘real affordances’ (conform to
Gibson’s notion) and ‘perceived affordances’. This
shift incorporates subjective interpretation and mental activity, which were
explicitly rejected by Gibson (Wright and Parchoma, 2011).
Conole and Dyke (2004) introduced a taxonomy of affordances for educational technology. This aims at helping practitioners when designing e-learning activities. The affordances include:
- Diversity
- Communication and Collaboration
- Reflection
- Multimodal and Non-Linear
- Risk –Fragility – Uncertainty
- Immediacy
- Monopolization (convergence)
- Surveillance
The paper from Conole and Dyke (2004) generated an
interesting discussion with a response from Boyle and Cook (2004) and a
counter-response from Conole and Dyke (2004).
They argue that it’s wrong to apply the notion of affordances within a
social constructivist context. ‘Gibson’s
approach is (a) not constructivist, and (b) not social’ (Boyle and Cook,
2004). They claim that other theories of
perception are more reconcilable with social constructivism. Oliver (2005) refers to Gregory’s perception
theory: ‘Gregory, for example, presents
a position far easier to reconcile with constructivist perspectives. Perceptions
are predictive hypotheses, based on knowledge stored from the past. ...We carry
in our heads predictive hypotheses of the external world of objects and of
ourselves.’ (Gregory, 1998, cited in Oliver, 2005, p. 405)
McGrenere and Ho (2000, p.7) suggest a two-dimensional interpretation of the affordance concept, ‘where one dimension describes the ease with which an affordance can be undertaken and the second dimension describes the clarity of the information that describes the existing affordance. Each of these dimensions is a continuum.’
The main critique centres on the confusing nature of the
concept, because of its appropriation by different theoretical streams. Oliver’s (2005) concludes that the term is
highly problematic in both its origin and in its application. McGrenere and Ho (2000, p.8) state that ‘as
the concept of a affordances is used currently, it has marginal value because
it lacks specific meaning’.
‘The term becomes shorthand, causally ‘afforded’ by the technologies
and presented as obvious and inherent. Rendering
something as complex as the idea of anytime anyplace learning in this way
closes it to investigation; it simply becomes a black box with an input of
access, which occurs anytime or anywhere, and an output of learning. What is
going on inside the black box has been obscured from view and closed from
enquiry.’ (Oliver, 2005, p.252) ‘Once
prevalence and ubiquity are expanded to include and acknowledge heterogeneity,
the supposed ’affordances’ start to break down and its black box begins to
crack revealing a much more complex system than a mapping of affordance as
input to pedagogy as output.’ (Oliver, 2005, p 254)
Oliver (2005) denounces the taxonomy of affordances,
suggested by Conole and Dyke (2004). ‘This
list [taxonomy of affordances] groups together qualities attributable to the
technology (e.g. multimodality and non-linearity), to its user (e.g.
reflection) and to their mutual relationship (e.g. immediacy). Arguably, such a
list does not conform neatly to Gibson’s, Norman’s or McGrenere & Ho’s
formulation of affordance. Some elements seem consistent with the
essentialised, positivist origins of affordance. Others seem entirely unrelated
– reflection, for example, would be denounced by Gibson. Moreover, the idea
that reflection might be a response to an offering by technology (implying some
causal link) rather than an act of personal agency seems odd. ‘(Oliver, 2005,
p.409)
However, Oliver (2005) acknowledges that a list might be
useful, but objects to the use of the term ‘affordances’. ‘The notion of ‘affordance’ seems ill-suited
to legitimating this conglomeration of claims about perceptions, actions and
characteristics. Something much broader is required. Substituting the word
‘claims’ for ‘affordances’, for example, provides a more plausible framework with
no loss of the central message and no diminution of utility to practitioners.’ (Oliver,
2005, p.409)
A brief ‘tour’ of the literature provides some insight in
the origins and various interpretations of the term ‘affordances’. It seems wise to either refer specifically to
the intended meaning when using it (for example, by referring to Gibson or Norman),
or drop the term altogether, using more neutral terms as ‘claims’ or ‘potential’
instead.
Key references
- Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
- McGrenere, J. & Ho, W. (2000) Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept, Proceedings of Graphics Interface, May, Montreal. Available online at: http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~joanna/papers/gi_2000_affordances.pdf
- Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A. & Jochems, W. (2002) The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments, Educational Technology & Society, 5(1). Available online at: http://www.ifets.info/journals/5_1/kreijns.html (Accessed March 14, 2012)
- Oliver, M. (2005) ‘The Problem with Affordance’, E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(4), pp. 402–413.
- Wright, S. and Parchoma, G. (2011) ‘Technologies for Learning? An Actor-Network Theory Critique of “Affordances” in Research on Mobile Learning’, Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), pp. 247–258.
- Categorization of Affordances, http://acad88.sahs.uth.tmc.edu/courses/hi6301/affordance.html
10 March 2012
Improving Physics Education in Cambodia: Beyond the Workshop
Last week we’ve been organizing a workshop on physics
education for lower secondary teacher trainers in Cambodia at the regional
teacher training centre in Kandal province. All Cambodian physics teacher trainers were
present. That makes around 20
people. The workshop lasted 5 days. Each day we discussed a different part from
the curriculum. There were days we
focused on sound, mechanics, pressure, optics and electricity and
magnetism. The last day participants collaboratively
made a lesson plan using materials they’d learned. There
was a strong emphasis on low-cost experiments, but there’s also attention for simulations
and animations, and student-centred approaches.
The underlying concept of the workshop – and actually the whole programme – is the TPACK concept (Mishra and Koehler,2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2007; Abbitt, 2011), an extension of Shulman’s idea of pedagogical content knowledge, this is knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content.
Read further here (new blog address)
The underlying concept of the workshop – and actually the whole programme – is the TPACK concept (Mishra and Koehler,2006; Koehler and Mishra, 2007; Abbitt, 2011), an extension of Shulman’s idea of pedagogical content knowledge, this is knowledge of pedagogy that is applicable to the teaching of specific content.
Read further here (new blog address)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.