Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Affordances
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Affordances

514

Published on

Part of our course. Have added some tasks. (Sorry that seems to be my hobby these days :)

Part of our course. Have added some tasks. (Sorry that seems to be my hobby these days :)

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Dear Dr Kshema,
    if you don't mind, would you please allow me to save/download the ppt? because the 'save' setting says: save disabled by the author.

    Thank you
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
514
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Affordances and Functionalities ELE 227
  • 2. What is Affordances? • A means to describe technologies and pedagogies • To select technology to suit a pedagogy • To select pedagogy to facilitate a desired outcome
  • 3. Affordances and Functionalities • McLoughlin and Lee: the pedagogical activities or practices that the function of a technology enables the user to perform • Calls for Imagination and creativity of the individual user as they conceptualise problems or issues in their own environment that the particular tool might facilitate or help solve. • The specific design and functionality of a particular tool or technology does not define its pedagogical usefulness or affordances
  • 4. Categories of ‘affordances’ of Web 2.0 • Connectivity and social rapport • Collaborative information discovery and sharing • Content creation • Knowledge and information aggregation and content modification
  • 5. Affordances and Functionalities Functionality does not always easily translate directly into an affordance with pedagogical significance. • Sometimes there is no obvious or apparent pedagogical use for the functionality of the tool. • Sometimes the functionality can be a drawback. • And in other cases the pedagogical affordance will only be apparent under certain specific conditions and contexts.
  • 6. Affordances of Hypertexts A model based on McLoughlin and Lee Functionalities • Ability to click on a particular word that is highlighted or underlined • Ability to get additional information in the form of multimodal features • Ability to go outside a specific text (no boundaries) • No pre-determined reading order Affordances • Concentrate or focus learner attention on a particular aspect of the artefact (X maybe unnecessary for some learners) • Readers receive (a) more information regarding that specific aspect of the artefact (b) accessibility to readers with multiple learning styles • Readers have access to a wide range of and unlimited resources to facilitate comprehension (X cognitive overload, content-fried) • Ability to chart out an individual reading/ navigation path based on one’s purpose of reading, develops metacognition (X navigation disorientation) X – disadvantages
  • 7. The DiAL-e framework Product of the dynamics between context, functionality and social setting. Some affordances do not facilitate learning. Specify with greater granularity, which tool affords what kind of learning and for whom. DiAL-e framework: filtering affordances to find a tool that matches with genuine learning opportunities.
  • 8. DiAL-e: A learning design framework • Activities to engage students in meaningful and challenging tasks, rather than on content or the transmission of information alone (Burden & Atkinson, 2008). • evaluative tool to discriminate between the various affordances • Active, iterative development that enables users to populate a dynamic matrix with exemplars drawn from personal practice • Two axes in the matrix represent ‘learning spaces’ and ‘learning designs’. – Learning spaces are conceptualised in terms of size (large to small) or modalities of learning (online, lab space, mobile) as spaces in which learners use digital resources when engaging with the learning designs framework.) – The learning designs axis identifies ten discrete, though interrelated, approaches to engaging learners in learning activity (an approach that delineates an activity that provides a genuine learning opportunity). Each of the 10 learning designs has a specific focus and articulates possible activities which require the learner to ‘do’ something with the resource in question.
  • 9. DiAL-e Framework
  • 10. History of ‘Affordances’ GIBSON (from Ecology) • Interaction between environment and organisms. Environment becomes meaningful in its interaction with organisms. • Objective/ Positivistic meaning Fundamental properties: • An affordance exists relative to the action capabilities of a particular actor. • The existence of an affordance is independent of the actor’s ability to perceive it. • An affordance does not change as the needs and goals of the actor change. http://stefedu.blogspot.in/2012/03/h807-on-affordances.html
  • 11. History of ‘Affordances’ NORMAN (from 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 • Provide strong clues to the operation of things • Poor design can be explained in terms of lack of affordances • Purpose of features or objects should be explained by design and not require further explanation • Real vs perceived: those constrained by the environment vs affordances we attribute to features http://stefedu.blogspot.in/2012/03/h807-on-affordances.html
  • 12. Communication Affordances WELLER’s (Framework to use while assessing tools) • Reflective: individual’s experience • Analytical: analyses, argues or proposes an idea • Social: not subject-specific, more like chat • Task: focus on a specific task • Communal: focus on, create or maintain student community • Informal/ formal: style
  • 13. Taxonomy of Affordances CONOLE and DYKE (Framework to use while assessing tools) Drew a list of the potential themes, and commonalities by analysing and critiquing • Current social theory to establish the key features of modernity (Giddens, 1991) • Castells’ work on the nature of the networked society (1996) • The literature on the current use of technologies Checklist for practitioners to help make informed decisions about the use of different technologies. Also for integrating technology in regular classrooms.
  • 14. Taxonomy of ICT Affordances (Framework to use for assessing tools) 1. Accessibility 2. Speed of change 3. Diversity 4. Communication and collaboration 5. Reflection 6. Multimodal and non-linear 7. Risk, fragility and uncertainty 8. Immediacy 9. Monopolization 10. Surveillance CONOLE and DYKE
  • 15. Some tasks that will help you with later assignments. 1. Explore any one web 2.0 tool. Understand functionalities and pedagogical affordances. Identify drawbacks. 2. Construct a task that can be administered via your tool of choice and determine rubrics of assessment. (This is not a very challenging task unless you are looking at a collaborative tool.)
  • 16. Some more Tasks 3. Once all 6 presentations are over, plot their affordances on the DiAL-e framework. 4. By the end of the course, I would like you to draw up your own affordances taxonomy.
  • 17.  Guess that is it for now.

×