Post 5 - Digital Affordances

Digital Affordances (Small, 2022).

Online activity 8 - Digital affordances critique saw us review any one of the required course readings against the seven questions posed by the course coordinator. These questions asked us to think critically on what the author was trying to convey, as well as how this information holds up against currency, current understandings, and relevancy.

Self-review: I found this task to be challenging at times - the required reading I selected was Hutchby (2001) ‘Technologies, Texts and Affordances’. While I felt agreeable with the core arguments, the highly theoretical and abstract tone of some of this work required multiple readings. Once I understood the key messages, answering the seven questions felt like a natural progression to some of the critical thought that had already been going through my mind. Some of the later questions required a deeper level of critical thinking about how this information not only holds up in the current information environment, but also about how it can be related back into practice. These questions were a good exercise in analysing the discourse and applying the key learnings to currently understood ideas and developing understandings in my own practice. Despite this work being published in 2001 (21 years ago), I determined that it was still current and applicable to the educational technology discourse as core concepts are still in conversation in more recent publications (Ng, 2015; Eynon & Potter, 2020).

One of the key ideas Hutchby discusses here is digital learning and social constructivism – in particular, how changes in technology can create social change. Hutchby argues that the social processes and ‘properties’ of technologies are intertwined and interrelated – rather than social as determined by the technology or vice versa. The interpretation of technologies then is to be viewed in terms of its affordances, not its textual or technical properties. Different technologies possess different affordances which place perceived and real constraints on the way that they are applied. The application of some technologies are constrained by conventional concepts and rules which govern their use (such as cost, material properties, norms, safety, and attractiveness); therefore it is important for educators to learn about the affordances of things (Hutchby, 2001). Ng (2015) furthers this point by providing a summary of the affordances of several digital learning technologies for the purpose of making explicit the technologies teachers and educators may utilize in their learning environments. Jeong and Hmelo-Silver argue that for computer-supported collaborative learning the affordances of learning technologies need to be considered in terms of their affordances for collaborative learning. The authors also note that in many instances these learning tools often require multiple technologies to be used, so the affordances should be viewed cumulatively (2016).

A consideration for educators when utilizing technologies for learning is the digital competencies of their learners. While it is somewhat commonplace for educators to assume that their learners (particularly Gen Ys and Zs) are digital natives (such as in Ng, 2015), this is not necessarily the case. Ng goes on to talk about the bring your own device (BYOD) which has been growing in popularity in schools and higher education (2015). The issue with this implication lies in the assumption that all modern learners fall into this category. The reality, as discussed by Williamson, Eynon and Potter (2020) is that despite this rhetoric of the digitally native young person, there is significant variety in the access that young people have to new technologies. This variance of access was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic in which those in the minority without access to technology were excluded from their social networks and access to digital learning opportunities. 

This shaped my practice by making me investigate some of the affordances of technologies already in use within my organisation. Upon doing so I found that some technologies, such as the immersive simulator, had affordances which would allow it to be utilized across a much larger set of training than currently used. While these simulators are initially expensive, a digital upgrade to include another variation of ship (for example) would allow multiple groups of sailors to train on the same (varied) equipment at a much cheaper cost, while allowing a higher quality of training on familiar systems - on the condition that fidelity is equal to that of the real equipment.

References:

Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2016). Heutagogy: A holistic framework for creating twenty-first-century self-determined learners. B. Gros, Kinshuk, & M. Maina (Eds.), The future of ubiquitous learning: Learning designs for emerging pedagogies (pp. 25–40). Springer.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247-265.

Ng, W. (2015). Affordances of new digital technologies in education. New digital technology in education: Conceptualizing professional learning for educators (pp. 95–123). Springer https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641

Small, L. (2022). Digital Affordances [digital visualization on the internet]. https://www.canva.com/design/DAFIWNnjsI8/VofE6QBivOozk1AjGsld7w/edit?utm_content=DAFIWNnjsI8&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=sharebutton

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114.