Support material for students participating in Introduction to Learning and Educational Technology course.

Learning & Educational Technology Research Unit Faculty of Education University of Oulu, Finland OVERVIEW: Education is always a unique combination of technological, social, and educational contexts and affordances. Classical educational contexts, for example, are often competitive (educational) and individual (social), with students worki at ng their own place on their own (physical and technical). Group learning, on the other hand, makes use of collaborative or cooperative pedagogies (educational), in groups (social), and provides a group workspace with the necessary assortment of materials (physical and technical). CSCL represents yet another learning situation.The educational context is collaborative, the social context is the group, and the technological context is a computermediated setting.(P. Kirschner, Strijbos, Karel Kreijns, & Beers, 2004)

Figure 1 - Usefulness is determined by various types of affordances (P. Kirschner et al., 2004)

A. Technologicalaffordances:

Figure 2 Examples of technological affordances according (Mcloughlin & Lee, 2007)

http://jarinopetus.wordpress.com

Support material for students participating in Introduction to Learning and Educational Technology course. Learning & Educational Technology Research Unit Faculty of Education University of Oulu, Finland

B. UTILITY Educational and social functionality

1. Educational functionality Educational affordances(P. Kirschner, 2002)
Educational affordances are those characteristics of an artifact (e.g., how a chosen educational paradigm is implemented) tha t determine if and how a particular learning behavior could possibly be enacted within a given context (e.g., project team, dis tributed learning community). Educational affordances can be defined- analogous to social affordances - as the relationships between the properties of an educational intervention and the characteristics of the learner (for CSCL: learner and learning group) th t enable a particular kinds of learning by him/her (for CSCL: members of the group too).

Figure 1- Examples of pedagogical affordances according (Mcloughlin& Lee, 2007)

2. Social affordances(K Kreijns & P. A. Kirschner, 2002)

Social affordances are properties of CSCL environment that act as social- contextual facilitators relevant for the learner s social interactions. When they are perceptible, they invite the learner to act in accordance with the perceived affordances, i.e., start a task or non-task related interaction or communication. This definition of social affordance is inspired by the term techn logical o affordance. Both are specializations of the general term affordance described by Gibson (1986). (K Kreijns & P. A. Kirschner, 2002) Examples of theoretical principles: (P. Kirschner, 2002) o Shared understanding:the state where two or more people have equivalentexpectations about a situation, i.e., their explanations of the situation and theirpredictions for how it might develop are the same. A lack of shared understandingoften leads to coordination breakdowns (mismatch between expectations of oneparticipant and actions of another) or conflict (the perception of opposing goals, aims,and values). o Accountability: the social mechanism underlying responsible behavior; e.g., notplagiarizing a fellow team member, not working for the disadvantage of a fellow teammember. o Trust: the deciding factor in a social process that results in a decision byan individualto accept or reject a risk based on the expectation that another party will meet theperformance requirements (Zolin, Fruchter, & Levitt, 2000).

http://jarinopetus.wordpress.com

Suppo t t i l fo stud nts p ti ip tin in nt odu tion to L nin nd du tion l hnolo ou s L nin & du tion l hnolo s h nit ult of du tion ni sit of ulu inl nd
( (

Soci l cohe ion: the te e cy of group members to stic together (Sproull& iesler,1991) and the su m of all forces which act on individuals to stay in a group (Festinger,1968). Simply stated: the tendency of group members to like and trust one another. Pre ict ilit : the quality of a situation that allows those in that situation to foretellthat - on the basis of observation, e perience, or scientific reason - an e p ectedoutcome will turn out to be the actual outcome.
HH GF E D 7 7 C 6 8B9 A 5 43 98 @9 87 2 6

Exampl cial ac i (Hanrahan, Ahu a, P r z-Quinones, Kavanau h, ) o so i l b owsin nd s hin in the conte t of Facebook, but the concepts are generalizable to SNSs. o nt tion - We include any kind of direct interaction between two or more individuals via the medium of the social o o
network site in our definition of interaction. Sh in Cont nt - Several social network sites arecentered around the activity of users sharing content -YouTube and Flickr being popular mainstream e amples. Coll bo tion - The concept of working together towards acommon goal, or Collaboration, has a cyclic cause -effect relationship with social capital - both are beneficial to each other.
d c ef b e a` T R IQP S PR Q YXW V P I U

Examples of social Features(Hanrahan et al., 2011) o Tagging - Web-based tagging systems let users annotate a particular resource, such as a web page, a blog post, an image, o o o o
or about any object with a freely chosen set ofkeywords. Tags usually support finding and shar ing content. Acti it St ams - Are flowing commentaries on users actions on the different sections of the site and are an effective way of discovering content. Us P ofil s - User profiles are central to the concept of a Social Networking Site. Profiles provide users their identity on the system, andaid in discovery of common interests and articulating relationships. Comments - Comments are the primary conversational medium on SNSs, and often e press social relationships. Ratings and Votes - Ratings are a fundamental component of reputation systems for users of SNSs. These reputation systems hold value in certain areas and have been found to facilitate interaction, trust, and limit aversive behavior.
s pi q h g r rq

Hanrahan, B., Ahuja, S., Perez -Quinones, M., & avanaugh, A. (2011). Evaluating software for communities using social affordances.Pro d ng o th 2011 annua con rence extended ab tracts on Hu an factors in c o puting systems - CHI EA 11 (p. 1621). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1979742.1979818 Kirschner, P. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. (Paul A Kirschner, Ed.) hree Words of CSC Can we Support CSC . Open Universiteit Nederland. Retrieved from http://www.ou.nl/Docs/Expertise/NELLL/publicaties/Three%20worlds%20of%20CSCL%20Can%20we%20support%20CSCL.pd f Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. -W., Kreijns, Karel, & Beers, P. J. (2004).Designing electronic collaborative learning environments.Educationa Techno ogy Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66. Springer Boston.doi:10.1007/BF02504675 Kreijns, K, &Kirschner, P A. (2002).The Sociability of Computer -Supported Collaborative Learning Environments.(R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada, Eds.) Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8-22. Springer. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/5_1/kreijns.html Mcloughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning : Pedagog ical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2 . 0 era Introduction : Social trends and challenges. Current, 664-675. Retrieved from http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/referral/advsearch/http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.p df Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation.In J Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods (Vol. 17, pp. 25-62). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1089/tmj.2010.0114 Thompson, A.-J., & Kemp, E. A. (2009). Web 2.0: extending the framework for h euristic evaluation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference NZ Chapter of the ACM s Special Interest Group on Human -Computer Interaction - CHINZ '09 (pp. 29-36). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1577782.1577788
y

! "

http://j

p etus

press c

$ ! "  #

Re e e ce
v u

 

 )

'

& 

Suppo t material for students participating in Introduction to Learning and Educational Technology course. Learning & Educational Technology Research Unit Faculty of Education Uni ersity of Oulu Finland

http://jarinopetus.wordpress.com