affordance description revisedFebruary 6, 2007
Yesterday, after discussions with Mart and Terje we decided to keep the activity part of affordance descriptions at operatonal level.
The revised elements of affordances can, thus be:
person properties (convey pedagogical content)
Different kinds of activities (brainstorming, 6-hats, collaborative inquiry, procedural writing etc. presuppose certain actors)
etc. (maybe to use some LOM terms?)
manipulable operations (because we can measure them)
*filter (means tags and search etc.)
*publish (give access)
*create (inside artifact)
*edit (inside artifact)
*reorganise (between artifacts)
*add (between artifacts)
*delete (between artifacts)
ontological properties of operations (convey pedagogical content)
Ontological properties of manipulable operations are: define, describe, explain, compare, realte, justify, argument, direct order, indirect order, guidline, request for repair, prompt, hint, request for confirmation, accept, partial accept, pumping, adopt, reject, negative/positive feedback, displace, splice, hypothesis/guess, classify, categorize, infer, explain, generalize, summarize. Ontological properties to the manipulative operations (e.g. scaffolding, reasoning, inquiry or other models) can be taken from the analytical frameworks from the research literature (e.g. Clark, Chi, Hmelo-Silver, etc.) Ontological properties are necessary when to explain, why some actions are effective and some not, they enable to interprete the sequences of operations.
Example: filter_personal_artifacts; create_community_interactive’artifact
We also discussed how we start writing down the activities.
The principles so far are:
Each learning-design can be described as the sequence of activities. Activities have pedagogical labels.
Building the learning community:
*establishing connections between learners and facilitators
*getting to know
Organizing learning activities:
*program or outline
*assignment (e.g. peer-reviewed essay)
Each activity can be described as the sequence of actions. Actions have pedagogical labels.
Writing down activity starts from separating the subject-paths ( e.g. facilitator, learner or more depending of the complexity of the activity).
Each subject-path is then described at action level. The list of actions is not closed.
Writing down the activity may be done by using UML activity diagram.
UML editor http://www.visual-paradigm.com/
Each action has to be performed by certain operations.
We discussed, should the operations be categorised into certain groups (e.g. search-filter; create-edit; publish-access-connect-disconnect; add-delete-aggregate-reorganise etc.)or not and do the groups have graphical signs.
The operations at each action will indicate the pedagogical affordances: operation’ontological-property_subject’property_artifact’property,
Each action also suggests the usage or the creation of artifacts. We did not agree how to indicate artifacts. One way is to show the creation or usage of artifacts as moving elements on the activity diagram.
The activity is separated into parts by events (deadlines, benchmarks).
The activity will be written down by:
*UML activity diagram
The descriptions of use cases:
Stakeholders and Interests
The activity descriptons and diagrams do not define certain tools, but indicate the pedagogical affordances of tools.
Tools are tagged with the list of possible pedagogical affordances.
The learner can then select to the activity certain sets of interopearable tools with necessary pedagogical affordances. The learner can also replace any tool in the toolset with individual tool (e.g. use different blog or calendar or aggregator).