day 3 of affordance-based courseMay 20, 2007
Previously i wrote about the ideas of the affordance-based learning design course in web 2.0 environments. We collected a number of learning landscapes and activity patterns in these from the learners and tried to figure out where the difficulties in understanding the affordance conception are.
Yesterday we had the last day of the course in which students presented their collaborative web 2.0 learning designs which they tested in groups.
One group developed group aggregator page and intends to keep it throughout their master period.
One group wrote about affordances in google-docs which i thought was quite interesting, because they really perceived how the group members start constraining the affordances of tools which they can use as a group.
Two groups presented learnig environments, where they worked together using google.docs and the different instant messaging and VoiP (Skype, gabbly chat, email, msn). And one group used google.docs for istant messaging.
One group combined information search in aggregator for constructing coursework about web 2.0 in google.docs. They argued that they don’t need any messaging or VoiP to communicate, because they meet every day in realtime.
One group integrated the homework of this course with the homework of project learning course, and developed the schemas using Vyew environment. Interesting was that they commented that the collaboration and shared learning environment design and application part where they tried to work in distributed settings was more challenging and fun for them than the project what they developed together.
We also tested the second prototype of iCamp folio in which we changed Betty Collis activities with the list of affordances. It seemed to work nicely (only one commen came what we mean by artifacts).
However, the problems emerged with the tool when all participanst had added their preferences of affordances thinking about their shared collaborative activity.
We suddenly found out that the people and tools were distributed very differently at each computer-screen. I could not explain them why…
Initially we thought that the toold is very good to demonstrate for the participants whether they had perceived affordances within their collaborative work group similarly.
All in all the course was very positively evaluated. Some students commented later that they learned a lot how to work in self-directed manner and that the course arised a lot of new ideas how to use those environments for learning purposes.
I also feel that we (us with the students) did something quite interesting from the theoretical viewpoint – the dataset what we collected is quite usable to understand the affordance conception in we 2.0 environments. I believe that, after i have had some time for analysis i can come up with more general assumptions.
The course is not all over yet, we expect the last homework about the evaluation of perceived affordances, used affordances and pedagogically sound affordances within learners’ self-directed and collaborativel learning environments to clarify some more aspects about the dynamic nature of affordances, affordance-coherence in groups etc.
All the course designs can be viewed from the course aggregator in which we feed together the participants blogs in which they did homework and reflection.