testing icamp folioMay 21, 2007
Last saturday we made a small testing with the current icamp folio version where we tried to use the affordance-lists.
We let our students of the affordance-based web 2.0 learning technologies course to evaluate their perceived affordances in relation of the collaborative learning activities which they previously tested in groups. The idea was that the learners of the same group could thisway see are their affordance-sets for the same activity close to each other or not.
The system seemed to be clear for them, but in the phase of comparing each other at UserView they suddenly found out that the plotted users were situated differently at each screen. And it was not easy to explain them what they see on the plot.
So, one thing what we need to do with the plot is to stabilise somehow the view, so that it had a meaning on the screen. For example this kind of userview would help me to find the learning-partners who perceive that they need similar affordances to conduct their activities.
Actually, we argued with Mart would it be better in user view to use instead of affordance-conception the activity-terminology, and in the toolview the affordance terminology. For me, affordances are always emergent in between activities and tools, so they are not part as activities or tools. As they are emergent and in between, the affordances can be described using the language that is taken from the activities. Thus this separation of naming seems quite artificial, but we can do it if it seems necessary for some reasons to label the same things differently.
Second aspect, which we discussed today with Mart and Terje was that for ToolsView we need a different approach. Each user needs a possibility to evaluate the tools according to the affordances:
– separate tool evaluation
– the set of tools evaluation.
Current tool view is exactly the same as userview that is conceptually not correct.
Why this function is useful – thisway we can talk of socially-defined decision-making about tools and toolsets in distributed learning landscapes.
We also argued would the sum of separate tools’ affordances make up the sum of affordances for the set of integrated tools. It seems the answer is no – for example if to evaluate the affordances of an aggregator, weblog and wiki separately, we would miss that aggregators and weblogs could be easily integrated, but there would be difficulties of getting the feeds from wikis to do the same kind of monitoring.
I hope all these ideas will make it possible now to develop a better prototype of Folio.