CHARACTERISTICS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL, MES

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

MASTERS IN ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAM

TECHNOLOGY @ WORK - SPRING 2017

CONNECTING BASICS

• The internet works by routing information through trunks identified by their unique numbers called an IP address or Internet Protocol Address. An example is 255.128.64.08 or whatever numbers that identify which server is being requested.

• Domain names are linked by a directory to an IP address. Typing in a domain name will look for the IP address on the server and provide a call for information based on that number.

FINDING THE SERVER

It is possible to find the server or servers by doing a lookup much like a telephone book. Many online services can assist simply by inputting the domain name or the IP address.

INQUIRY

•How technologies are designed matters. • What affordances do they have?

• How do they direct and constrain possible uses?

• What are the political and social influences they reveal?

AFFORDANCE

• Gibson (1977) defined affordances as: All ‘action possibilities’ latent in the environment, objectively measurable and independent of the individual’s ability to recognize them, but always in relation to the actor and therefore dependent on their capabilities. (Gibson 1977, pp. 67–82) (from Conole, p.2)

• An affordance indicates potential and is represented by design to communicate use through the interpretation of the user. (C. Caldwell)

MORE FROM G. CONOLE

• McGrenere and Ho identify three properties of affordances (McGrenere and Ho 2000):

1. An affordance exists relative to the action capabilities of a particular actor.

2. The existence of an affordance is independent of the actor’s ability to perceive it.

3. An affordance does not change as the needs and goals of the actor change.

AFFORDANCE IS NOW VIRTUAL

• Motion in air is now resolute to determine highly defined intentions

• Thoughts are now becoming input devices

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk1NkWl_W2Y

• How will this affect design?

AFFORDANCE…MORE

• Perception of the affordance is key to understanding its utility

• An affordance is an interface and also communicating how it interfaces

• In contrasting with the idea of technological determinism:

• Are we designing the technology or is it designing us? Do we separate the affordance from the utility? Technologies and users co-evolve in a complex relationship and determining ‘affordance’ may assist with technology assessment.

CONTINUED…

• Gaver (1991) identifies affordance as either: perceptible, hidden, or false. With regards to utility we may want to look at design of affordance as efficient, covert and misleading, respectively. Thus, we always seek to design for efficiency.

• We always look to maximize EASE, VALUE and COLLABORATION.

• COLLABORATION – co-constructing knowledge by exploring new forms of dialogue, sharing and communication.

KEYS TO DESIGN SUCCESS

• Build for perceived outcome. I.e. a dating app should afford an expectation of meeting someone who is well matched. A productivity app should allow for attractive and informative output with minimal effort assisting with the intended outcome.

• Build for replacing out dated routines and behaviors. Automate tasks that are losing value.

• Make for knowledge building (Learning) and COLLABORATION not just knowledge sharing – add VALUE by enabling working together

LEARNING

• Occurs in reflective practice. Blogs, forums and e-portfolios.

• Must have influence during the interaction with the learner that moves towards the educational goal – change in behavior and mindset resulting in greater capability (Wagner 1994)

• Technology can contribute to learning by: enhancing interest, increased access to information, displaying information differently, structuring the process, diagnosingand correcting, managing complexity (Edelson et al. (1999) cite Blumenfeld et al. (1991) in Conole)

POSITIVE AFFORDANCES / CONSTRAINTS

• Positive affordances include collaboration, reflection, interaction, dialogue, creativity, organisation, inquiry and authenticity.

• Constraints include time consuming (in terms of development), time consuming (in terms of support), difficult to use, costly to produce, assessment issues, lack of interactivity and difficult to navigate.

• Design must consider both positive and negative impacts of the technology with care that real world problems and real data allow for authentic learning.

REFERENCES

• Conole, G. (2012). Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies. pp 85-100

• Gaver, W. W. (1991, April 28–May 2). Technology affordances. CHI’91 Conference Proceedings (pp. 79–84), New Orleans, Louisiana.

• Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a function definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(20), 6–29.