How to analyze the affordances of an ICT tool for teaching and learning? Look at the following definition of 'usefulness' given by Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, and Beers (2004):
The usefulness of any ICT tool such as a mobile phone can be analyzed from two main perspectives: utility and usability. Utility refers to the functions of the tool, and usability refers to its ease of use. In education, the utility can further refer to its educational functionality and social functionality.
Similarly, the affordances of an ICT tool for teaching and learning can be analyzed from the following three perspectives:
Pedagogial affordances
Pedagogical affordances refer to the possibility that the ICT tool can help to achieve the predetermined learning objectives. More specifically, pedagogical affordances include pedagogical approaches and learning activities that the tool can support. Examples of pedagogical approaches include:
If the ICT tool can help to accomplish any of the above approaches, components or events, it has pedagogical affordances.
More specifically, we may consider the following questions when investigating the peagogical affordances of an ICT tool:
Social Affordances
Social affordances refer to the properties of an ICT tool that act as social-contextual facilitators relevant to the learner's social interaction. The social affordances of ICT tool determine if it can provide a safe, comfortable, and convenient environment.
Technical Affordances
Technical affordances mainly refer to the capacity and usability of the ICT tool. Some ICT tools provide different versions (such as a free version, an educational version, or a full version) with different capacities (e.g. number of users supported, various band width, and different storage sizes).
Usability mainly refers to the interface design, including ease of use, ease of learning, error free, attractiveness, customization, and technical support. Relationship among the P.S.T affordances
Effective design of pedagogy or social interaction very much depends on the availability of technological support. Without sufficient support of technology, undoubtedly many pedagogical and social design activities such as 3D simulations or asynchronous online discussions will be hard to implement. However, the primary factor that influences the effectiveness of learning is not the availability of technology, but the pedagogical design and social design (Mandell, Sorge & Russell, 2002).
Technical affordance is a necessary condition for an ICT tool to be useful for teaching and learning. However, it is not a sufficient condition. Pedagogical affordance and social affordance are key components to consider. Pedagogical and social affordances may overlap in certain situations. Their relationship can be illustrated in the following figures:
Study one of the following examples, identify the P.S.T affordances of the ICT tool/platform based on the template given in the appendix at the end of this page or download the DOC version from the link located below.
![]()
How to submit your analysis result?
Use the comment function on the end of the page
Click here to jump to top.
65 Comments
Merv, Resham, Iran
6/8/2016 03:50:48 pm
Template for Affordance Analysis of an ICT Tool Based on the PST Model
Reply
6/8/2016 03:55:45 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12B_0lge2i9AvGMX459EBnCS4PE4eDU6U_b7AswEUin4/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Norman Y Lai
1/25/2017 11:02:00 pm
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6LtRoxJz7xpMEtaVlRFU3R5WU0
Reply
Roshni
1/26/2017 01:15:55 pm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4BZy4cF0v3UNFl1SUd6ODloWnM/view?usp=sharing
Reply
Hazel Hui Yee
1/29/2017 02:45:44 pm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9HYsrcpLMlJUUE4WkgzTlhzTlE/view?usp=sharing
Reply
sri ram kumar
1/30/2017 03:15:38 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19TC0A4pNl4TnlFOvnt1wZi9PSzuOMKoDywK8jC1BgF4/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Kenny Lew Sin Tat
2/1/2017 02:28:10 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skBKtgND9MBFThM8YGJ7aRLwyxMWI9UcyNKfXeuY4OE/pub
Reply
Haw Shuen Siang
2/1/2017 03:34:28 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1txJo8ftk3i_FK5chwFhWHHsJfn3ndbUYjnAp2dAweDM/edit
Reply
Haw Shuen Siang
2/2/2017 07:18:11 am
Pls use the shared link below, not this
Reply
Mridula Pradhan
2/1/2017 04:33:08 pm
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pBGvwX_hl9xpqy_W0JGMsZ4PTo0JuHfYsV3ERv8VK1A
Reply
Suzanne Yap Mei Lin
2/1/2017 07:18:32 pm
https://docs.google.com/a/moe.edu.sg/document/d/1sx4bW5RxYOIbbyGMRY3mrLSEJBDlVUdfnxg4VXv9h28/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Wong Mei Leng, Anne
2/1/2017 11:39:53 pm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzFvR8kQs89mNFZhaF82YTh6aTA/view?usp=sharing
Reply
Haw Shuen Siang
2/2/2017 07:17:14 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1txJo8ftk3i_FK5chwFhWHHsJfn3ndbUYjnAp2dAweDM/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Kelvin Loy
2/3/2017 10:17:13 am
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vsxMl48FYCeGdlbFktNFhlS0U/view?usp=sharing
Reply
Helen Teo
2/3/2017 06:29:07 pm
Affordance_analysis_of_tools_based_on_PST3_Helen
Reply
Nur Liyana
2/3/2017 08:16:29 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SMhxuwv2pUeJWN9OwOYEv0ax5c9nuNcV8rxvGtV9nxo/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Grace Bong
2/4/2017 11:40:29 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pfNdAFRzNfXn1BhFYaCtcxw0Vo1O6E-4ZbAay3B7nOg/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Ang Guangyi Stuart
2/4/2017 10:48:43 pm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4GT-9NQR1MmTDQzbU0wbjdic1E/view?usp=sharing
Reply
Thomas Lee
2/4/2017 11:11:03 pm
Reply
Aileen Chai
2/5/2017 01:08:50 pm
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1NCpRQM3vMcX2dPUnVtbXl2Znc
Reply
Gayathri
2/5/2017 04:55:10 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gpug1IYgeHKbtENeykEXKLO4SPKJrX7wFyxq1TbgL3Q/edit?ts=5896e79b
Reply
Tan Geok Lee
2/5/2017 05:07:44 pm
Template for Affordance Analysis of an ICT Tool Based on the PST Model
Reply
Ivan Han Fuchou
2/7/2017 12:07:18 am
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3p1unJ03baCOE5PR1RwaUVnN1E/view?usp=sharing
Reply
Gemma Loke
2/7/2017 01:28:03 pm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8qqVNYWIM20b25RVkIwSlZpbnM/view?usp=sharing
Reply
Group 1 2018
2/6/2018 08:34:00 pm
https://tinyurl.com/ybpcconc
Reply
Group 3
2/6/2018 08:45:28 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zh3NNhdaZQoF9s8RwMdUVS7xik9tah0K-nSOSyt-egE/edit
Reply
2/6/2018 08:53:30 pm
Our google doc link for Template for Affordance Analysis of an ICT Tool Based on the PST Model.
Reply
Pamela Low (Group 2)
2/6/2018 08:55:03 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MFfgmJjuH4yTn4cxrH464G19eQvZ8GfbyLm1ZqN6xnw/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Grp 4 discussion
2/6/2018 08:56:42 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W6Y4IZRvh4YYH_wnJXQY6GyvbttlfCKopz10OzKoakg/edit
Reply
2/7/2018 02:13:07 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g4N6X9AodRbI4bQUGvBo4outua5hGa74CZqHLBPTWeo/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Reply
Lynette
2/15/2019 09:13:57 pm
I have found that using the PST affordances to analyze the affordances of an ICT such as Microsoft powerPoint versus Google slides. At face value and without looking into the pedagogical, social & techological affordances of such tools, an educator with little understanding of how these affordances can lend itself to effective teaching and learning could easy just adopt what they are comfortable with (Microsoft powerPoint). On the other hand Google slides offers the social affordances that Microsoft powerpoint does not therefore making it a better tool for teaching and learning. My take away from this session is that as designers we should not adopt an ICT tool because it’s the latest and newest on the market but to examine the affordances for teaching and learning. I found the PST perspective to analyzing ICT tools very useful. My questions now is whether a tool that ticks fewer PST affordances would be less effective in teaching and learning or does it depend on the context that we use that particular tool in?? Any thoughts?
Reply
Nazrah
2/16/2019 07:16:47 am
Hi Lynette,
Reply
Lynette
2/17/2019 05:55:24 pm
Hi Nazrah
christina
2/17/2019 09:09:17 pm
Hi Nazrah,
Seah Lee Chean
2/20/2019 10:08:48 pm
i agree that tools may look similar to one another but that would be obvious advantage for using one vs another. I believe that as educators, we should have an in-depth knowledge of the tools rather than use a tool for a purpose. Many of these tools offer similar affordances although there are some differences between them. It is thus important for educators to recognise the congruency between the real and perceived affordances, otherwise, we run into the risk of using tools and being cognizant of the hidden affordances it has.
christina
2/17/2019 09:36:18 pm
Hi Lynette,
Reply
Christina Peh
2/16/2019 12:08:43 am
This week, we were introduced to a few conceptual models that were used to guide the process of ICT integration. TPACK, PST and CoI models were developed to analyse the ICT affordances based on the components of content, pedagogy, social interaction, and technology. Teachers can use these different models as a guide for ICT integration in the curriculum. The focus of this week’s lesson is on the PST model. The PST model investigates if the designed learning environment has the affordances of an ICT tool or a technology enhanced learning environment from three perspectives: pedagogical, social and technological (Wang, 2008a).
Reply
Nazrah
2/16/2019 08:15:51 am
The PST model helps us to analyse the affordance of a cognitive tool and consider its usefulness. The video sharing by everyone was an enriching experience that exposes the various tools available and the affordances it offers. I hought that it was interesting that a cognitive tool can have false affordance even though the perceptible affordance is assumed to serve that function, as in the case of the failed discussion forum. In my own experience using ICT in class, sometimes technical glitch happens like students cannot post commenst or the video cannot play suddenly. It is always frustrating when that happens. It is also a good reminder that Pedagogical and Social affordance are the main focus and technology is there to support. We should not use technology for the sake of using it, without being clear what learning objective it is able to achieve.
Reply
Jih Heong
2/16/2019 03:03:03 pm
Hi Nazrah, I think we must be careful about the term we are using. You mentioned that “the false affordance even though the perceptible affordance is assumed to serve that function”. I believe what you meant is “the perceived affordance is assumed to serve that function”. I believed that false affordance arises mainly due to poor user interface design which might misled one to see and think of the affordance incorrectly. I remember one classmate mentioned about a clothes design. Sometimes, the design might want to add a pocket like design to enhance the appearance of the apparel (true affordance). However, as a consumer, we might apparel has a working pocket for us to keep our stuff (perceived affordance). This resulted in the apparel having false affordance. For the case that you mentioned, I believe that the tool is designed to have perceptible affordance. However, due to technical glitches, it loses its perceptible affordance. With the lost in function, it now has false affordance.
Reply
Esther
2/20/2019 02:52:04 pm
Hi Nazrah, I agree with you that technology supports pedagogical and social affordances. In the case of the failed discussion forum, because of a lapse in technology, the pedagogical and social affordances became redundant as they could not be accessed or used. In other examples such as a connection problem or lag, this could end up in the teacher spending more time trying to fix the problem than carrying out the activity with the tool. Unfortunately this means that the lesson would have been very unproductive and all the benefits promised by the affordances would have not been met.
Reply
Duan Jingjing
2/16/2019 10:55:24 am
The PST model (pedagogical, Social, technical) enables us to analyze the ICT tool with our cognition from its real affordances to exploring its hidden affordances for teaching and then organise our perceived affordances of the tool into chopped criteria for teachers to test for its usefulness and usable ness.
Reply
Jih Heong
2/16/2019 02:41:10 pm
Dr Wang’s attempt to sum up Gibson’s and Norman’s work using a Venn diagram is very helpful. It sheds some light as to how one can look at the perceptual information-affordance graph. Perceptible affordance seems to be the intersection of the real affordance and the perceived affordance. We might want to be mindful when we are using the term perceived affordance vs perceptible affordance. I think that perceived affordance is what the user sees or thinks a tool can do. This is highly dependent on the design or the interface of the tool. If what one perceived is not what the tool can offer, then this perceived affordance becomes a false affordance. The other thing I find useful in today’s lesson is the PST model. Although there are many model introduced, with many commonalities, PST model, with the checklist, provides a guide for evaluating the affordances of any ICT tools that we wish to adopt. The more areas it fulfills, the more powerful or useful is the tool. However, one must always be mindful of the context of the tool being used. The characteristics of the cognitive tools states that it is a concept. We must design our lesson keeping in mind the pedagogical affordances and social affordances and using the technical affordances to support the first two.
Reply
K Pavitra
2/17/2019 10:42:03 am
I agree with you Jih Heong,it is important for us to keep PST affordances in mind when choosing a ICT tool to integrate into our lessons effectively. Without the technical affordances, it is difficult to implement the learning tasks or online group discussions. Internet connection was a challenge when I implemented lessons with Nearpod and Kahoot. When I tried Student learning space for my lesson,it was interactive with different multimedia such as videos and good interaction platform between teacher-student and student-student.I was able to provide real-time feedback and address misconceptions. However, the internet connection was a little unstable and lagged at times.
Reply
K Pavitra
2/17/2019 10:24:29 am
The main take away I learnt was comparing three different models such as Community of Learning(CoI) model,TPACK model and PST Model.I also learnt how these models help teachers to integrate ICT tools into our lessons effectively and support in teaching and learning.I agree that although the three models are different,they have similar components to help teachers to design learning tasks effectively. When teachers use TPACK model,they would need to understand the interaction between technology,pedagogy and content knowledge in order to support in their teaching.When using PST model,teachers can analyze the PST affordances of ICT tools to make learning environment meaningful(Bower,2008).CoI(Community of Inquiry)model ensures social,teaching and cognitive presences in the learning environment(Wang,2009).
Reply
Teng Hang Chuan
2/19/2019 02:15:27 pm
I agree. However, when we analyse any teaching action or lesson with cognitive tool, we don't just analyse the tool alone. That would reduce the task into just identifying the affordances of a cognitive tool. More importantly, we should view it from the perspective of the PST together as a unit and not that it is made up of its subsets of PS, ST or PT. In comparing the tools, again we would need to consider the entirety of the PST and not the accumulation of plus points of the subsets.
Reply
Teng Hang Chuan
2/19/2019 02:08:57 pm
I disagree with the first statement " Effective design of pedagogy or social interaction very much depends on the availability of technological support." Pedagogical design does not depend on the availability of technical support. Pedagogical design stems from our culture, subject discipline, understanding our student profile and mastery of teaching and learning strategies.
Reply
Kasni
2/20/2019 12:55:41 am
One takeway from last week lesson is the understanding on the purpose of Pedagogical, Social and Technical affordance in using ICT tool to make it effective in teaching and learning. Educators must understand that the use of ICT in teaching and learning is to support the pedagogical affordance and the ability to utilize the interaction function to facilitate socialization among students in the process of learning. Thus, through a better understanding of the PST affordances towards the use of a particular ICT tool, the educator could justify its use and provide opportunity for students to leverage on technology to make learning more meaningful, enhance the quality of teaching and motivating students to take ownership of their own learning.
Reply
Esther
2/20/2019 02:44:32 pm
I thought the example of using Zoom as a video conference tool in this module was very interesting. We discussed that while Zoom is not a tool designed for education and hence, it’s affordances are more social and technical than pedagogical, Dr Wang’s perceived affordances of Zoom as a collaborative and interactive cognitive tool adds a pedagogical dimension to it. Using Gagne’s nine events of instruction, I believe that the use of Zoom as a video conferencing tool in class fulfills most of the 9 conditions. For example, the tool allows the eliciting of performance - when Dr Wang assigns online participants to offline groups and tasks online participants to present the content the group has collaborated on.
Reply
Nazratul Nadiah
2/22/2019 06:27:59 pm
Hi Esther,
Reply
Seah Lee Chean
2/20/2019 10:19:46 pm
In this week’s learning, Dr Wang reiterated that technology is a supporting tool and that an effective learning environment is dependent more on the pedagogical and social design of the lesson. I fully concur with this perspective. As MOE and schools push towards greater adoption of ICT and pervasive use of ICT, technology now appears more as a must do rather than an extension of learning in some cases. For example, Linoit and Padlet have replaced whiteboards in FAST-kits and collaborative work online has reduced the need for group discussion and consenses. While ICT has its own merits, I think as educators, we should constantly consider “What are the advantages that ICT have over paper and pen?” Or “What is the objectives or outcomes we want to see when we engaged users in using ICT tools?” The answers to these questions can then point us to the right direction to the use and choice of ICT tools.
Reply
Ng Shi Ming Tammy
2/22/2019 07:40:31 pm
I agree with Lee Chean that we should consider what the advantages of an ICT tool have over paper and pen. Some tools can have many pedagogical and social affordances to aid online learning. However, sometimes, it might not work well in a classroom environment. For example, Twitter is a great platform to share ideas and engage in meaningful discussions. However, if Twitter is used in a classroom setting, a teacher might not be able to monitor 40 responses and comments and one go. Instead, an offline environment is much better at facilitating discussions as the teacher is able to be in control of the flow of discussions.
Reply
Nazratul Nadiah
2/22/2019 06:10:05 pm
Im more aware of the importance in looking into the different aspects of affordances that a cognitive tool has. When using a certain tool for teaching or learning, the 3 conditions that we should look into would be the pedagogical, social, and technical aspects. Besides the Gagne's 9 conditions of learning, pedagogical affordance
Reply
Ng Shi Ming Tammy
2/22/2019 07:16:18 pm
This week, we learned about how to analyse ICT tools by looking at the pedagogical, social and technical affordances of ICT tools. By combining the COI model and TPack model, Professor Wang came up with the PST model that includes all the attributes in the COI model and Tpack model. In the PST model, other than the 3 types of affordances, I find it useful that context is also included in the model as the usefulness of ICT tools differs for different learning environments. For example, Kahoot can be used in a school where mobile phones are allowed to be used in class. So Kahoot is able to support students’ learning progress by accessing their understanding in a subtopic after a short lesson. However, in a school where mobile phones are not allowed, Kahoot is not able to provide the same pedagogical affordance.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |