Comments for CMI & EFL/ESL

Comment on MII7008 Assignment #3 by kaipata

kaipata — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:10:24 +0000

I like in your essay that you always come to similar ideas that i have been thinking about those issues. This strenghtens my belieth that some things what i think of really exist and are not only the result of my perception

I feel that the following aspects are interesting:
“I’ve italicised part of the subheading to emphasize the idea that there are several types of self-directed learning: one is traditional (offline), another is web-based (online), and the other is hybrid, which is a combination of the first two.no self-directed learning is ever entirely self-directed, it is always a compromise between the intrinsic and the extrinsic. Thus, self-directed learning is likely to take place and be successful when either the actual process of learning has an intrinsic value, eg the learner enjoys learning, or the consequences and benefits of learning hold certain extrinsic or, to be precise, instrumental values, ie achieving learning objectives is perceived as practical or pragmatic, or there is a sound mix of both.”

For me this chapter indicates that there is a new paradigm change coming in learning which makes people to externalise part of their learning practices and results for the community – learning is not to gain something only for myself.

I will continue this comment about affordances…hopefully in my other comment later.

Comment on Should podcasting of lectures become common use? by kaipata

kaipata — Tue, 29 May 2007 07:13:58 +0000

Once i tried to prepare a podcast, and it was very timeconsuming and frustrating activity. Why frustrating – the whole text needs to be thought through earlier, and then it is very difficult to be precise in words and not to make mistakes when you are reading the text to the cast. This will take away all the natural emotions that on my opinion are part of creativity and make the teaching process interesting and enjoiable. Maybe live podcast would be better, especially if you can later on edit it and add necessary links and illustrations, which would make the cast more lively? But then again, i don’t believe all the lecturers would feel comfortable if they are filmed or recorded.

Comment on Teaching Adults by kaipata

kaipata — Thu, 24 May 2007 09:27:26 +0000

Hey, actually this isnt that new at all. I have referred in my weblog to some materials about “conversational learning contracts” which on my
opinion are well applicable in new web 2.0 environments which give new breathing to the old methods and self-directin.
http://tihane.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/learning-contract-ideas/
Unfortunately i don’t have the author of that book, but i think it was from Harri-Augstein & Webb

Comment on Assignment # 1 MII7008 cont’d by Terje Väljataga

Terje Väljataga — Thu, 17 May 2007 12:41:26 +0000

Muljetavaldav nimekiri lubavustest. Ehk on võimalik ka visuaalselt kujutada seda enesejuhitud õpimaastikku, kus need tegevused toimuvad.

Comment on Assignment #2 MII7008 Groupwork – this was a draft, which was finally discarded by kaipata

kaipata — Mon, 14 May 2007 07:46:10 +0000

Huvitav lähenemisviis, nii palju kui ekraanipildilt õnnestus piiluda.

Comment on Web 2.0 and related buzz words by kaipata

kaipata — Sun, 13 May 2007 14:25:41 +0000

Exactly, and as people perceive the affordances differently – different kinds of instructional designs are needed. This brings us back to the instructional design model questions of the first contact day.
http://kaugkoolitus.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/lubavusdisan1.jpg

Two aspects are important – if we assume that affordances are perceived differently by teams – team members need to come to the common grond on their perceptions in order to work effectively.
Secondly, we can’t any more assume that the facilitator or the teacher can define affordances on the learning landscape for students.

Certainly there are also other aspects, and we intend with this course, to elaborate these aspects together with the learners to get better understanding of how affordances are perceived, is there some common perception, which affordances feel important for the learners of your group etc.

Comment on Web 2.0 and related buzz words by Anastasia

Anastasia — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:39:41 +0000

So far I have understood it all so that what exactly you do is not an affordance, whereas why you engage in a certain activity and what it enables you to achieve are. That reminds me of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions:), in other words, an affordance is what you intend or hope to achieve by engaging in whatever synchronous or asynchronous activity. Results and achievements are perceived and hence are interpreted differently by different people.

Comment on Assignment #1 MII7008 (in Estonian and English) by Anastasia

Anastasia — Fri, 11 May 2007 19:29:32 +0000

I don’t think I’ve messed affordances with functionalities, an affordance is what I can afford to do using whatever functionality considering my current level of ability, which admittedly is influenced to a certain extent by my perception of both the task and the tools available.
Affordances are already referred to in activity theory (late 1970s), as all the possible activities that people can carry out when assisted by tools. It is worth noting though that whatever exactly those activities will be can never be fully predicted as individuals are bound to have different ideas as to what tools to use to tackle different tasks.

Comment on Web 2.0 and related buzz words by kaipata

kaipata — Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:13 +0000

Gibson (1979) defined affordances as the opportunities for action for the observer provided by an environment. However, as assumed by Gaver (1996) affordances are primarily facts about action and interaction, not perception. This contrasts with the common impression that affordances refer to—approximately—situations in which one can see what to do (Gibson, 1979). The mainstream view to the affordances in educational technology settings considers them the objective properties of the tools perceptable in the frames of some activities, suggesting that tools have concrete technological affordances for certain performances that can be brought into learner’s perception with specific instructions (Norman, 1988; Gaver, 1996). Neisser (1994) elaborated Gibson‘s affordances distinguishing three preceptual modules: i) Direct perception/action, which enables us to perceive and act effectively on the local environment, ii) Interpresonal perception/reactivity, which underlies our immediate social interactions with other human beings, and iii) Representation/recognition, by which we identify and respond appropriately to familiar objects and situations. Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2002) have defined social affordances as the “properties of a collaborative learning environment that act as social-contextual facilitators relevant for the learner’s social interaction. Neisser’s interpretation, however enables to consider also the interpersonal perception between subjects in action as the source of affordances at social and regulative domains. Kirschner (2002) defined educational affordances as those characteristics of an artifact that determine if and how a particular learning behavior could possibly be enacted within a given context. The contextual aspect of affordances relates with the artifacts and meanings. Thus, instead of relating affordances objectively with the software they should be related with the knots of the Activity System where subjects must realise how they perform joint actions with artifacts and tools in order to accomplish their shared object. Cook and Brown (1999) assumed that affordances are dynamic – the ongoing interactions with the environment and objects, where our previous knowledge applied during the activity helps us to evoke noticing of certain aspects, affordances, and knowing how these affordances could support the activity. This assumption supports the Engeström et al. (1999) view of the dynamic nature of knots in the Activity system.

Comment on Assignment #1 MII7008 (in Estonian and English) by kaipata

kaipata — Thu, 03 May 2007 16:01:30 +0000

However there is a problem with your interpretation of affordances. Affordances are properties that you as a learner will perceive in activities with some tools. YOu have messed affordances with functionalities. What the homework task is – you need to describe with your own words some of the affordances which you perceive during one activity pattern.
Please describe a pattern of few activities as a sequence and in relation to each activity describe which affordances of the Moodle you perceive whan you realise this activity.