Affordances and Constraints

Affordances and constraints

The concept of affordances and its associated concept of constraints have become widespread in the analysis of the use of ICTs in education and are useful in understanding the notion of the pedagogical integration of ICTs. Although the formulation of these concepts is contested (Conole & Dyke, 2004a; Conole & Dyke, 2004b; Boyle & Cook, 2004) affordances of ICTs point to the pedagogical opportunities of ICTs. The affordances of ICTs (and in the case of this research project – the affordances of GoL) can also play a role in shaping and being shaped by the pedagogical perceptions and beliefs of the roleplayers in the GoL / ICT context (including the DeLCs) (Boyle & Cook, 2004; Hammond, 2010).

The concept of affordance initially draws on the work of Gibson and later on, on Norman (Hammond, 2010). The debate between Conole & Dyke (2004a and b) and Boyle & Cook (2004) is influenced by the source of their conception of affordances with the former drawing on Gibson and the latter drawing on Norman. Whereas Gibson tends to focus on the properties of the entity, the approach of Norman would be most appropriate for the topic of this research project not only because it has been applied more commonly with regard to ICTs in education, but also because his notion of affordance not only included the “invariant properties” of ICTs (Hammond, 2010, pg 208) but he was also “interested much more…….in the perception of the user” as an element of affordance (Hammond, 2010, pg 208). In other words, an affordance is made up of both the object’s invariant properties as well as socially constructed perceptions and beliefs relating to their use by (potential) users. For Norman an affordance is not simply derived from objective invariant properties of ICTs, but is also grounded in empirical contexts where the situated perceptions, beliefs and perspectives of roleplayers shape the nature of the affordance.

The concept of affordance is taken further by John & Sutherland (2005). ICTs afford pedagogical integration, however this does not necessarily afford quality teaching and learning. “…it is the relationship between pedagogy within a subject area (the practice of the setting), the subject domain and its culture (the ecology of the setting) and the technology (the tool within the setting) that is crucial to engendering quality learning” (John & Sutherland, 2005, pg 405). In other words effective teaching and learning with technology only takes place when there is a meaningful integration of pedagogy, subject content and ICTs within particular learning environments. It would be pertinent to see whether the beliefs of the DeLCs are consistent with John & Sutherland’s (2005) ideas of the quality PIoICTs.

Conole & Dyke (2004a) developed a taxonomy of general ICT affordances and these could well apply to ICTs-in-Education and GoL labs. (Whether the beliefs of the DeLCs encapsulates these affordances remains to be seen.)

Affordance/ Constraint

Description

Accessibility ICTs provide “easy access to vast amounts of information”Speed of change “Immediacy of access to rapidly changing information”Diversity “Access to a vast range of diverse and different experiences”Communication and collaboration

“Offers the potential for learning enriched by engagement with the ‘other’” as well as the development of new communities

Reflection “ICT has the potential to enable reflection and criticality to be enhanced”

of 13

Multimodal and non-linear

“Leads to the potential for different routes through, and forms of, learning”

Risk, fragility and uncertainty

ICTs can lead to unintended consequences in learning like plagiarism. (This is more of a constraint)

Immediacy The speed of information raises response times.Monopolization “Tension between the benefits of diversification and sharing

of developments”Surveillance “Those with power can extend their gaze and secure greater

knowledge and control over others”Content creation1 “Web 2.0 emphasises the pre-eminence of cintent ctreation

over content consumption. Anyone can create, assemble, organize and share content to meet their own needs and the needs of others”

Knowledge and information aggregation and content modification

Large amounts of knowledge and information can be brought together and syndicated

Table 1: The General Affordances and Constraints of ICTs

I have included the word “constraint” with the word “affordance” in the heading in Table 1 above as these are two sides of the same coin and are not in opposition to each other. For example the affordance of “Accessibility” entails access to vast amounts of information, but the constraint is that this means that much of the information may be of poor quality or irrelevant and therefore a careful pedagogical approach to the unfettered use of Internet information needs to be taken. However, if we look at each affordance/constraint in Table 1 or at some in combination with each other many pedagogical possibilities arise. Even the more negative sounding affordances like “Surveillance” have positive applications like the use of classroom and learning management systems to monitor learning. The “uncertainty” affordance/constraint can facilitate open ended approaches to problem solving and enquiry and project –based learning. On the positive side, for McLoughlin & Lee (2007), “Content creation” and “Knowledge Aggregation” affords what they call Pedagogy 2.0 which is “that the Web is about linking minds, communities and ideas, while promoting personalistion, collaboration, and creativity leading to joint knowledge creation” (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007, pg 668).

Table 2 below attempts to link the general affordances as outlined by Conole & Dyke (2004a) and McLoughlin & Lee (2007) with a range of pedagogical affordances which I have synthesized from much of the “utilization” literature (Macaulay, 2002; Nkumane, 2003; Naidoo, 2004; Barron et al, 2003; Waldegg, 2002). In establishing the beliefs and personal theories of the DeLCs I will ascertain the extent to which they identify these pedagogical affordances.

1 “Content creation” and “Knowledge and information aggregation and content modification” taken from McLoughlin & Lee (2007) with the rest taken from Conole & Dyke (2004a)

of 13

Affor

danc

e/

Cons

trai

nt

Dril

l and

pra

ctice

an

d m

emor

isati

on

Inte

grati

on o

f su

bjec

t con

tent

Anyp

lace

T &

L

Anyti

me

T &

L

Full

rang

e of

co

gniti

ve s

kills

Sim

ulat

e re

al li

fe

situ

ation

s

Auth

entic

real

w

orld

inte

racti

on

and

lear

ning

Enga

gem

ent w

ith

cont

ent

Rese

arch

Asse

ssm

ent a

nd

feed

back

Tran

sfor

m d

ata,

in

form

ation

and

kn

owle

dge

Org

anis

ing

and

stor

ing

info

rmati

on a

nd

know

ledg

e

Mul

tiple

in

telli

genc

es a

nd

lear

ning

sty

les

Mul

timed

ia a

nd

mul

timod

al

repr

esen

tatio

ns

Accessibility Speed of change Diversity Communication and collaboration Reflection Multimodal and non-linear Risk, fragility and uncertainty Immediacy MonopolizationSurveillance Content creation Knowledge and information aggregation and content modification

Table 2: Pedagogical Affordances of ICTs

of 13

Learning takes place in learning environments. “The learning environment has a physical as well as a relationship dimension” (Newhouse, 2002b, pg 6). Learning environments as a physical space as well as a set of relationships affords a variety of types of learning. When considering the affordances of ICTs and avoiding a technocentric approach to affordances (i.e. simply starting with the existence of the technology) “Consideration needs to be given not only to affordances provided by ICT, but also to those provided by the teacher, the other pupils and other resources, the relative balance of these and their interrelationships; for example peer support may direct pupils towards features of ICT which may then become affordances.” (Cox, 2004, pg 27) The following diagram (Cox, 2004, pg 26) demonstrates this interplay of the affordances of relationships and ICTs and their impact on learner attainment within a learning environment:

It is pertinent to take a look at the affordances of GoL laboratories as this is the spatial arrangement that has been used for GoL ICTs and which shapes the learning environment. One way of looking at the affordances of GoL labs is to look at them in the context of the computer lab versus classroom computers debate. (Jenson, 2006; Zandvliet, 2006) I will not go too much into the elements of the debate but will highlight the pedagogical affordances of laboratories which emerge from the debate. Furthermore, without evaluating how or why the GDE took a decision to use the spatial model of the GoL labs it is important to see what pedagogical opportunities they hold. Of course, as a caveat, it is important to remember that affordances are shaped both by the perceptions and beliefs of the users as well as the physical properties of the object. The ICTs, as was mentioned earlier, are housed in GoL laboratories which are tightly secured against theft and vandalism. One feature of computer laboratories in schools generally is that they are sequestrated or removed from the normal classrooms and on top of this the tight security arrangements of GoL further exacerbates this separation. In general the literature is more in favour of the classroom location of computers as this facilitates a greater degree of integration of the ICTs into the teaching and learning process (Zandvliet, 2006). The pedagogical integration of ICTs in labs is constrained but not negated. A pedagogical affordance which emerges from this is that “placing computers in a lab setting allows for more direct instruction of large

of 13

Figure 2: Affordances important to the successful use of ICT

groups / classes and for whole classes to work on the same project at once. Such an arrangement also enables a skills-based training in an individual, one-person per machine learning environment.” (Jenson, 2006). Zandvliet (2006), based on extensive empirical research, indicates the limitations that laboratories place on constructivist teaching and learning and promotes objectivist teaching. It is interesting to note that the management of GDE have decided on computer literacy training for learners as one main use of the labs and that this approach would therefore corroborate Jenson’s (2006) approach. However, they have also directed that the labs should be used for subject based teaching in limited subjects (Maths and Science) and grades. The GDE management did not stipulate what pedagogy should be used in this use of ICTs for subject-based teaching. Furthermore, they have also directed that the labs should be used for project based learning which is a pedagogical use of ICTs and generally has constructivist underpinnings (GDE, 2010 a, b, c, d). ICT integration into classrooms spaces would be more conducive for project based learning that is well integrated with curriculum content, however, short term computer and web-based projects are possible within lab environments. The GDE plan also indicates that teacher training will be provided in project based learning. I will examine the beliefs of the district officials in each one of these utilisation directives from the senior management of the GDE. The affordances of the GoL as laboratories are also shaped by the beliefs of the DeLCs as well as teachers and learners in the GoL schools themselves.

References

Anonymous (n.d.). Concept to Classroom. Retrieved 26/09/2010 from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/index.html

Hofer, B. K. (2008). Personal Epistemology and Culture. In M. S. Khine (ed.), Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies 3 across Diverse Cultures. Springer

Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes C., Kalaydjian. (2003). Large-Scale Research Study on Technology in K – 12 Schools: Technology Integration as it Relates to the National Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol 35, No. 4.

Bialobrzeska, M. & Cohen, S. (2005). Managing ICTs in South African schools: A guide for school principals. Braamfontein: South African Institute for Distance Education.

Borgatti, S. (n.d.). Retrieved 12/09/2010 www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm

Boyle, T. & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding and using technological affordances: a commentary on Conole and Dyke. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, Vol 12, No. 3, 301 – 308.

Butler, R.J. (2006). Investigating the content of core constructs. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 3, 27-33.

Castillo, N. (2007). Measuring the level of use and extent of integration of ICT: An adaptation of the Level of Use (LoU) model. In J. Sánchez (Ed.): Nuevas Ideas en Informática Educativa, Volumen 3, pp.

of 13

339-354, Santiago de Chile: LOM Ediciones. Retrieved 24/09/2010 from http://www.tise.cl/archivos/tise2007/19.pdf

Castillo, N. (2006). The implementation of information and communication technology (ICT): An investigation into the level of use and integration of ICT by secondary school teachers in Chile. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. School of Social Science and Public Policy, King’s College London, University of London.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.

Chen, C. (2008). Why Do Teachers Not Practice What they believe Regarding Technology Integration? The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 102, No. 1, 65 – 75.

Churches, A. (2009). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. Retrieved 26/09/2010 from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/

Cohen, S. (2003) Report on the use of ICTs in Schools Research project. Retrieved from http://www.schoolnet.org.za/sharing/index.htm

Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004a). What are the affordances of information and communications technologies? ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, Vol 12, No. 2, 113 – 124.

Conole, G. & Dyke, M. (2004b). Understanding and using technological affordances: a response to Boyle and Cook, ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, Vol 12, No. 3, 301 – 308.

Cox, M., Abbott, C., Webb, M., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, A., & Rhodes, V. (2004). ICT and attainment: A review of the research literature. A report to the DfES. Retrieved 28/09/2010 from http://research.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=&rid=13648&pagenum=1&NextStart=1&print=1

Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, A., & Rhodes, V. (2004). ICT and Pedagogy: A Review of the Research Literature. A Report to the Department for Education and Skills. BECTA. Retrieved from http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=25813

Cronje, J.C. (2006). Paradigms regained: toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development. 54:4. 387-416. Prepublication version available at http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/handle/2263/2247

Dagada, R. (2004) Educator Competence in Integrating Computers for Teaching and Learning within the Framework of the GautengOnline Project. Unpublished Mini-Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Magister Educationis in Computer-Based Education in the Faculty of Education and Nursing at the Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg

of 13

DoE. (Department of Education) (2009). Report of the Task Team for the Review of the Implementation of the National Curriculum Statement Final Report. Retrieved 26/09/2010 from http://www.education.gov.za/

DoE. (2004). White Paper on e-Education: Transforming Learning and Teaching through Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Notice 1922 of 2004, Government Gazette No. 26762, 2nd Sept, 2004.

DoE. (2007) Guidelines for Teacher Training and Professional Development in ICT. Pretoria.

Dwyer, D. C. (1995). Changing the Conversation About Teaching Learning & Technology ~ A Report on 10 Years of ACOT Research. Apple Computer. Retrieved 25/09/2010 from http://imet.csus.edu/imet1/baeza/PDF%20Files/Upload/10yr.pdf on 27/09/2010 at 21h46 on 27/09/2010

Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in our Quest for Technology Integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, Vol. 53, No. 4, 25 – 39

Factor Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved 30/09/2010 from http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/glossary/

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, Vol. 38, No. 1.

Fleisch, B. (2003). What Works in Education District Development: Lessons from the Field. Discussion Paper. Business Trust.

Florida Center for Instructional Technology, (2007). The Technology Integration Matrix. Florida Center for Instructional Technology, College of Education, University of South Florida. Retrieved 26/09/2010 from http://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/

Fox, D. (1983) 'Personal theories of teaching', Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, 151 — 163

Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. West Essex: John Wiley.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell

GDE. (2010c, August). Untitled document on the Improvement of Teaching and Learning through the use of GautengOnLine and other ICTs. Presentation to the Broad Management Team. Johannesburg.

GDE. (2010d, August). Draft Gauteng On-Line Utilisation Strategy 2010 – 2014. Presented to the Broad Management Team. Johannesburg.

GDE. (2010a, May). Draft Gauteng Online Utilisation Strategy. PowerPoint presentation to the Executive Management Team. Johannesburg.

GDE. (2010e). Legislation / Circulars.Retrieved from http://www.education.gpg.gov.za/

of 13

GDE. (2010a, 20th May). Draft GautengOnline Utilisation Strategy. PowerPoint Presentation to the Executive Management Team of the Gauteng Department of Education. Johannesburg.

GDE. (2010b, July) Gauteng-On-Line (GoL) Utilisation Strategy Updated Draft Implementation Plan: PowerPoint presentation to the Executive Management Team. Johannesburg.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine

Greyling, R. (2008). Factors Influencing the Use and Operations of Gautengonline Computer Laboratories. Unpublished Research report submitted to the Faculty of Management, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management (in the field of Public and Development Management), University of the Witwatersrand.

Grounded Theory. Retrieved 04/09/2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory

Hammond, M. (2010). What is an affordance and can it help us understand the use of ICT in education? Education and Information Technologies Vol. 15, No. 3, 205 – 217.

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & and Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types: Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 41 Issue 4, 393–416.

Higgins, S. and Moseley, D. (2001). Teachers' thinking about information and communications Technology and learning: beliefs and outcomes, Teacher Development, Vol. 5 Issue 2, 191 — 210.

Hlatshwayo, N. F. (2005). The Readiness of Teachers to integrate information and Communications Technology for Learning in a Selected School in the GautengOnline Project. Unpublished Mini-Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Magister Educationis in Computer-Based Education in the Faculty of Education. University of Johannesburg.

Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2006). Revisiting the concept of ICTs as 'tools': Exploring the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of a conceptual framework. Paper for ITFORUM 13-17 March 2006. Retrieved 24/09/2010 from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper88/Hodgkinson-Williams-2006.pdf

Jenkins, J. (1999). Teaching for Tomorrow: The Changing Role of Teachers in the Connected Classroom. Paper presented at Open Classroom Conference – Balatonfüred. Retrieved 23/09/2010 from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.eden-online.org/papers/jenkins.pdf on 26/09/2010

Jenson, J. (2006). Finding space for technology: Pedagogical observations on the organisation of computers in school environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 1.

John, P. & Sutherland, R. (2005). Affordance, opportunity and the pedagogical implications of ICT. Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 4, 406 – 413.

Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 39, No. 3, 5-14.

of 13

Karsenti, T., Harper-Merrett, T., Traore, D., Mbangwana, M., Toure, K. (2009) The PanAfrican Research Agenda on the Pedagogical Integration of ICTs. Paper presented to the 3rd OECD World Forum on “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”: Charting Progress, Building Visions, Improving Life. Busan, Korea, Oct 2009. Retrieved 14/09/2010 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/53/44097541.pdf

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Vol. I, II. Norton, New York.

Knowledge. Retrieved 25/08/2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge Downloaded 25 Aug 2010.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the effective use of Learning Technologies. London and New York: Routledge / Farmer

Macaulay, R. S. (2002). The St John’s Preparatory School Information and Communications Technology Integration Project. Unpublished Master of Education in the Department of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Martínez, C. (2009). Preservice Teachers’ Technology Integration: Development of a Grounded Theory. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2002-2006). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/30915

Mc Loughlin, G. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Retrieved 23/12/2010 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research In Education, Evidence-Based Inquiry. New Jersey: Pearson

Mills, J., Bonner, A., Francis K. (2006). Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for Research Design. International Journal of Nursing Practice Vol. 13, 8 – 13.

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, Vol. 108, No. 6, 1017–1057.

Moersch, C. (1999). Levels of Technology Implementation: A Framework for Measuring Classroom Technology Use. Learning and Leading with Technology, Vol. 26, No. 8.

Moll, I. (Forthcoming). Learning and computing: theoretical perspectives on the pedagogic integration of ICTs. In McCabe, K. & van Wyk, K. (Eds.). Teaching and e-Learning. Cape Town: Macmillan. (Pre-publication version).

Moseley, D., Higgins, S., Bramald, R., Hardman, F., Miller, J., Mroz, M., Newton, D., Tse, H.,Thompson, I., Williamson, J., Halligan, J., Bramald, S., Newton, L., Tymms, P.,Henderson, B. & Stout, J. (1999). Ways Forward with ICT: effective pedagogy using informationand communications technology in literacy and numeracy in primary schools. Newcastle:

of 13

University of Newcastle. Retrieved 30/09/2010 from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001369.htm#Appendix

Munby, H. (1982). The Place of Teachers, Beliefs in Research on Teacher thinking and Decision Making, and an Alternative Methodology. Instructional Science, Vol 11, 201 – 225.

Munby, H. (1984) A Qualitative Approach to the Study of a Teacher’s Beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 21, No. 1, 27 – 38.

Naidoo, N. (2004). The Uses of Computers for Learning in Outcomes-Based Education in Primary Schools in the Lenasia District. Unpublished Masters Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Magister Educationis in Computer-Based Education in the Faculty of Education and Nursing. Rand Afrikaans University.

Narsee, H. (2006). The Common and Contested Meanings of Education Districts in South Africa. Unpublished DEd thesis, University of Pretoria

Newhouse, P. C. (2002a). A Framework to Articulate the Impact of ICT on Learning in Schools. Paper prepared for the Western Australian Department of Education.

Newhouse, P. C. (2002b). Literature Review: The Impact of ICT on Learning and Teaching: A Literature Review. Prepared for the Western Australian Department of Education. Retrieved 28/09/2010 from http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/cmis/eval/downloads/pd/impactreview.pdf

Newhouse, P., Trinidad, S., Clarkson, B., (2002). Quality Pedagogy and Effective Learning with Information and Communications Technologies (ICT):a review of the literature. Prepared for: Western Australian Department of Education, Published by Specialist Educational Services.

Nilsen, H. & Purao, S. (2004). Balancing Objectivist and Constructivist Pedagogies for Teaching Emerging Technologies: Evidence from a Scandinavian Case Study. Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 16, No. 3.

Nkumane, P. (2003). The Use of Computers by Teachers and Learners to Enhance Aspects of the Curriculum in Gauteng Schools. Unpublished Masters report in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Masters Degree in Education in the Faculty of Education. University of the Witwatersrand.

Nondonga, F. W. (2008). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Information Communication Technology (ICT) – Gauteng Online in Primary Schools. Unpublished research report submitted to the Faculty of Management, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management (in the field of Public and Development). University of the Witwatersrand.

Owston, R. (2006). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: an international study. Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 8 No. (1), 61–77

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, Vol 62, No. 3, 307 – 332.

of 13

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., Kuhn, M, Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver: McREL

Roblyer, M. D. & Doering. A. H. (2010). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sandholtz, H. J., Ringstaff, C., and Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with Technology: Creating Student Centered Classrooms, Teachers College Press, New York.

Scheer, J. & Walker, B. (2005). The Internet Encyclopaedia Of Personal Construct Psychology, Retrieved 24/09/2010 from http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/title.html

Schneider, D. K. (2009). Repertory grid technique. Retrieved 29/09/2010 from http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Repertory_grid_technique

Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, Vol 15, No. 2, 4 – 14.

Scott, D. & Morrison, M. (2007). Keys Ideas in Educational Research. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Spillane, J. P. (2002). Local Theories of Teacher Change: The Pedagogy of District Policies and Programs. Teachers College Record, Vol. 104, No. 3, 377 – 420.

Stenhouse, L. (1976). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Strudler, N. & Harrington, D. (2008). Quality Support for ICT in Schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.) International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology & Society Vol. 3, No. 2.

The Star Friday 3 April 2009, Wed July 29 2009, Fri 30 Jan 2009, Sat 7 Feb 2009

Trinidad, S. Newhouse, P. & Clarkson, B. (n.d). A Framework for Leading School Change in using ICT: Measuring Change. Retrieved26/09/2010 from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/tri05123.pdf

Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge Maps: ICT in Education. Washington, DC: infoDev / World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.8.html

UNESCO (2002). Information and Communication Technology in Education. A Curriculum for Schools and Programme of Teacher Development. Paris: UNESCO.

of 13

Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, Vol. 6, No. 4, 339-362.

Waldegg, G. (2002). Using new technologies for teaching and learning science. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 4 (1). Retrieved 13/08/2010 from http://redie.ens.uabc.mx/vol4no1/contents-waldegg.html

Waspe, T (2004). Educationally Speaking GautengOnline. PowerPoint presentation to the Educationally Speaking Conference. May 2004.

Wilson-Strydom, M., Thomson, J. and Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2005). Understanding ICT integration in South African classrooms. Perspectives in education Vol. 23, No. 4, 71-85.

Zandvliet, D. B. (2006). Education is not Rocket Science: The Case for Deconstructing Computer Laboratories. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

of 13

Affordances and Constraints

Documents

Transcript of Affordances and Constraints