affordance 能供性

“affordance” 一词在最近的聊话中经常会涉及。但其实也不是最近的事,应该是12470在2014年开始时就已经常要接触到了。but i just realised i have not blogged an entry on this so very important term. so here we go:

affordance 华文我选择使用“能供性”作为翻译。affordance在我们涉及科技的谈话中,它其实是指 technological affordance. 但无论affordance也好,能供性也好,这两个词都还是太抽象了。如何解释得较容易理解和被接受,我尝试将能供性进行扩展,即:

能供性=能够提供给学习的可能性。

举个例子:

增强版乐学善用互动平台 (aka iMTL)中的协作便利贴能为学习提供哪些可能性呢?

  • 每个学生都能有机会发言了 (every student has a voice;从语言学习的角度,能够作语言输出是关键的)
  • 学生都针对同学的发言进行交流讨论 (meaning negotiation & meaning making in collaborative learning;从学习的角度,意义的理解的建构或许不是他人可以灌输的)
  • 你还想到其他的能供性吗? (:

i shall end this quick post here. 如果你在作报告或写论文需要整理文献出处,feel free to cite this post:

Tan, Y. H. (2018, May 17). Affordance 能供性 [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://edublog.net/wp/2018/05/17/affordance-%E8%83%BD%E4%BE%9B%E6%80%A7/

OR

陈育焕. (2018, May 17). Affordance 能供性 [博文]. 取自 https://edublog.net/wp/2018/05/17/affordance-%E8%83%BD%E4%BE%9B%E6%80%A7/

若要对affordance有进一步的了解,欢迎参考拙文中的说明 (:

lastly, 要谢谢 Thomas忠伟 for engaging in knowledge co-creation together at Keming Primary this afternoon, and inspiring this post (:

technological advances – intuitive AI

saw this TEDxPortland video shot last year only recently. while revisiting it that i noticed the opening words of the presenter:

“How many of you are creatives, designers, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists, or maybe you just have a really big imagination? Show of hands? … That’s most of you. I have some news for us creatives.”

what’s the significance of this short opening exchange?

i was quite surprised by some responses of people after they have watched the video, for example, “i feel scared”, “what if the machines are going to replace us”, “i admire those who are retiring soon”. but there again, these are quite normal too. however, i did not quite figure out the paradigm behind people with such responses. until, i revisited the video, and heard the opening exchange a second time.

my current hypothesis: people who produces such (downward spiral) responses are not knowledge creators. such words represent the mindset of industrial age production workers – routine, mass-production, clock-in-clock-out, predictability just to name a few. there’s no right or wrong judgment here. but in our business of preparing children for the knowledge age (or augmented age in the video), and where teachers’ beliefs influenced their actions, we need to think like and become a knowledge creator ourselves. what can we do to facilitate this shift in a major bulk of our teachers who learnt and grew up and laboured in the industrial age paradigm for a large part of their lives? how do we help teachers to shift into the creatives, designers, artists mode of thinking?

almost forget, here’s the video:

#enjoy

learning theories for teachers

thanks to si hui for pinging me on variation theory, and i chanced upon this piece of gem created by professors at HKU:

what teachers should know about learning theories website

it’s many hours of reading and hard work to produce this piece of excellent quick reference for teachers. extending this idea, we could perhaps create something similar for SLA/CL teachers, bringing together learning sciences and SLA works and making it accessible to our CL teachers (:

当你思考科技与教学的关系时

"当你思考科技与教学的关系时,无论是想选择某项科技、介入某个平台,只要你从学生学习的角度出发,怎么学如何学,或作’学习本位’(cf.教本位), 就不会差太远了。" (Tan, 2017)

to cite, if anyone is ever going to do that (:
Tan, Y. H. (2017). 当你思考科技与教学的关系时. Edublog.NET – A Singaporean Teacher’s Storeroom. Retrieved from http://edublog.net/wp/2017/01/21/%e5%bd%93%e4%bd%a0%e6%80%9d%e8%80%83%e7%a7%91%e6%8a%80%e4%b8%8e%e6%95%99%e5%ad%a6%e7%9a%84%e5%85%b3%e7%b3%bb%e6%97%b6/

theory is not important, just tell me what to do

身为一名教师,你在日常教学谈话中,或是在上进修课时是否有这样的念头:

“我是一名教师,理论对我来说不重要。重要的是实践,怎么做,怎么把课教好”
“这个讲师真是浪费时间。理论不重要,直接告诉我怎么做就好了。”

若答案是“有”、“的确是这样”(你不需要告诉我,自己偷偷告诉自己就好),恭喜你!你、我,都是被荼毒的一群。这毒药不是鹤顶红,也非七步追魂散,是一种慢性毒药所致(cf. 烟霾)。这“毒药”的出处大多是在我们所经历的许多许多培训课上,心地好的讲师一次次地在我们不自知的情况下所下的药。我们心存感激,讲师真是为我们着想,真周到。

为什么会重复理论不重要,这背后的原因种种太多太多。我不想揣测,也不是我的重点。

我的重点是:理论非常重要,甚至比实践方法、怎么做更更更重要。 此话怎讲?!?

先举两个典型例子吧。试问:1. 什么是自主学习(SDL, self-directed learning)? 2. 什么是协作学习 (CoL, collaborative learning)?

前者的答案经常包括“学生自行把功课完成交上来”,后者则是“分组学习lor”。

这里我不会将SDL、CoL展开来谈,要谈请到TRAISI报名 12470课。我只想说,如果SDL、CoL那么简单,还需要某某教授来提,那么这教授也太混了吧!所以,上述两个“定义”,显然是有问题和不足之处的。但身为一名教师,我们有意识到吗?或许有,或许没有,就看我们中毒的程度吧。

言归正传,为什么理论非常重要?这里我就用再熟悉不过的词语——“学习” learning来谈吧。你认为什么是学习?比方说在课堂上:

1. 我尽量多讲,让学生多听、多抄。对学生而言,这就是学习。
2. 我几乎每三节课中就有两节是小组活动。对学生而言,这就是学习。

(1)和(2)中的学习一样吗?为什么不一样?它们对于学习的假设如何不一样?这些答案其实都可以回归学习理论,到理论中去寻找依据。

话说“理论”。什么是理论?中毒深的或许会说“一大堆大道理。长篇大论,和实际教学距离很远。” 一套完整的教学理论经常有两大部分:一、其教育哲学、教育理念部分;二、实施的原则部分。有时可能会有三、实际操作步骤。如果说理论不重要,一般是指一和二不重要,直接锁定三。但是我们往往忽略了,三其实是建立在一、二之上的。没有了解一、二,就来做三,能行吗?当然能行,上述的SDL、CoL就是典型的“能行”例子。

话说“道”,老子的“道”和孔子的“道”一样吗?直接跳入三往往会把此道作彼道。只有透过一、二才能理解老子“道”的真谛,孔子的“道”所指。“道”之不同,三的部分很可能会不同。岂能一道而论?

谈及教学,一定会涉及的词语会有:“学”、“教”(这有点像说废话)。此学是彼学?此教是彼教?如何弄明白,唯有从theory中去寻。做(application)是建立在了解(understanding)之上的。你怎么做就是你怎么了解。你怎么教就是你怎么了解教;学亦然。

至于“弄明白”的重要性,我们经常说要培养终身学习的学生,终身学习不就是终身“弄明白”那么一回事吗?学生要lifelong learning, 教师亦然。不去“弄明白”能行吗?如何弄明白,就是上述一、二、三这三码事,缺一不可。

不管别人是否再说“理论不重要”,看官觉得呢?(:

theory photoPhoto credit: by jana christy