Description
Computer technologies in the classroom include interventions like computer tutors, interactive learning environments, discovery learning environments, simulations, web-based distance learning environments, and communication tools.
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
191–209
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00528.x
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 20052005372191209Articles
Technology affordancesBritish
Journal of Educational Technology
Technology affordances: the ‘real story’ in research with
K-12 and undergraduate learners
Kay J. Wijekumar, Bonnie J.F. Meyer, Diane Wagoner, and Lon Ferguson
Addresses for correspondence: Kay J. Wijekumar, Assistant Professor, Information Sciences and
Technology, The Pennsylvania State University Beaver. Email: [email protected]; Bonnie J.F. Meyer,
Professor, Educational Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. Email: [email protected]; Diane
Wagoner, Assistant Professor, Department of Food and Nutrition, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Email: [email protected]; Lon Ferguson, Professor, Department of Safety Sciences, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania. Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Computer technologies for learning environments have been introduced with
great expectations for improved learning outcomes. However, the great
improvements have not materialised; some of these extant studies are
examined. Of all the explanations for these disappointing results, the least
examined are the affordances of the computer tools. This paper provides a
rationale for studying affordances and presents two studies in K-12 and
undergraduate settings showing how powerful affordances are in affecting
outcomes. Finally, the paper presents guidelines on how to gradually move
students from a game affordance of a computer to a learning mode.
Introduction
Educational technologies are frequently introduced to learning environments with
great fanfare and expectations for learning outcomes. Unfortunately, recent meta-
analyses of research about technology-enhanced learning environments showed min-
imal, or even negative, effect sizes (Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Fletcher, Claire & Gravatt,
1995; Lee, 1999; Lou, Abrami & D’Apollonia, 2001). The causes frequently cited for
these minimal effects include the tasks, learner variables, and design issues. Affor-
dances of computer technologies for the learner are rarely mentioned as a possible cause
for the mixed results.
Students in K-12 and undergraduate settings spend a majority of their computer time
playing games and communicating with peers, therefore, their affordances for the com-
puter are affected by these experiences. Affordances describe the interaction supported
by the tool for each individual and is affected by their prior experiences. The students
expect to be entertained by the computer and use it to communicate with peers and
rarely consider it a learning environment. In the early days of television-based classes,
192
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Salomon and Leigh (1984) reported on a phenomenon he termed AIME (Amount of
Invested Mental Effort). Similar to what we are experiencing with the computer-literate
generation now, the TV viewers expected to be entertained and rarely engaged their
minds in effortful thinking while viewing the programmes. This and the one-way com-
munication of the medium resulted in many TV-based courses failing as good learning
environments. Computer affordances for learners in K-12 and undergraduate settings
may play a similar role in research outcomes if viewed as an entertainment medium
that requires less engagement of the brain.
There are four major reasons why it is important to ?gure out the role of affordances
in educational technologies. First, if young learners’ expectations of computers are that
they will be entertaining and game-like, should we always endeavor to meet those
affordances and construct only games to promote their learning? Second, should we
identify transitions to move learners from the game affordances to a learning affor-
dance? Third, is it possible to change affordances of a computer tool for learners? Finally,
as the numbers of web-based distance learning environments increase and are actually
being used by K-12 and older students, do we really know what is going on in learners’
minds as they interact with the computer? Additionally, do these students multitask
based on their computer affordances and miss important learning or are they evolving
into a different type of learner?
This paper describes two projects where technology affordances played a large part in
the outcomes. Each study described includes the methods, results, and discussion. We
begin with a description of computer technologies in learning environments, affordance
theory, and then describe the research studies. The conclusion identi?es strategies that
can minimise the effects of the problems and methods that can move students to a
learning affordance instead of propagating the game affordances of computers.
Computer technologies in learning environments
Computer technologies in the classroom include interventions like computer tutors,
interactive learning environments, discovery learning environments, simulations,
web-based distance learning environments, and communication tools. Table 1 shows a
sample of such studies and presents the domain of study, education level of learners,
outcome variables studied, and results. Participants range from high school students
learning biology to undergraduate engineering students. Research results from these
studies show limited effects on learning. One explanation for the mixed results in these
studies is the computer tool affordance for the user.
Affordances
Affordances are the interactions between users and tool. The tool prompts, guides, or
constrains the users depending on their previous experiences (Salomon, 1990). In order
to accept the affordance of the tool, the user must have prior experiences with similar
tools (Carter, Westbrook & Thompkins, 1999), domain knowledge (Kozma & Russell,
1997), and must be at an age where they are able to understand or relate to the
Technology affordances
193
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
T
a
b
l
e
1
:
S
a
m
p
l
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
i
n
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
-
a
i
d
e
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
D
o
m
a
i
n
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
d
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
A
d
a
m
s
a
n
d
S
h
r
u
m
(
1
9
9
0
)
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
—
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
t
o
o
l
f
o
r
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
,
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
i
n
g
,
r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
g
r
a
p
h
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
1
.
G
r
a
p
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
G
r
a
p
h
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
u
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
t
o
o
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
N
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
r
g
e
(
1
9
9
0
)
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
s
k
i
l
l
s
G
r
a
d
e
s
7
a
n
d
8
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
1
.
H
y
p
o
t
h
e
s
i
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
2
.
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
d
e
s
i
g
n
3
.
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
o
w
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
l
y
A
l
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
B
o
n
k
a
n
d
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
(
1
9
9
2
)
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
,
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
G
r
a
d
e
s
5
–
8
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
p
r
o
m
p
t
i
n
g
1
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
N
o
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
C
a
ñ
i
z
a
r
e
s
a
n
d
F
a
u
r
(
1
9
9
7
)
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
M
A
T
L
A
P
,
M
A
P
L
E
-
V
,
E
E
S
,
S
O
L
V
E
R
-
Q
1
.
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
.
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
N
o
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
C
a
r
t
e
r
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
9
)
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
—
c
i
r
c
u
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
G
r
a
d
e
9
(
q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
)
1
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
2
.
T
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
3
.
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
i
o
r
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
t
o
o
l
a
n
d
l
a
c
k
o
f
p
r
i
o
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
C
o
l
e
m
a
n
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
8
)
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
i
s
e
d
c
o
u
r
s
e
w
a
r
e
1
.
T
e
s
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
i
s
e
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
w
o
r
s
e
t
h
a
n
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
194
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
D
e
J
o
n
g
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
9
)
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
—
m
o
m
e
n
t
u
m
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
s
.
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
1
.
D
e
?
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
c
h
o
i
c
e
)
2
.
I
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
W
h
a
t
-
i
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
3
.
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
m
a
p
s
)
A
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
i
n
d
e
?
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
i
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
n
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
D
i
x
o
n
(
1
9
9
7
)
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
G
r
a
d
e
8
G
e
o
m
e
t
e
r
S
k
e
t
c
h
p
a
d
™
1
.
V
i
s
u
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
2
.
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
T
o
o
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
w
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
L
i
n
d
s
t
r
ö
m
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
3
)
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
.
H
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
c
o
r
e
s
o
n
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
2
.
I
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
m
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
i
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
b
u
t
n
o
t
o
n
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
c
o
r
e
s
M
a
y
e
s
(
1
9
9
5
)
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
—
A
l
g
e
b
r
a
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
T
o
o
l
—
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
1
.
C
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
.
M
a
n
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
k
i
l
l
s
T
o
o
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
w
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
a
l
o
m
o
n
,
G
l
o
b
e
r
s
o
n
a
n
d
G
u
t
e
r
m
a
n
(
1
9
8
9
)
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
,
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
G
r
a
d
e
7
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
1
.
R
e
c
a
l
l
o
f
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
s
2
.
M
e
t
a
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
3
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
a
n
d
A
b
r
a
h
a
m
(
1
9
9
5
)
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
—
n
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
m
a
t
t
e
r
F
i
r
s
t
y
e
a
r
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
a
n
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
.
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
2
.
A
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
3
.
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
D
o
m
a
i
n
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
d
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
T
a
b
l
e
1
:
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Technology affordances
195
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
affordances (when the tool is within the zone of proximal development of the learners)
(Carter, Westbrook & Thompkins, 1999). Norman (1998) says, ‘affordance is not a
property, it is a relationship that holds between the object and the organism that is
acting on the object. The same object might have different affordances for different
individuals’ (p. 123).
For the focus of this paper, the tool or object is the computer. Based on previous experi-
ences with the computer, the user can see it as a tool for data entry, as a method of
communication with others, as a place to play games, or as a facilitator for writing a
paper. Most students in K-12 and undergraduate settings have grown up with the
desktop computer that has graphical user interfaces and advanced gaming capabilities.
When these students are faced with learning from a computer or interacting with a
computer to perform a problem-solving task, what are their expectations for that inter-
action? How do their expectations affect the outcomes of their experience?
Research on affordance has shown that undergraduate students perceived the numeric
isomorph of a simple Tic-Tac-Toe game to be easier than the isomorph with shapes and
colors (Zhang, 1997). The game-like isomorph and the students’ view of the role of
computers were better matched yielding easier ratings. Using qualitative analysis of
data transcribed from high school student interactions with computer representation
(physics concepts like behavior of a mass on a spring and graphs generated by the
computer), Kelly and Crawford (1996) showed positive roles of the computer. The high
school instruction used a computer to foster the construction of meaning. The com-
puter exhibited vital information and presented anomalies to the students’ expecta-
tions. The computer became the students’ ally in making a case. The students used the
computer representations to ‘make a claim’, make predictions, and look for clari?cation.
They responded to the computer as a member of the group. The students appeared to
learn to value the computer as a useful tool for inquiry rather than just a source of
entertaining games.
In contrast, Roth (1995) and Roth, Woszczyna and Smith (1996), studied 11th grade
students interacting with a physics microworld, Interactive Physics
™
, and showed that
some students needed guidance in making the correct choices, navigating, and inter-
preting the outcomes of the simulations. Most troubling was their synthesis that stated,
‘The teacher could implement and execute ideas and experiments as he planned; the
computer software complex—provide him affordances, just as a chisel or circular saw
affords many possibilities to a carpenter. On the other hand, from a students’ perspec-
tive, the computer software complex—was a tool unready to hand’ (Roth, Woszczyna
& Smith, 1996, p. 1012).
In summary, computer affordances play a large role in learning outcomes. The cur-
rent cohort of K-12 and undergraduate students, who are frequently the subjects in
research studies, have used computers from a very early age to play games and some-
times do simple word processing tasks. The designers of both computer tools and
research studies have backgrounds where computers were mostly utilised for pro-
196
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
gramming databases and application design; they view computers from a utility-
oriented perspective. This difference in perspective can cause a signi?cant difference
in each group’s approach to computers and their use. Speci?cally, K-12 students and
undergraduates see computers as gaming machines with minimal applicability as
problem-solving tools. The opposite is true of the designers and researchers in many
of these studies.
Designers and researchers keep creating learning environments (using information on
motivation, learner variables, multi media, etc) in the hope of creating rich learning
environments for young learners. Unfortunately, these learners want to be entertained,
play games, and ‘chat’ with their friends, and the last thing on their mind is learning
with the computer.
Therefore, there is a need to further study computer affordances. There is a ?ne line
between aspects of design in technology that motivate and engage learners and
those that distract them from learning what is important in the instruction. We
have to ?nd ways to move students from a ‘game’ affordance of the computer to a
‘learning’ affordance if we plan on propagating the use of computers in classrooms
for learning.
Next we describe two studies where the affordances of the computer tool played a large
role in the outcomes of the studies. We follow up with methods to change the game
affordance to a learning affordance.
Research study 1: a pilot of web-based intelligent tutoring system
(?fth–seventh grade)
1
We created the Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy (ITSS) to teach ?fth and
seventh grade students a reading strategy called the Structure Strategy (Wijekumar &
Meyer, in press). The Structure Strategy has previously been taught by human tutors
and teaches learners that expository texts have six basic structures: comparison, prob-
lem/solution, cause/effect, description, sequence, and listing (Meyer
et al,
2002). Orig-
inally, human tutors would model the use of the strategy by showing learners the
signalling words, helping them write main ideas for the text passages, and then use the
main ideas to construct a full recall of the text.
Our new system was designed using Flash to create an animated book-like web page
with a talking head I.T., who spoke to the student in the role of a tutor. Figure 1 shows
a sample of one of the pages designed. The system is interactive with I.T. modelling how
to use the strategy, then giving students the chance to click on signalling words, write
main ideas, write full recalls, choose from multiple choice answers, and provide imme-
diate feedback to the learners.
The research presented here is a combination of pilot test data collected in spring 2004
and focus group conversations with students currently using the system.
Technology affordances
197
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Research questions
• What computer tools are frequently used by ?fth and seventh grade students?
• How is an intelligent tutoring system for a reading strategy viewed by ?fth and
seventh grade students?
• What affordance do computer tools support for students in Grades 5 and 7?
Participants
During the pilot test, 18 participants in Grades 4 through 8 were interviewed and
observed. Twelve participants were males and 6 were females; 15 were white, 2 were
African American, and 1 was Asian American. The participants were recruited through
three school and university listservs. All participants owned computers at home and
also used the computer in their school classrooms. All participants attended schools
that have a minimum of one computer to four students ratio.
The focus group consisted of 28 students in ?fth and seventh grades currently using
the system in a long-term research study. There were 15 females and 13 males in this
group. These participants were recruited through the school district and are a subset
of over 200 students currently using the ITSS program in the school day.
Figure 1: Sample screen from the Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy system
198
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Method
Participants completed an informed consent form and also surveys on their computer
usage, self-ef?cacy, and demographics. After a short break and an introduction about
the intelligent tutoring system, the participants individually worked through three
lessons in the tutoring system.
After completing their interaction with the intelligent tutor and midway through the
use of the ITSS in the schools, participants were interviewed about their experience. The
conversation was open-ended, and participants talked about their prior experiences
with computers as well as what they enjoy or dislike about computers. They also
critiqued their interactions with the intelligent tutor.
Results
Students in both the pilot and focus group reported that I.T. was believable and looked
interesting. They suggested that they would like to talk to I.T. about topics other than
the reading strategy as well.
However, the students said that listening to I.T. for long periods of time or having to
interact on a regular basis with I.T. can be boring because they would actually rather
be playing games on the computer. One student reported how another computer learn-
ing tool was introduced in their school, and most students turned the learning environ-
ment into a game of trying to give as many incorrect responses as possible to the system.
As these discussions continued, it was clear that the computer affordances for these
students was that of a ‘gaming’ tool.
Results about computer affordances
Interviews with the focus group students yielded some other interesting ?ndings about
their computer affordances. All students reported using the computer to play games
either on the Internet or using CD-ROMs. A notable statement was made by one of the
?fth grade participants. He said:
When I ?nish my work in class, my teacher usually lets me ‘play’ on the computer till my
classmates ?nish their work.
This statement was echoed by all the ?fth graders in some form.
Similarly, all the ?fth graders said they spend at least 10 to 15 hours a week playing
Nintendo, Playstation-type video games, or games on their computers. All children
reported playing Internet based-games like racing, puzzles, and sports. Male students
from all grades reported a high interest in war and racing games. Female students
reported a high interest in chatting with their friends using Instant Messaging and
games like Sims. None of the female students played racing or war games on their
computers.
Technology affordances
199
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
When asked whether they use the computer for anything other than games, they said
they sometimes email their friends and check homework that their teacher posts on the
World Wide Web (WWW). The time they spent on the school-related tasks were about
10 to 30 minutes a week compared with the 10 to 15 hours spent on games.
One student reported that as soon as she gets home, the ?rst thing she does is log on to
the computer and start talking to her friends. When asked about her homework, she
said she talks and does homework at the same time. Four students in the group said
that they post an away message and then do their homework.
We asked the students what they expected the tutoring system to behave like before they
started, and they all said they thought it was going to be a game. They also said that a
game would be more fun. When asked whether they can think of the system as a teacher
instead of a game, they said they probably can do it, but would rather play a game. These
ideas are captured elegantly in a statement by a seventh grader from the focus group
currently using the system:
When I sit down at a computer, I think of all the fun things I could be doing like games and talking
to my friends, so I try to ?nish any other work as fast as possible so I can return to my games and
talking.
At the conclusion of the short pilot test and focus group, the students were asked how
they enjoyed using the system, and they all reported that they had learned something
new. They also were surprised to hear about how texts were organised and felt they
would use them in their reading and writing. However, they all said that they would
rather play games on the computer than learn. They also stated that they sometimes
do ‘work’ on the computer, but that is usually for short periods of time.
Discussion
There are three areas of interest in these results. First, the computer affordance for our
sample population was clearly that of a gaming and communication tool. As reported
earlier, these participants all had computers in their homes. When we interviewed
students in the school that did not own computers at home, they appeared much more
receptive to learning from the computer.
Second, Harp and Mayer (1998) have referred to ‘seductive details’ in learning envi-
ronments that distract from the learning experience. Research has shown that when
learners are faced with peripherally related or unimportant information about course
content, they are distracted and perform poorly. Students with low prior knowledge and
limited metacognitive skills are more distracted than their counterparts who have prior
knowledge and the metacognitive skills to tell the difference between the important and
unimportant details of their learning activity.
This brings us to a dilemma: games may be interesting and somewhat educational, but
at what point are they more destructive to the learning environment than useful? Not
200
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
all learning materials should be or can be formatted into a game to gain the attention
of learners. Our topic of reading comprehension is complex and requires the learners
to engage their minds in the process. So it is important to help students move from their
‘gaming’ affordance of a computer to a learning affordance to aid in their acceptance
of the system.
Third, what techniques can be useful to help the students see the computer as more
than a gaming tool? Two techniques were created to gradually move students to a
learning affordance of a computer for our continuing research programme.
1. Students are given an introduction by the teachers that the intelligent tutor was
going to be like a teacher and that they should expect the system to behave like a
classroom experience. They were also told that they would get rewards when they
reach critical milestones in their tasks. We also introduced additional incentives and
motivational components (special ?reworks-like display when they completed all
lessons for one structure) to encourage the students to actively participate in using
the system.
2. Metacognitive modeling by the intelligent tutor was also incorporated to focus on
using the computer as a learning environment. The modeling included good prac-
tices in reading comprehension and using the Structure Strategy.
3. A third technique of adding a game at milestones during the ITSS program is being
considered for future enhancements to our program.
Finally, these three techniques are only the beginning of a long-term strategy and
discussion on how we approach the mismatch in K-12 learner affordances of computers
and instruction. These concerns are not limited to K-12 learners but are evident in
undergraduate and graduate students as well. The next study shows how undergradu-
ate and graduate students enrolled in web-based distance learning classes managed
their computer use and how they were affected by their computer affordances.
Research study 2: chat rooms in online learning environments
Two reasons prompted us to conduct this research study. First, we wanted to investigate
the ef?cacy for learning of conversations in two types of online chat rooms. We com-
pared agenda-driven chat room discussions versus social chat room discussions for
depth of discussion, cohesion of conversations, and compared test scores of students
immediately after. Second, distance learning environments have been growing at expo-
nential rates. However, all research justi?cation for continuing to propagate them
comes from the ‘no signi?cant difference’ studies showing that they are no worse or no
better than traditional face-to-face learning environments (adapted from Lockee, Bur-
ton & Cross, 1999). But the real questions are not being considered and include:
1. whether we are doing some long-term damage to students’ approach to learning;
2. whether students are actually engaging less in learning;
3. whether the whole learning process has changed; and
4. whether we need to train students to adapt to the new cognitive demands of the
learning environments.
Technology affordances
201
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Are students who have grown up using computers to play games and communicate
more likely to view web-based learning environments as extensions of these affordances
and engage their minds less in problem solving and other higher-order tasks?
‘Computer-based tasks often involve high cognitive load that might be susceptible to
interference from interruptions’ (p. 21, Baecker, Grudin, Buxton & Greenberg, 1995 in
Speier
et al
, 1999). Are students keeping multiple windows open and having multiple
conversations while engaging in a web-based discussion or chat room? How much time
and concentration does it take to synthesise and really contribute to the discussion?
The second study sprang from these concerns. The research questions were:
1. What affordances do computers have for undergraduate and graduate students?
2. What techniques (cognitive and metacognitive) are used by successful students in
managing their online learning experiences?
3. What roles do chat room discussions play in online learning environments?
Participants
A total of 77 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in three different online
classes participated in this study. The classes were in undergraduate nutrition education
(two sections, with 21 and 22 students in each), undergraduate information technol-
ogy (19 students), and graduate safety science (15 students); 41 participants were men
and 36 participants were women. All the classes were designed by the same instruc-
tional designer and were orientated towards problem-based learning. Each 15-week
course had approximately 10–12 learning modules. Each module was organised
around a problem that the student had to solve using the resources and scaffolds
provided by the instructor.
In each class, we introduced both agenda-driven- and social chat rooms (Wijekumar,
2001). In 15-week semesters, we conducted ?ve agenda-driven chat rooms and ?ve
social chat rooms. The agenda-driven chat rooms had questions posted by the instruc-
tor, and students were asked to prepare their thoughts for the chat room. The instruc-
tors then followed a round-robin pattern to ask questions from the learners and provide
feedback.
An example of a discussion question from the Safety Science class agenda-driven chat
was, ‘what methods can be used to reduce workplace violence?’ Students were given 3
days to research the question and be ready for a focused discussion in the chat room.
In the social chat, there were no agendas posted and discussion was frequently about
social topics and sometimes about course requirements (details about projects that were
due, etc).
Method
In order to compare discussion and learning outcomes, three independently trained
raters coded all of the postings from chat rooms and examined the test scores of the
202
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
students. The coded chat room discussions showed statistically signi?cant differences
in the contents of the agenda-driven chat rooms compared with those of the social chat
rooms. Students in the agenda-driven chat rooms had deeper thoughts about the topics
and more cohesive discussions about the content.
Next, we compared how much students remembered about topics that were discussed
in the agenda-driven chat room versus the social chat room. Test scores were not
signi?cantly different for within-subjects comparisons of test performance. Even though
the students in the agenda-driven chat rooms had signi?cantly higher quality discus-
sion (depth and cohesion) than the social chat students, we found that the recall of the
discussion was a problem. The same group of students did not recall much from any
type of chat conversations.
To delve deeper into why this phenomenon emerged, we interviewed four undergradu-
ate students who performed well on the recall and four undergraduates who did not.
The eight students were selected based on their performance in the tests and prior
experiences with computers. Four students who remembered over 90% of the chat
discussion were chosen. Two of the students reported they had over 10 years of experi-
ence using computers and use them daily. Of the four students who performed poorly
in the recall of the chat discussion in the test (remembered less than 50% of content),
three said they had used computers for over 10 years.
Students were interviewed about their activities in the online class. Speci?c interview
questions included:
1. How many windows do you have open on your desktop when you are working in
your online class?
2. What windows are usually active?
3. When you are conversing in a chat room, what other windows do you have open?
4. How much of the chat discussion do you read and how easy is it to synthesise the
information?
5. What do you think you gain from the chat discussion?
Students were also asked speci?c questions about recent chat discussions to determine
whether they actually remember information from the discussions.
We interviewed these eight students immediately after the agenda-driven chat room
concluded and they had completed a test on that discussion. The discussion was about
nutritional supplements, their effects on users, the effects of advertising on the usage
of the supplements, and general questions about the class.
Results
All ?ve participants with extensive computer experience used computers to play games
and communicate with colleagues. Each had from 6 to 10 windows open on their
desktop while doing any task. They included a web browser, two or three instant mes-
Technology affordances
203
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
saging windows, notepad/wordpad, and sometimes a game. They all stated that they
multitask and switch their attention between all windows. When conversing in a chat
room, they still continued to talk to other friends.
All students felt that the social chat rooms that were impromptu with student-initiated
questions fell into two categories. The ?rst type of discussion was social and did not have
much to do with the course content but made them feel at ease with the instructor and
colleagues. The second type of discussion was about grades and questions about speci?c
tasks with which they were struggling.
All students felt that the agenda-driven chat room was focused towards learning. They
explained that it felt like a classroom environment.
There was a clear pattern in three of the multitasking users’ recalls. All were disjointed
and missed many details of the conversations. Examples of the disjointed recalls and the
well synthesised recalls are described next.
The two students who were novices at computer usage recalled twice as much infor-
mation from the chat discussion as their multitasking counterparts. They also tended
to organise their recall in themes that were similar to the instructor’s content
organisation.
Instructor:
What supplement did you research?
Student A:
Ginkgo Biloba
Instructor:
Interesting, why did you pick this one?
Student A:
I saw some advertisement saying that it improved memory so I picked it.
Instructor:
What did you ?nd?
Student A:
I went to www.blueprintforhealth.com Gingko has been most commonly used to
improve blood ?ow, treat memory loss, dizziness, and ringing in the ears. It can
cause nausea and headaches, and is not suggested for use by those who suffer
from allergies or hemophilia.
Student A:
www.webmd.com Ginkgo may decrease the chances of conception by interfering
with normal hormones. Gingko has also been used to increase lung in?amation,
but may result in excessive bleeding to those who are taking blood thinners.
Student A:
www.intelihealth.com Gingko has not been reviewed by the FDA. Because of this,
their is a lack of information concerning the effects of taking Ginkgo Biloba in
conjuction with other drugs.
Student B:
I think my mother takes that supplement.
Instructor:
Does it help?
Student A:
www.fda.gov Gingko Biloba has been said to be a memory enhancer because it
has been tested on people with alzheimer’s disease and showed positive results.
But, it has not been tested on people who do not suffer from this disease. There-
fore, there is no evidence which suggests that Gingko also promotes good mem-
ory for the average person.
Instructor:
Student A, do you think this is a useful supplement?
Student A:
I was completely unaware that Gingko Biloba has negative effects on people with
hemophilia and similar diseases. And it was shocking to me that it may also have
negative affects on allergy suffers.
Instructor:
Have you changed your opinion about it?
204
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Student A:
Before doing this research, I was under the assumption that Gingko was an
entirely good thing. But, after see the number of affects it can have on people, I
feel that the number of negative effects of taking this supplement outweigh the
positive ones.
As shown in the sample discussion above , the novices outlined that there were four
themes in the discussion. The ?rst was how Gingko was portrayed in the advertisement
as helping memory. Second, that the research showed that it worked with Alzheimer’s
patients but not proven in healthy humans. Third, that the possible negative effects of
abnormal bleeding and allergies would be cause for concern. And ?nally, he also sug-
gested that another student said his mother used the supplement.
Similarly, two of the computer-literate students who turned off the chimes on their
Instant Messaging (IM) programmes and posted away messages when participating in
the chat room remembered most of the discussion and organised their recall effectively.
On the other hand, three students with high computer skills and multiple windows open
during their chat room summarised the discussion as ‘Gingko can be ok for most people
but can be dangerous’. Even when the interviewer prompted them for more informa-
tion, they did not recall any of the speci?c details from the discussion.
These multitasking students were asked whether they were affected by their multiple
conversations at the same time as their class chat rooms. They all reported that they
did not feel interrupted or distracted in having 6 to 10 windows open and carrying on
multiple conversations at the same time.
The one computer novice who performed poorly on the recall said that he had dif?culty
in reading all the postings and making sense of the discussion. He felt that the conver-
sations on the agenda-driven chat room were more organised but still did not ?ow
smoothly. This particular student was the ?rst to request the logs of the chat rooms to
be posted to the course web site. This allowed him to sort through the discussion and
gather his thoughts on the topic without time constraints.
The discussion above continued with another student asking questions about whether
this information would be on the next exam, and other students chiming in on periph-
erally related information like ‘the FDA really should look at these types of claims more
carefully’ followed by another student saying ‘the FDA cannot be reviewing everything,
that is why there is a backlog for them’. This type of interaction in a short time frame
requires students to process lots of information. The student suggested that the chat
discussion put all the participants in one level of importance. He also said that in a
traditional classroom, the teacher is usually in the role of the moderator and his/her
presence was set apart from the presence and contributions of the students. However,
in the chat room, all participants posted to the same text window, and even though the
teacher’s name was clearly visible, all postings competed for his attention with equal
weight.
Technology affordances
205
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Result on computer affordances
The outcome of the tests, interviews with the students (high and low recall), and survey
data collected at the beginning of the class all suggested that these students viewed
computers as communication tools (to instant message friends, email colleagues), as
gaming tools, and as resources for completing homework. One graduate student noted,
‘I think I am different because I do not talk to everyone all the time on IM. When I am
in the library or lab reading on the Internet, I see almost everyone else there talking to
friends.’
Most of the undergraduate students reported using IM to talk to friends during the time
they entered the course chat room, and some even reported continuing to play games.
Similar to our ?rst study participants, this group of undergraduate and graduate online
learners also saw the computer as a communication and gaming tool. Their affordance
of the computer prompted them to multitask even at the expense of their learning.
Discussion
This study shows that undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in these online
classes did use the chat room for learning. However, the students who had used
computers for a long time tended to have multiple windows open on their desktop
and then believed they were not affected by the multitasking. The results of their
recall showed that their synthesis of the chat room was actually disjointed and quite
incomplete.
Salomon and Almog (1998) report on a phenomenon called the ‘Butter?y Defect’ that
can be caused by fractured knowledge building in hypermedia environments. The recall
of the chat room discussion by the multitasking students can be an example of this
concept.
The students who were novices and those that turned off their multiple windows syn-
thesised the chat discussion quite differently. They organised their summaries very
effectively and remembered twice as much information as their counterparts did.
Based on these ?ndings, we introduced two elements to the online classes we developed.
First, students were advised on how they should manage their learning in these online
environments. They were given a written handbook that told them to limit the numbers
of windows on their desktop, allocate time and concentrate on one task at a time, and
try to summarise their understanding of the chat conversations to check their
knowledge.
Second, the instructor posted the chat logs after they were edited to organise the dis-
cussion. This helped students go back and check their understanding and organisation.
This method also helped the novice student who had dif?culty reading the fast-paced
chat discussion and synthesising all the communications in the short time frame.
206
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
General discussion
Computer technologies are here to stay, and are being used by young and old. However,
the computer’s affordance for these two groups is different. The studies reported here
show that our participants in K-12, undergraduate, and graduate settings are more
likely to play games, talk to friends, and multitask in the computer environment.
This research has started the process of answering the questions reported earlier.
1. Are we doing some long-term damage to students’ approach towards learning?
Students’ orientation towards learning is different when computers are present
because students in these studies say they multitask and attend to playing games
and communicating while learning. Thus, the primary, learning task is interrupted
and competes for memory with the secondary tasks like games and communication.
In fact, the learning task may become secondary to the task of communicating with
friends. Task switching increases the complexity of the learning situation and taxes
cognitive resources, such as working memory, ultimately leading to poorer perfor-
mance on learning tasks in the laboratory (eg Baddeley, 1996; Callicott
et al,
1999).
The second study in an authentic academic learning situation suggests that stu-
dents remember less from their learning when they multitask. Some focus group
students from the ?rst study also said, ‘Why do we have to remember anything
anymore? We can always look it up’. This is another phenomenon that needs to be
investigated. Pea (1985) has suggested that computer tools can be used to promote
higher-order tasks while delegating the low-order, simple number crunching tasks
to the computer. This statement from the focus group students makes us wonder
whether Pea’s hypothesis holds true for these learners.
2. Are students actually engaging less in learning? There is some reduction in the
time spent on task versus other activities. However, Golub (2004) suggests that
before computers allowed students to counteract boredom by playing games, read-
ing emails, and instant messaging, others were distracted by crossword puzzles,
doodling, and making up games, and their time spent on tasks was not any higher.
However, the new tools on the desktop like instant messaging demand more atten-
tion and can be initiated by external sources and limit the engagement of the learner
(Grinter & Palen, 2002).
3. Has the whole learning process changed? The studies reported here suggest that the
computer affordances for the students are that of a gaming or communication
environment. The learning process has changed. However, the long-term strategy
may be to take advantage of the communication tools and games to help the students
learn.
4. Should we train students to adapt to the new cognitive demands of the learning
environments? The options are to train the students to adapt to the new cognitive
demands or adapt to the learning environments to capture the affordances. Either
option is limited by the current technologies. A combination of both approaches is
probably a good compromise. Learners (specially those with poor metacognitive
skills) should be educated about where and when they can use the technologies
effectively and how they can most effectively and ef?ciently switch their focus from
Technology affordances
207
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
the gaming mode to a learning mode. Technologies can be designed to engage the
students through games but then gradually move them to a learning affordance.
Technologies can also adapt to learners’ motivation and stress levels to improve
learning.
5. Finally, are students who have grown up using computers to play games and com-
municate more likely to view web-based learning environments as extensions of
these affordances and engage their minds less in problem solving and other higher-
order tasks? Is there a way to take these students’ familiarity and preference for
instant messaging and tweak it towards evaluation, analysis, and application to
enhance learning? Further research will need to focus on answering these
questions.
Conclusion
When constructing learning environments for K-12 and older student, designers,
researchers, and teachers must look to balancing gaming and learning, engagement
and distraction, and concentration and interruptions. The change from the gaming
affordance to the learning affordance can play a critical role in learning outcomes and
must be addressed immediately. Addressing the affordance issue can make the differ-
ence between a future society that can innovate and produce versus people who cannot
think without a ‘game’.
Notes
1. This research is funded in part by a research grant from the US Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences. More information on our intelligent tutoring project is avail-
able athttp://itss.br.psu.edu/
References
Adams, D. D. & Shrum, J. W. (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on
the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology
students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
27
, 6, 777–787.
Azevedo, R. & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-
based instruction.
Journal of Educational Computing Research
,
13
, 2, 111–127.
Baddeley, A. (1996). The fractionation of working memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences
,
93
, 13468–13472.
Baecker, R. M., Grudin, J., Buxton, W. A. S. & Greenberg, S. (1995).
Readings in human-computer
interaction: toward the year 2000
. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kauffman Publishers.
Berge, Z. L. (1990). Effects of group size, gender, and ability grouping on learning science process
skills using microcomputers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
27
, 8, 747–759.
Bonk, C. J. & Reynolds, T. H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative
computerized prompting framework.
Computers in Human Behavior
,
8
, 39–62.
Callicott, J. H., Mattay, V. S., Bertollino, K. F., Coppola, R., Frank, J. A., Goldberg, T.E.,
et al
(1999).
Physiological characteristics of capacity constraints in working memory as revealed by func-
tional MRI.
Cerebral Cortex
,
9
, 220–226.
Cañizares, C. A. & Faur, Z. T. (1997). Advantages and disadvantages of using various computer
tools in electrical engineering courses.
IEEE Transactions on Education
,
40
, 3, August, 1997.
Carter, G., Westbrook, S. L. & Thompkins, C. D. (1999). Examining science tools as mediators of
students’ learning about circuits.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
36
, 1, 89–105.
208
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Coleman, J. N., Kinniment, D. J., Burns, F. P., Butler, T. J. & Koelmans, A. M. (1998). Effectiveness
of computer-aided learning as a direct replacement for lecturing in degree-level electronics.
IEEE Transactions on Education
,
41
, 3, August, 1998.
DeJong, T., Martin, E., Zmarro, J., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). The
integration of computer simulations and learning support: an example from the physics
domain of collisions.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
36
, 5, 597–615.
Dixon, J. K. (1997). Computer use and visualization in students’ construction of re?ection and
rotation concepts.
School Science and Mathematics
,
97
, 7, 352–358.
Fletcher, F., Claire, M. & Gravatt, B. (1995). The ef?cacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI):
a meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research
,
12
, 3, 219–241.
Golub, E. (2004).
On audiences activities during presentations
. Norfolk, VA: Consortium for Com-
puting Sciences in Colleges.
Grinter, R. E. & Palen, L. (2002). Instant messaging in teen life.
Proceedings of the 2002 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
, November 2002. New Orleans, LA. New
York: ACM Press, 21–30. Retrieved April 23, 2005, fromhttp://www.isr.uci.edu/~jpd/classes/
ics234cw04/grinter2.pdf#search
=
‘grinterinstant%20messaging%20in%20teen%20life’
Harp, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive
interest in science learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology
,
90
, 3, 414–434.
Kelly, G. J. & Crawford, T. (1996). Students’ interaction with computer representations: analysis
of discourse in laboratory groups.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
33
, 7, 693–707.
Kozma, R. B. & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses
to different representations of chemical phenomena.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
34
,
9, 949–968.
Lee, J. (1999). Effectiveness of computer-based instructional simulation: a meta analysis.
Inter-
national Journal of Instructional Media
,
26
, 1, 71–85.
Lindström, B., Marton, F., Ottosson, T. & Laurillard, D. (1993). Computer simulation as a tool for
developing intuitive and conceptual understanding in mechanics.
Computers in Human Behav-
ior
,
9
, 263–281.
Lockee, B. B., Burton, J. K. & Cross, L. H. (1999). No comparison: distance education ?nds a new
use for ‘no signi?cant difference’.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 3, 33–
42.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C. & D’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with tech-
nology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 3, 449–521.
Mayes, R. L. (1995). The application of a computer algebra system as a tool in college algebra.
School Science and Mathematics, 95, 2, 61–67.
Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E. S., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J. & Bartlett, B. J.
(2002). Older adults tutoring ?fth-grade children in the structure strategy via the Internet.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3, 486–519.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond ampli?cation: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 20, 4, 167–182.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: the case of inter-
active physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 4, 329–347.
Roth, W. M., Woszczyna, C. & Smith, G. (1996). Affordances and constraints of computers in
science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 9, 995–1017.
Salomon, G. & Leigh, T. (1984). Predispositions about learning from print and television. Journal
of Communication, 34, 2, 119–135.
Salomon, G., Globerson, T. & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal develop-
ment: internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81, 4, 620–627.
Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research,
17, 1, 26–44.
Salomon, G. & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: a matter of reciprocal
relations. Teachers College Record, 100, 1, 222–241.
Technology affordances 209
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Speier, C., Valacich, J. S. & Vessey, I. (1999). The effects of task interruption and information
presentation on individual decision making: an information overload perspective. Decision
Sciences, 30, 2, 337–360.
Wijekumar, K. (2001). Can chat rooms be more than social gathering places? Paper presented at the
American Educational Communications Technology Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Wijekumar, K. & Meyer, B. J. F. (in press). Design and pilot of a web-based intelligent tutoring
system to improve reading comprehension in middle school students. Journal of Computers in
Schools.
Williamson, V. M. & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particu-
late mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 5,
521–534.
Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science,
21, 2, 179–217.
doc_521231561.pdf
Computer technologies in the classroom include interventions like computer tutors, interactive learning environments, discovery learning environments, simulations, web-based distance learning environments, and communication tools.
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
191–209
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00528.x
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 20052005372191209Articles
Technology affordancesBritish
Journal of Educational Technology
Technology affordances: the ‘real story’ in research with
K-12 and undergraduate learners
Kay J. Wijekumar, Bonnie J.F. Meyer, Diane Wagoner, and Lon Ferguson
Addresses for correspondence: Kay J. Wijekumar, Assistant Professor, Information Sciences and
Technology, The Pennsylvania State University Beaver. Email: [email protected]; Bonnie J.F. Meyer,
Professor, Educational Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. Email: [email protected]; Diane
Wagoner, Assistant Professor, Department of Food and Nutrition, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Email: [email protected]; Lon Ferguson, Professor, Department of Safety Sciences, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania. Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Computer technologies for learning environments have been introduced with
great expectations for improved learning outcomes. However, the great
improvements have not materialised; some of these extant studies are
examined. Of all the explanations for these disappointing results, the least
examined are the affordances of the computer tools. This paper provides a
rationale for studying affordances and presents two studies in K-12 and
undergraduate settings showing how powerful affordances are in affecting
outcomes. Finally, the paper presents guidelines on how to gradually move
students from a game affordance of a computer to a learning mode.
Introduction
Educational technologies are frequently introduced to learning environments with
great fanfare and expectations for learning outcomes. Unfortunately, recent meta-
analyses of research about technology-enhanced learning environments showed min-
imal, or even negative, effect sizes (Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Fletcher, Claire & Gravatt,
1995; Lee, 1999; Lou, Abrami & D’Apollonia, 2001). The causes frequently cited for
these minimal effects include the tasks, learner variables, and design issues. Affor-
dances of computer technologies for the learner are rarely mentioned as a possible cause
for the mixed results.
Students in K-12 and undergraduate settings spend a majority of their computer time
playing games and communicating with peers, therefore, their affordances for the com-
puter are affected by these experiences. Affordances describe the interaction supported
by the tool for each individual and is affected by their prior experiences. The students
expect to be entertained by the computer and use it to communicate with peers and
rarely consider it a learning environment. In the early days of television-based classes,
192
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Salomon and Leigh (1984) reported on a phenomenon he termed AIME (Amount of
Invested Mental Effort). Similar to what we are experiencing with the computer-literate
generation now, the TV viewers expected to be entertained and rarely engaged their
minds in effortful thinking while viewing the programmes. This and the one-way com-
munication of the medium resulted in many TV-based courses failing as good learning
environments. Computer affordances for learners in K-12 and undergraduate settings
may play a similar role in research outcomes if viewed as an entertainment medium
that requires less engagement of the brain.
There are four major reasons why it is important to ?gure out the role of affordances
in educational technologies. First, if young learners’ expectations of computers are that
they will be entertaining and game-like, should we always endeavor to meet those
affordances and construct only games to promote their learning? Second, should we
identify transitions to move learners from the game affordances to a learning affor-
dance? Third, is it possible to change affordances of a computer tool for learners? Finally,
as the numbers of web-based distance learning environments increase and are actually
being used by K-12 and older students, do we really know what is going on in learners’
minds as they interact with the computer? Additionally, do these students multitask
based on their computer affordances and miss important learning or are they evolving
into a different type of learner?
This paper describes two projects where technology affordances played a large part in
the outcomes. Each study described includes the methods, results, and discussion. We
begin with a description of computer technologies in learning environments, affordance
theory, and then describe the research studies. The conclusion identi?es strategies that
can minimise the effects of the problems and methods that can move students to a
learning affordance instead of propagating the game affordances of computers.
Computer technologies in learning environments
Computer technologies in the classroom include interventions like computer tutors,
interactive learning environments, discovery learning environments, simulations,
web-based distance learning environments, and communication tools. Table 1 shows a
sample of such studies and presents the domain of study, education level of learners,
outcome variables studied, and results. Participants range from high school students
learning biology to undergraduate engineering students. Research results from these
studies show limited effects on learning. One explanation for the mixed results in these
studies is the computer tool affordance for the user.
Affordances
Affordances are the interactions between users and tool. The tool prompts, guides, or
constrains the users depending on their previous experiences (Salomon, 1990). In order
to accept the affordance of the tool, the user must have prior experiences with similar
tools (Carter, Westbrook & Thompkins, 1999), domain knowledge (Kozma & Russell,
1997), and must be at an age where they are able to understand or relate to the
Technology affordances
193
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
T
a
b
l
e
1
:
S
a
m
p
l
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
i
n
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
-
a
i
d
e
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
D
o
m
a
i
n
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
d
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
A
d
a
m
s
a
n
d
S
h
r
u
m
(
1
9
9
0
)
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
—
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
t
o
o
l
f
o
r
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
,
d
i
s
p
l
a
y
i
n
g
,
r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
g
r
a
p
h
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
1
.
G
r
a
p
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
G
r
a
p
h
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
u
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
t
o
o
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
N
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
r
g
e
(
1
9
9
0
)
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
s
k
i
l
l
s
G
r
a
d
e
s
7
a
n
d
8
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
1
.
H
y
p
o
t
h
e
s
i
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
2
.
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
d
e
s
i
g
n
3
.
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
o
w
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
l
y
A
l
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
B
o
n
k
a
n
d
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
(
1
9
9
2
)
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
,
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
G
r
a
d
e
s
5
–
8
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
p
r
o
m
p
t
i
n
g
1
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
N
o
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
C
a
ñ
i
z
a
r
e
s
a
n
d
F
a
u
r
(
1
9
9
7
)
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
M
A
T
L
A
P
,
M
A
P
L
E
-
V
,
E
E
S
,
S
O
L
V
E
R
-
Q
1
.
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
.
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
N
o
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
C
a
r
t
e
r
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
9
)
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
—
c
i
r
c
u
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
G
r
a
d
e
9
(
q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
)
1
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
2
.
T
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
3
.
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
i
o
r
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
t
o
o
l
a
n
d
l
a
c
k
o
f
p
r
i
o
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
C
o
l
e
m
a
n
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
8
)
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
i
s
e
d
c
o
u
r
s
e
w
a
r
e
1
.
T
e
s
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
i
s
e
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
w
o
r
s
e
t
h
a
n
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
194
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
D
e
J
o
n
g
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
9
)
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
—
m
o
m
e
n
t
u
m
F
i
r
s
t
Y
e
a
r
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
s
.
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
1
.
D
e
?
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
c
h
o
i
c
e
)
2
.
I
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
W
h
a
t
-
i
f
t
e
s
t
s
)
3
.
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
m
a
p
s
)
A
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
i
n
d
e
?
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
i
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
(
n
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
D
i
x
o
n
(
1
9
9
7
)
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
G
r
a
d
e
8
G
e
o
m
e
t
e
r
S
k
e
t
c
h
p
a
d
™
1
.
V
i
s
u
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
2
.
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
T
o
o
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
w
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
L
i
n
d
s
t
r
ö
m
e
t
a
l
(
1
9
9
3
)
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
.
H
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
c
o
r
e
s
o
n
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
2
.
I
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
m
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
i
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
e
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
b
u
t
n
o
t
o
n
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
c
o
r
e
s
M
a
y
e
s
(
1
9
9
5
)
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
—
A
l
g
e
b
r
a
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
T
o
o
l
—
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
1
.
C
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
.
M
a
n
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
k
i
l
l
s
T
o
o
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
w
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
a
l
o
m
o
n
,
G
l
o
b
e
r
s
o
n
a
n
d
G
u
t
e
r
m
a
n
(
1
9
8
9
)
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
,
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
G
r
a
d
e
7
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
1
.
R
e
c
a
l
l
o
f
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
s
2
.
M
e
t
a
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
3
.
O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
i
?
c
a
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
o
n
a
n
d
A
b
r
a
h
a
m
(
1
9
9
5
)
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
—
n
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
m
a
t
t
e
r
F
i
r
s
t
y
e
a
r
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
a
n
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
.
U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
2
.
A
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
3
.
E
f
f
e
c
t
o
f
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
D
o
m
a
i
n
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
d
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
T
a
b
l
e
1
:
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Technology affordances
195
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
affordances (when the tool is within the zone of proximal development of the learners)
(Carter, Westbrook & Thompkins, 1999). Norman (1998) says, ‘affordance is not a
property, it is a relationship that holds between the object and the organism that is
acting on the object. The same object might have different affordances for different
individuals’ (p. 123).
For the focus of this paper, the tool or object is the computer. Based on previous experi-
ences with the computer, the user can see it as a tool for data entry, as a method of
communication with others, as a place to play games, or as a facilitator for writing a
paper. Most students in K-12 and undergraduate settings have grown up with the
desktop computer that has graphical user interfaces and advanced gaming capabilities.
When these students are faced with learning from a computer or interacting with a
computer to perform a problem-solving task, what are their expectations for that inter-
action? How do their expectations affect the outcomes of their experience?
Research on affordance has shown that undergraduate students perceived the numeric
isomorph of a simple Tic-Tac-Toe game to be easier than the isomorph with shapes and
colors (Zhang, 1997). The game-like isomorph and the students’ view of the role of
computers were better matched yielding easier ratings. Using qualitative analysis of
data transcribed from high school student interactions with computer representation
(physics concepts like behavior of a mass on a spring and graphs generated by the
computer), Kelly and Crawford (1996) showed positive roles of the computer. The high
school instruction used a computer to foster the construction of meaning. The com-
puter exhibited vital information and presented anomalies to the students’ expecta-
tions. The computer became the students’ ally in making a case. The students used the
computer representations to ‘make a claim’, make predictions, and look for clari?cation.
They responded to the computer as a member of the group. The students appeared to
learn to value the computer as a useful tool for inquiry rather than just a source of
entertaining games.
In contrast, Roth (1995) and Roth, Woszczyna and Smith (1996), studied 11th grade
students interacting with a physics microworld, Interactive Physics
™
, and showed that
some students needed guidance in making the correct choices, navigating, and inter-
preting the outcomes of the simulations. Most troubling was their synthesis that stated,
‘The teacher could implement and execute ideas and experiments as he planned; the
computer software complex—provide him affordances, just as a chisel or circular saw
affords many possibilities to a carpenter. On the other hand, from a students’ perspec-
tive, the computer software complex—was a tool unready to hand’ (Roth, Woszczyna
& Smith, 1996, p. 1012).
In summary, computer affordances play a large role in learning outcomes. The cur-
rent cohort of K-12 and undergraduate students, who are frequently the subjects in
research studies, have used computers from a very early age to play games and some-
times do simple word processing tasks. The designers of both computer tools and
research studies have backgrounds where computers were mostly utilised for pro-
196
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
gramming databases and application design; they view computers from a utility-
oriented perspective. This difference in perspective can cause a signi?cant difference
in each group’s approach to computers and their use. Speci?cally, K-12 students and
undergraduates see computers as gaming machines with minimal applicability as
problem-solving tools. The opposite is true of the designers and researchers in many
of these studies.
Designers and researchers keep creating learning environments (using information on
motivation, learner variables, multi media, etc) in the hope of creating rich learning
environments for young learners. Unfortunately, these learners want to be entertained,
play games, and ‘chat’ with their friends, and the last thing on their mind is learning
with the computer.
Therefore, there is a need to further study computer affordances. There is a ?ne line
between aspects of design in technology that motivate and engage learners and
those that distract them from learning what is important in the instruction. We
have to ?nd ways to move students from a ‘game’ affordance of the computer to a
‘learning’ affordance if we plan on propagating the use of computers in classrooms
for learning.
Next we describe two studies where the affordances of the computer tool played a large
role in the outcomes of the studies. We follow up with methods to change the game
affordance to a learning affordance.
Research study 1: a pilot of web-based intelligent tutoring system
(?fth–seventh grade)
1
We created the Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy (ITSS) to teach ?fth and
seventh grade students a reading strategy called the Structure Strategy (Wijekumar &
Meyer, in press). The Structure Strategy has previously been taught by human tutors
and teaches learners that expository texts have six basic structures: comparison, prob-
lem/solution, cause/effect, description, sequence, and listing (Meyer
et al,
2002). Orig-
inally, human tutors would model the use of the strategy by showing learners the
signalling words, helping them write main ideas for the text passages, and then use the
main ideas to construct a full recall of the text.
Our new system was designed using Flash to create an animated book-like web page
with a talking head I.T., who spoke to the student in the role of a tutor. Figure 1 shows
a sample of one of the pages designed. The system is interactive with I.T. modelling how
to use the strategy, then giving students the chance to click on signalling words, write
main ideas, write full recalls, choose from multiple choice answers, and provide imme-
diate feedback to the learners.
The research presented here is a combination of pilot test data collected in spring 2004
and focus group conversations with students currently using the system.
Technology affordances
197
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Research questions
• What computer tools are frequently used by ?fth and seventh grade students?
• How is an intelligent tutoring system for a reading strategy viewed by ?fth and
seventh grade students?
• What affordance do computer tools support for students in Grades 5 and 7?
Participants
During the pilot test, 18 participants in Grades 4 through 8 were interviewed and
observed. Twelve participants were males and 6 were females; 15 were white, 2 were
African American, and 1 was Asian American. The participants were recruited through
three school and university listservs. All participants owned computers at home and
also used the computer in their school classrooms. All participants attended schools
that have a minimum of one computer to four students ratio.
The focus group consisted of 28 students in ?fth and seventh grades currently using
the system in a long-term research study. There were 15 females and 13 males in this
group. These participants were recruited through the school district and are a subset
of over 200 students currently using the ITSS program in the school day.
Figure 1: Sample screen from the Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy system
198
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Method
Participants completed an informed consent form and also surveys on their computer
usage, self-ef?cacy, and demographics. After a short break and an introduction about
the intelligent tutoring system, the participants individually worked through three
lessons in the tutoring system.
After completing their interaction with the intelligent tutor and midway through the
use of the ITSS in the schools, participants were interviewed about their experience. The
conversation was open-ended, and participants talked about their prior experiences
with computers as well as what they enjoy or dislike about computers. They also
critiqued their interactions with the intelligent tutor.
Results
Students in both the pilot and focus group reported that I.T. was believable and looked
interesting. They suggested that they would like to talk to I.T. about topics other than
the reading strategy as well.
However, the students said that listening to I.T. for long periods of time or having to
interact on a regular basis with I.T. can be boring because they would actually rather
be playing games on the computer. One student reported how another computer learn-
ing tool was introduced in their school, and most students turned the learning environ-
ment into a game of trying to give as many incorrect responses as possible to the system.
As these discussions continued, it was clear that the computer affordances for these
students was that of a ‘gaming’ tool.
Results about computer affordances
Interviews with the focus group students yielded some other interesting ?ndings about
their computer affordances. All students reported using the computer to play games
either on the Internet or using CD-ROMs. A notable statement was made by one of the
?fth grade participants. He said:
When I ?nish my work in class, my teacher usually lets me ‘play’ on the computer till my
classmates ?nish their work.
This statement was echoed by all the ?fth graders in some form.
Similarly, all the ?fth graders said they spend at least 10 to 15 hours a week playing
Nintendo, Playstation-type video games, or games on their computers. All children
reported playing Internet based-games like racing, puzzles, and sports. Male students
from all grades reported a high interest in war and racing games. Female students
reported a high interest in chatting with their friends using Instant Messaging and
games like Sims. None of the female students played racing or war games on their
computers.
Technology affordances
199
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
When asked whether they use the computer for anything other than games, they said
they sometimes email their friends and check homework that their teacher posts on the
World Wide Web (WWW). The time they spent on the school-related tasks were about
10 to 30 minutes a week compared with the 10 to 15 hours spent on games.
One student reported that as soon as she gets home, the ?rst thing she does is log on to
the computer and start talking to her friends. When asked about her homework, she
said she talks and does homework at the same time. Four students in the group said
that they post an away message and then do their homework.
We asked the students what they expected the tutoring system to behave like before they
started, and they all said they thought it was going to be a game. They also said that a
game would be more fun. When asked whether they can think of the system as a teacher
instead of a game, they said they probably can do it, but would rather play a game. These
ideas are captured elegantly in a statement by a seventh grader from the focus group
currently using the system:
When I sit down at a computer, I think of all the fun things I could be doing like games and talking
to my friends, so I try to ?nish any other work as fast as possible so I can return to my games and
talking.
At the conclusion of the short pilot test and focus group, the students were asked how
they enjoyed using the system, and they all reported that they had learned something
new. They also were surprised to hear about how texts were organised and felt they
would use them in their reading and writing. However, they all said that they would
rather play games on the computer than learn. They also stated that they sometimes
do ‘work’ on the computer, but that is usually for short periods of time.
Discussion
There are three areas of interest in these results. First, the computer affordance for our
sample population was clearly that of a gaming and communication tool. As reported
earlier, these participants all had computers in their homes. When we interviewed
students in the school that did not own computers at home, they appeared much more
receptive to learning from the computer.
Second, Harp and Mayer (1998) have referred to ‘seductive details’ in learning envi-
ronments that distract from the learning experience. Research has shown that when
learners are faced with peripherally related or unimportant information about course
content, they are distracted and perform poorly. Students with low prior knowledge and
limited metacognitive skills are more distracted than their counterparts who have prior
knowledge and the metacognitive skills to tell the difference between the important and
unimportant details of their learning activity.
This brings us to a dilemma: games may be interesting and somewhat educational, but
at what point are they more destructive to the learning environment than useful? Not
200
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
all learning materials should be or can be formatted into a game to gain the attention
of learners. Our topic of reading comprehension is complex and requires the learners
to engage their minds in the process. So it is important to help students move from their
‘gaming’ affordance of a computer to a learning affordance to aid in their acceptance
of the system.
Third, what techniques can be useful to help the students see the computer as more
than a gaming tool? Two techniques were created to gradually move students to a
learning affordance of a computer for our continuing research programme.
1. Students are given an introduction by the teachers that the intelligent tutor was
going to be like a teacher and that they should expect the system to behave like a
classroom experience. They were also told that they would get rewards when they
reach critical milestones in their tasks. We also introduced additional incentives and
motivational components (special ?reworks-like display when they completed all
lessons for one structure) to encourage the students to actively participate in using
the system.
2. Metacognitive modeling by the intelligent tutor was also incorporated to focus on
using the computer as a learning environment. The modeling included good prac-
tices in reading comprehension and using the Structure Strategy.
3. A third technique of adding a game at milestones during the ITSS program is being
considered for future enhancements to our program.
Finally, these three techniques are only the beginning of a long-term strategy and
discussion on how we approach the mismatch in K-12 learner affordances of computers
and instruction. These concerns are not limited to K-12 learners but are evident in
undergraduate and graduate students as well. The next study shows how undergradu-
ate and graduate students enrolled in web-based distance learning classes managed
their computer use and how they were affected by their computer affordances.
Research study 2: chat rooms in online learning environments
Two reasons prompted us to conduct this research study. First, we wanted to investigate
the ef?cacy for learning of conversations in two types of online chat rooms. We com-
pared agenda-driven chat room discussions versus social chat room discussions for
depth of discussion, cohesion of conversations, and compared test scores of students
immediately after. Second, distance learning environments have been growing at expo-
nential rates. However, all research justi?cation for continuing to propagate them
comes from the ‘no signi?cant difference’ studies showing that they are no worse or no
better than traditional face-to-face learning environments (adapted from Lockee, Bur-
ton & Cross, 1999). But the real questions are not being considered and include:
1. whether we are doing some long-term damage to students’ approach to learning;
2. whether students are actually engaging less in learning;
3. whether the whole learning process has changed; and
4. whether we need to train students to adapt to the new cognitive demands of the
learning environments.
Technology affordances
201
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Are students who have grown up using computers to play games and communicate
more likely to view web-based learning environments as extensions of these affordances
and engage their minds less in problem solving and other higher-order tasks?
‘Computer-based tasks often involve high cognitive load that might be susceptible to
interference from interruptions’ (p. 21, Baecker, Grudin, Buxton & Greenberg, 1995 in
Speier
et al
, 1999). Are students keeping multiple windows open and having multiple
conversations while engaging in a web-based discussion or chat room? How much time
and concentration does it take to synthesise and really contribute to the discussion?
The second study sprang from these concerns. The research questions were:
1. What affordances do computers have for undergraduate and graduate students?
2. What techniques (cognitive and metacognitive) are used by successful students in
managing their online learning experiences?
3. What roles do chat room discussions play in online learning environments?
Participants
A total of 77 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in three different online
classes participated in this study. The classes were in undergraduate nutrition education
(two sections, with 21 and 22 students in each), undergraduate information technol-
ogy (19 students), and graduate safety science (15 students); 41 participants were men
and 36 participants were women. All the classes were designed by the same instruc-
tional designer and were orientated towards problem-based learning. Each 15-week
course had approximately 10–12 learning modules. Each module was organised
around a problem that the student had to solve using the resources and scaffolds
provided by the instructor.
In each class, we introduced both agenda-driven- and social chat rooms (Wijekumar,
2001). In 15-week semesters, we conducted ?ve agenda-driven chat rooms and ?ve
social chat rooms. The agenda-driven chat rooms had questions posted by the instruc-
tor, and students were asked to prepare their thoughts for the chat room. The instruc-
tors then followed a round-robin pattern to ask questions from the learners and provide
feedback.
An example of a discussion question from the Safety Science class agenda-driven chat
was, ‘what methods can be used to reduce workplace violence?’ Students were given 3
days to research the question and be ready for a focused discussion in the chat room.
In the social chat, there were no agendas posted and discussion was frequently about
social topics and sometimes about course requirements (details about projects that were
due, etc).
Method
In order to compare discussion and learning outcomes, three independently trained
raters coded all of the postings from chat rooms and examined the test scores of the
202
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
students. The coded chat room discussions showed statistically signi?cant differences
in the contents of the agenda-driven chat rooms compared with those of the social chat
rooms. Students in the agenda-driven chat rooms had deeper thoughts about the topics
and more cohesive discussions about the content.
Next, we compared how much students remembered about topics that were discussed
in the agenda-driven chat room versus the social chat room. Test scores were not
signi?cantly different for within-subjects comparisons of test performance. Even though
the students in the agenda-driven chat rooms had signi?cantly higher quality discus-
sion (depth and cohesion) than the social chat students, we found that the recall of the
discussion was a problem. The same group of students did not recall much from any
type of chat conversations.
To delve deeper into why this phenomenon emerged, we interviewed four undergradu-
ate students who performed well on the recall and four undergraduates who did not.
The eight students were selected based on their performance in the tests and prior
experiences with computers. Four students who remembered over 90% of the chat
discussion were chosen. Two of the students reported they had over 10 years of experi-
ence using computers and use them daily. Of the four students who performed poorly
in the recall of the chat discussion in the test (remembered less than 50% of content),
three said they had used computers for over 10 years.
Students were interviewed about their activities in the online class. Speci?c interview
questions included:
1. How many windows do you have open on your desktop when you are working in
your online class?
2. What windows are usually active?
3. When you are conversing in a chat room, what other windows do you have open?
4. How much of the chat discussion do you read and how easy is it to synthesise the
information?
5. What do you think you gain from the chat discussion?
Students were also asked speci?c questions about recent chat discussions to determine
whether they actually remember information from the discussions.
We interviewed these eight students immediately after the agenda-driven chat room
concluded and they had completed a test on that discussion. The discussion was about
nutritional supplements, their effects on users, the effects of advertising on the usage
of the supplements, and general questions about the class.
Results
All ?ve participants with extensive computer experience used computers to play games
and communicate with colleagues. Each had from 6 to 10 windows open on their
desktop while doing any task. They included a web browser, two or three instant mes-
Technology affordances
203
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
saging windows, notepad/wordpad, and sometimes a game. They all stated that they
multitask and switch their attention between all windows. When conversing in a chat
room, they still continued to talk to other friends.
All students felt that the social chat rooms that were impromptu with student-initiated
questions fell into two categories. The ?rst type of discussion was social and did not have
much to do with the course content but made them feel at ease with the instructor and
colleagues. The second type of discussion was about grades and questions about speci?c
tasks with which they were struggling.
All students felt that the agenda-driven chat room was focused towards learning. They
explained that it felt like a classroom environment.
There was a clear pattern in three of the multitasking users’ recalls. All were disjointed
and missed many details of the conversations. Examples of the disjointed recalls and the
well synthesised recalls are described next.
The two students who were novices at computer usage recalled twice as much infor-
mation from the chat discussion as their multitasking counterparts. They also tended
to organise their recall in themes that were similar to the instructor’s content
organisation.
Instructor:
What supplement did you research?
Student A:
Ginkgo Biloba
Instructor:
Interesting, why did you pick this one?
Student A:
I saw some advertisement saying that it improved memory so I picked it.
Instructor:
What did you ?nd?
Student A:
I went to www.blueprintforhealth.com Gingko has been most commonly used to
improve blood ?ow, treat memory loss, dizziness, and ringing in the ears. It can
cause nausea and headaches, and is not suggested for use by those who suffer
from allergies or hemophilia.
Student A:
www.webmd.com Ginkgo may decrease the chances of conception by interfering
with normal hormones. Gingko has also been used to increase lung in?amation,
but may result in excessive bleeding to those who are taking blood thinners.
Student A:
www.intelihealth.com Gingko has not been reviewed by the FDA. Because of this,
their is a lack of information concerning the effects of taking Ginkgo Biloba in
conjuction with other drugs.
Student B:
I think my mother takes that supplement.
Instructor:
Does it help?
Student A:
www.fda.gov Gingko Biloba has been said to be a memory enhancer because it
has been tested on people with alzheimer’s disease and showed positive results.
But, it has not been tested on people who do not suffer from this disease. There-
fore, there is no evidence which suggests that Gingko also promotes good mem-
ory for the average person.
Instructor:
Student A, do you think this is a useful supplement?
Student A:
I was completely unaware that Gingko Biloba has negative effects on people with
hemophilia and similar diseases. And it was shocking to me that it may also have
negative affects on allergy suffers.
Instructor:
Have you changed your opinion about it?
204
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Student A:
Before doing this research, I was under the assumption that Gingko was an
entirely good thing. But, after see the number of affects it can have on people, I
feel that the number of negative effects of taking this supplement outweigh the
positive ones.
As shown in the sample discussion above , the novices outlined that there were four
themes in the discussion. The ?rst was how Gingko was portrayed in the advertisement
as helping memory. Second, that the research showed that it worked with Alzheimer’s
patients but not proven in healthy humans. Third, that the possible negative effects of
abnormal bleeding and allergies would be cause for concern. And ?nally, he also sug-
gested that another student said his mother used the supplement.
Similarly, two of the computer-literate students who turned off the chimes on their
Instant Messaging (IM) programmes and posted away messages when participating in
the chat room remembered most of the discussion and organised their recall effectively.
On the other hand, three students with high computer skills and multiple windows open
during their chat room summarised the discussion as ‘Gingko can be ok for most people
but can be dangerous’. Even when the interviewer prompted them for more informa-
tion, they did not recall any of the speci?c details from the discussion.
These multitasking students were asked whether they were affected by their multiple
conversations at the same time as their class chat rooms. They all reported that they
did not feel interrupted or distracted in having 6 to 10 windows open and carrying on
multiple conversations at the same time.
The one computer novice who performed poorly on the recall said that he had dif?culty
in reading all the postings and making sense of the discussion. He felt that the conver-
sations on the agenda-driven chat room were more organised but still did not ?ow
smoothly. This particular student was the ?rst to request the logs of the chat rooms to
be posted to the course web site. This allowed him to sort through the discussion and
gather his thoughts on the topic without time constraints.
The discussion above continued with another student asking questions about whether
this information would be on the next exam, and other students chiming in on periph-
erally related information like ‘the FDA really should look at these types of claims more
carefully’ followed by another student saying ‘the FDA cannot be reviewing everything,
that is why there is a backlog for them’. This type of interaction in a short time frame
requires students to process lots of information. The student suggested that the chat
discussion put all the participants in one level of importance. He also said that in a
traditional classroom, the teacher is usually in the role of the moderator and his/her
presence was set apart from the presence and contributions of the students. However,
in the chat room, all participants posted to the same text window, and even though the
teacher’s name was clearly visible, all postings competed for his attention with equal
weight.
Technology affordances
205
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Result on computer affordances
The outcome of the tests, interviews with the students (high and low recall), and survey
data collected at the beginning of the class all suggested that these students viewed
computers as communication tools (to instant message friends, email colleagues), as
gaming tools, and as resources for completing homework. One graduate student noted,
‘I think I am different because I do not talk to everyone all the time on IM. When I am
in the library or lab reading on the Internet, I see almost everyone else there talking to
friends.’
Most of the undergraduate students reported using IM to talk to friends during the time
they entered the course chat room, and some even reported continuing to play games.
Similar to our ?rst study participants, this group of undergraduate and graduate online
learners also saw the computer as a communication and gaming tool. Their affordance
of the computer prompted them to multitask even at the expense of their learning.
Discussion
This study shows that undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in these online
classes did use the chat room for learning. However, the students who had used
computers for a long time tended to have multiple windows open on their desktop
and then believed they were not affected by the multitasking. The results of their
recall showed that their synthesis of the chat room was actually disjointed and quite
incomplete.
Salomon and Almog (1998) report on a phenomenon called the ‘Butter?y Defect’ that
can be caused by fractured knowledge building in hypermedia environments. The recall
of the chat room discussion by the multitasking students can be an example of this
concept.
The students who were novices and those that turned off their multiple windows syn-
thesised the chat discussion quite differently. They organised their summaries very
effectively and remembered twice as much information as their counterparts did.
Based on these ?ndings, we introduced two elements to the online classes we developed.
First, students were advised on how they should manage their learning in these online
environments. They were given a written handbook that told them to limit the numbers
of windows on their desktop, allocate time and concentrate on one task at a time, and
try to summarise their understanding of the chat conversations to check their
knowledge.
Second, the instructor posted the chat logs after they were edited to organise the dis-
cussion. This helped students go back and check their understanding and organisation.
This method also helped the novice student who had dif?culty reading the fast-paced
chat discussion and synthesising all the communications in the short time frame.
206
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
General discussion
Computer technologies are here to stay, and are being used by young and old. However,
the computer’s affordance for these two groups is different. The studies reported here
show that our participants in K-12, undergraduate, and graduate settings are more
likely to play games, talk to friends, and multitask in the computer environment.
This research has started the process of answering the questions reported earlier.
1. Are we doing some long-term damage to students’ approach towards learning?
Students’ orientation towards learning is different when computers are present
because students in these studies say they multitask and attend to playing games
and communicating while learning. Thus, the primary, learning task is interrupted
and competes for memory with the secondary tasks like games and communication.
In fact, the learning task may become secondary to the task of communicating with
friends. Task switching increases the complexity of the learning situation and taxes
cognitive resources, such as working memory, ultimately leading to poorer perfor-
mance on learning tasks in the laboratory (eg Baddeley, 1996; Callicott
et al,
1999).
The second study in an authentic academic learning situation suggests that stu-
dents remember less from their learning when they multitask. Some focus group
students from the ?rst study also said, ‘Why do we have to remember anything
anymore? We can always look it up’. This is another phenomenon that needs to be
investigated. Pea (1985) has suggested that computer tools can be used to promote
higher-order tasks while delegating the low-order, simple number crunching tasks
to the computer. This statement from the focus group students makes us wonder
whether Pea’s hypothesis holds true for these learners.
2. Are students actually engaging less in learning? There is some reduction in the
time spent on task versus other activities. However, Golub (2004) suggests that
before computers allowed students to counteract boredom by playing games, read-
ing emails, and instant messaging, others were distracted by crossword puzzles,
doodling, and making up games, and their time spent on tasks was not any higher.
However, the new tools on the desktop like instant messaging demand more atten-
tion and can be initiated by external sources and limit the engagement of the learner
(Grinter & Palen, 2002).
3. Has the whole learning process changed? The studies reported here suggest that the
computer affordances for the students are that of a gaming or communication
environment. The learning process has changed. However, the long-term strategy
may be to take advantage of the communication tools and games to help the students
learn.
4. Should we train students to adapt to the new cognitive demands of the learning
environments? The options are to train the students to adapt to the new cognitive
demands or adapt to the learning environments to capture the affordances. Either
option is limited by the current technologies. A combination of both approaches is
probably a good compromise. Learners (specially those with poor metacognitive
skills) should be educated about where and when they can use the technologies
effectively and how they can most effectively and ef?ciently switch their focus from
Technology affordances
207
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
the gaming mode to a learning mode. Technologies can be designed to engage the
students through games but then gradually move them to a learning affordance.
Technologies can also adapt to learners’ motivation and stress levels to improve
learning.
5. Finally, are students who have grown up using computers to play games and com-
municate more likely to view web-based learning environments as extensions of
these affordances and engage their minds less in problem solving and other higher-
order tasks? Is there a way to take these students’ familiarity and preference for
instant messaging and tweak it towards evaluation, analysis, and application to
enhance learning? Further research will need to focus on answering these
questions.
Conclusion
When constructing learning environments for K-12 and older student, designers,
researchers, and teachers must look to balancing gaming and learning, engagement
and distraction, and concentration and interruptions. The change from the gaming
affordance to the learning affordance can play a critical role in learning outcomes and
must be addressed immediately. Addressing the affordance issue can make the differ-
ence between a future society that can innovate and produce versus people who cannot
think without a ‘game’.
Notes
1. This research is funded in part by a research grant from the US Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences. More information on our intelligent tutoring project is avail-
able athttp://itss.br.psu.edu/
References
Adams, D. D. & Shrum, J. W. (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on
the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology
students.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
27
, 6, 777–787.
Azevedo, R. & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-
based instruction.
Journal of Educational Computing Research
,
13
, 2, 111–127.
Baddeley, A. (1996). The fractionation of working memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences
,
93
, 13468–13472.
Baecker, R. M., Grudin, J., Buxton, W. A. S. & Greenberg, S. (1995).
Readings in human-computer
interaction: toward the year 2000
. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kauffman Publishers.
Berge, Z. L. (1990). Effects of group size, gender, and ability grouping on learning science process
skills using microcomputers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
27
, 8, 747–759.
Bonk, C. J. & Reynolds, T. H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative
computerized prompting framework.
Computers in Human Behavior
,
8
, 39–62.
Callicott, J. H., Mattay, V. S., Bertollino, K. F., Coppola, R., Frank, J. A., Goldberg, T.E.,
et al
(1999).
Physiological characteristics of capacity constraints in working memory as revealed by func-
tional MRI.
Cerebral Cortex
,
9
, 220–226.
Cañizares, C. A. & Faur, Z. T. (1997). Advantages and disadvantages of using various computer
tools in electrical engineering courses.
IEEE Transactions on Education
,
40
, 3, August, 1997.
Carter, G., Westbrook, S. L. & Thompkins, C. D. (1999). Examining science tools as mediators of
students’ learning about circuits.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
36
, 1, 89–105.
208
British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 37 No 2 2006
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Coleman, J. N., Kinniment, D. J., Burns, F. P., Butler, T. J. & Koelmans, A. M. (1998). Effectiveness
of computer-aided learning as a direct replacement for lecturing in degree-level electronics.
IEEE Transactions on Education
,
41
, 3, August, 1998.
DeJong, T., Martin, E., Zmarro, J., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). The
integration of computer simulations and learning support: an example from the physics
domain of collisions.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
36
, 5, 597–615.
Dixon, J. K. (1997). Computer use and visualization in students’ construction of re?ection and
rotation concepts.
School Science and Mathematics
,
97
, 7, 352–358.
Fletcher, F., Claire, M. & Gravatt, B. (1995). The ef?cacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI):
a meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research
,
12
, 3, 219–241.
Golub, E. (2004).
On audiences activities during presentations
. Norfolk, VA: Consortium for Com-
puting Sciences in Colleges.
Grinter, R. E. & Palen, L. (2002). Instant messaging in teen life.
Proceedings of the 2002 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
, November 2002. New Orleans, LA. New
York: ACM Press, 21–30. Retrieved April 23, 2005, fromhttp://www.isr.uci.edu/~jpd/classes/
ics234cw04/grinter2.pdf#search
=
‘grinterinstant%20messaging%20in%20teen%20life’
Harp, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive
interest in science learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology
,
90
, 3, 414–434.
Kelly, G. J. & Crawford, T. (1996). Students’ interaction with computer representations: analysis
of discourse in laboratory groups.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
33
, 7, 693–707.
Kozma, R. B. & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses
to different representations of chemical phenomena.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
34
,
9, 949–968.
Lee, J. (1999). Effectiveness of computer-based instructional simulation: a meta analysis.
Inter-
national Journal of Instructional Media
,
26
, 1, 71–85.
Lindström, B., Marton, F., Ottosson, T. & Laurillard, D. (1993). Computer simulation as a tool for
developing intuitive and conceptual understanding in mechanics.
Computers in Human Behav-
ior
,
9
, 263–281.
Lockee, B. B., Burton, J. K. & Cross, L. H. (1999). No comparison: distance education ?nds a new
use for ‘no signi?cant difference’.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 3, 33–
42.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C. & D’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with tech-
nology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 3, 449–521.
Mayes, R. L. (1995). The application of a computer algebra system as a tool in college algebra.
School Science and Mathematics, 95, 2, 61–67.
Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E. S., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J. & Bartlett, B. J.
(2002). Older adults tutoring ?fth-grade children in the structure strategy via the Internet.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3, 486–519.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond ampli?cation: using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 20, 4, 167–182.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: the case of inter-
active physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 4, 329–347.
Roth, W. M., Woszczyna, C. & Smith, G. (1996). Affordances and constraints of computers in
science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 9, 995–1017.
Salomon, G. & Leigh, T. (1984). Predispositions about learning from print and television. Journal
of Communication, 34, 2, 119–135.
Salomon, G., Globerson, T. & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal develop-
ment: internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81, 4, 620–627.
Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research,
17, 1, 26–44.
Salomon, G. & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: a matter of reciprocal
relations. Teachers College Record, 100, 1, 222–241.
Technology affordances 209
© 2005 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
Speier, C., Valacich, J. S. & Vessey, I. (1999). The effects of task interruption and information
presentation on individual decision making: an information overload perspective. Decision
Sciences, 30, 2, 337–360.
Wijekumar, K. (2001). Can chat rooms be more than social gathering places? Paper presented at the
American Educational Communications Technology Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Wijekumar, K. & Meyer, B. J. F. (in press). Design and pilot of a web-based intelligent tutoring
system to improve reading comprehension in middle school students. Journal of Computers in
Schools.
Williamson, V. M. & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particu-
late mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 5,
521–534.
Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science,
21, 2, 179–217.
doc_521231561.pdf