Teachers, pedagogy and professional development - Teaching with Technologies: The Essential Guide - page 99

et al. (1993) identified that learners working on interactive media with no clear narra-
tive structure tended to be unfocused. From this observation Laurillard (1998) argues
that multimedia design should provide scaffolding for the learner within the software,
where narrative structure focuses the learner. Laurillard et al. (2000) found, with respect
to multimedia software, there was a clear need for guidance from the teacher and/or
the software to promote meaningful learning' (Webb 2010: 94), as analysis of conver-
sations between learners revealed that without appropriate scaffolding and guidance,
pupil talk focused on how to operate the technology (the syntax), rather than discuss-
ing the meaning of the content (the semantics). Focusing on the syntax (technical
functions) rather than the semantics (the meaning) led to only low levels of reflection
(Boys et al. 2001).
Other models that characterize pedagogy have focused on quantitative measure-
ments of technology use. Such models have been developed specifically to calculate the
amount of computer activity. For example, the first Impact Study (Cox et al. 1993) had
a ten-point scale for appraising teachers' frequency of use. Similarly, Twining's (2000)
'Computer Practice Framework' (CPF) facilitates quantitative analysis of computer use
and enables reflection on how the computer is used to support curriculum objectives,
which could be through supporting, extending, or transforming those objectives. (This
pedagogical analysis is similar to McCormick and Scrimshaw's (2001) model for under-
standing teachers' curriculum use of computers, whether the technology is deployed
to make teaching more efficient or is transformative). However, while quantitative
models determine the frequency of use, they do little to analyse the quality of that use.
The most detailed comparison of models for examining pedagogy with technol-
ogy, including ones not discussed here, can be found in Webb (2010), to which the
quantity and range of models is indicative of the complexity and changing nature of
pedagogy and technology as advancements are made in both fields. Critically, Webb
(2010) argues that, while all these models are useful for characterizing technology use
within pedagogical practices, they do little to help us understand teachers' pedagog-
ical decision-making processes and how teachers conceptualize the 'affordances' of
technology. It is essential to understand these processes if change is to occur in the
profession regarding the take-up of technology.
Understanding affordances of technology
The idea of affordance is one that has been appropriated from ecology and has gained
much explanatory power in relation to technology for the unique way in which it
encapsulates the relationship between user and tool. For this reason it is worth out-
lining the lineage of the concept. The term 'affordance', as a noun, was first intro-
duced by Gibson (1979) and evolved from his ecological theory of perception. While
the verb 'to afford' was in the dictionary, what Gibson wanted to denote was the
relationship between an organism and an object, and the way the former perceived
the latter in relation to its needs. Citing the example of a 'tree', Hammond's (2010)
synoptic article on affordance outlines how as an object this may offer shelter from
the rain or sustenance as food (in which the opportunities the tree affords are differ-
ent according to need), but the physical properties of the tree remain the same and