Critically Assessing Digital Affordances
| Action-oriented Approach|Plurilingualism|Tech-mediated
In the rapidly evolving landscape of educational technology, teachers are continuously faced with new digital tools that promise to enhance learning. However, meaningful integration requires more than enthusiasm, as it demands a critical eye and reflective practice. Understanding affordances as the opportunities for action that these tools present can empower educators to make informed choices. By using structured heuristics and drawing from the shared experiences of fellow educators, teachers can navigate this complexity and uncover best practices tailored to their classroom contexts.
Heuristics, like those in Table 1 (Haines, 2015), can help teachers discover how new tools work in their classrooms.
Learning from other teachers’ experiences with these tools (both general ideas and specific examples) can be useful. This can happen through reading about how tools are used, watching experienced teachers, and discussing ideas with others. Keeping a collection of teachers’ thoughts, based on research and local knowledge, can help everyone understand the best ways to use these digital tools effectively.
| Table 1: Questions to ask when considering a new technology tool for your classroom. |
| ● What are the learning affordances of this tool generally? What are the action possibilities of this tool for students’ learning? ● How is it similar or dissimilar to other technology tools that I have used? ● What are the action possibilities of this tool for me, in my specific context? How could I use it to support my teaching, my students’ learning and my own learning? |
Have a look at the example below where we critically assess the affordances of Zoom.
| Critical Assessment of Zoom |
| What are the learning affordances of Zoom generally? Zoom offers several affordances for learning, including: ● Real-time interaction ● Multimodal communication ● Flexibility ● Accessibility |
| What are the action possibilities of Zoom for students’ learning? Active participation: Students can join discussions, ask questions, and interact with peers and instructors. Collaboration: Breakout rooms allow for small-group activities, peer discussions, and teamwork. Engagement with multimedia: Screen sharing and annotation tools help visualize concepts. Self-paced review: Recorded sessions allow students to revisit content for deeper understanding. |
| How is Zoom similar or dissimilar to other technology tools I have used? Similarities: For example, like Microsoft Teams or Google Meet, it allows virtual meetings and collaboration. Or, like learning management systems (LMSs), it supports asynchronous access to recorded sessions. Dissimilarities: It is more interactive than simple video-sharing platforms like YouTube, where communication is one-directional. Unlike LMS platforms, it primarily focuses on live communication rather than course management. |
| What are the action possibilities of this tool for me, in my specific context (i.e., ESL teacher in the post-secondary context)? Zoom could support my teaching by: Providing a space for synchronous lessons, keeping students engaged in discussions. Allowing recorded lectures for students who need flexibility in reviewing content. Supporting teacher collaboration, enabling meetings with colleagues across different locations. |
| How could I use it to support my teaching, my students’ learning and my own learning? For teaching: Conduct live lessons, host guest speakers, and facilitate interactive learning with polls and whiteboards. For students’ learning: Encourage active participation, peer collaboration, and access to recorded lectures. For personal learning: Attend webinars, conferences, and virtual professional development sessions. |
Now, let’s do this exercise for a technological tool of your choice.
Potential tools/frameworks ⚒️
Now, there are some other tools/frameworks that you can consider to assess the affordances of educational technologies. You can combine them to best suit your own language teaching context.
Firstly, A Rubric for Selecting Active Learning Technologies lists a rubric that is designed as a formative tool to evaluate active learning technologies. This rubric supports a multi-dimensional evaluation of functional, technical, and pedagogical aspects of active learning technologies.
Secondly, the Rubric for eLearning Tool Evaluation is a formative tool designed for instructors and staff to evaluate eLearning tools in higher education. The rubric supports a multi-dimensional evaluation of functional, technical, and pedagogical aspects of eLearning Tools.
Finally, the Edtech Product Evaluation Guide highlights a Teacher Ready framework that is designed to evaluate edtech products to ensure they can best serve the instructors and their students in learning contexts. This framework mainly focuses on product usability, including technical usability (how well a product operates) and pedagogical usability (how effectively the product facilitates learning).
Adopting an affordance lens
Regardless of the specific tool, rubric, framework, or any combination thereof that language teachers may choose to implement, Blewett (2016) emphasises the importance of adopting an “affordance lens” when integrating educational technologies, urging educators to evaluate tools not just for their features but for the kinds of actions and interactions they make possible. In his framework, he identifies five key affordances that should guide such evaluation.
Foremost among these, is accessibility affordance, which he frames as the central condition for all others. This refers to the extent to which users are able to access and engage with the learning space, an essential prerequisite for realising the full potential of any educational technology.
He also outlines the connection affordance, which concerns how technologies enable or strengthen links among participants in a learning environment. These connections might involve removing barriers between learners and content or enhancing collaboration between peers.
The communication affordance, as defined by him, relates to how a tool supports the expression and sharing of ideas. Whether through writing, speaking, or visual media, this affordance captures the tool’s capacity to help learners and teachers articulate their thoughts within the space.
Next, he describes the control affordance, highlighting how users can influence learning activities by negotiating roles, customising the environment, or managing group dynamics. This affordance is about the degree of agency granted to the actants within the space.
Finally, he explains the construction affordance, which speaks to a technology’s ability to facilitate the building of new learning spaces or content. This might include creating digital artifacts or developing new platforms for interaction and reflection.
Taken together, Blewett’s (2016) framework equips language educators with a thoughtful lens through which to assess and adopt digital tools, guiding educators to think critically about how digital tools can be leveraged to support both action-oriented goals and plurilingual engagement.
References 📝
Blewett, C. (2016). From Traditional Pedagogy to Digital Pedagogy: Paradoxes, Affordances, and Approaches. In Disrupting Higher Education Curriculum (pp. 265–287). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-896-9_16
Haines, K. J. (2015). Learning to identify and actualize affordances in a new tool. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 165-180. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2015/haines.pdf.
AALE Toolkit Home | Action-oriented Approach | Plurilingualism | Tech-mediated | AALE Infosheets Exploration