Technologies for learning? An actor-network theory critique of 'affordances' in research on mobile learning

Abstract

How is the link between learner and technology made in mobile learning? What is the value of the concept of 'affordances'? And how does research articulating this concept act to position mobile devices as 'technologies for learning'? This literature review used both unstructured and structured search samples of published research on mobile learning to critically evaluate the prevalence and influence of the concept of the affordances of mobile technologies. Actor-network theory is drawn on as a theoretical lens through which to critically consider how this concept is articulated, and in particular to explore the way it positions and controls mobile devices as technologies for learning. Parallels in contemporary accounts of mobile learning are drawn with classifications of previous discourses around the introduction of computers into schools. An alternative agenda for mobile learning research is suggested with a focus on authentic and informal contexts rather than controlled experiments.

Boundary objects, power, and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations

“…Participant 2 confirms that the checklist’s affordances are relationally configured and would differ, if they were part of a different network of entities, shaped by different relations of power, which does not produce subjects who are ‘used to taking instructions’ (Bloomfield et al, 2010; Wright and Parchoma, 2011). The checklist is therefore implicated in the performance and regulation of employee identities (Symon and Pritchard, 2015), by attempting to produce ‘sustainable subjects’ and homogenize conduct in line with norms about sustainability.…”

“…For example, common workplace objects such as printers (usually affording ‘print-ability’), or car parking spaces (usually affording ‘park-ability’) might also afford new opportunities for learning about how to be sustainable in relation to energy and fuel consumption. Affordances have enabled scholars to examine the agential role of artifacts in mobile learning (Turner, 2005; Wright and Parchoma, 2011) and the ‘world-making’ activities of cultural practice (Sutherland, 2013). While some scholars define affordances as the essential, measurable properties of an object (Gibson, 1979), others consider them subjective, perceived characteristics (Norman, 1988) informed by the user’s experiences (Greeno, 1994) or familiarity with the object (Turner, 2005), and still more have suggested that understanding all the eventual affordances (perceived or real) of an object is impossible (Oliver, 2005; Wright and Parchoma, 2011).…”

Beyond the player: A user-centered approach to analyzing digital games and players using actor-network theory

“…Many game-centered approaches would be examples of anti-schooler discourses. Wright and Parchoma (2011) use ANT in their review of mobile learning research, in which they problematize studies that position mobile devices as “technologies for learning.” In their view, not only are definitions of “affordance” inconsistently applied in the research, they point out that the “ubiquitous” nature of mobile devices is assumed to be inherent, unproblematic, and an obvious property of the technology. Mobile technology becomes a black box (Latour 1987, 2005) that outputs learning, while what actually goes on when people use mobile devices in the wild are obscured.…”

“…They were not producers of content that might be shared in an online forum but they possessed specialized knowledge of the games they were playing. Concurrent with ongoing research on games, players, and participatory culture, more studies that examine how games fit into players’ lives can offer on-the-ground perspectives that are often lacking in educational technology research (Bigum et al., 2015; Selwyn, 2010, 2012; Wright and Parchoma, 2011). Researchers should also study more players who are different from themselves, who play games that researchers might not play, and include more games that are underrepresented in existing literature.…”

“…Others have found that learning in games may have more to do with the surrounding physical and social environment than the design of the game itself (Stevens et al., 2008). Many studies rely on testing learning technologies in controlled, laboratory conditions (Weintrop et al, 2016) and fail to consider the real world contexts in which these technologies are deployed (Sanford et al., 2015; Stevens et al., 2008; Wright and Parachoma, 2011). Research is also limited by what researchers choose to study.…”