It is the last reflection for the Communication of Education. We discuss the affordance of technology in education again with revising Ketso. The Ketso allowed me to see the big comprehensive picture of the impact of digital affordance. While revising the affordance, I found an interesting point that the same factor can play both advantage and disadvantage depending on the categories and users. For example, we can enjoy the high degree of ‘Fun’ when we communicate with digital devices, on the other hand, ‘Fun’ provided by digital technology can harm learning process. In addition, I think about the role of instruction designers during the class. Although technology brought many advantages into education and changes the educational environment, in terms of affordance, we have still some restrictions to maximize its ability. One of the main reason is the instruction designer is blamed for if the application is too complicated, ineffectual and task inefficient, instructional designers are usually blamed for it and evaluated that they fail to understand users need (Deegan and Rothwell, 2010). However, it would be so hard for the instructional designers to develop a program within considering so many factors and especially to make all the users satisfied is impossible in reality. I think no matter how well the designer try to understand users’ need, they will be blamed in the end like politicians as people perceive differently. It remained a question for me to make average satisfaction for large number of users or give high satisfaction for small portion of specific users.
Lastly, in the beginning, it seemed to be an easy course but hard to find a connection with education despite the name of the course. In the middle of the semester, I was rather struggling with textual analysis and as usual I complained a lot since I still could not find a clue about this course. However, after having technology affordance mind mapping, I was able to have a kind of idea what this course is supposed to be because I could see the whole picture of the course. I think Development of DTCE focused on the technology matter more and it is rather praise about it. I sometimes feel I got brainwashed as I was rather against using technology in education in the beginning but now I can see my perspective has been changed a lot positively. Meanwhile, this course allows me to have broad view ethnically regarding not only using media technology in education but also in daily life and allow me to have not too cynically but more balanced views about it. In addition, I learned a lot from activities and especially I realized having own reflections after lesson is very important for the meaningful lesson.
– Deegan, R., & Rothwell, P. (2010). A classification of m-learning applications from a usability perspective. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 16-27.