Affordances – action possibilitiesReciprocal relation between people and their environment

Pirkko Hyvönen, post-doc researcherUniversity of Oulu Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET)

Affordance (tarjoke, tarjouma, suonto)

by James Jerome Gibson (1979), ecological psychology

“Affordances of the environment are what it offers to animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment”. (Gibson, 1979, 127)

“An affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or it is both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective-objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to observer.” (Gibson, 1979, 129)

Affordances are not properties, resources nor features of the environment. Instead they are “relations between particular aspects of animals and particular aspects of situations” (Chemero, 2003, 184).

What action possibilities this environment can offer for the animal?- Social, emotional, cognitive or physical possibilities

How this animal can use the environment?His size, social, emotional, cognitive or physical capabilities

Resiprocal relation

between environment and hewithin situations

AFFORDANCES

What action possibilities this environment can offer for the artist?- Social, emotional, cognitive or physical possibilities

How this artist can use the environment? Meaningfully? How can he perseive affordances?His size, social, emotional, cognitive or physical capabilities?

Resiprocal relation

between environment and he within situations

AFFORDANCES

Affordances are action-based relations between particular aspects of person and particular aspects of situations. (Chemero, 2003; Gibson, 1979; Michaels, 2003)

What action possibilities these learning environments can offer for learners?- Social, emotional, cognitive or physical

possibilities

- What environments can offer?- Can learners perceive those possibilities?- Can they use them?

The exploration unit has a play affordance for a group of children who want to dissect grains of sand and the bodies of flies.

The unit has a dissect affordance, in other words, affordance for dissecting.

The same exploration unit offers a hiding, measuring and climbing affordance, allowing someone to see views from a height.

However, it does not have climbing affordance for people whose muscles are too weak to climb.

In Gibson’s words, we can refer to dissect-able and hide-able, measure-able and climb-able affordances.

Exploration unit

The spinning mill offers a spin (spin-able) affordance to a person who fits inside the circle, who is encouraged enough to try the experience and who has someone to rotate the circle. Affordances of the spinning mill for playing and rotating cover the entire situation.

Other people!

What kind of affordances animals in a city environment have?

What kind of affordances animals in a city environment have?

Sitting affordance?

Category Value Description

Succeeded

Positive

Possibilities for interaction are perceived; they are needed, meaningful and relational for individuals.

Expected Possibilities for interaction are named; they are needed, desired and expected.

Redundant

Neutral

Possibilities for interaction are perceived and they are relational for individuals, but they are meaningless. Hence they are neither needed not desired.

Hidden Possibilities for interaction are hidden.

Prevented

Negative

Possibilities for interaction are prevented.

Denied Possibilities for interaction are perceived, but they are not allowed for certain reasons.

Perceiving affordances

Perception is the perception of affordances (Gibson, 1979). Cognition is an awareness of existing places, objects, persons and animals, and ongoing events in the environments (Michaels, 2003; Reed, 1988).

In the learning context learners and teachers are perceivers, hence, perception can take place individually or collaboratively (shared); it can take various perspectives and it can be mediated.

Learners perceive common affordances, but, as individuals, they have their unique intentions. In shared perception, two or more individuals are related to the same environment (Chemero, 2003; Mark, 2007). Individuals do not necessarily perceive similarly, but despite their differences (cognitive, social, emotional, physical and cultural), they can engage together in perceptual relation.

Multiple points of views are hence important in noting different perspectives and finding new meanings and solutions in play and learning processes.

Perceiving affordances

1) Perceiving is embodied activity 2) Perceiving depends on the perceiver’s needs, intentions and meanings and values 3) Perceiving is learning 4) Perceiving the environment is perceiving oneself 5) Affordances depends on the perceiver and his/her abilities and body

Perceiving is not merely a visual activity; it engages all senses, and is filtered through the whole body (Fisher, 2004; Gibson, 1979).

The perceptual system is more than just the senses; the system can, for instance, orient, explore, investigate, adjust, optimise and extract.

Perception includes expectations and meanings (Gibson, 1979) and is a continuous, active and embodied process (see, Bærentsen & Trettvik, 2002; Fisher, 2004; Gibson, 1979; Michaels, 2003; Zhang & Patel, 2006).

In ICT environment

How can you perceive positive Social affordances Cognitive affordances Emotional or motivational affordances

In ICT environment

There is not such as technological affordances.

There are technologies in your environment and in interaction with them social, cognitive and emotional affordances can be found.

Environments with sand

Environments with water

Environments with snow and ice

Usability studies

Task for you

Phase 1. Choose some of the tool that you have used during the intro course Phase 2. Evaluate a) social b) cognitive c) emotional/motivational affordances when using the toolPhase 3. Write your evaluation in the form of blog article to your own blog. Include small introduction about affordances as general.

Journal articles about affordances:Arminen, I. & Raudaskoski, S. (2003). Tarjoumat ja tietotekniikan tutkimus. Sosiologia, 4, 279–295. Barab, S. A. & Roth, W-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13. Bingham, G. P. (2000). Events (like objects) are things, can have affordance properties, and can be perceived. Ecological Psychology, 12(1), 29–36. Chemero, A. (2003). Outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195. Clark, C. & Uzzell, D. L. (2002). The affordances of the home, neighbourhood, school and town centre for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 95–108. Fisher, T. H. (2004). What we touch, touches us: Materials, affects, and affordances. Design Issues, 20(4), 20–31. Kirschner, P. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In Paul. A. Kirschner (Ed.) Three words of CSCL Can we support CSCL. Open Universiteit Nederland.Gaver, W. W. (1992). The affordances of media spaces for collaboration. Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 17–24). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Gaver, W. W. (1996). Affordances for interaction: the social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129. Retrieved September 5, 2006, from http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/spin/publications/related/gaver96.pdf

Hartson, H. R. (2003) Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315– 338. Heft, H. (2003). Affordances, dynamic experience, and the challenge for reification. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 149–180. Heft, H. (2007). The social constitution of perceiver-environment reciprocity. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 85–105. Heft, H. (2003). Affordances, dynamic experience, and the challenge for reification. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 149–180. Heft, H. (2007). The social constitution of perceiver-environment reciprocity. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 85–105. Kytta, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 179–198Kytta, M., Kaaja, M. & Horelli, L. (2004). An internet-based design game as a mediator of children’s environmental visions. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 127–151.Mark, L. S. (2007). Perceiving the actions of other people. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 107–136. McGrenere, J. & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000, Montreal. (pp. 179–186). Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~joanna/papers/GI2000_McGrenere_Affordances.pdf Michaels, C. F. (2003). Affordances: Four points to debate. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 135–148.