1. Affordances – action
possibilities
Reciprocal relation between people and their
environment
Pirkko Hyvönen, post-doc researcher
University of Oulu
Learning and Educational Technology Research Unit (LET)

2. 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).

3. What action possibilities this environment can offer for the animal?
- Social, emotional, cognitive or physical possibilities
AFFORDANCES
Resiprocal
relation
between
environment
and he
within
situations How this animal can use the
environment?
His size, social, emotional,
cognitive or physical capabilities

4. What action possibilities this environment can offer for the artist?
- Social, emotional, cognitive or physical possibilities
AFFORDANCES
Resiprocal
relation
between
environment
and he within
situations
How this artist can use the environment?
Meaningfully? How can he perseive affordances?
His size, social, emotional, cognitive or physical
capabilities?

5. 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?

6. Exploration unit
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.

7. 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.

8. Other people!

9. What kind of affordances animals in a city environment have?

10. What kind of affordances animals in a city environment have?

11. Sitting affordance?

12. Category Value Description
Possibilities for interaction are perceived; they are needed,
Succeeded
meaningful and relational for individuals.
Positive
Possibilities for interaction are named; they are needed, desired
Expected
and expected.
Possibilities for interaction are perceived and they are relational
Redundant for individuals, but they are meaningless. Hence they are neither
needed not desired.
Neutral
Hidden Possibilities for interaction are hidden.
Prevented Possibilities for interaction are prevented.
Negative
Possibilities for interaction are perceived, but they are not allowed
Denied
for certain reasons.

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. In ICT environment
How can you perceive positive
 Social affordances
 Cognitive affordances
 Emotional or motivational affordances

16. 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.

17. Environments with sand

18. Environments with water

19. Environments with snow and ice

20. Usability studies

22. 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 tool
Phase 3. Write your evaluation in the form of blog article to your
own blog. Include small introduction about affordances as
general.

23. 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

24. 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.
Kyttä, 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, 179–198
Kyttä, 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.