I am intrigued by the discussion of affordance and mediation, especially the
notion of at what levels of activity or analysis the constructs are
appropriate or helpful. In analyzing video data from a high school
classroom, the notions became salient. The activity involves 3 students who
are using a graphing calculator, a calculator-based ranger (motion detector
that is connected to the calculator), and screen that projects the
developing graph of position and velocity. One student holds the ranger,
pointing it at another student whose motion is captured with the ranger. The
third student has the calculator. The task is to decide what to tell the
moving student to do to match graphs whose shapes are depicted on a
worksheet. Over the course of several trials, the worksheet, the students'
verbal and written language, their gestures, and the projected graph all
serve as tools, and their use and influence change, too. Early on, the
students talk a lot about what kind of motion will produce graphs that match
the one on the worksheet, and the projection is used at the end of each
trial to evaluate their success. They also talk through what words they will
write down to describe the motion. In the middle trials, fewer gestures are
used, more abbreviated language is apparent in both giving directions and
deciding what to write down, and the projection serves as a guide during the
trial instead of just at the end. In the latest trials, no gestures are
seen, even less verbal language that is more abbreviated is used, the
students write independently and silently, and the projection again serves
as a guide.
If the tools in use are viewed in terms of affordances, I find myself
feeling as though there is a static quality to the description of their
function. This made me think of Don's description of affordances as "
available whether or not the organism
perceives them as such or is motivated to engage in a particular
activity; that is, there is some universality, permanence, and
independence to them." To my mind, that is not what seems to be happening in
the above scenario. In thinking of tools as mediating the activity, though,
especially in Mike Cole's framework of tools having dual functions
(internally and externally oriented) that both transform and are transformed
by activity, there seems to be a better way of capturing the dynamic nature
of the tools' "roles" and the students' use of them.
Certainly, the calculator, the ranger, and the projection have some material
properties that have some permanence, some independence of form that provoke
particular kinds of use -- these could be seen as affordances. However,
their changing use over the course of the session seems to me to be an
example that supports Don's contention that mediation may be a more, as he
says, "operable" concept.
thanks for a great discussion...
Nancy Ares
Assistant Professor
Teaching & Curriculum
The Warner Graduate School of Education
and Human Development
University of Rochester
P.O. Box 270425
Rochester, NY 14627
585-273-5957
fax 585-473-7598
> ----------
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Cunningham, Donald
> James
> Reply To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:40 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] effectivity?
>
> Well, Ok, a hammer might afford learning in the right hands! ;-)
>
> Perhaps you meant "does a hammer afford pounding"? I would prefer to say
> it can mediate driving a nail. For me, to _afford_ has a more limited
> domain. Gibson talks about "information pick-up". Affordances are
> invariants available in the ambient optic array and perception of
> affordances results from monitoring those aspects of this array which
> persist and those which change. This conception places the affordance in
> the light, not in the needs or motives of the observer. By _analogy_ we
> can talk about perceiving features and relationships in the environment
> that persist and change and "picking up" the associated affordances. But
> Gibson is talking specifically about "direct" perception, not perception
> as mediated by prior knowledge and world view. It is as that point that
> I think it makes more sense to talk about mediation. What persists and
> what stays the same about a hammer? How come my wife, an innovative
> first grade teacher, relies on her shoe to accomplish most pounding
> tasks in her classroom? Would you say shoes 'afford' pounding? I would
> not.
>
> But then I spend a lot of time in the bushes......djc
>
>
> Don Cunningham
> Indiana University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 7:22 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] effectivity?
>
> Don--
>
> I certainly agree that schools do not afford learning!! But how about a
> hammer?
> Do you suggest we restrict the use of the term to phylogenetic
> properties of
> humans
> and their "natural" environments? I get the point about not overusing
> terms,
> but do
> you want to say that the term, affordance, should not be used with
> respect
> to artifacts and
> artifact mediated human action? If not, what do you want to say about
> all
> this.
>
> Come back from the Bushes!
> :-)
> mike
>
> On 1/23/06, Cunningham, Donald James <cunningh@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Forgive the intrusion because I have not been following the discussion
> > very carefully. But this note caught my attention. I really think we
> > need to be careful with the term affordance. . The general notion of
> > affordance has surfaced frequently in a variety of theoretical and
> > empirical traditions but not always in a manner faithful to the
> Gibsons'
> > original formulation. As J. Gibson originally proposed it and E.
> Gibson
> > developed it, particularly within the domain of perceptual learning
> and
> > development, the concept seems relatively clear. When applied to more
> > complex cultural phenomena or structures, however, it begins to lose
> > some of its clarity. For example, to speak of the ground as affording
> > locomotion or a caregiver's vocalizations as affording a nurturing
> > interaction seems more appropriate to me than saying that a classroom
> > affords learning or a cocktail party affords socialization, for
> example.
> >
> >
> > For the Gibsons, affordances are available whether or not the organism
> > perceives them as such or is motivated to engage in a particular
> > activity; that is, there is some universality, permanence, and
> > independence to them. To say that cultural constructions like
> classrooms
> > afford learning trivializes the concept in my opinion. What does it
> gain
> > us to say that? Classrooms are places where learning is _supposed_ to
> > take place, so to say that it affords learning is redundant-whether or
> > not learning occurs is an empirical question, not one of universality,
> > permanence and independence. We could be more specific and say that
> the
> > teacher, the textbooks, the tests, the technology are all affordances
> > for learning and so on but does this reduce the circularity?
> >
> > I wonder about the utility of the theoretical concept of affordance,
> > beyond a certain level of complexity, for ordinary social behavior.
> > Gibson & Pick, in their wonderful book " An Ecological Approach to
> > Perceptual Learning and Development" write "Knowledge for good or ill,
> > of people, or things or places is meaningful and is obtained in the
> > first place from what people, things and events may afford us"
> (p.178).
> > My claim is that the initial learning about people, things, and events
> > is usefully conceptualized from the perspective of affordances but
> that
> > later interactions with them are more of a sorting process mediated by
> > one's worldview or cognitive schemes. Building a worldview is clearly
> a
> > process of connecting with the structures that one's physical and
> > cultural worlds offer, but once built, a worldview is rather
> impervious
> > to change. My new learning about people, things, and events is almost
> > certain to be embedded in, or at least strongly influenced by the
> > categories I have formed in my previous interactions. At this point,
> > mediation seems the operable concept, not affordance.
> >
> > Back to the bushes.......djc
> >
> > Don Cunningham
> > Indiana University
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Mike Cole
> > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:17 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] effectivity?
> >
> > bb-- The following text is taken from a Martin Ryder and colleague's
> > article
> > with the url
> >
> > http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html
> >
> > They write, in part:
> > We use the term *affordance* to describe a potential for action, the
> > perceived capacity of an object to enable the assertive will of the
> > actor.
> > The term was coined by psychologist James Gibson
> > (1977)<http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html#gibson>to
> > describe the action possibilities posed by objects in the real world.
> > There are many objects in our environment. Some we ignore, some we
> adapt
> > to,
> > and some we appropriate for our assertive will. It is the objects in
> > this
> > last category which fall under the the definition of *affordances*.
> > Certain
> > objects *afford* opportunities for action. An affordance is a
> value-rich
> > ecological object that is understood by direct perception. Perception
> > informs the individual of affordances. Action transforms affordances
> > into *
> > effectivities* which extend human capabilities (Allen and Otto,
> > 1995)<http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html#allen>.
> > Our own bodies are affordances. The eyes afford perception, the ears
> > listening, the hands manipulation, the tongue and vocal cords afford
> > utterances (Jonassen, Campbell and Davidson,
> > 1994)<http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html#jonassen>.
> > Natural affordances emerge into effectivities through use in conscious
> > activity. The hand of an infant, though attached, is a separate
> object.
> > The
> > infant is amused by it, studies it, tastes it, touches other things
> with
> > it.
> > Soon the infant learns to *use* the hand to manipulate other objects.
> In
> > the
> > process, the hand gradually transforms its object-ness to
> subject-ness.
> > The
> > child becomes less conscious of the hand as she uses it as an
> extension
> > of
> > her own intentioned will. The *affordance* becomes an *effectivity*.
> > Technology and media are affordances to the extent that they promise
> > extended human capabilities of seeing, hearing, and uttering. Tools
> are
> > affordances to the extent they offer extended human capabilities for
> > manipulating things in the environment. (Rasmussen, et. al.,
> > 1994)<http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html#rasmussen>.
> > Through use, skill is acquired and the object becomes an extension of
> > ourselves (McCluhan,
> > 1964)<http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/aect_96.html#mcluhan>.
> > These artifacts are transformed from affordances to effectivities.
> >
> >
> > Lots to think on here
> > mike
> >
> > On 1/22/06, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm still working on understanding the affordance-effectivity
> > relation,
> > > Peg.
> > > I understand your hanging texts example the best, as I use something
> > > similar
> > > for teaching a course in child development -- students bring in
> > drawings
> > > they
> > > have solicited from children of any age up to adolesence and we post
> > them
> > > on
> > > the wall. The more, the better. Patterns emerge from *their* data,
> > and
> > > we
> > > see developmental progressions in the drawings, always with
> > variations,
> > > but
> > > definitely patterned. From this, many students eyes gleam with
> > > understanding
> > > and I sense, without testing, that they have groked the development
> of
> > > independent performance.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 01:00:11 PST