provide the critical clues for its operation’ (Norman, D.1999, p. 38). Norman’s work
played an important role in the uptake of the concept of affordance although the
concept was used in a way that Norman had not originally intended. The benefits of a
further means for defining design criteria detracted from a better appreciation of what
was really involved in the concept. The concept has currency in work concerned with
the interaction between humans and technologies and, as such, figures in
consideration of how new technologies can be used to enhance learning.
In Gibson’s view objects disclose themselves directly to the perceiving subject since
he conceives information as a direct relation between an organism and its
environment. Potentially this is a very powerful argument, as it cuts through problems
concerning representation and the like and makes perception the remit of a direct and
straightforward relation. However, it is open to the criticism that its directness closes
off the space for meaning and effectually rejects the whole issue of interpretation.
Gibson’s argument has obvious strengths. It is widely used by designers (e.g. in
calculating the optimum tread of a step required for a particular mode of climbing)
however, it is not clear that these strengths qualify it to be applied to education. The
reason for this is it leaves no space for a full conception of meaning. As an exponent
of Gibson’s ideas, Jones makes meaning follow from direct experience; „objects and
events have inherent meaning which is detected and exploited by the animal without
mental calculation’ (Jones 2003, p.107) but this derivation of meaning directly from
the sensual perception of objects is highly questionable. At least when used in relation
to higher order processes such as education it requires the most careful application.
For example in an earlier passage we saw that Laurillard et al said that lectures afford
listening - exactly the same issue arises here. What lectures afford in the technical
10