The concept of affordance itself has a technical meaning within ecological psychology
but even within this well-defined area it is still the subject of debate and disagreement
- what it involves is still being worked out (Stroffregen 2000). Nevertheless, the term
has slipped into the vernacular of work dealing with what technologies can offer
learners. At this point, questions arise illustrating just how much remains to be done
to make our understanding of the nature of learning explicit. In philosophical terms
making explicit means bringing into the open exactly what meaning is being carried
by a term and what is being taken as given when claims and judgments are made.
The term affordance is frequently used without any careful specification as to what it
means (Boyle & Cook 2004; McGenere & Ho 2000). Although authors rely on the
original usage of the concept in the psychology of perception, the meaning is
broadened when applied to education. For example in Conole and Dyke’s discussion
of the affordances of information and communications technologies in relation to
education the following claims are made: “Exposure to the experience of others is a
key ingredient to effective learning and a potential affordance of ICT” and “[a]nother
affordance of ICT is the potential for multi-modal and multi-linear approaches to
learning” (Conole & Dyke, 2004, p.119). Both of these claims carry far more than
their authors might have intended. Rather than speaking in general terms of how ICT
may offer or afford opportunities when used within carefully designed educational
contexts, the authors prefer the use of the technical noun „affordance’, a word made
up by Gibson to communicate the possibility of direct perception of meaning. This
alters the focus of attention and contributes to the view that technologies can offer
educational advantages independently of the individuals engaging with them for