AFFORDANCE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR LEARNING

Development of technology is providing more and improved tools that can be used to aid communication between team workers, both in organisations and in higher education. However, in an educational setting, not all learners perceived the same affordance as each other (John and Sutherland 2005), and users may not perceive the affordance planned by the designer, and learners may have their own perspectives, which are different to the teacher’s (Conole and Dyke 2004). Perceptions of the usefulness of a tool play an important part in whether the tool is adopted for use, and the mood of the individual was found to affect its use (Djamasbi and Strong 2008).

This aspect of human computer interaction (HCI) has been little studied in applications of team support tools.

In using team working as a learning activity, self-directed learning is being encouraged, and systems to help learners must be flexible and open, so that students are free to choose how or when to use the tools provided (McConnell 2000:48). Technological affordance provides opportunities, which give students freedom to choose which tools to use, although within the context of a team of students the choice of tool may have to be made for all team members, by mutual consent, perhaps by agreeing ground rules on use of tools (Brereton et al. 1998).

Gibson first used the term “affordance” to refer to the properties offered by something to an individual, real affordance as planned by the designer, within a context. For example a flat surface affords support to a dice, but not a ball, so is specific either to the action capabilities of an actor or the actor’s properties (McGrenere and Ho 2000). Norman suggested an enhanced definition of affordance, in relation to human computer interaction, including the notion of degrees of affordance and a dependence on past experience, knowledge or culture of the actor to determine what affordance the item provides for an individual (McGrenere and Ho 2000). Table 4.3 summarises the differences. Gibson’s interpretation is that affordance is fixed at design, contrary to Norman, who suggests that affordance depends on the user’s experience and knowledge, and that there may be degrees of affordance.

Gibson’s interpretation of affordance:

• Action possibilities in the environment are related to the action capabilities of the actor;

• Independent of the actor’s experience, knowledge or capabilities;

• Affordance exists or does not exist. Norman’s interpretation of affordance:

• Perceived properties may or may not actually exist;

• Actors require clues as to how to use the property;

• Dependent on the experience, knowledge or culture of the actor;

• Degree of affordance shown by how easy or difficult the action is.

Table 4.3 Comparison of Gibson’s and Norman’s of definitions of affordance (McGrenere and Ho 2000)

McGrenere and Ho (2000) argue that clearly defining affordance is important in designing software systems, from a HCI perspective, because poor design leads to confusion for users, either over whether an action is possible with a system or how easy it is to perform. Sadler and Given (2007), in their work on students’ experiences with a digital library search tool, refer to “real (planned) affordance”, which the designer intends, and “perceived affordance”, which is what the users make of the tool. They also proposed a grid to evaluate intended and perceived affordance, in categories of intended and perceived, perceived but not intended and intended but not perceived affordance. McGrenere and Ho (2000) defined the “usefulness” of a system to be its planned action possibilities, and a system “usability” to be its perceived possibilities. They further recognised the need to not only design possible affordances into a system, but also signpost these affordances to the user, to make the system usable. In this way the “perceived affordance” will be dependent upon the users’ experience and knowledge, so Norman’s definition of affordance is more useful for systems development purposes. Although, as Albrechtsen et al. (2001) point out, the icons on the desktop are not the affordance, but they signpost the functionality behind the action possibilities; the information system is independent of what is visible on the screen, but comprises the software affordances as well as the users’ perceptions of afforded functions.

At Durham University, support for software engineering team project work is provided in the form of BSCW, incorporating email, file exchange, version control and meetings (Drummond et al. 2001). They found that students did not use all of the functions designed in the system, the affordance was provided, but not perceived by all students, suggesting a need to educate co-located students in the potential for this type of groupware support, an observation supported by Patterson (Patterson et al. 2005).

By looking at this aspect of human computer interaction, known as affordance, it is apparent that why and how users adopt a technology to help them is a very complex matter. Designers incorporate their perspective on usability into tools, but users may not have the same perceptions, so may either disregard the tool, or use it in a different manner to that intended. I will return to this aspect in chapter 6, when evaluating the acceptance of the proposed software system by the students of this case.