CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENT-BEHAVIOR RESEARCHES WITH AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH IN TERMS OF SUBJECTS AND TECHNIQUES

Öz

Ecological approach and ecological psychology as a branch of environmental psychology which is gaining an increasing importance in the field of environmental design till 1960’s, deal human and environment as parts of a whole and accept their interrelatedness by adopting ecology science and its basic principles. “Behavior Setting Theory” and “Affordance Theory” are examples of ecological approach to human-environment relationship. In this study environment and behavior studies with an ecological approach conducted in Turkey and other parts of the world were examined in terms of their research subjects and techniques. The results showed that the research subjects dealt with in these studies have a rich variety, and the techniques are also various and flexible. Also it was determined that studies adopted ecological approach enables both gathering numeric data and commenting on social and cultural dimensions at the same time.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Spatial Design,Human-Environment Relationship,Ecological Approaches,Behavior Setting Theory,Affordances Theory

EKOLOJİK YAKLAŞIMLI ÇEVRE-DAVRANIŞ ARAŞTIRMALARININ KONULAR VE TEKNİKLER AÇISINDAN İÇERİK ANALİZİ

Öz

Mekânsal tasarım alanında 1960’lı yıllardan itibaren önem kazanmaya başlayan çevresel psikolojinin bir dalı olan ekolojik psikoloji ya da yaklaşımlar ekoloji biliminden ve temel ilkelerinden faydalanarak insan ve çevresi arasındaki koparılamaz bağdan, her ikisini bir bütünün parçaları olarak ele almaktan bahseder.  Araştırmalarda giderek yaygınlaşan Davranış Konumu Kuramı ve Olanaklılık Kuramı ekolojik yaklaşıma örnek verilebilir. Türkiye’de ve dünyada yapılmış olan ekolojik yaklaşımlı çevre-davranış araştırmalarının hangi konuları hangi tekniklerle ele aldığı bu çalışmada incelenmiştir. Sonuçlar, bu çalışmalarda ele alınan konuların çok çeşitli olduğunu ve kullanılan tekniklerin de çeşitlilik ve esneklik sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca ekolojik yaklaşımların araştırmacılara hem sayısal veriler elde etme imkânı sağlarken hem de toplumsal, sosyal, kültürel boyutlarda da yorum yapabilme imkânı sağladığını ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mekânsal Tasarım,İnsan-Çevre İlişkisi,Ekolojik Yaklaşımlar,Davranış Konumu Kuramı,Olanaklılık Teorisi

Kaynakça

1. Aladwani, A. M. (2017). Compatible quality of social media content: conceptualization, measurement, and affordances. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 576–582.
2. Albayrak, G. E. (2016). Aktarma merkezlerinde mekânsal davranışlar: Üsküdar örneği. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
3. Alparslan Kardeş, G. (2016). Davranış-mekân uyumu: Bilişsel esneklik düzeyleri farklı öğrencilere göre, okul ortamında olanaklılıkların (affordances) incelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
4. Bærentsen, K. B. & Trettvik, J. (2002). An activity theory approach to affordance. Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction içinde (ss. 51-60). Arhus, Denmark: ACM.
5. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology; concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. California, Stanford: Stanford University Pres.
6. Barker, R. G. (1976). On the nature of the environment. H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, L. G. Rivlin (Der.), Environmental psychology; people and their physical settings içinde (ss. 12-26). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Second Edition.
7. Bayrakçı, O. (2003). The theory of categorization in the determination of product semantic profile and an example on its use in product design. Tasarım+Kuram, 2(3), 67-79.
8. Blanchard, A. L. (2004). Virtual behavior settings: An application of behavior setting theories to virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(2). http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2004.tb00285.x

9. Bechtel, R. B. (1982). Contributions of ecological psychology to the evaluation of environments. International Review of Applied Psychology, 31, 153-167.
10. Bechtel, R. B. (1987). Ecological psychology. R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, W. Michelson (Der.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research içinde (ss.191-215). Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.
11. Bernasco, W., Bruinsma, G. JN., Pauwels, L. JR. & Weerman, F. M. (2013). Adolescent delinquency and diversity in behavior settings. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 357–378.
12. Berry, J. W. (1976). Ecological and cultural factors in spatial perceptual development. H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, L. G. Rivlin (Der.), Environmental psychology; people and their physical settings içinde (ss.125-133). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Second Edition.
13. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., Barnum, J. D. & Piza, E. L. (2017). Crime in context: utilizing risk terrain modeling and conjunctive analysis of case configurations to explore the dynamics of criminogenic behavior settings. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(2), 133 –151.
14. Charlop, M. H., Schreibman, L., Mason, J. & Vesey, W. (1983). Behavior-setting interactions of autistic children: A behavioral mapping approach to assessing classroom behaviors. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3(4), 359-373
15. Choi, K. WY. (2017). Habitus, affordances, and family leisure: Cultural reproduction through children’s leisure activities. Ethnography, 18(4), 427–449.
16. Collado, S., Staats, H. & Sorrel, M.A. (2016). A relational model of perceived restorativeness: Intertwined effects of obligations, familiarity, security and parental supervision. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48(C), 24-32.
17. Cordovil, R., Araújo, D., Pepping, G-J. & Barreiros, J. (2015). An ecological stance on risk and safe behaviors in children: The role of affordances and emergent behaviors. New Ideas in Psychology, 36, 50-59.
18. Costa, E. (2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, 20(10), 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/1461444818756290
19. Çakmak, M. (2007). Robot planning based on learned affordances. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
20. Çalışkan, E. (2015). Fiziksel çevrenin kamusal alan kullanımına olan etkisinin davranış örüntüleri kavramı üzerinden sosyal medya aracılığıyla incelenmesi: caddebostan sahili alan çalışması. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
21. Dağ, N. (2010). Emergence of verb and object concepts through learning affordances. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
22. Dönmez, C. (2010). Karşılama kuramının endüstri ürünleri tasarımında anlam çalışmaları bağlamında konumlandırılması. (YayımlanmamışYüksek Lisans Tezi). Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
23. Duffy, S. & Verges, M. (2009). It matters a hole lot perceptual affordances of waste containers ınfluence recycling compliance. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 741-749.
24. Düzenli, T. (2010). Kampüs açık mekân olanaklarının gençlerin psikososyal yapısına bağlı olarak incelenmesi: K.T.Ü Kanuni Kampüsü örneği. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
25. Düzenli T., Özkan D.G. & Alpak E.M. (2016). Kent parklarının yaşlılara sunduğu olanaklar açısından incelenmesi: Trabzon kenti örneği. Asos Journal, 4(37), 141-154
26. Elçioğlu, M. (2009). Endüstri tasarımında karşılama kavramı. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
27. Elçioğlu, M. & Bayrakçı, O. (2009). Endüstri tasarımında karşılama kavramı. Tasarım+Kuram, 5(8), 81-94.
28. Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L. & Weber, M. S. (2015). The use of enterprise social network sites for knowledge sharing in distributed organizations: The role of organizational affordances. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103 –123.
29. Eren, S. (2006). Towards learning affordances: Detection of relevant features and characteristics for reachability. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Enformatik Enstitüsü, Ankara.
30. Fajen, B. R. & Turvey, M., T. (2003). Perception, categories, and possibilities for action. International Society for Adaptive Behavior, 11(4), 274–278.
31. Fridgen, J. D. (1984). Environmental psychology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1), 119-39
32. Fuhrer, U. (1990). Bridging the ecological-psychological gap: Behavior settings as interfaces. Environment and Behavior, 22(4), 518-537.
33. Fusco, G. (2016). Beyond the built-up form/mobility relationship: Spatial affordance and lifestyles. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 60, 50–66
34. Georgiou, D., Carspecken, P. F. & Willemsan, E. P. (1996). Expansion of Roger Barker’s behavior setting survey for an ethno-ecological approach to person–environment interactions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 319–333.
35. Georgiou, D. & Carspecken, P. F. (2002). Critical ethnography and ecological psychology: conceptual and empirical explorations of a synthesis. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(6), 688-706.
36. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
37. Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2): 336-342.
38. Gump, P. V. (1971). The behavior setting: A promising unit for environmental designers. Landscape Architecture, January, 130-134.
39. Öymen Gür, Ş. (1996). Mekân örgütlenmesi. Gür Matbaacılık.
40. Harper, G. & Rayner, J. (2010). Introduction-cinema and landscape. G. Harper & J. Rayner (Der.), Cinema and landscape içinde (ss. 13–28). Bristol: Intellect.
41. Hart, T. C. & Miethe T. D. (2015). Configural behavior settings of crime event locations: Toward an alternative conceptualization of criminogenic microenvironments. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 373-402.
42. Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker and the legacy of William James’ empiricism. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
43. Heft, H. (2007). The social constitution of perceiver-environment reciprocity. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 85-105.
44. Hesse, B. E. (1977). An examination of the ecological psychology literature with respect to school size, behavioral psychology and cultural survival. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
45. Hoffman, K. M. (2017). Social and cognitive affordances of two depression-themed games. Games and Culture, 1-21. DOI: 10.1177/1555412017742307
46. Ittelson, W. H. (1976). Some issues facing the theory of environment and behavior. H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, L. G. Rivlin (Der.), Environmental psychology; people and their physical settings içinde (ss.51-59). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Second Edition.
47. İnan, C. (1996). Kamusal çevrelerde insan-çevre davranış etkileşim sistemi: Bir alan çalışması. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
48. Jamme, H-T. W., Bahl, D. & Banerjee, T. (2018). Between “broken windows” and the “eyes on the street:” Walking to school in inner city San Diego. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 121-138
49. Kleppe, R. (2018). Affordances for 1-to 3-year-olds’ risky play in early childhood education and care. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 1–18. ps://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X18762237
50. Koles, B. & Nagy, P. (2014). Virtual worlds as digital workplaces: Conceptualizing the affordances of virtual worlds to expand the social and professional spheres in organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(2), 175–195
51. Kounin, J. S. & Sherman, L. W. (2001). School environments as behavior settings. Theory into Practice, 18(3), 145-151.
52. Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria or child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 179–198.
53. 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
54. Kyttä, M., Oliver, M., Ikeda, E., Ahmadi, E., Omiya, I. & Laatikainen, T. (2018). Children as urbanites: Mapping the affordances and behavior settings of urban environments for Finnish and Japanese children. Children's Geographies, DOI:10.1080/14733285.2018.1453923
55. Laaksoharjua, L. & Rappe, E. (2017). Trees as affordances for connectedness to place–a framework to facilitate children’s relationship with nature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 28, 150–159.
56. Lang, J. (1994). Urban design: the American experience. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
57. Lapintie, K. (2007). Modalities of urban space. Planning Theory, 6(1), 36–51.
58. LeCompte, W. F. (1974). Behavior settings as data generating units fort the environmental planner and architect. J. Lang (Der.), Designing for human behavior içinde (ss.183-193). Dowden: Hutchinson & Ross Inc.,
59. Liu, C-W. (2012). Challenges of tourism upon the local community: Behaviour settings in an old street in Tamsui, Taiwan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 305 – 318.
60. Loebach, J. (2004). Designing learning environments for children: An affordance-based approach to providing developmentally appropriate settings. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Dalhousie University, Halifax.
61. Maki, A. & Rothman, A. J. (2017). Understanding proenvironmental intentions and behaviors: The importance of considering both the behavior setting and the type of behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(5), 517-531. DOI:10.1080/00224545.2016.1215968
62. Mehan, A. (2017). An integrated model of achieving social sustainability in urban context through theory of affordance. Procedia Engineering, 198, 17–25.
63. Mehta, V. (2007). Lively streets determining environmental characteristics to support social behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 165-187.
64. Mirza, S. (1995). Çevre tasarımında kalitenin yönlenme ve çeşitlilik açısından değerlendirilmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
65. Monforte Tisot, C. & Thurman, S. K. (2002). Using behavior setting theory to define natural settings: A family-centered approach. Inf. Young Children, 14(3), 65–71
66. Moore, G. T. (1986). Effects of the spatial definition of behavior settings on children's behavior: A quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6(3), 205-231.
67. Moos, R. (1976). Conceptualizations of human environments. H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, L. G. Rivlin (Der.), Environmental psychology; people and their physical settings içinde (ss. 37-51). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Second Edition,
68. Mumcu, S. (2009). Açık mekânlardaki davranış konumları: Oturma davranışının değişiminin incelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
69. Mumcu, S., Yılmaz, S. & Özbilen A. (2013). Ekolojik yaklaşımlar doğrultusunda çevresel tercih modeli. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Seri: A, 14, 143-151.
70. Neldner, K., Mushin, I. & Nielsen, M. (2017). Young children’s tool innovation across culture: affordance visibility matters. Cognition, 168, 335–343.
71. Norris-Baker, C. (1999). Aging on the old frontier and the new: A behavior setting approach to the declining small towns of the Midwest. Environment and Behavior, 31 (2), 240–258.
72. Orzek, A. M. (1987). Innovations in ecological psychology: Conversations with Roger and Louise Barker. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 233-237.
73. Prieske, B., Withagen, R., Smith, J. & Zaal F. (2015). Affordances in a simple playscape: Are children attracted to challenging affordances? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41,101-111.
74. Pucillo, F. & Cascini, G. (2014). A framework for user experience, needs and affordances. Design Studies, 35,160-179.
75. Raymond, C. M., Kyttä, M. & Stedman, R. (2017). Sense of place, fast and slow: the potential contributions of affordance theory to sense of place. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-14.
76. Read, M., A., Sugawara, A. I. & Brandt, J., A. (1999). Impact of space in the physical environment on preschool children’s cooperative behavior. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 413-428.
77. Said, I. (2012). Affordances of nearby forest and orchard on children’s performances. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 38, 195–203.
78. Scheidt, R. J. & Norris-Baker, C. (1999). Place therapies for older adults: conceptual and interventive approaches. Int’l. J. Aging and Human Development, 48(1), 1-15.
79. Schoggen, P. (1989). Behavior settings; a revision and extension of Roger G. Barker’s ecological psychology. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
80. Scott, M. (1980). Ecological theory and methods for research in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 14 (3), 279–294.
81. Scott, M. M. (2005). A powerful theory and a paradox; ecological psychologists after Barker. Environment and Behavior, 37 (3), 295–329.
82. Selçuk Kirazoğlu, F. (2012). Fiziksel çevre-çocuk ilişkileri, açık oyun mekânları ve çocuk dostu çevre kriterleri üzerine bir değerlendirme; Bakırköy ve Beylikdüzü örnekleri. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
83. Smith, W. R., Moore, R., Cosco, N., Wesoloski, J., Danninger, T., Ward, D. S., Trost, S. G. & Ries, N. (2016). Increasing physical activity in childcare outdoor learning environments: The effect of setting adjacency relative to other built environment and social factors. Environment and Behavior, 48(4), 550–578.
84. Sommer, R. & Sommer, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research; tools and techniques. New York: Oxford University Press.
85. Stamps III, A. E. (2007). Mystery of environmental mystery: Effects of light, occlusion, and depth of view. Environment and Behavior, 39(2), 165-197.
86. Stoffregen, T. A. (2000). Affordances and events. Ecological Psychology, 12(1), 1-28.
87. Stoffregen T. A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 115-134.
88. Şalgamcıoğlu, B. K. (2014). Body cleaning of older women living alone in turkey: An Ethnographic exploration of the affordances and constraints of sanitary ware products. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
89. Talen, E. & Coffindaffer, M. (1999). The utopianism of children: an empirical study of children's neighborhood design preferences. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 321-331.
90. Thompson, B. J. (2003). Architectural hermeneutics V: Harry and the Philosopher’s Stone. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 478–485.
91. Thwaites, K. & Simkins, I. (2007). Experiential landscape; an approach to people, place and space. London: Routledge.
92. Uğur, E. (2006). Direct perception of traversibility affordance on range images through learning on a mobile robot. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
93. Uğur, E. (2010). A developmental framework for learning affordances. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
94. Valadi, S., Gabbard, C., Arabameri, E., Kashi, A. & Ghasemi, A. (2018). Psychometric properties of the affordances in the home environment for motor development inventory for use with Iranian children aged 18–42 months. Infant Behavior and Development, 50, 1–11.
95. Vallverdu, J. & Trovato, G. (2016). Emotional affordances for human–robot interaction. Adaptive Behavior, 24(5), 320–334.
96. von Lindern, E. (2015). Setting-dependent constraints on human restoration while visiting a wilderness park. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10, 29–37.
97. von Lindern, E. (2017). Perceived interdependencies between settings as constraints for self-reported restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 49, 8-17.
98. Wernke, S. A., Kohut, L. E. & Traslavina, A. (2017). A GIS of affordances: Movement and visibility at a planned colonial town in highland Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science, 84, 22-39.
99. Wicker, A. W. (1984). An Introduction to ecological psychology. USA: Cambridge University Press.
100. Wicker, A. W. (2012). Perspectives on behavior settings: With illustrations from Allison’s ethnography of a Japanese hostess club. Environment and Behavior, 44(4), 474–492.
101. Wineman, J. D. & Peponis J. (2010). Constructing spatial meaning spatial affordances in museum design. Environment and Behavior, 42(1), 86-109.
102. Withagen, R. & Michaels, C., F. (2005). On ecological conceptualizations of perceptual systems and action systems. Theory & Psychology, 15(5), 603-620.
103. Wokke, M. E., Knot, S. L., Fouad, A. & Ridderinkhof K. R. (2016). Conflict in the kitchen: Contextual modulation of responsiveness to affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 141–146.
104. Wu, Y-S., Chang, T-W. & Datta, S. (2016). HiGame: improving elderly well-being through horticultural interaction. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 14(3), 263–276.
105. Yıldız, D. (2004). A multi-factor analysis model to determine the use value of enclosed ourdoor spaces. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
106. Yılmaz, S. (2017). Investigation of 5-year old preschool children’s biophilia and children’s and their mother’s outdoor setting preferences. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
107. Yılmaz S., Düzenli T. & Özkan D.G. (2017a). Affordances primary school gardens provide to children with 6-7- year-old. Journal of the International Scientific Researches/Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD), 2, 130-141.
108. Yılmaz, S., Mumcu, S. & Çiğdem, A. (2017b). Determining the affordances provided by urban open spaces to different age groups. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art, Humanities, Design and Planning, 5(3), 1-12.
109. Yücetürk, Ö. (2016). Keşfe yönelen davranışlar: Olanaklılık teorisine bir katkı. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek lisans Tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
110. Yürüten, O., Şahin, E. & Kalkan, S. (2013). The learning of adjectives and nouns from affordance and appearance features. Adaptive Behavior, 21(6), 437–451.
111. Zamani, Z. (2017). Young children’s preferences: What stimulates children’s cognitive play in outdoor preschools? Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(3): 256–274.
112. Zang, J. & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Cognition & Pragmatics, 14(2), 333-341 http://acad88.sahs.uth.tmc.edu/courses/hi6301/affordance.html