**4.8.1 Methods and materials**

The software application was designed as a collection of five selected tasks - each presented within one screen size (Fig. 2). The screen was divided into several parts: two larger parts were dedicated to education, passing of information and task at hand, the bottom part of the screen was reserved for the title, the top for navigation. The contents of educational part (light-green) – texts and small pictures for reference were visible most of the time, while other multimedia presentations opened on the same page (either automatically or on demand, depending on the variation of interface) and played in bigger quadrant to the right. The same quadrant was also used for presentation of the task solving instructions and tests themselves.

The interface was prepared in 5 different variations, with different levels of interactivity consisting of 3 variables: (i) navigation, (ii) narration/presentation of contents and (iii)

<sup>3</sup> adjective eco-spatial was coined from two adjectives: ecological and spatial to emphasize the interrelation between the two

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 177

the test group were unexpected - it has surprisingly good and focused scores. Nevertheless, the average scores are not as good as in traditional f2f approach, they are lower than the maximum interactivity group average, equalling middle and beating minimal interactive

Results also show that (i) navigation has some effect on the results (moving freely among the tasks contributes to effectiveness), while (ii) narration/presentation of contents (or the lack of it) and (iii) interactivity of the task have considerable influence on the final score, but due to test design their individual effect contribution cannot be isolated. Considering (ii) narration: even though the pupils had an opportunity to look at the informative presentations as many times as they wished ('max' version), they mostly did not bother to do that; on the contrary, nobody even looked through the half of all presentations. On the other hand, in the 'mid' interface version all were able to interrupt the automatic presentation at the beginning of each task, but only two did so, with many replaying the presentations (despite this fact the average grade in this group is lower than that of the 'max' version). The visits to each task (where possible) show similar results – the highest average score is achieved in six visits (which means one visit more than there are tasks). Considering (iii) interactivity of task: while the possibilities to reverse the actions ('undo') do not play a significant role, visual feedback, possibilities to test different elements or situations, visually evaluate and change selection if needed, and significantly contribute to higher score. Evaluating the amount of time spent compared with the grade, the best results were achieved by the users who spent approximately 20 minutes in the interface – the score up to this time gradually rises and then gradually falls. The majority of users spent between 5 and 20 minutes within the interface. The pupils considered task #3 the most interesting one. The same task was also the most complex of all five tasks and most game like, with different architectural elements, their 'value' and 'financial' balance required. The most difficult task was, according to the pupils, task #4, which was also the most abstract and the

With each prototypical test run of software there are plenty of lessons learned and stories to tell but here we would like to focus on the pedagogical, technological and institutional aspects. From the perspective of the learners the interface and this kind of e-learning has been well accepted not least because it was a welcome distraction from the traditional teaching the learners are used to and freshness of topic as the primary education curricula in

While ignoring the provocative question "feedback, multiple-way communication, interaction: luxury or necessity in e-learning?" in the conclusions of that subchapter and dealing there more with the mechanics of the interfaces, we return to it at the conclusion of the subchapter: interactivity by all means is not a luxury any more. It has many aspects in elearning, beyond traditional interactionist theories (i.e. Haralambos, 1989), the major two: facilitation of interaction between dislocated participants of the learning process (which is of even greater importance in expert architectural e-learning) and in tune with interactionist theories that meaning is constructed in interactive situations through negotiations and discussion (Haralambos, 1989) and interactivity of learners and e-learning tools (contents included). The sustainable topics highlighted through the spatially related activities of groups and individual have been seen as a positive contribution to the curricula by the

interfaces.

least liked.

**4.8.3 Reflections and lessons learned** 

its span only briefly touches architecture.

Fig. 2. Eco-spatial Education Interface (task#3 and the classroom setting).

interactivity of tasks (visual feedback, reversibility of actions, experimenting). Conditions ranged from maximum to minimum interactivity, from traditional face to face (f2f) education method to the test group (which did not receive any information and educational contents, just the task and basic instructions). Several parameters were automatically recorded (i.e. time, user choices, etc) and results of each task graded. The technical requirements for running the application and its IT scope were intentionally scaled down to match the IT equipment in schools (no installation required, application runs even on slow computers).

The educational contents and tasks dealt with eco-spatial topics and most urgent, common and annoying local problems the experts want to warn future generations of-, call to their attention- or change their attitudes toward- were building on sloped grounds, greenery around habitats, unfinished houses and their surroundings, building in the existing environment, adapting to scale, renovation of residential neighbourhoods, etc. The method of learning from (positive) examples, through the analysis of them, and learning by doing in a constructivist manner - simulating everyday considerations and decision making in task contents, was applied and built into the educational interface.

The test group of 9th grade primary school pupils (age 13-15) had 218 units, which were evenly distributed among 5 test settings – 5 variations of interfaces. This population represents the last instant before the whole generation diversifies into different vocational and professional directions, it is mature enough as it has built relatively independent system of abstract, contextual thinking abilities and social responsibility awareness (Marjanovic Umek & Zupancic, 2004; Marjanovic Umek & Svetina, 2004) and not least - the architectural awareness of their parents is still reflected in their way of thinking.
